[C. CITIZEN APPEARANCES The Planning and Zoning Commission invites citizens to address the Commissioners on any topic not already scheduled for Public Hearing. Citizens wishing to speak should complete a "Citizen Comment Card" and return it to the table prior to the meeting. In accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot take action on items not listed on the agenda. However, your concerns may be addressed by City Staff, placed on a future agenda, or responded to by some other course. Anyone desiring to speak on an item scheduled for a Public Hearing is requested to hold their comments until the Public Hearing on that item]

DEWBERRY, AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING TO ITEM C, CITIZENS APPEARANCES. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INVITES CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONERS ON ANY TOPIC NOT ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING. CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK SHOULD COMPLETE A CITIZEN COMMENT CARD AND RETURN IT TO THE TABLE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CANNOT TAKE ACTION ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. HOWEVER, YOUR CONCERNS MAY BE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY STAFF PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA OR RESPONDED TO BY SOME OTHER COURSE. ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUESTED TO HOLD THEIR COMMENTS UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT ITEM. ARE THERE ANY CITIZENS HERE THIS EVENING THAT ARE WISHING TO HAVE COMMENTS DURING THE CITIZENS APPEARANCES? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM D. IT'S THE CONSENT AGENDA. ANY

[D. CONSENT AGENDA Any item may be withdrawn from the consent agenda and acted on separately. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the approval of each item in accordance with Staff Recommendations.]

ITEM MAY BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND ACTED ON SEPARATELY. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AUTHORIZES THE APPROVAL OF EACH ITEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATIONS. COMMISSIONERS, WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM THIS EVENING AND THAT IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY. THE 28, 2025. HAVING RECEIVED THOSE MINUTES ELECTRONICALLY PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. ARE THERE ANY NEEDED CORRECTIONS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING AND SEEING NONE. I WILL TAKE A MOTION AT THIS TIME. MOVE. APPROVAL. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOVE FOR APPROVAL BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS AND SECOND, BY MR. LEROY. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME,

[1. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council for the applicant's request to amend Planned Development-193 (PD-193) with base zonings of Single Family-8 (SF-8), Single Family-9 (SF-9) and Single Family-10 (SF-10) with deviations to a new PD-193 with base zonings of SF-8 and SF-9 with deviations. The property consists of 5 tracts of land and is legally described as being Tracts 6, 8, 9 and 10 in the R.T. Bandy Survey, Abstract 115 and part of Lot 1A in Block 1 of the First Southern Baptist Church Amendment Addition. The property is located at the northeast corner of S. Polk Street and E. Parkerville Rd. The property consists of approximately 50.35 acres of land and is addressed as 800, 803, 811, 819 and 901 E. Parkerville Rd. The applicant is John McKenzie of M&A Devco and the property owner is Legacy Grove Development LLC. (Case No. Z-1530-24)]

WE'LL BE MOVING INTO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. OUR FIRST ITEM IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT. 193 WITH THE BASE ZONING OF SINGLE FAMILY, EIGHT, SINGLE FAMILY NINE AND SINGLE FAMILY TEN WITH DEVIATIONS TO THE PD 193 WITH THE BASE ZONING OF SF EIGHT AND SF NINE WITH DEVIATIONS. THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF FIVE TRACKS OF LAND AND IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING TRACT SIX, EIGHT, NINE AND TEN. IN THE TX BAND SURVEY ABSTRACT 115 AND PART OF LOT ONE A IN BLOCK ONE OF THE FIRST SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH AMENDMENT ADDITION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH POLK STREET AND EAST PARKERVILLE ROAD. THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 50.35 ACRES OF LAND, AND IS ADDRESSED AS 800, 803, 811, 819, AND 901 EAST PARKERVILLE ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS JOHN MCKENZIE OF M&A DEVCO, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS LEGACY GROVE DEVELOPMENT LLC. THIS IS CASE NUMBER Z153024. MR. BREWER WILL HAVE YOUR PRESENTATION AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU, SIR. CHARLES BREWER, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WILL FOLLOW THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. SLIDE NUMBER TWO

[00:05:06]

GIVES YOU A LOCATION MAP OF WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IT IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARKVILLE, EAST PARKVILLE, AND SOUTH YOU'LL. AS WE IDENTIFIED IT, CONSISTS OF FIVE TRACKS OF LAND. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THEM CARVED OUT. THERE'S ONE, THAT'S TWO, THAT'S THREE, THAT'S FOUR. AND THE FIFTH ONE IS HERE EXCLUDING THE PROPERTY OF THE I BELIEVE IT'S THE CHURCH HERE, THE FACILITY MAP, WHICH YOU SEE NEXT TO IT JUST GIVES YOU A, A MORE OF A DARKER VISUAL LOCATION. AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE FROM THIS MAP THE EXISTING SURROUNDING USAGES. ON THE WEST THERE ARE MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS, SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES, NORTH AND NORTHEAST, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOMES. ON SEPTEMBER THE 7TH, 2021, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF, AT THAT TIME, FOUR TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED AT 803 EAST PARKVILLE ROAD FROM EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY 12 AND WHAT 12 IS 12,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS TO A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH BASE ZONING OF SF 12 TO BE 11 LOTS, SF NINE 9000 SQUARE FOOT. LOTS TO BE 20 LOTS SF EIGHT 8000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS 46 LOTS AND MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT WHICH IS GOING TO CONSIST OF 158 UNITS. A MOTION PREVAILED BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 1 TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S ZONING CHANGE REQUEST, AND AT THAT TIME, THAT CASE WAS Z 1449 DASH 21. ON MAY 17TH, 2022, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE SAME TRACTS OF LAND FROM EXISTING SF 12 TO A NEW PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH BASE ZONING OF SF TEN TO BE 31 LOTS, SF NINE TO BE 26 LOTS, AND SF EIGHT TO BE 120 LOTS WITH DEVIATIONS. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS BEING PROPOSED WAS 177 TOTAL LOTS. THE APPLICANT'S DEVIATION REQUEST INCLUDED THE REQUEST FOR NO ALLEYS THROUGHOUT THE SUBDIVISION. FRONT ENTRY GARAGES FOR SF EIGHT AND SF9 LOTS. 75% GARAGES WOULD BE SIDE ENTRY OR J SWING LOTS FOR SF TEN LOTS, AND THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR THE SF EIGHT LOTS WOULD BE 6500FT■S. A MOTION PREVAILED BYA VOTE OF 7 TO 0 TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S ZONING CHANGE REQUEST, WITH THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE FOR ALL STRUCTURES WITHIN THIS 177 LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE 2000FT■S, AND THE AMENITIS WILL BE PROVIDED AS SHOWN ON THE SUBMITTED CONCEPT PLAN. THAT CASE WAS Z 1472 22. THIS IS A COPY OF THE APPROVED SITE PLAN IN THAT ORDINANCE. AS YOU SEE, THE COLOR INDICATIONS ARE SHOWING FOR SEPARATE ZONING DISTRICTS. THE BLUE ARE THE SF TEN, THE YELLOW IS THE SF NINE, AND THE PINKISH COLOR IS THE SF EIGHT. YOU WILL SEE FROM THIS SITE PLAN. AT THAT TIME IT ONLY PROPOSED ONE ENTRANCE OFF OF SOUTH EWELL AND ONE ENTRANCE OFF OF EAST PARKVILLE. WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, THERE WAS GOING TO BE HAVING TWO CUL DE SACS, ONE AT THIS LOWER END CLOSER TO PARKVILLE AND ONE UP NORTH. THIS WAS BEING PROPOSED AS A TOTALLY ENCLOSED, NOT A GATED COMMUNITY, BUT A TOTAL ISOLATED COMMUNITY THAT HAD ITS OWN INTERESTS, IN THIS CASE, TWO ENTRANCES THERE. ON SEPTEMBER THE 9TH, 2024, APPLICANT, JOHN MACKENZIE OF MAGDEV0 COMPANY, REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS, LEGACY GROVE DEVELOPMENT LLC, SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO THE CITY REQUESTING TO REZONE THE APPROVED PD 193 WITH BASE ZONING OF SF TEN, SF9 AND SF EIGHT AGAIN 177 LOTS TOTAL WITH DEVIATIONS TO A NEW REVISED PD 193 WITH BASE ZONINGS OF SF EIGHT TO BE TOTALLY 100 AND THE SAME NUMBER 177. LOT TOTALS WITH DEVIATION. THE DEVIATION REQUESTS WERE THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE HAVING NO ALLEYS THROUGHOUT THE SUBDIVISION, HAVING 100% SF EIGHT LOTS THROUGHOUT THE SUBDIVISION CONTINUE HAVING A SMALLER MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR THE SF EIGHT LOTS, WHICH INSTEAD OF 6000 WAS GOING TO BE 6500 INSTEAD OF THE 8000FT■S. CONTINE HAVING A SMALLER MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR THE SF LOTS. THEY PROPOSING 50 SF EIGHT WAS 70FT. CONTINUE HAVING A SMALLER MINIMUM SIDE YARDS FOR SF EIGHT LOTS REQUESTING FIVE FEET INSTEAD OF SEVEN FEET AND CONTINUE HAVING FRONT ENTRY

[00:10:05]

GARAGES FOR ALL SF EIGHT LOTS. THE ADDITIONAL REQUEST AGAIN, THAT IS NOT A DEVIATION, BUT BECAUSE OF HOW IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN 2022, THE APPLICANT ALSO REQUESTS TO NOT HAVE THE MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT AREA REQUIREMENT AS BEING 2000FT■S AS ESTABLISHED PER THAT ORDINANCE, BUT BE ALLOWED TO PROVIDE A SLIDING SCALE OF DWELLINGS, WITH 60% OF THE RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS BEING 2000FT■S, A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 106 DWELLINGS, 30% OF THE RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS TO BE 1800 SQUARE FEET, 53 APPROXIMATELY DWELLINGS, AND 10% OF THE RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS TO BE 1600 SQUARE FEET OR APPROXIMATELY 18 DWELLINGS. THIS IS THAT DRAWING THAT WAS PRESENTED HERE. THE PLAN AGAIN WHILE AGO I SHOWED YOU THREE DIFFERENT COLOR COATINGS SF TEN BLUE, SF NINE YELLOW, SF EIGHT PINK. HERE YOU SEE 100% OF SF EIGHT. THE LAYOUT WAS CHANGED TO WHERE THE ADOPTED SITE PLAN HAD ONE ENTRANCE OFF OF SOUTH POLK. YOU SEE TWO ENTRANCES HERE, A LARGER ENTRANCE HERE WHICH IS GOING TO HAVE A MEDIAN, AND A SECOND ENTRANCE TO THE NORTH, AND THEN A SINGLE ENTRY OFF OF PARKVILLE ROAD. AND AGAIN THE TOTAL NUMBER WAS BEING PROPOSED AS A 177. ON OCTOBER THE 8TH, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO AMEND PD 193. A MOTION PREVAILED BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0 TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO AMEND PD 193 TO A NEW PD 193 WITH BASE ZONINGS OF SF EIGHT PLUS DEVIATIONS. ON NOVEMBER THE 19TH, THE CASE WAS TAKEN TO THE CITY COUNCIL. A PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY SUBMITTED AN EMAIL TO STAFF REQUESTING THE PUBLIC HEARING TO BE TABLED IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING WITH THE RESIDENTS. IN ORDER TO DISCUSS UPDATES TO THE DEVELOPMENTS. PROJECT. BASED ON THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM THE RESIDENTS, A MOTION PREVAILED BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 0 TO TABLE AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S MEETING ON JANUARY THE 7TH, 2025. ON JANUARY 7TH, 2025, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF INFORMED THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE DEVELOPERS CONCEPT PLAN HAD CHANGED. A MOTION PREVAILED BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 0 TO REMAND THE CASE BACK TO THE CITY'S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED AND UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN. SECOND SUBMITTAL. ON JANUARY 13TH, 2025, THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER AND DEVELOPER SUBMITTED A NEW APPLICATION TO THE CITY REQUESTING TO REZONE PD 193 WITH BASE ZONINGS OF SF TEN SF9 AND SF 877 TOTAL LOTS WITH DEVIATION TO A NEW REVISED PD 193 WITH BASE ZONINGS OF SF EIGHT AND SF NINE WITH A REDUCED NUMBER OF LOTS BEING 173 WITH DEVIATIONS. BUT THE PROPOSED SF EIGHT LOTS, WHICH ARE TO BE 124. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO HAVE ALLEYS BEHIND 41 OF THE 124. LOTS CONTINUE TO HAVE A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 6500FT■S, INSTEAD OF 8000FT■S. CONTINUE TO HAVE SMALLER MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 50FT INSTEAD OF 70FT. CONTINUE HAVING A MINIMUM SIDE YARD OF FIVE FEET INSTEAD OF SEVEN FEET, AND CONTINUE TO HAVE ALL FRONT ENTRY GARAGES FOR THE PROPOSED SF NINE LOTS 49 TOTAL. THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING TO DEVIATE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, WHICH AGAIN FOR SF NINE IS 9000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, BUT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO HAVE ALLEYS BEHIND 11 OF THE 49 LOTS CONTINUE TO HAVE A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 60FT INSTEAD OF 75FT. CONTINUE TO HAVE A MINIMUM SIDE YARD OF FIVE FEET INSTEAD OF SEVEN FEET. AND AGAIN, TO CONTINUE TO HAVE ALL FRONT ENTRY GARAGES, WHICH WAS APPROVED WITH THAT ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. THE DWELLING UNIT AREA. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A DEVIATION, BUT IT WAS A ADDED REQUIREMENT PLACED ON THAT APPROVED ORDINANCE IN 2022 BY THE COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL THE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CHANGE THE MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT AREA REQUIREMENT FROM 2000FT■S, AS ESTABLISHED BY THE ORDINANCE, TO AGAIN, A SLIDING SCALE OF 70% OF ALL THE RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS TO BE 2000FT■S, APPROXIMATELY 122 DWELLINGS, 20% OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS TO BE 1800 SQUARE FEET, APPROXIMATELY 34 DWELLINGS, AND 10% OF ALL THE REMAINING DWELLINGS TO BE 1600 SQUARE FEET 17 TOTAL. THE MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT AREA FOR XF9 IS 1550, AND THE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE FOR SF NINE. LOTS PER ZONING ORDINANCE IS 1750,

[00:15:07]

AND AGAIN REALIZING HE'S PROPOSING TWO ZONING DISTRICTS, THIS IS HIS REQUIREMENT, HIS REQUEST TO GO THROUGHOUT THE SUBDIVISION, NOT JUST SF9 OR JUST SF EIGHT WITHIN THE ENTIRE 177. HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS SLIDING SCALE APPROVED, WHICH WILL GIVE POTENTIAL NEW RESIDENTS OF DEVELOPER CHOICE. NOW THIS IS THE REVISED DRAWING. AGAIN, THE LAST DRAWING WE SHOWED THAT WAS REMANDED BACK TO YOU. THIS ONE SHOWS TWO ZONING DISTRICTS. AGAIN, THE YELLOW IS DESIGNATING THE SF NINE 9000FT■. HE'S NOT REQUESTING ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THAT. AND THE SF EIGHT IS HE'S REQUESTING A DEVIATION DOWN TO THE 6005 FIVE, 6550FT■S AS SHOWN HERE, AND MAY BE HARD TO SEE WHERE MY HIGHLIGHTER IS. THAT'S ONE OF THE SETS OF THE ALLEYS THAT'S WITHIN THESE SF EIGHTS. THE OTHER ALLEY IS UP HERE IN THIS REGION HERE. THEN THERE'S A SHARED ALLEY BETWEEN THE SF EIGHT AND SF NINE THAT'S HERE. AS I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, I GAVE YOU THE NUMBERS OF WHAT THOSE ALLEYS REQUIRING. HE'S REQUESTING REALIZING FROM THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE THAT WAS APPROVED, HE WAS ALLOWED TO HAVE NO ALLEYS. THIS, AGAIN, IS GOING TO BE A PART OF THE ORDINANCE AS IT GOES TO COUNCIL. THIS GIVES A COMMITTED COMMITMENT OF WHAT HIS INTEREST WOULD BE. THIS IS THAT LARGER INTEREST THAT I SPOKE ABOUT NORTH OF EAST PARKVILLE, OFF OF POLK ROAD. YOU WILL SEE THAT IT DOES HAVE A LANDSCAPED MEDIAN. AND THIS AREA OVER HERE WE HAVE ANOTHER VIEW, BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE HIS OPEN SPACE AREA. THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE OF THE ENTRANCE OFF OF EAST PARKVILLE. THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS ACTUALLY THE CORNER OF SOUTH POLK AND PARKVILLE. SHOWS. YOU HAVE A LANDSCAPED AREA PLUS A CONTINUOUS SIDEWALK WHICH IS REQUIRED BY REGULATIONS. IT'LL KEEP EXTENDING DOWN TO HIS ONE ENTRANCE OFF OF EAST PARKVILLE ROAD. AND THIS IS THE ILLUSTRATION FOR THAT. THIS IS A LARGER VIEW SHOWING HIS PROPOSED OPEN SPACE PLAN. ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TOLD THE DEVELOPER, THIS DEVELOPER, PLUS OTHER DEVELOPERS THE CITY IS DESIRING TO HAVE USABLE OPEN SPACE, NOT JUST OPEN SPACE THAT HAS A RETENTION OR DETENTION POND IN IT TO CATCH WATER, BUT PROVIDE AMENITIES FOR THE RESIDENTS TO HAVE. AND WHAT HE IS SHOWING. IF YOU LOOK UP TO THE LEGEND TALKING ABOUT A PAVILION, ENHANCED PAVING. STEPPED WALLS, SEATING AROUND THE PAVILION, AND YOU SEE ALL THAT HERE. SO HE'S SHOWING A WALKING AREA AT THAT INTERSECTION THAT CONTINUES AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER. PLEASE NOTE THAT, AND I THINK IT WAS KIND OF DISCUSSED DURING ONE OF THE PRIOR PUBLIC HEARINGS. THIS PROPOSED WALKWAY WILL NOT CONNECT TO THE TRAIL THAT'S UP THERE OFF OF. AND I MAY BE SAYING IT WRONG RANCH ESTATES, BUT THIS WILL BE A TOTALLY ENCLOSED AREA WITH ITS OWN OPEN SPACE AREA. HERE IS A PICTURE OF THEIR PROPOSED PAVILION THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. AND THESE ARE SOME RENDERINGS OF THE PROPOSED HOMES TO BE BUILT, GIVING YOU SOME VARIATIONS OF WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING. A AN IMPORTANT AND IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THIS PROCESS. WE MENTIONED TO YOU WHEN IT CAME TO YOU BEFORE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S HAPPENING, AND I'LL FOCUS YOU ON, THAT'S THE INTERSECTION OF EAST PARKVILLE AND SOUTH POLK AS WELL AS YOU'LL. THIS IS A MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN THAT WAS PREPARED FOR THE CITY BY TECHNOLOGY PURPOSES BACK IN 2001. AND THE IMPORTANT THING TO SHOW OR UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS DRAWING, THIS PROPERTY IS COLLECTING OFF SITE DRAINAGE OUTSIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE FROM WHERE THE APARTMENTS ARE ON THE WEST SIDE OF POLK STREET. THE CHANNEL, ACTUALLY THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM EVEN CONSISTS OF SOUTHEAST CORNER FROM THAT PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE IT BLUE THERE, AND EVEN THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE, THE OTHER SOUTHWEST, SOUTHEAST. BUT ALL OF THIS WATER IS DRAINING THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND YOU CAN SEE THE BLUE LINE THAT'S GOING

[00:20:03]

OUT. AND ALL OF THIS EVENTUALLY GOES TO TEN MILE CREEK AND EVENTUALLY TO THE TRINITY RIVER.

WHEN THE APPLICATION CAME THROUGH, INITIALLY IT WAS JUST A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING EVALUATION THAT WAS DONE BY THE DEVELOPER, AT WHICH TIME WHEN HE CAME BACK WITH HIS PROPOSAL LAST YEAR, HE WAS REALLY THINKING THAT HE COULD ACTUALLY REDUCE THE SIZE OF HIS RETENTION DETENTION POND, AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS BEING SHOWN AT THAT TIME, A JUST ENCOMPASSING HERE. BUT WHEN HE WENT BACK AND DID MORE OF THE HYDRAULIC, HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGY STUDIES, HE REALLY WAS ABLE TO REALLY DETERMINE AND ALSO DETERMINE THAT THERE'S OFF SITE WATER COMING INTO THE SUBDIVISION. HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO JUST GET RID OF IT. AND OF COURSE HE COULD. HE COULD HAVE PIPED IT FROM THESE AREAS HERE WITH A LARGE DETENTION, A LARGE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE, AND TOOK IT THERE. BUT HE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A MASSIVELY DEEP POND THERE, BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE ARE A MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, WHICH ACRONYM WE CALL IT THE MS4. WE ARE MANDATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS STATE STATUTE AND OUR OWN REGULATIONS. WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT POST-CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF, WHICH IS AFTER DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED, IS NO GREATER THAN PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS. SO IN THEY'RE GOING MORE IN DEPTH.

THAT'S WHEN THEY DETERMINE THAT THIS WOULD NOT WORK. AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE COMING BACK WITH STILL UTILIZING MOST OF THE PROPOSED POND AREA. BUT THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE IT MORE INTO A PARK AREA BUT STILL COLLECT WHAT'S COMING INTO THE SUBDIVISION FROM ALL SIDES AND GOING TO THE NORTH NORTHEAST CORNER. SO AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO SAY IT'S IMPORTANT HE'S BEEN IMPACTED BY THE DRAINAGE THAT FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS LOCAL REGULATIONS ESTABLISH THESE AS WATERS FROM THE STATE. YOU JUST CANNOT CUT OFF SOMETHING. YOU HAVE TO ALLOW IT TO COME THROUGH. BUT HE HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ENSURING THERE'S NO GREATER AFTER HIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT THAN BEFORE. WE ALSO NOTED THAT HIS PROPOSED DETENTION RETENTION POND WILL NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING DRY POND THAT EXISTS NORTH FOR THAT RANCH ESTATE SUBDIVISION. TOTALLY SEPARATE, BUT THEN THEY BOTH DISCHARGE INTO THE SAME TRIBUTARY AND GO ON TO TEN MILE CREEK AND AGAIN TO TRINITY RIVER. THIS MAP IS VERY IMPORTANT, PARTICULARLY TO LET RESIDENTS KIND OF KNOW WE ARE MANDATED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS.

TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 211 TO HAVE TO SEND OUT NOTICES WITHIN 200FT OF THIS PROPERTY. THAT'S THIS BLUE AREA HERE, THAT 200 LENGTH DESIGNATION WILL DICTATE IF 20% OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THAT BLUE OPPOSE THIS CASE AND SUBMIT THAT WRITTEN RESPONSE OR PETITION, THEN IT WOULD DICTATE THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL WILL THEN HAVE TO HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THE ENTIRE COUNCIL. THE PINK OR PURPLE AREA HERE IS NOT REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE, BUT IT WAS A REQUIREMENT PLACED ON STAFF BY THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO ME JOINING THE CITY. MARCH OF 2022, THE CITY HAD ADOPTED AN ADDITIONAL 100 FOOT DISTANCE FROM THAT 200 FOOT TO TAKE IT 300FT OUT. THAT STAFF WOULD BE MANDATED BY COUNCIL TO SEND OUT COURTESY NOTICES. AGAIN, WE HAVE HAD COUNCILS AND CURRENTLY THAT DESIRE THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. SO ABOUT TWO YEARS, A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, I HAD TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL AND THEY AMENDED THAT 100 FOOT DISTANCE AND WANTED TO MAKE IT ANOTHER 200FT. SO OUR REGULATIONS WE BROUGHT TO YOU, YOU VOTED TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE COUNCIL SUPPORTED. THE COURTESY NOTICES GO FROM 200, WHICH IS THE LINE AT THE BLUE UP. THAT'S 200FT THERE. BUT THIS MAP IS CRITICAL TO SEE THAT IN REALITY, NONE OF THE RESIDENTS IN THESE AREAS, NORTH AND NORTHEAST, ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE MANDATED 200 FOOT NOTICE. AND VERY, VERY, VERY FEW, IF ANY, GOT EVEN THE COURTESY NOTICE. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S COMPLYING WITH THE STATE STATUTE. THAT COMPLETES STAFF

[00:25:02]

REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND BY MOTION, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO AMEND PD 193 WITH BASE ZONINGS AS APPROVED OF SF EIGHT, SF NINE, SF TEN WITH DEVIATION TO A NEW PD 193 WITH BASE ZONING OF SF EIGHT SF NINE WITH DEVIATION AS REQUESTED. STAFF'S POSITION WITH THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING ORDINANCE THAT WAS APPROVED IN 22, ALLOWING MANY OF THESE SAME DEVIATIONS AND WITH THE APPLICANT REQUESTING TO CONTINUE, WE DID NOT FEEL THAT IT WAS TOO OUT OF THE NORM FOR WHAT THEY WERE REQUESTING. WITH THE LAST PROCESS IDENTIFYING THAT COMMUNICATION WITH THE COMMUNITY WAS REQUIRED. I DO BELIEVE IN THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, THAT THERE WERE PROBABLY TWO OR SO MEETINGS WITH THE COMMUNITY. AND AGAIN, THOSE MEETINGS WERE TO DISCUSS THE PLAN. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DEVELOPER TOOK THE INFORMATION HE RECEIVED, AND THAT IS WHAT ENDED UP BRINGING THE FINISHED PRODUCT TO WHAT WE'RE SEEING AND ACTING ON TODAY. WHICH IS AGAIN AMENDING EXISTING ZONING TO SHOW TWO ZONING DISTRICTS, S.F. NINE SF EIGHT WITH DEVIATION. I WOULD BE GLAD TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. STAFF THE COMMISSION HAVE. AND AGAIN THE APPLICANT IS HERE. HE HAS A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION HIMSELF THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HELP ADD TO HIS CASE. DO YOU HAVE TO GET A DRINK, MR. BURR? EXCUSE ME. DO YOU NEED TO GET A DRINK? I WILL WHEN HE GETS UP. OKAY? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE I ASK YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. MR. BREWER, I'M GLAD THAT YOU MENTIONED WHEN YOU CAME TO EMPLOYMENT HERE. YOU SAID IT WAS MARCH OF 2022. YES, SIR. AND IN THE BACKGROUND, IT SAYS THAT ON MAY THE 17TH, 2022, WHEN THEY CONDUCTED THIS HEARING ON THE ON THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, THE PD. WHY JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAD ORDINANCES IN PLACE, BUT YET WE DECIDED TO WE HAD SINGLE FAMILY EIGHTS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED, BUT YET WE APPROVED SINGLE FAMILY QUOTE 65. WE CREATED A TOTALLY DIFFERENT AREA. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT WAS THE THINKING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME, AND CITY COUNCIL? THE REALITY IS, EVERYBODY DOESN'T WANT A LARGE LOT TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN. YOU CAN GET A STILL A LARGER SIZE HOME ON A SMALLER LOT. THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING ALL OVER THE METROPLEX. AND SO THAT WAS A PART OF, YOU KNOW, MAKING THAT DECISION. OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD FOR YOU IS IN THE ORDINANCE, IT SAID THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE SF TEN 4849. AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE ARE NO 410. IS THERE A REASON WHY HAVE YOU DISCUSSED WITH THE DEVELOPER WHY THEY DO NOT? THAT WOULD BE WHAT THE DEVELOPER COMMUNICATES TO YOU. WHAT'S HIS REASONING? WHAT'S HIS MARKET STRATEGY? WHAT IS HE IDENTIFIED MADE IT NECESSARY FOR HIM TO WANT TO CHANGE? HE WILL MAKE THAT PRESENTATION TO YOU AND THAT WILL BE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS YOU COULD INQUIRE WITH HIM. ALL RIGHT. AND THE LAST QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR YOU BEFORE THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, THEY STATED THAT ALL OF THE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES. CORRECT. BUT YET THEY'RE GOING TO BE ALLEYS BEHIND ABOUT ROUGHLY 49. WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE ALLEYS? AND ARE THOSE ALLEYS GOING TO BE WILL THE RESIDENTS HAVE ACCESS TO THE BACK OF THEIR HOMES FROM THOSE ALLEYS? WE CAN WE CAN GET THAT COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPLICANT. AND IF THE PROPOSAL IS IF IT IS TO HAVE A REAR ENTRY ON THOSE, THEN WE WILL BE SURE THAT GETS PLACED IN THE AUDIENCE IN THE ORDINANCE. BUT LET'S ASK THAT APPLICANT THAT QUESTION OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. BELL? MR. BREWER, HOW ARE YOU DOING THIS EVENING? I'M BLESSED, SIR, I HAVE A QUESTION HERE. CAN YOU GO TO SLIDE NINE, PLEASE? SO THIS MAP HERE SHOWS A CLEAR DELINEATION BETWEEN SF EIGHT AND SF9. BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT THEY WANT TO MIX SF EIGHT AND NINE THROUGHOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, THIS DESIGNATION WOULD BE WHERE THE EIGHTS ARE AND THE NINES ARE. THIS DICTATES MY COMMENT WAS SAYING IF I DO THE WHOLE RECTANGLE, THIS IS THEIR DEVELOPMENT SITE AND THUS THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THOSE VARIATIONS OF THE THREE DWELLING SIZES, WHETHER IT'S AN SF, A8 OR SF NINE, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE LOTS THAT ARE A LOT LARGER IN BOTH DISTRICTS THAN THOSE MINIMUMS.

[00:30:08]

OKAY, GREAT. THAT CLEARS THAT UP FOR ME. NOW, SINCE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING DEVIATIONS AND LOT SIZE, AND WE'RE WORKING WITH MINIMUMS ON THESE DESIGNATIONS, CAN WE JUST DO SF EIGHT THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO ALSO BUILD THEIR DWELLINGS THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IN THE SF NINE SIZE, BUT DO IT UNDER SF EIGHT. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, YOU CANNOT HAVE ANY DEVIATIONS IN ANY OF OUR STRAIGHT ZONINGS. THE ONLY ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO DO A DEVIATION. IT HAS TO BE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES. SO SINCE THEY'RE STILL DESIRING TO CONTINUE SOME NO ALLEYS BECAUSE AGAIN, OUR REGULATION SAYS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE 100% ALLEY. SO SINCE THEY'RE REQUESTING TO CONTINUE THAT AND THE OTHER DEVIATIONS, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT BY THIS PD AND ALLOW ME TO QUICKLY GO KIND OF GO BACK TO ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS. OUR COUNCIL HAS ALSO.

APPROVED FOR ANOTHER DEVELOPER WITHIN THE PAST 2 OR 3 YEARS, A SIMILAR DEVIATION REQUEST TO HAVE FOR AN SF EIGHT LOT, WHICH IS THE SMALLEST LOT WE HAVE IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. THAT ABILITY TO GET A DEVIATION DOWN TO THAT 6000 SQUARE FOOT NUMBER. AND I'M SORRY, DID I ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER, OR DID I MISS ONE? I THINK SO, I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THAT BECAUSE THEY WANT THAT THEY WOULD STILL BECAUSE THEY HAVE SPECIAL DEVIATIONS FOR THIS PD.

THAT'S WHY WE CAN'T JUST DO STRAIGHT EIGHT SF EIGHT. YES. AND BECAUSE OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, IT IS OUR ZONING ORDINANCE THAT IS DICTATING. YOU CANNOT MAKE ANY DEVIATION REQUEST FOR ANY OF OUR STRAIGHT ZONINGS THE ONLY ZONING DISTRICT THAT YOU CAN MAKE A DEVIATION REQUEST HAS TO BE A PD, AND THAT ESTABLISHES A MINIMUM ACREAGE IS THREE ACRES. AND THIS COMPLIES WITH THAT. SO OUR ORDINANCE ALLOWS THAT TO BE REQUESTED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. AND THAT IS WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO YOU HERE. SIMILAR TO OTHER CASES WE BROUGHT TO YOU. OKAY. LAST QUESTION. THEY THEY WERE APPROVED PREVIOUSLY FOR NO ALLEYS AT ALL. I'M NOT SURE OF THE REASON WHY THEY DECIDED THEY WANTED TO DO 52 ALLEYS, BUT IF THEY DECIDED THAT THEY DON'T WANT THE ALLEYS AT ALL IN THERE, COULD THEY WOULD THAT STILL BE ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE PREVIOUS.

WELL, NO. THEY'RE CREATING A NEW REVISED PD THAT'S GOING TO BE A STANDALONE DOCUMENT THAT WILL HAVE ALL OF THEIR LANGUAGE IN THERE. WHAT IS TO BE DEVIATED AND WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK AND TRY TO COMPARE DOCUMENTS AND FLIPS SO THAT PREVIOUS APPROVAL IS GONE, WASHED AWAY. IT'S DONE. WE KNOW IF IT'S APPROVED, WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS WHEN THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN. IF YOU WOULD, IF YOU HAVE A SECOND LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE THAT WE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE, THE TERMINOLOGY THAT COMES FROM OUR LEGAL OFFICE IS ORDINANCE TO IS IT AMEND AND RESTATE. IS THAT CORRECT? CALEB. AMEND AND RESTATE. THAT MEANS IT GETS RID OF THE OTHER ONES. AND THIS IS THERE ARE OTHER THINGS BEFORE THIS IF YOU WANT TO USE IT AS A REFERENCE GUIDE. BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE YOUR NEW BIBLE WITH THOSE REGULATIONS. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK AND FLIP 50 YEARS ON STUFF, RIGHT? IF WE APPROVE WHATEVER THEY'RE REQUESTING. YES. GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. GRAHAM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. JUST FOR CLARITY. THE FIRST THING IS, BASED ON THEM INCREASING THE RETENTION POND AREA, IS THERE STILL FORESEEABLE ISSUES WITH DRAINAGE IN THAT AREA? NO. THEY'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DO A HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGY STUDY. AN ENGINEER WHO'S LICENSED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS WOULD HAVE TO PUT HIS STAMP ON THERE TO IDENTIFY THAT THIS POND WILL MEET THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS. OKAY. AND THEN I KNOW YOU GUYS SENT NOTICES TO THE 200 AND 400FT.

DID YOU GUYS RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES, WHETHER THAT BE IN WRITING OR IN THE OFFICE OR PHONE OR ANY RESPONSES IN NAY OR GREEN? TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO. I WOULD ASK MY STAFF, DID Y'ALL RECEIVE ANY OKAY. NO. AND THEN IS THERE ANY ISSUES WITH BECAUSE I KNOW THE LAST TIME THIS CAME BEFORE US, A LOT OF PEOPLE, RESIDENTS WERE SPEAKING ABOUT DRAINAGE, ACCESS, DRAINAGE. WE

[00:35:03]

SPOKE. I THINK THEY HAD AN ENGINEER HERE LAST TIME. IS THERE ANY ISSUE OR THOUGHT FOR OVERAGE IN THAT RETENTION POND? NOW THAT WE ARE HAVING IT AS A SITTING AREA, THERE'S NO OVERFLOW OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD EVER BE A CONCERN WITH WATER OR DRAINAGE OR SAFETY. WHETHER THERE'S AN OVERFLOW THAT'S GOING TO BE AT THE END, OKAY. THEY'RE CREATING IT AS A WET POND, OKAY? WHICH MEANS INSTEAD OF HAVING A AN OPEN DRAINAGE, THAT'S GOING TO THEN GO TO THE CHANNEL, OKAY, TO HOLD THE WATER, YOU'LL HAVE SOME TYPE OF WALL THERE. AND THEN WHEN IT GETS TO CERTAIN ELEVATIONS IT'LL OVERFLOW. SO I WAS GOING TO ONE OF MY DRAWINGS WILL HELP ME. I DIDN'T CAPTURE IT. BUT YOU KNOW UP HERE, WHEN IT'S OUT FALLING, IF THIS IS TO BE LAND, THEY'LL PROBABLY HAVE A PIPE SYSTEM HERE. AND I'M SURE THEY WILL PROBABLY HAVE SOME TYPE OF OVERFLOW OR A FLUME THERE IF IT GOT GREATER THAN WHAT THAT PIPE SIZE WILL HOLD, BUT THEN AT THE OTHER END TO STILL KEEP IT AS A POND FEATURE, THERE WILL PROBABLY BE HAVING SOME TYPE OF WALL THERE THAT ONCE IT GOT TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT, IT WILL FALL OVER. BUT I WOULD MAYBE ASK YOU TO ASK THE DEVELOPER, HAVE THEY LOOKED INTO THAT? OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MR. YES, MR. LAWYER. YES, SIR. HOW ARE YOU DOING? YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT IT WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEVELOPER TO ENGAGE WITH THE COMMUNITY. WAS THERE WASN'T A REQUIREMENT. IT'S JUST GOOD PRACTICE. YOU NEED TO TALK TO THE COMMUNITY. WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY RESIDENTS? WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING, THEY REMEMBERED WHEN THIS THING WENT THROUGH IN 22, THAT THERE WAS ENGAGEMENT. WHAT I HEARD THE RESIDENTS SAY THAT THEY FELT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE ENGAGEMENT.

AND THAT IS JUST NOW THE DEVELOPER KNOWING TO DO HIS DUE DILIGENCE AND WENT BACK AND HAD, I BELIEVE, A COUPLE OF MEETINGS WITH THEM, WITH STAFF. THEY WERE A PART OF THOSE ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS AND NO, NO, THIS IS BETWEEN THEM AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS. I THINK EVEN ON ONE MEETING, IT WAS WHEN WE HAD A COMMISSION MEETING. OKAY. AND THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER, BUT DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OF THE CHANGES THAT, EXCUSE ME, WAS IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE DUE TO THOSE MEETINGS IS MY UNDERSTANDING. YES. THAT WAS PART OF THEM WORKING BECAUSE AGAIN, IF YOU REALIZE WHAT THE OTHER DRAWING LOOKED LIKE, THIS IS MAKING THAT ADDITIONAL EFFORT. BUT ASK THAT TO THE DEVELOPER SINCE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT RECEIVED THE FEEDBACK.

THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, VICE CHAIR, REAL QUICK, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN OCTOBER, CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS AT THAT TIME? DENIAL STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS DENIAL AS WELL. WHEN IT CAME THROUGH AT YES, THAT'S THE 100% ON PAGE SEVEN. WELL, DRAWING ON ON PAGE SIX, AS FAR AS IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN, LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE SEVEN, ON THE POWERPOINT, THE NEXT SLIDE.

OCTOBER 8TH, 2024. IT SAYS P AND Z RECOMMENDED DENIAL WHILE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION DENIAL.

YES. YES OKAY. THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? THANK YOU, MR. BREWER. ONE LAST QUESTION.

BEFORE WE BRING THE APPLICANT UP, WHEN YOU COMPLETED THE PRESENTATION, YOU SAID THAT YOU ALL RECOMMEND YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WOULD YOU STATE AGAIN WHY YOU FEEL THAT? BASED ON AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS, AT MY UNDERSTANDING, ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY IN 2022 THAT WAS VIEWED AS AN ACCEPTABLE, WORKABLE PEACE AT THAT POINT, REALIZING THE CITY DOES NEED DEVELOPMENT, WE NEED MORE ROOFTOPS IN ORDER TO HOPEFULLY ATTRACT THE SIT DOWN RESTAURANTS AND THE CHAIN STORES. AND SINCE THE MAJORITY OF THEIR DEVIATION REQUESTS WERE. AND THAT'S WHY I PUT IT IN MY REPORT CONTINUE X, CONTINUE Y CONTINUE BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR. A OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTS TO LOOK

[00:40:02]

AT. IT'S GOING TO BE THE RESIDENTS WHO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO BUILD A PURCHASE, A HOME IN THAT COMMUNITY, WITH IT BEING, I WOULD STILL CALL IT A ISOLATED AREA. IT DOESN'T HAVE CONNECTIVITY TO THE EAST. YOU HAVE SF 12, WHICH IS THE FIRST TEXAS HOMES, JUST TO THE EAST OF WHICH IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. JUST TO THE EAST OF THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SHAMIR HOMES. THEY WENT ON AND WENT WITH THE EXISTING SF EIGHT THAT WAS EXISTING WITH THE APARTMENTS BEING ACROSS THE WAY, I FELT IT WAS A WORKABLE PRODUCT. BUT AGAIN, STAFF STRICTLY DOES ITS REPORTS GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE FORWARD YOUR RECOMMENDATION, YOU KNOW, TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE REASON I WAS ASKING THAT THE LAST TIME THIS CASE CAME BEFORE US, I THINK WHAT MY BIGGEST CONCERNS WERE, WE REDUCED LOT SIZES TO 6500, WHICH GIVES THEM AN ADDITIONAL 1500FT■S OF BUILDABLE LAND. WE REQUIRED NO ALLEYS. THAT IN TURN GIVES THEM MORE LAND TO BUILD ON. AND. WE CONTINUE TO PULL BACK ON OUR ORDINANCE AND WE CONTINUE TO DEVIATE TO HELP THE BUILDER. AND THEN WE COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE. AND IF YOU WILL RECALL THE LAST MEETING THAT WE HAD, WE TALKED ABOUT DUE DILIGENCE, AND YOU JUST USED THAT TERM DUE DILIGENCE. YOU SAID THEY DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE BY GOING TO TALK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PEOPLE. AND PART OF A DEVELOPMENT IS TO DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE UP FRONT TO SEE HOW MUCH OF YOUR LAND IS GOING TO BE USABLE. AND WHEN THEY CAME TO US, THEY SAID, WE HAVE DISCOVERED THAT WE CAN'T USE AS MUCH LAND AS WE THOUGHT WE COULD USE. THAT'S NOT THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. AND BECAUSE THE DUE DILIGENCE WASN'T DONE UP FRONT, THEN THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY CAN USE. SO THEN THEY COME TO US AND THEY SAY, OKAY, LET US DO THESE SMALLER HOUSES, THESE SMALLER LOTS, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO BUILD THE AMOUNT OF HOMES THAT WE WANT TO BUILD HERE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MORE ABOUT REVENUE EARNING MONEY AND BUILDING MONEY AND NOT UTILIZING THE LAND THAT THEY HAVE. AND I JUST THINK THAT WE GAVE WE GAVE, WE GAVE, WE GAVE AND THEN WE'RE GIVING AND WE'RE GIVING AND WE'RE GIVING. SO. I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION THAT THEY'RE IN, THAT WAS WHY WE SHOULD APPROVE IT.

AND MY POSITION IS WE DIDN'T CREATE THE SITUATION THAT THEY'RE IN. THAT SITUATION EXISTED WHEN THEY WERE THERE, AND IF THEY HAD DONE THE DUE DILIGENCE, PERHAPS WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. BUT THAT WAS JUST I WANTED TO JUST KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHY STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING THAT. THAT'S IT. AGAIN, MY COMMENT WAS NOT BASED ON THE GEOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY. MY COMMENT WAS BASED ON THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 2022. I BASED MINE ON WHAT WAS APPROVED. WHAT I'M HEARING THE MARKET IS TALKING ABOUT, AND THAT'S WHY I MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. AND BUT THE ORDINANCE ALSO SAID F10, F8, F9, F10. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE JAY SWING GARAGES. I MEAN THE ORDINANCE STARTED OFF TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY. THE ORDINANCE ALLOWED 100% FRONT ENTRY GARAGES FOR THE EIGHTS AND NINES, AND IT GAVE 75% OF THE TENS TO HAVE SIDE ENTRY GARAGES. AGAIN, THIS IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR ULTIMATE REVIEW. STAFF IS JUST DOING OUR REPORT, BRINGING YOU THE FACTS AND MAKING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

OKAY. APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THOSE QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OH, MISS EDWARDS ALL RIGHT. YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD EVENING. SO I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION ON AND MAYBE IT SLIPPED MY MEMORY WHY? WE WENT FROM NO ALLEYS THROUGHOUT THE SUBDIVISION TO ALLEYS SPORADICALLY THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S A QUESTION YOU'D HAVE TO ASK THE DEVELOPER. WE JUST TOOK THE FINISHED PRODUCT AND WROTE UP OUR REPORT IDENTIFYING TO YOU HOW MANY LOTS WERE GOING TO BE AROUND THREE OF THOSE PROPOSED ALLEYS. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

[00:45:03]

YES, MR. GRAHAM, TWO QUICK QUESTIONS. THE FIRST QUESTION IS BECAUSE THEY HELD THOSE MEETINGS WITH THE RESIDENTS, THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO KNOW WHAT THE RESIDENTS STATED IN THERE AND WHAT WAS CHANGED BECAUSE OF THAT, UNLESS WE'RE SPEAKING TO THEM. CORRECT. THEY'RE SPEAKING TO THE RESIDENTS, TO THE AND I'M SURE WE HAVE RESIDENTS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT MAY COME UP AND SPEAK TO YOU TONIGHT. OKAY, OKAY. GOT YOU. AND THEN MY NEXT THING WAS, IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, WE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS BASICALLY BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL WORK BASED ON THE MARKET AND BASED ON THE HOUSING THAT'S ALREADY THERE. CORRECT. WELL, BASED ON KNOWING THERE'S A NEED FOR ROOFTOPS HERE, KNOWING THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR STAFF'S OPINION, VARIETY AND SIZE OF HOMES AND PROPERTY LOTS. AND KNOWING THAT YOU WILL HAVE PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT LARGER LOTS BUT DO WANT A REASONABLE SIZED HOME. AND AGAIN, THAT STAFF OPINION. I'M NOT A REALTOR. I'M NOT A MARKETING MAJOR. SO I GOT YOU. AND THIS QUESTION MIGHT JUST BE OFF OFF KEY. BUT CAN YOU TELL ME OUT OF OUR DEVELOPMENTS GOING ON RIGHT NOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, HOW MANY DEVIATIONS ON SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WE DO? THE ONLY ONE I CAN TELL YOU WAS DONE FOR WILDWOOD. SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE AGAIN, I'M ONLY QUOTING FROM 2022. THE DANIELS FARM SUBDIVISION OFF OF BOLTON, BOONE AND DANIEL DALE. PHASE THREE A REQUEST TO AMEND THAT PD CAME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION. THEY ACTUALLY HAVE AN EAST MOST AREA AND A WEST MOST AREA, AND WHILE THEY HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR SF TEN, THEY CAME TO THE COMMISSION AND REQUESTED THE EASTERNMOST TO INCREASE THE DENSITY WHICH AND ALSO ESTABLISH THE BASE. BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE WHEN YOU SAY PD, YOU GOT TO HAVE A BASE ZONING TO DEVELOP IT. BASE ZONING OF SF EIGHT WITH THE DEVIATION REQUEST OF THE 6550. AND IT WAS APPROVED. SO SINCE YOU'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 2022, WE'VE ONLY HAD ONE APPROVAL. DEVIATION FROM WHAT? WHAT? MY MEMORY. YES, SIR. WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENTS START CORRECT SINCE 2022 FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. NOT A FULL HANDFUL. YEAH I MEAN I GOT YEAH. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. BREWER. WE APPRECIATE YOU. LET'S SEE WHAT TIME IS IT HERE? THE TIME IS NOW 6:47 P.M. AND WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. AND AT THIS TIME, IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, YOU MAY APPROACH AND DELIVER YOUR PRESENTATION. I KNOW YOU HAVE SEVERAL. I REMEMBER FROM LAST TIME. YOU'LL HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK. WILL YOU ALL BE SPEAKING INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY AS A GROUP FOR ME? AND MY ENGINEER WILL SPEAK COLLECTIVELY. OKAY. AND SO ARE YOU GOING TO COME AT THE SAME TIME OR ARE YOU GOING TO. OKAY.

SO WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU COME, WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE AS WELL AS AND THE ENGINEER IS THE GENTLEMAN WITH THE GLASSES. OKAY. VICE CHAIR IS GOING TO BE THE TIMEKEEPER. OH, YEAH. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU ALL FOR ALLOWING US TO COME BACK AFTER MANY ATTEMPTS HERE. WE'RE EXCITED TO BRING SOMETHING THAT WE'VE EVOLVED OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME WITH OUR PROJECT. MY NAME IS JOHN MCKINSEY. I'M RESIDE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. AND WITH ME IS OUR ENGINEER. AND HE'LL HE'LL SPEAK ON HIS BEHALF. SO THIS PROJECT IS STAFF HAD INDICATED HAS HAS EVOLVED. AND I TRULY APPRECIATE STAFF WORKING WITH US ALSO IN WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY OVER THE LAST. I WANT TO SAY, SINCE LAST MARCH WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROCESS, M.A. DEVCO TOOK ON THIS PD 193. WE ACQUIRED THE RIGHTS AND WE AS A DEVELOPER INITIATED THE PROCESS TO START DEVELOPING BASED UPON PD 193 THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2022. IN MAY, ON MAY 9TH, WE WERE PREPARING FOR A P PLAT SUBMITTAL BASED UPON THE PD

[00:50:03]

193 AS IT STOOD IN TALKING WITH STAFF, WE REALIZED THAT THERE WAS THIS DRAINAGE ISSUE, RIGHT? UNBEKNOWNST THAT THE DRAINAGE ISSUE HAD NOT REALLY SURFACED OVER THE DURATION OF THE PD. 193 OKAY, SO WE THEN HELD FROM SUBMITTING THE P PLAT, AND I'LL LET OUR ENGINEER DISCUSS. THE DRAINAGE IS AS MUCH AS WE CAN AND THE HOW IT WILL LOOK AND FEEL FOR AFTER OUR COMMUNITY IS BUILT. THIS, OF COURSE, IS THE PLAN THAT IS REPRESENTED NOW. THE CONCEPT PLAN, AS WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, THIS OPEN SPACE ESSENTIALLY FROM THE ORIGINAL PD 193 WAS 5.89 ACRES.

AND GIVEN THE GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO UTILIZE ALL THAT IS BUILDABLE DUE TO THE DRAINAGE, THERE'S SOMETHING GOOD THAT COMES OUT OF THIS, WHICH IS THE OPEN SPACE WILL INCREASE DRAMATICALLY TO 10.78 ACRES, SO ALMOST DOUBLE THE SIZE OF OPEN SPACE. I'LL LET MY ENGINEER DISCUSS THE DRAINAGE AS WE GET BACK TO THIS POINT. WHAT I'D LIKE TO SHOW HERE IS A COUPLE OF, AGAIN, EVOLVING WHERE WE STARTED FROM MAY 17TH, 2022 TO WHEN WE CAME AND PRESENTED IN FRONT OF THIS BODY. OCTOBER 8TH OF 2024. YES. AS WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, THE GOAL WAS TO TRY TO MAINTAIN THE SAME QUANTITY OF LOTS SO THAT THIS WOULD BE A VIABLE DEVELOPMENT. OKAY, WE THEN TOOK RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF TO HAVE COMMUNITY MEETINGS. WE GOT TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY OVER TWO DIFFERENT SESSIONS. THE FIRST SESSION, WE TOOK A LOT OF INFORMATION FROM THAT MEETING. AND THEN THE SECOND SESSION WE CAME BACK AND DISCUSSED EVEN MORE EVOLVING OF WHAT THEY WERE REQUESTING, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. AND THE QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT THE ALLEYS, RIGHT. WHY, IF THE PD ORIGINAL PD INDICATED NO ALLEYS, WHY WOULD WE THEN DECIDE TO PUT ALLEYS? AND THIS IS A COMPROMISE. THIS IS A COMPROMISE FROM US AS THE DEVELOPERS TO COMPROMISE WITH THE COMMUNITY. THEIR GOAL, THEIR REQUEST WAS TO HAVE MORE ALLEYS. OKAY, SO WE TOOK IT UPON OURSELVES, ADDED THESE ALLEYS AND THESE POSITIONS BECAUSE AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, YOU DO NOT WANT ALLEYS ON THE HOUSES THAT BACK UP TO THE PARK, OF COURSE. AND SO WE TOOK WHERE IT WAS, WAS BEST SUITED FOR ALLEYS AND ADDED THOSE ALLEYS TO ESSENTIALLY GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. OKAY. SO THIS IS NOW A COMPARISON OF WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. PD 193 WITH SF EIGHT, SF9 AND SF TEN. WE ARE NOW PROPOSING SF EIGHT AND SF9. I PUT THIS SLIDE TOGETHER TO HELP US BECAUSE I KNOW WE ALL HAVE THE LEGAL LANGUAGE AND WE CAN ALL VIEW THAT IN THE DOCUMENTED FORM. TO ME THIS IS A LITTLE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. IS THE FAR LEFT IS WHAT IS YOUR BASE ZONING? YOUR SF EIGHT, FS AND SF TENS IN THE CENTER SECTION IS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED ON THE ORIGINAL PD 193, AND THE RIGHT HAND SECTION IS WHAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY ASKING, WHICH IS OTHER THAN ONE LINE ITEM, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE. EVERY ITEM IS EXACTLY THE SAME FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF PD 193. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, OUR GOAL WAS TO TAKE THIS PROJECT AND ENHANCE IT TO REALLY MAKE SOMETHING SPECIAL, GIVEN THE FACT WITH THE DRAINAGE AND THE OPEN SPACE AND THE WATERWAYS TO REALLY MAKE SOMETHING SPECIAL OUT OF THIS PROJECT. THIS INCORPORATES EVERYTHING THAT WAS COMMITTED TO IN THE ORIGINAL PD 193, WHICH IS THE PAVILION, THE, THE, THE PICNIC AREAS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND WE ADDED ONE ESSENTIALLY ALMOST ONE MILE OF WALKABLE TRAIL. OKAY, WE'VE ADDED WHAT WE THINK WILL MAKE THIS PROJECT A SPECTACULAR PROJECT IN THE CITY OF DESOTO. THIS IS THE SAME ELEVATION, THE

[00:55:11]

SAME PROFILE, THE SAME. THAT WAS ALL APPROVED IN THE ORIGINAL ONE. PD 193. WE ARE NOT SUBTRACTING ANYTHING FROM THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF PD 193. THESE ARE. THE QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT WITH THE ALLEYS BE REAR FACING GARAGES. YES. SO ALL ALLEYS THAT ARE INCORPORATED, ALL OF THOSE 51 OR 52 LOTS THAT INCORPORATE AN ALLEY WILL HAVE REAR LOADED GARAGES. AGAIN, WE FEEL LIKE ALL AROUND THE PARK AND EVERYWHERE ELSE. YOU KNOW, WHAT I'D LIKE TO SHOW IS THIS IS WHAT WE ENVISION AROUND AS FAR AS THE HOMES THAT HAVE THE BACKUP TO THE PARKS, RIGHT? THIS IS ORNAMENTAL FENCING THAT ADDS ESTHETIC, ADDS A VERY NICE CONCEPTUAL TO THE PROJECT ITSELF. THE QUESTION COMES UP, WHY AREN'T WE DOING SF TEN? I HEAR THAT A LOT. OKAY. WE FEEL LIKE IN OUR MARKET IN THIS PROJECT RIGHT NOW, THAT THERE IS ENOUGH SUPPLY OF LARGER LOTS JUST TO THE EAST OF US. OKAY. EVERYONE'S FAMILIAR WITH THE HIDDEN LAKES ESTATES BEAUTIFUL DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE. IT CALLS FOR 154 HOME SITES, OF WHICH THERE ARE 33 HOMES BUILT, OF WHICH 19 ARE SOLD. OKAY, THIS IS OVER THE LAST, I BELIEVE, 20 MONTHS. OUR MARKET PROJECTIONS WOULD BE BASED UPON WHAT THEY HAVE DONE UP UNTIL NOW. IF THEY WERE TO CONTINUE DOWN THAT SAME PROJECTED PATH, IT WOULD TAKE ANYWHERE FROM EIGHT, ANOTHER 7 TO 8 YEARS TO COMPLETE THAT PROJECT FOR THOSE SIZE LOTS. SO IN OUR ESTIMATE AND OUR MARKETING OBJECTIVES IS THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF EXTRA LOT OR THEIR EFFICIENT NUMBER OF LARGE LOT INVENTORY. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO SF EIGHT AND SF NINE. I KNOW THE QUESTION COMES UP ABOUT THE DWELLING UNIT SIZE. I THINK WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TWO FACTORS TO DWELLING UNIT SIZE. ONE IS THE DEMOGRAPHICS. WHEN WE THINK ABOUT OPTIONS AND CHOICES OF DWELLING UNIT HOME SIZE, WE THINK ABOUT YES, WE HAVE FAMILIES, WE HAVE GENERATIONAL, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, EMPTY NESTERS. WE HAVE ALL TYPES OF VARIATIONS. AND I THINK ANY PROJECT WOULD ESSENTIALLY NEED TO HAVE VARIOUS TYPES OF PRODUCT TO OFFER THAT TO A WIDE RANGE OF PROSPECTIVE HOMEOWNERS. THIS IS AN INDICATION OF ALL PROJECTS IN DESOTO HAVE SOME VARIATION, SOME SLIDING SCALE, EVEN AT THE OLDER, YOU KNOW, SUCH AS DESOTO RANCH, WHICH WAS BUILT IN THE EARLY 2000. RIGHT. THERE'S 50 LOTS WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE LESS THAN 2000. YOU ALSO HAVE ANY OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, PARK PARKERVILLE MEADOWS, SAME THING. YOU KNOW, ANY OF THESE PROJECTS WOULD HAVE SOME TYPE OF VARIATION TO ALLOW FOR A WIDER RANGE OF PROSPECTIVE HOMEOWNERS. OKAY, I AM GOING TO LET MY ENGINEER BRIEFLY DISCUSS JUST SO THAT THERE'S NO CONCERNS ABOUT THE DRAINAGE. AGAIN, MY NAME IS SEAN FAULKNER. I'M WITH THE FORESIGHT GROUP. WE ARE IN. OUR OFFICE IS LOCATED IN DALLAS. THE EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT'S OUT THERE NOW IS A SERIES OF PONDS THAT, YOU KNOW, FARMERS HAVE BUILT OVER THE YEARS. AND FOR THE MOST PART, IT LOOKS LIKE FOR THE MOST PART, THEY HAVE NOT MAINTAINED, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT. IT'S JUST THEY DIG IT, YOU KNOW, OUT THERE FOR THE COWS AND IT BECOMES WHAT IT BECOMES AT THAT POINT. BUT WHAT WE'LL BE DOING IS WE'LL BE COMING IN AND CLEANING UP THOSE PONDS, YOU KNOW, GETTING THEM TO APPROPRIATE SHAPE AND MAKING SURE THAT THEIR OUTFALLS, BECAUSE THEY WILL BE, YOU KNOW, IN THE ULTIMATE CONDITION, THEY WILL BE CASCADING FROM ONE POND DOWN TO THE OTHERS. I THINK THERE'S ABOUT FOUR PONDS IN A ROW. AND WE'LL BE DESIGNING OUTFALL STRUCTURES SO THAT DURING THE 100 YEAR RAIN EVENT, THAT ANY TRAILS THAT CROSS OVER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT THOSE TRAILS OR PARK BENCHES DO NOT GET INUNDATED BY WATER

[01:00:04]

BECAUSE THAT IS A SAFETY FACTOR, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT. NOW, THAT BEING SAID, WE DO GET RAINS SOMETIMES THAT EXCEED THAT, AND WE'LL HAVE OVERFLOWS, THAT WILL BE OVERLAND, THAT WILL TAKE CARE OF THOSE FLOWS. BUT THOSE WILL BE, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY KNOCK ON SOME WOOD, SOME CLIMATE CHANGE DOESN'T HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, FOR THE WORST AROUND HERE, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, YOU KNOW, THE WATER IN THOSE PONDS WILL FILL UP AND THEY'LL SLOWLY DRAIN OUT.

SO THAT WAY THE WATER DOWNSTREAM FROM US, YOU KNOW, THE CREEK THAT'S DOWNSTREAM OF US CAN HANDLE ANY ADDITIONAL FLOWS THAT ARE DEVELOPMENT GENERATES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. WITH THE ENGINEER. PLEASE COME BACK UP. YES, SIR. I FIGURED THERE'D BE QUESTIONS.

YEAH. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN KNOWING. AND MR. BREWER MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE SOME STUDIES THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE DOING FOR THE LAND RELATIVE TO THE DRAINAGE. YES, SIR. TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, AND THEN I'LL HAVE A QUESTION TO ASK YOU. WELL, YOU KNOW, MR. BREWER MENTIONED HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC HYDROLOGIC STUDIES, WHICH I APPLAUD THEM FOR, YOU KNOW, SPEAKING TO THAT, MOST PEOPLE CAN'T HYDROLOGIC STUDIES, THEY DEAL WITH HOW MUCH WATER THERE IS, YOU KNOW, IS IT, YOU KNOW, IS THERE 200 GALLONS, 400 GALLONS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT HYDROLOGIC IS HOW DEEP DOES THE WATER GET? TYPICALLY THOSE STUDIES ARE DONE WHEN WE DO THE PREMIER PLOT OR EVEN WITH CONSTRUCTION PLANS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE DOING ZONING. YOU KNOW, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, BIG PICTURE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, SCHEMATIC TYPE DESIGN. AND AS YOU GO FURTHER DOWN THE PROCESS TO EVEN GO DOWN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, YOU FINE TUNE ALL THOSE STEPS THAT YOU HAVE TO DO, INCLUDING DETAILED DRAINAGE DESIGN AND DRAINAGE, DESIGN OF WATER SYSTEMS, SEWER SYSTEMS, YOU KNOW, THE DRAINAGE IN THE STREETS. YOU KNOW, AS YOU GO ALONG, THOSE DETAILS BECOME FINER AND FINER. I THINK YOU HAD THE SLIDE RIGHT NEXT TO WHAT YOU HAVE UP THERE, AND IT WAS SHOWING HOW THE DRAINAGE WAS GOING OVER SOME AREAS WHERE YOU WERE GOING TO DEVELOP. CORRECT. THIS WAY OR. YES, RIGHT. THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. OKAY. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO WORK THAT LAND? AND TO ENSURE I'M SURE YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD IT UP. CORRECT. SOMEWHAT. NOW, THE CITY ORDINANCES DOES REQUIRE AND THIS IS PART OF THE, YOU KNOW, CAME UP WHEN WE WERE DOING THE PLAT, WAS THE DRAINAGE, THE MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY THAT THE CITY DID, WHICH IS THE PERKINS, THE AREAS THAT ARE IN BLUE. THE CITY HAD DESIGNATED THOSE AS FLOODPLAIN AREAS NOW, NOT NECESSARILY FEMA, YOU KNOW, MASSIVE DRAINAGE FLOOD AREAS, BUT LOCALIZED FLOOD AREAS. THE CITY ORDINANCES DO NOT ALLOW US TO IMPORT DIRT INTO THOSE AREAS, SO WE CANNOT FILL IN THOSE AREAS. SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY, YOU KNOW, THE EXHIBITS OVER HERE SHOWS THAT WE COULDN'T DEVELOP WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE PD OVER HERE ON THE LEFT, BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO FILL IN CITY DESIGNATED FLOODPLAIN.

OKAY. SO IN ON YOUR ON THE SLIDE THAT YOU HAVE THE GRAPHIC TO THE RIGHT. FEBRUARY 11TH, 2025. YOU STILL SHOW A LITTLE BIT GOING INTO. YEAH, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL BE DOING A, YOU KNOW, FINAL DRAINAGE STUDY WE'LL HAVE TO DO IS WE'LL HAVE TO DO AN EXISTING DRAINAGE STUDY TO CONFIRM THE FLOODPLAIN, BECAUSE THE WHAT THE CITY WAS DONE BEFORE WAS, HEY, THIS IS GENERALLY WHAT AREAS WOULD FLOOD. AND AS WE, YOU KNOW, GET DOWN INTO THE PROCESS. WE WILL FINE TUNE THAT EXISTING MODEL TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WHAT THE DRAINAGE GOES THROUGH. AND THEN THAT WILL BE THAT'LL BE TWEAKED. THE NORMAL PROCESS. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, BACK IN 22,001, THE STUDY WAS DONE USING, YOU KNOW, ROUGH FLOW DATA, ROUGH, YOU KNOW, TOPOGRAPHIC DATA. WE WILL BE USING CURRENT METHODOLOGY, CURRENT FLOWS BECAUSE SINCE 2001, THE APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET HAVE DEVELOPED, THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTHWEST HAS DEVELOPED. ALL THOSE IMPACT WHAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE AND THE DRAINAGE CITY DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN SAYS THAT, HEY, THIS GENERALLY FLOODS. YOU NEED TO DO A MORE DETAILED STUDY FOR THIS AREA BEFORE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO

[01:05:03]

DEVELOP. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE DOING. OKAY. AND THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU ARE THERE. AND I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE ONE MILE TRACK AND ALL THE EXTRA THINGS LIKE THAT. YES, SIR. BUT BECAUSE IT'S A FLOODING AREA, WHEN WE GET THOSE HEAVY RAINS, WILL THE RESIDENTS STILL BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THOSE PATHS, OR DO YOU FORESEE ANY DRAINAGE OR FLOODING ISSUES OVER THE PAST, BARRING AN ACT OF GOD? YES. NOW, I WILL SAY DURING A 100 YEAR RAIN EVENT, IF YOU'RE OUT THERE JOGGING, I WILL APPLAUD YOU IN THIS AREA FOR 100 YEAR RAIN EVENT, IT WILL RAIN AT A RATE OF NINE INCHES EVERY HOUR. THAT'S A LOT OF WATER. OKAY, SO IF YOU'RE OUT THERE AT 100 YEAR RAIN EVENT, I WOULD APPLAUD YOU FOR BRAVING THAT. SO YOU'RE SAYING WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING. YOU'RE SAYING YOU DO NOT FORESEE ANY ISSUES WITH THE FLOODING OF THE PATHS AND THINGS LIKE THAT? NO, SIR. WE'LL KEEP THOSE PATHS HIGH AND DRY FROM THE FROM THE.

WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE UTILIZED TO ENSURE THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO USE ALL THAT? YEAH, WE'LL BE PROBABLY MASSAGING THE EXISTING PONDS TO HANDLE DETENTION EFFECTS. SO THAT WAY WE'RE NOT INCREASING DRAINAGE DOWNSTREAM. AND WE CAN WE CAN CAREFULLY MONITOR AND DESIGN THOSE PONDS SO WE KNOW HOW DEEP THE WATER IS GOING TO GET FOR EACH, FOR EACH POND AND WHERE THE PATH IS GOING TO BE SO THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE AREAS ARE CLEAN, CLEAR. YOU KNOW, SOFTWARE THAT WE USE IS, YOU KNOW, IS ARE DEVELOPED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. SO IT'S A VERY ROBUST MODELS THAT WE USE TO, YOU KNOW, ANALYZE THIS INFORMATION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS. MR. MR. BELL, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. FAULKNER, THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS AND WELCOME. I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU AND ONE FOR MR. MCKENZIE. MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS IF, AFTER THE NEW DRAINAGE STUDY, IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE 2 OR 3 LOTS ARE STILL IMPACTED BY THE DRAINAGE ISSUE, WHAT IS YOUR PLAN? WILL YOU NOT BUILD ON THOSE LOTS OR SOME KIND OF DIVERSION? RIGHT NOW, THE PLAN IS IF WE'RE THERE'S SOME LOTS THAT WE CANNOT DEVELOP BECAUSE OF DRAINAGE, WE WILL NOT DEVELOP THOSE LOTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. GRAHAM. AND JUST FOR CLARITY, AT WHAT STAGE, I KNOW LAST TIME YOU GUYS CAME, THE BIGGEST THING WAS THAT YOU GUYS TOOK OVER THIS AND HADN'T DONE A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT YOU GUYS WOULD NORMALLY HAVE DONE AT THIS AT THAT STAGE.

AT WHAT STAGE WOULD YOU GUYS FINISH TESTING WITH DRAINAGE BEFORE YOU GUYS REDO SOMETHING AND COME AND ASK US? YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, IF YOU DO THAT FINAL TEST AND IT IS DISCOVERED THAT YOU CAN'T DEVELOP, NOW, YOU'RE DEVELOPING LESS HOMES THAN WHAT YOU'RE ASKING OR TELLING US TODAY. SO I'M JUST AT WHAT STAGE SHOULD THAT HAVE BEEN DONE? YEAH. LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, AS AS WE MOVE DOWN THE PROCESS, THE ANALYSIS BECOMES MORE FINE TUNE.

BEFORE WE COME IN WITH THE PERMIT PLAT, WE'LL BE DOING A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILED INFORMATION TO FIGURE OUT, OKAY, WHAT MORE OF WHAT IS THE EXISTING, YOU KNOW, DRAINAGE BOUNDARIES OF IT, OF IT AS IT IS TODAY. AND WE'LL DO SOME ROUGH CALCULATIONS OF, YOU KNOW, THE DETENTION POND SIZING AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND THEN ONCE WE GET TO OUR CONSTRUCTION PLANS, AT THAT POINT WE'LL HAVE EVERYTHING FINE TUNED. OKAY. SO IN YOUR HISTORY, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN IN ENGINEERING FOR SOME YEARS, IS IT NORMAL TO CHANGE THE PLANS THIS MANY TIMES WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE OFFICIAL DRAINAGE ISSUES? OR IF THERE'S AN ISSUE YOU USUALLY, BY THE TIME THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS COME AROUND, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN HAS BEEN FIGURED OUT. OKAY. YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD I HAVE DEVELOPED SOME DEVELOPMENTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME RAIN EVENTS HAVE HAPPENED THAT HAVE CAUSED EROSION. AND WE'RE RECONFIGURING THAT STUFF NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. LAURER. QUICK, ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. ENGINEER, FOR THE PONDS. WOULD THAT BE PRE-FILLED AT THE END OF THE DEVELOPMENT, OR DO WE JUST WAIT FOR RAIN TO FILL THOSE PONDS UP? THE STATE OF TEXAS, THEY HAVE REGULATIONS FOR WATER RIGHTS.

AND IF THE PONDS DON'T MAINTAIN THEIR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION NOW, AND THE WATER, YOU KNOW, RAIN HAPPENS AND USES THAT WATER TO FILL UP THOSE PONDS, WE'RE ACTUALLY SUBTRACTING SOMEONE'S WATER RIGHTS. SO WE WILL HAVE TO MEET BY STATE REGULATIONS. WE WILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN

[01:10:05]

WATER LEVEL SO THAT AS THE WATER AS RAIN COMES, ALL THAT RAINWATER THAT WE RECEIVE GETS PUSHED DOWNSTREAM AND DOES NOT FILL UP THE PONDS. SO WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS IS WE HAVE WELLS THAT WE DRILL THAT FILL UP THOSE PONDS. VICE CHAIR, GOOD EVENING. HOW ARE YOU? ALL RIGHT.

I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION, SIR. WITHOUT THE WAIVERS, IF NONE OF THE WAIVERS ARE APPROVED, CAN THIS PROJECT MOVE FORWARD IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE EXISTING ORDINANCE? I'LL HAVE TO TURN THAT OVER TO MR. MCKENZIE TO ANSWER THAT. SO THE QUESTION BEING, CAN THE PROJECT MOVE FORWARD? SO WE WHEN WE TOOK ON THIS PROJECT AGAIN, ESSENTIALLY FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR, UNDER THE PRETEXT OF THE PD 193, THAT WAS THE PROJECT THAT WE WERE TO BUILD. SO AS IT STANDS NOW, WE FEEL LIKE BY TRYING AND THIS IS THE EXACT SLIDE OF I'M SORRY, THAT'S NOT THE EXACT SLIDE. THIS IS THE EXACT SLIDE. WE TRIED AS BEST AS POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN EVERYTHING THAT WAS COMMITTED TO IN PD 193. SO WITHOUT IF WE WERE TO LOSE ESSENTIALLY I THINK IT WAS 5054 LOTS BECAUSE OF THE DRAINAGE. WHEN WE DID THIS OVERLAY RIGHT HERE. THIS AFFECTED ESSENTIALLY OVER ONE THIRD OF THE LOTS. SO IT'S NOT BUILDABLE AT THAT. AT THAT LEVEL RIGHT THERE. SO, SO THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS NOT A DOABLE PROJECT. CORRECT. WITHOUT THE WAIVERS.

WELL WITHOUT. THE WAIVERS IN ESSENCE ARE. THE WAIVERS IN MY OPINION BASED UPON THIS SLIDE THE WAIVERS ARE THE EXACT SAME AS THEY WERE IN ORIGINALLY PD 193. SO IT WAS NOT BUILDABLE AT THAT POINT WITHOUT PD 193 BEING APPROVED. SO WE WOULD STILL BE UNDER THAT. UMBRELLA. THANK YOU.

SORRY IF THAT DOESN'T, MR. GRAHAM, QUICK, QUICK CLARIFICATION IN QUESTION. SO WHEN YOU GUYS CAME IN OCTOBER, HITTING THE FIRST TEXAS HOMES WERE ALREADY APPROVED OR BEING BUILT OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, AND YOU DID NOT DEVIATE FROM THERE'S SOME BIG DIFFERENCES NOW VERSUS OCTOBER. AND TODAY YOU UTILIZED AS JUSTIFICATION BASICALLY, THAT THEY'RE BUILDING LARGER HOMES AND THEY'RE NOT SELLING THEM OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. SO IS THAT YOUR JUST THAT YOU MADE THOSE DIFFERENCES AND CHANGES FOR SMALLER LOTS LARGER BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT FIRST TEXAS HOMES HAVING LARGER HOMES THAT ARE NOT SELLING AT A FAST PACE. SO OUR WHEN WE TOOK ON THE PD 193, OUR GOAL WAS NOT TO REINVENT THE WHEEL, SO TO SAY, AND TO BUILD ACCORDING TO THIS PLAN RIGHT DURING THE PROCESS OF THE ENTIRE YEAR. LAST YEAR WHEN WE STARTED BACK IN MARCH, WE DID START LOOKING AT HOW THE SALES WERE GOING FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT. AND NOTICE THAT BECAUSE THEY HAD JUST KICKED THAT OFF IN 2023. SO THERE WAS NOT A WHOLE LOT OF DATA THAT WE WERE ADHERE TO. RIGHT? BUT DURING THE PROCESS, YES, WE STARTED REALIZING THAT THOSE SALES ARE SLOW. AND OUR FIRST INCLINATION WHEN WE CAME TO YOU BACK IN OCTOBER WAS ESSENTIALLY OUR GOAL WAS TO HIT THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS TO MAKE THE MATH WORK IS, IS, IS, HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT. AND FROM THAT IS WHEN AFTER MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY AND EVERYTHING, WE SAID, OKAY, WE UNDERSTAND THIS IS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. AND SO WE ESSENTIALLY CAME UP WITH THIS PLAN THAT DOES INCORPORATE THE SF9'S, BUT STILL DOES NOT INCORPORATE THE SF TEN BECAUSE OF WHAT DATA WE NOW HAVE. WE NOW HAVE 20 MONTHS OF DATA FOR THE PROJECT NEXT DOOR.

SO THIS WAS MAYBE A SALES MOTIVATION CHANGE VERSUS A RECOMMENDATION FROM WELL, I THINK YOU WOULD ALWAYS LOOK AT WHAT YOUR MARKET WHAT YOUR MARKET IS RIGHT. WE KNOW CURRENT

[01:15:05]

MARKET IS THERE IS A SUPPLY AND DEMAND WHICH DRIVES PRICES UP. RIGHT. THERE'S ALSO BUILDING MATERIALS, BUILDING LABOR. RIGHT. SO THOSE DRIVE PRICES UP. SO WE HAVE TO EBB AND FLOW WITH WHAT THE MARKET IS SEEKING IN THAT. IN THAT SCENARIO OF TIME FRAME. AND RIGHT NOW THE MARKET IS DESPERATE OR CALLING OUT FOR PRODUCT THAT IS NUMBER ONE PRICED RIGHT. YOU KNOW, THAT IS I'M NOT GOING TO SAY AFFORDABLE, BUT IN ESSENCE, THEY WANT TO LIVE IN A GREAT TOWN LIKE DESOTO, BUT THEY'RE BEING PRICED OUT OR SOMETHING. SO IT NEEDS TO HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF OPTIONS.

AND SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT OUR GOAL HERE IS BY LOOKING AT YES, THIS WAS APPROVED IN 2022.

EVERYTHING WAS SELLING IN 2022. RIGHT. YOU COULDN'T BUILD THEM FAST ENOUGH. NOW YOU'RE STARTING TO SEE WHERE PEOPLE ARE SELECTING A LITTLE BIT MORE, WHETHER IT BE BECAUSE OF FINANCING OR WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. THEY NEED OPTIONS. AND SO I FEEL LIKE OUR COMPANY FEELS LIKE THERE'S IF THERE IS A OPTION RIGHT NOW FOR THE NEXT 5 TO 6 YEARS, IF NOT LONGER FOR THE LARGER LOTS, THERE IS NOT A SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONCERN FOR THE LARGER LOTS, WHERE THERE IS A SUPPLY AND DEMAND. OFF BALANCE IS IN THIS SIZE. LOTS HERE. GOTCHA, I APPRECIATE THAT. AND AT THE MEETING WITH THE RESIDENTS, WHAT WAS THE RESIDENTS? YEAH. RESIDENTS.

RESIDENTS WERE GREAT. SO I WAS I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THE RESIDENTS FELT LIKE THAT THEY HAD COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPER, RIGHT, THAT THEY HAD GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS IN 2022 AND THAT THEY HAD AGREED UPON THIS LAYOUT THAT FULFILLED WHAT THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY AGREED TO. RIGHT? WHAT WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT WAS HOW WE GOT FROM HERE TO THERE, WHICH WOULD BE THE DRAINAGE. RIGHT. AND WHAT WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT WAS TRYING TO TAKE SOMETHING THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE OF THE WATER AND THE DRAINAGE AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND TURN IT INTO SOMETHING THAT'S ACTUALLY FEASIBLE. IT'S NOT FEASIBLE THE WAY THE PD 193 IS RIGHT NOW. OKAY. AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT FEASIBLE. AND SO THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION. I WILL SAY ALSO THE PART OF THE DISCUSSION WAS THE DWELLING UNIT SIZE, RIGHT. THE FEARFULNESS THAT SMALLER DWELLING UNITS THEN WOULD TAKE AWAY FROM, YOU KNOW, HOME VALUES OF OTHER SIZE DWELLING UNITS.

AND I LOOK AT IT AS, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO BRING IN MORE VARIOUS DEMOGRAPHICS, MORE OPTIONS. AND IF YOU LOOK AT OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS SINCE DESOTO RANCH HAD STARTED BEING BUILT, THE EFFICIENCIES OF HOMES HAS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED, RIGHT? THE UTILIZATION OF HOMES HAS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED. AND NOW I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THE NUMBER IS. I KNOW I READ SOMEWHERE THAT 10,000 ADULTS ARE TURNING 65 EVERY DAY, RIGHT? SO IF YOU TAKE THAT OVER 25 YEARS, THAT'S A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, OLDER ADULTS, EMPTY NESTERS, FOLKS THAT DON'T QUITE NEED A LARGER DWELLING UNIT TO TAKE CARE OF. AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BRINGING SOMETHING TO THE MARKET THAT IS NUMBER ONE BUILDABLE. NUMBER TWO FEASIBLE AND NUMBER THREE SELLABLE. DO YOU HAVE A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY RESIDENTS ATTENDED, OF A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY RESIDENTS ATTENDED THAT? OH, YEAH, I SO I THINK THE FIRST ONE WE HAD AROUND 8 TO 10, AND THE SECOND ONE ABOUT THE SAME. SO WE HAD A GOOD WE HAD A GOOD TURNOUT. AND I WILL TELL YOU THIS, I, I HUMBLE AS I CAN BE TO SAY THEY WERE EXTREMELY PASSIONATE ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE. AND I TOOK THAT AND I WENT BACK AND I SAID, WE'VE GOT TO MAKE GOOD ON SOME OF THESE. EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO ALLEYS REQUIRED IN PD 193, THAT WAS A BIG POINT FOR THEM.

RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHY WE INCORPORATED THE ALLEYS AND INCORPORATED THE REAR FACING GARAGE. OKAY. WE ALSO TOOK UPON THE FACT THAT THERE WAS THE DWELLING UNIT ISSUE FOR WHAT THEY HAD AGREED UPON FOR 2000 MINIMUM. AND WE ALSO SAID OUR ORIGINAL ASK WAS 60, 30, TEN. WE CAME BACK AND SAID, HEY, NO, LET'S DO 70 2010 TO TRY TO AGAIN, ANY BUILDER NEEDS THOSE SIZE UNITS TO INCORPORATE A MARKETING PLAN. OKAY, MISS EDWARDS. YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING

[01:20:08]

AGAIN. I JUST WANTED TO GET FOR YOU TO REGURGITATE WHAT YOUR RESPONSE WAS TO THE CITIZEN OR CITIZENS WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR PROPERTY VALUES DECREASING AS A RESULT OF THE SMALLER HOMES NEARBY. RIGHT. SO WE GREAT QUESTION. OUR VIEW IS THAT WHEN WE BRING NEW CONSTRUCTION, NEW CONSTRUCTION IS COMPETE AGAINST NEW CONSTRUCTION, OKAY, PRE-OWNED HOMES ARE SOLD AND COMPETE AGAINST PRE-OWNED HOMES, PRE-SOLD HOMES. RIGHT. AND SO NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTHOUGH THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT IS DIFFERENT THAN A PRE-OWNED SELL, WE FEEL LIKE COMPS ARE NOT COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER, RIGHT? WE HAVE COMPS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND NEW CONSTRUCTION IS SOLD BASED UPON THOSE COMPS. AND THEN PRE-OWNED HOMES ARE SOLD WITH COMPS OF PRE-OWNED HOMES. SO THAT'S OUR THAT'S OUR STANCE. SO IF ANYTHING, I WOULD SAY I WOULD SAY WHEN YOU BRING IN A PRODUCT, A NEW HOME THAT SELLS OR THAT SELLS FOR 200, $225 A SQUARE FOOT, WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS, RIGHT. IT COULD BE 185. IT JUST VARIES. IT VARIES ON AS YOU GET INTO LARGER VERSUS THAT 17 TO 1800 SQUARE FOOT HOME, IT'S GOING TO BE PRICED PER SQUARE FOOT HIGHER. THAT ACTUALLY, IF YOU WERE TO INCORPORATE THAT COMP, IT WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE THE VALUE OF YOUR PRE-OWNED. BUT YOU WOULDN'T NORMALLY COMP THAT BECAUSE IT'S A NEW CONSTRUCTION VERSUS A HOME THAT MAY BE 20 YEARS OLD. SO, SO YOU IF YOU WERE TO BUILD THE DEVELOPMENT AND SIX MONTHS OUT, YOU HAD A NUMBER OF FOLKS WHO WERE WANTING TO SELL, THOSE WOULD BE CONSIDERED PRE-OWNED HOMES. AND SO YOU WOULD COMP THOSE AGAINST THE NEARBY RESIDENCES, RIGHT? YEAH. AGAIN, I'M NOT A REALTOR. OKAY. BUT, YOU KNOW, OUR COMPETITION, OUR BUILDERS COMPETITION. NOW, UNDERSTAND I'M THE DEVELOPER, RIGHT? I'M THE GUY THAT TURNS THE DIRT, PUTS THE WATER, SEWER, ROADS, EVERYTHING ELSE IN. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM A BUILDERS STANDPOINT THAT THEIR COMPETITION IS NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SO I HOPEFULLY THAT I THINK THERE'S CAUSE FOR CONCERN THERE. BUT THANK YOU. OKAY. IF I MIGHT SHARE JUST A LITTLE BIT ON THAT DISCUSSION POINT. TYPICALLY APPRAISERS, WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO APPRAISE A HOME, THE STANDARDS ARE CHANGED. SO WHEN YOU'RE PRAISING A HOME YOU'RE GOING TO STAY WITHIN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S THE FIRST THING YOU TRY TO COMP. WHAT IS EVER WITHIN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THEN THEY'RE TAUGHT TO GO INCREMENTAL STEPS OUT. SO THE NEXT WOULD BE A 10TH OF A MILE, A QUARTER OF A MILE, A HALF A MILE. SO THEY'RE TRYING TO STAY AS CLOSE TO THE AREA AS POSSIBLE. AND YOU GO OUT. YOU'RE ALSO LOOKING TO ENSURE THAT IF IT'S A THREE BEDROOM, TWO BATH, ONE LIVING, YOU WANT TO COME EXACTLY THE SAME THING. WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE WHEN THEY'RE ACCOMPANYING THOSE, THE SMALLER HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE PRICED HIGHER PER SQUARE FOOT. THE LARGER HOUSES ARE PRICED A LITTLE BIT LOWER PER SQUARE FOOT. AND WHAT HE IS SAYING IS CORRECT. EXISTING HOMES, THEY HAVE A DIFFICULT THEY'RE HAVING A DIFFICULTY SELLING BECAUSE THEY CAN'T COMPETE WITH THE NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION. THE BUILDERS HAVE BETTER INTEREST RATES. THEY THROW MORE, MORE SELLER CONCESSIONS AT THEM. SO WHAT HE IS SAYING IS RIGHT ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT, BUT RELATIVE THE VALUE OF A HOME GOING UP OR DOWN, IT REALLY STARTS WITHIN THAT, WITHIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY DO IT WITHIN IT. DOES THAT ADD ANY CLARITY? YES, SIR. AND THE REASON WHY I ASK IS BECAUSE THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERN AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THAT ISSUE. THANK YOU SIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. MR. LOHR, SO I AM EXCITED TO SEE THE ALLEYS. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I THINK IT MIGHT BE FOR STAFF AND YOUR PRESENTATION, I BELIEVE ON SLIDE EIGHT, IT MENTIONED THAT FS EIGHT AND NINE WILL ALL BE FRONT FACING GARAGES. HOWEVER, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE ONES WITH ALLEYS WOULD BE WILL HAVE REAR DRIVEWAYS AND GARAGES. DOES THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED IN THE PD OR IN THESE SLIDES, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT THOSE ALLEY

[01:25:01]

PROPERTIES WILL HAVE REAR FACING GARAGES? IN MY STAFF REPORT ON PAGE THREE, I PUT IN BOLD PRINT THAT INFORMATION ABOUT THE ALLEYS, HOW MANY LOTS THERE'S GOING TO BE BEHIND. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN I SAY THE PROPOSED SF 824 TOTAL, IF YOU GO DOWN TO THAT ALLEY, IS BEHIND 41 OF THE 24 ALLEYS FOR THE SF NINE, 11 BEHIND THE 49. SO WHEN THIS REPORT IS SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, ALONG WITH THE FINAL POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, THAT WILL BE ADDED, AND THEN IT WILL BE CLEARLY WRITTEN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE ORDINANCE ITSELF. SO IT CANNOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD OR INTERPRETED DIFFERENT BY STAFF. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. AND BEFORE WE OPEN UP, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. BREWER BEFORE I FORGET, THE ENGINEER STATED THAT WHEN THEY'RE DOING THE PONDS AND EVERYTHING, THEY'RE GOING TO DO STUDIES TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT THE WATER FLOW IS GOING TO BE RED, I MEAN, PROPER. SO WE'RE NOT FLOODING OUTSIDE. MY QUESTION TO YOU IN THE BUILDING PROCESS, IS OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GOING TO BE WORKING WITH THEM TO ENSURE THOSE THINGS, OR IS THAT JUST SOMETHING THEY TELL US THEY'RE GOING TO DO AND WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY DO IT OR NOT? THE ANSWER IS YES. AS THE DEVELOPER MENTIONED TO YOU, THE FIRST PHASE IS ZONING. YOU GET YOUR ZONING APPROVED, THEN THEY'LL BE COMING BACK AND HAVE TO COME BEFORE YOU WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AFTER. AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMES TO YOU FOR A RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN IT'S SUBMITTED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO DETERMINE THAT THEY AGREE WITH HOW THIS VACANT PROPERTY IS TO BE CARVED OUT AFTER THEY GET THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE NEXT PHASE THAT WE WILL SEE THEM ON IS WHEN THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING TO US AS THEIR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS. WITHIN THOSE CIVIL PLANS, IT'S GOING TO ADDRESS STREETS, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE. WE DO NOT HAVE A WELL, WE HAVE A CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ON STAFF M.D. HIS SPECIALTY IS NOT WITH STORMWATER DRAINAGE. WITH ALL OF OUR SUBDIVISIONS THAT WE HAVE, WE SEND IT OUT TO A THIRD PARTY REVIEWER THAT HAS THAT SPECIALTY SPECIALIST TO REVIEW ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, SAME AS WE DID WITH OUR AQUATIC CENTER SITE, TO REVIEW WHAT THE ENGINEER WHO HAS STAMPED AND SEAL CERTIFIES TO PUT A THIRD LAYER OF REVIEW IN-HOUSE. WE REVIEW STREETS, WATERS, STORM DRAINAGE, SANITARY SEWER. WITH THAT DRAINAGE, WE DO SEND OUT FOR A THIRD PARTY REVIEW TO HELP ASSURE ON OUR BEHALF THAT IT IS DESIGNED CORRECTLY. THANK YOU, MR. BREWER. APPRECIATE THAT. AT THIS TIME, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO BE CALLING UP CITIZENS. MR. CARROLL, DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL CARDS AT THIS TIME? OKAY. IF YOU ARE HERE AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER YOUR OPINION WITH WITH THE COMMISSIONERS FAVOR OR OPPOSITION, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU WOULD GET A CARD OFF THE AMBASSADOR'S DESK AND JUST HAND IT IN TO MR. CARROLL, WHO'S GOING TO BE RIGHT UP HERE SO THAT WE CAN AT LEAST PUT THAT TO THE RECORD. AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO BE TURNING IT OVER TO THE VICE CHAIR, WHO WILL BE CALLING THOSE TO SPEAK. AND SHE WILL ALSO BE THE OFFICIAL TIMEKEEPER VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I HAVE ONE CARD, ONE REGISTERED CITIZEN, MISS DENISE VALENTINE. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, PLACE OF RESIDENCE, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. DENISE VALENTINE, DALLAS. EXCUSE ME. DESOTO, TEXAS. BEEN HERE 31 YEARS. I WAS IN BOTH OF THE MEETINGS OF WITH THE DEVELOPER. I WOULD NOT SAY THAT.

WE ENDED THE LAST MEETING WITH ROUSING APPROVAL. WE KIND OF ENDED IT WITH. OKAY, SO MY ISSUES ARE IN THE IN GENERAL, THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT LARGE LOTS VERSUS SMALLER LOTS, WHAT SALES AND SO FORTH. I WILL SAY THAT THE SUBDIVISION THAT IS NEXT TO US, THE NAME IS JUST LEFT ME, BUT THE SUBDIVISION THAT IT IS BUILT BY, FIRST TEXAS. FIRST TEXAS HAS ANOTHER SUBDIVISION THAT'S ON OVILLA ROAD AND WESTMORELAND. THAT SUBDIVISION SOLD LIKE HOTCAKES. AND HOW ABOUT IT WAS HALF ACRE LOTS SO I DON'T BUY IT. I YES, THERE NEEDS TO BE A VARIETY OF LOT SIZES, BUT THEY WILL SELL. THE DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN THAT THIS THIS SET OF

[01:30:04]

HOUSES CAME ON DURING THE TIME THAT INTEREST RATES WENT UP. SO THAT HAS A LARGE FACTOR. MY ISSUES ARE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OF THE LARGER LOTS. WE DID MAKE AN AGREEMENT EARLY ON TO HAVE THE SMALLER LOTS. AT THAT TIME THERE WAS 120 OF THEM, NOW THERE'S 124. WE HAD 57 NINES AND TENS. NOW THERE'S 49 OF ONLY NINES, AND THE NINES HAVE DEVIATIONS. THE DWELLING UNIT SIZE IS AN ISSUE. I DO SEE THE NEED FOR SMALL LOTS WITH LARGE HOUSES. I DON'T LIKE THEM, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. A LOT OF PEOPLE DO, BUT THE DWELLING UNIT SIZE DOES ADDRESS DEMOGRAPHICS. AS HE SAID, 2000FT■S IS THE PLACE THAT WE WOULD LIKE IT. THE DRAWING WITH THE ALLEYS. I'M VERY GLAD TO SEE. I COULD HAVE SWORN THAT THAT'S THE WAY THE LAST ONE WAS.

IT HAD THREE ALLEYS IN IT AND A VERY SIMILAR PLACE WHERE THESE ARE. I KNOW THAT STAFF HAS SAID THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT IS IN THE RECORD. THAT IS WHAT I REMEMBER. AND AS YOU CAN ALREADY SEE BY SOME OF MY DISCUSSION, THE OLD STEEL TRAP AIN'T WHAT IT USED TO BE. BUT I'M VERY HAPPY TO SEE THOSE ALLEYS GO BACK IN THE CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE 2022 THAT MAKE US EVEN MORE LEERY OF THESE SMALLER LOTS, DOES HAVE TO DO WITH THOSE HUGE GARBAGE CANS, AND THE FACT THAT THEY WILL BE FRONT FACING THE MAJORITY OF THEM, AND THERE WILL BE NOWHERE FOR THEM TO PUT THOSE LARGE GARBAGE CANS EXCEPT IN THE FRONT NEXT TO ALL THE NEIGHBORS WITH THEIRS IN FRONT. WE DO HAVE WE DO HAVE ANOTHER LOT, ANOTHER SET OF HOUSES IN OUR AREA WITH 6500 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION HAS ALLEYS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WE HAVE OTHERS. ORLANDO. COSIMO I MAY HAVE MISSED FOR OR AGAINST. OH, I'M SORRY, MISS VALENTINE. YOU'RE IN FAVOR OR AGAINST. AGAINST. THANK YOU. PLEASE APPROACH. GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE.

YES. GOOD EVENING. YOLANDA. COSIMO DE SOTO, RESIDENT I. I WILL DITTO THE COMMENTS OF DENISE VALENTINE, SO I WON'T PROLONG AND ADD TO MINE. BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT I DID ATTEND THE SECOND MEETING AND IT WAS. IT WAS A MEETING THAT WE ALL LEFT STILL WITH QUESTION. WE STILL LEFT WITH SOME CONCERNS. AND MY CONCERN WAS ONE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PARKERVILLE IN THE OLE, IF, YOU KNOW, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, YOU HAVE A VACANT LOT THAT HAS COWS ON IT, AND THEN DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THAT ONE, YOU HAVE SOME HOUSES THAT ARE OLDER HOMES THAT ARE CURRENTLY PRICE POINT BETWEEN 190,000 TO 200,000. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE FIRST TEXAS HOME HAVING TO REDUCE THEIR COST, THAT IS TRUE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SELLING. MY CONCERN WOULD BE, IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING IN 1550 SQUARE FOOT HOME, AND IN OUR MEETING, I ASKED WHAT WOULD BE THE AVERAGE PRICE POINT. HE SAID STARTING AT ABOUT 350,000. THAT'S WHERE HE CAME WITH THE $225 A SQUARE FOOT, WHICH IS ABOVE THE MARKET RATE. SO THAT IS THE CURRENT CONCERN THAT I HAVE, BECAUSE IF WE'RE NOT SELLING HALF $1 MILLION HOMES AND WE'RE HAVING TO REDUCE THE COST, WHY WOULD SOMEONE INVEST IN A 1500 SQUARE FOOT HOME AT $225 A SQUARE FOOT? AND I DID ASK, WAS THAT 1500 SQUARE FOOT FEET? WAS THAT LIVABLE SPACE, OR DID THAT INCLUDE THE DOG HOUSES AND THE HIPS THAT ARE BUILT ON TOP OF THE HOMES? WHEN HE LOOKED, WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE PLANS THAT HE SHOWED FOR THE FOR THE MARKS OF WHAT THE HOMES WOULD LOOK LIKE, BECAUSE YOU DO SOME BUILDERS DO FACTOR THAT IN A SQUARE FOOT, AND THAT'S JUST EMPTY SPACE AND DEAD SPACE THAT'S NOT USABLE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND FOR THE RECORD, ARE YOU IN FAVOR OR AGAINST I AM AGAINST, THANK YOU. THE NEXT TWO CARDS I HAVE ARE CITIZENS WHO ARE DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK. FIRST I HAVE MISS JOYCE HILL AND SHE SAYS TOO MANY DEVIATIONS. PLEASE DENY I AM OPPOSED. IS THAT CORRECT, MISS HILL? THANK YOU. THE NEXT CARD, MR. BYRON TEMPLE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. BUT HE

[01:35:04]

DOES SAY I AM AGAINST THE BUILDING OF THE SMALL LOTS ON POLK. SO WE'LL REGISTER YOU AS AGAINST. THANKS. OKAY. NO, NO. YEAH. WHEN WE GET BACK TO THE. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? THANK YOU. I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIR. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. SEEING AND HEARING NONE. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 735. THANK. THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR YOUR COMMENTS. COMMISSIONERS. I KNOW WE'VE TAKEN A LONG TIME ON THIS CASE. HOWEVER, I THINK IT'S STILL IMPORTANT WE TAKE JUST A LITTLE BIT LONGER. AND I WANT TO START WITH MR. DEWBERRY AND GIVE MR. DEWBERRY, A LONGTIME RESIDENT.

AND I JUST WANT, IF YOU DON'T MIND JUST SHARING WITH, WITH THE COMMISSION BEFORE WE GO FOR A MOTION, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS RELATIVE TO THE DEVIATIONS, ETC? MR. CHAIRMAN, THE MAIN ISSUE I HAVE IS THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS. THE ORDINANCE CALLS FOR 14 FOOT OKAY WITH 14 FOOT THAT SIDE WALL TO SIDEWALK, NOT EAVE TO EAVE. THEY WANT TO CUT IT DOWN TO FIVE FOOT. THAT SIDE WALL TO SIDEWALK. SO THAT'S TEN FOOT. THAT'S NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EAVE. SO A 12 INCH EAVE OR MAYBE A 16 INCH EAVE. THE PHYSICAL HOUSES ARE CLOSER TOGETHER. AND MY CONCERN THERE IS FIRE SAFETY AND LIFE SAFETY. SO I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH SIDEWALL SETBACKS. AND I UNDERSTAND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. BUT WITH THESE SIDEWALL SETBACKS, I WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY SUPPORTING THE THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DEWBERRY. MR. GRAHAM, I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. WHEN I WHEN I ORIGINALLY ASKED HOW THOSE CALLS WENT, 8 TO 10 PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND THEY WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL. WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT ATTENDED AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEIR QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMPLAINTS THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT FROM THOSE CALLS, FROM THOSE RESIDENTS THAT CAME UP THAT YOU ACTUALLY FIXED OR CHANGED BESIDES THE ALLEY ADDING ADDING THE ALLEYS, RIGHT. SO I SHOULD REPHRASE THAT AND SAY THEY WERE PRODUCTIVE, OKAY. MEANING THAT WE LISTENED TO WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE AND WE WENT BACK AND MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. OKAY. THE CONCERNS WERE, IN MY RECOLLECTION, THE ALLEYS AND THE DWELLING UNIT SIZE. OKAY, OKAY.

AS I STATE, I'M THE DEVELOPER, THE BUILDER. YOU KNOW, WHEN THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT'S CONSIDERED LIVABLE. ET CETERA. THAT'S THAT'S NOT MY EXPERTISE AS A DEVELOPER. SO I'M HAPPY TO TRY TO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, GOING OFF OF WHAT IS CURRENT AS FAR AS SFR BEING 1550. SO WE DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY WE'RE TRYING TO DO A SLIDING SCALE TO STAY WITHIN WHAT WAS PERMITTED ON THE 2000 WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF 70%, AND THEN TRYING TO WORK WITHIN WHAT IS ALREADY BASED. AS FAR AS SF9 BEING 1750. RIGHT. SO WE'RE CALLING THAT 1800. AND THEN WHAT IS BASE FOR SF EIGHT BEING 1550? WE'RE CALLING THAT 1600. SO HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SEE WHERE I'M TRYING TO PROVIDE WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY COMMITTED AND TRY TO WORK WITH ALL THE PARAMETERS OF THE BASE ZONING. ET CETERA. SO THE DWELLING UNIT SIZE AND THE ALLEYS WERE WHAT I PERCEIVED AS THE, THE, THE HOT POINTS FROM THE COMMUNITY. OKAY. IN MY LAST LITTLE BIT NOT TO GET INTO PRICING AND ALL THAT TOO DEEP, BUT WHAT THE LAST RESIDENT THAT SPOKE STATED IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU GUYS REPORTED ON? ABSOLUTELY. SO AGAIN, AND I STATED DURING THAT CONVERSATION THAT I'M NOT THE BUILDER, RIGHT, THAT MY PERCEPTION CAN ONLY GO AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE VERSUS WHAT A BUILDER WOULD PERCEIVE. THANK YOU. AND WHAT WOULD YOU ANSWER BACK TO COMMISSIONER DEWBERRY'S CONCERN ON THE SIDING? ABSOLUTELY. SO I THINK THERE'S ALWAYS A PERCEPTION OR CONCERN ABOUT THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS. RIGHT. AND SO AS IT IS WITHIN RECENT YEARS,

[01:40:01]

WE'RE STARTING TO SEE GO FROM AGAIN, 14 DOWN TO TEN AND FIVE YARD SETBACKS THEN HAVE TEN FEET IN BETWEEN BRICK TO BRICK. SO I COULD SEE THAT. BUT THAT'S JUST HOW ALL THE PRODUCTS ARE BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW. OKAY. MR. LAWYER. SORRY I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. YOU MENTIONED THE SIDE SETBACKS. I'VE. I CAN SHARE MR. DEWBERRY'S CONCERN. WE'VE SEEN DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS GO UP ACROSS DFW, AND SOMETIMES THESE ARE VERY LARGE HOMES BEING BUILT VERY, VERY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.

AND SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH APPROVING THIS AT THIS MOMENT. I'M STILL REALLY PONDERING ON THE TOWNHOME PRODUCTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, RIGHT? I MEAN, THEY'RE BUILT WITHIN TWO FEET, RIGHT? TO MAKE A FIVE FOOT AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. YET AND WHILE I DO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR DENSITY FOR DESOTO. I'M STILL A BIT CONCERNED JUST HOW CLOSE, YOU KNOW, THESE AREN'T TOWNHOMES. THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILIES. NO, NO, THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PRODUCT. SO THANK YOU. I THERE WAS A QUESTION I THINK ABOUT ABOUT THE TRASH BINS. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I KNOW THAT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. AGAIN YOU KNOW, THERE'S HOA MANDATED FOR THIS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. RIGHT. AND SO HOA HOA BYLAWS WOULD INCLUDE THAT DISCRETION ABOUT PLACEMENT AND REMOVAL AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO DO WITH THE TRASH CANS. AND JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION, HAS THE BUILDER BEEN NAMED FOR THIS PROJECT YET? NO, SIR. NOT UNTIL WE CAN GET A CONCEPT, YOU KNOW, ASSURED ZONING PLAN PUT TOGETHER. THEN WE GO OUT TO ALL THE MAJOR BUILDERS. MISS EDWARDS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? JUST. JUST HELP REFRESH MY MEMORY. I'M A LITTLE BIT OVER 60, SO I TEND TO FORGET I'M RIGHT THERE WITH YOU. YEAH. SO THE SF TEN. TELL ME AGAIN WHY IT WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE PREVIOUS PLAN? YES, MA'AM. AS AS MISS VALENTINE INDICATED, THERE WAS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF, OF SF NINE AND TEN. AND I BELIEVE THAT NUMBER WAS 56IN THE ORIGINAL. RIGHT. AND I WOULD TELL YOU, OUR PLAN HERE. ACTUALLY HAS TEN ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FOOT LOTS INSIDE THIS PLAN. THERE IS GOING OFF RECOLLECTION. THERE ARE OVER 15 LOTS THAT HAVE OVER 10,000FT■S. AND YOU CAN IMAGINE, RIGHT, THE CUL DE SACS INCREASE THOSE. SO THERE IS 10,000 SQUARE FOOT PRODUCT IN THIS PLAN. IT'S JUST NOT MANDATED TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT. AS FAR AS WHAT THE ORIGINAL PD WAS. AND THE REASON THAT BEING IS YOU CAN SEE THE BLUE HERE. I BELIEVE IT WAS 34 OF THE SF TEN. OKAY. AND IF YOU TAKE THE SF TEN AND COMBINE THEM WITH THE SF9'S, THAT NUMBER CAME TO 56, RIGHT. SO OVER HERE WE'RE AT 49 OF THE SF NINE. BUT I WILL ALSO TELL YOU THAT. YOU HAVE A TEN ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FOOT LOTS HERE, 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS HERE. AND YOU ALSO HAVE A MIX OF ADDITIONAL 9000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AT SOME OF THESE CORNERS HERE. SO THE TOTAL IS ACTUALLY OVER 56 THAT ARE OVER SF NINE, SF TEN, MEANING THEY'RE OVER 9000 TO 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. IT JUST DOESN'T. WE'RE JUST OPPOSED TO WHAT WE'RE CALLING SF, BECAUSE WHAT WE FEEL AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND DIFFERENT MARKETS DIFFERENT OR PRODUCTS SELL. BUT THIS PROJECT RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO US WOULD BE A DIRECT COMPETITION OR IN ESSENCE, FOR THOSE LARGER LOTS. RIGHT? AND RIGHT NOW THERE'S ENOUGH INVENTORY TO LAST 5 TO 7 YEARS. SO THAT'S OUR REASONING AS NOT TO HAVE SF TENS. COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, ARE YOU ARE YOU GOOD. THANK YOU SIR. ALL RIGHT, MR. BALE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. STAFF, IF YOU COULD REMIND US HOW MANY NOTIFICATIONS WENT OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. AND TRENT, WHILE HE'S LOOKING FOR THAT, COULD YOU PULL UP THE SLIDE THAT SHOWED THE NOTIFICATION AREA?

[01:45:08]

COMMISSIONER, I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER IN MY FOLDER. I'M SORRY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT WE'VE HEARD IS THAT THERE WERE TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS HELD AND TEN PEOPLE, FROM WHAT WE CAN ASSUME IS THE COMMUNITY SHOWED UP TO THOSE AND IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS SOME GOOD DISCUSSION HAPPENING AND PERHAPS NO ONE WALKED AWAY COMPLETELY HAPPY. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS A DIALOG AND EACH SIDE WAS WILLING TO BEND A LITTLE. IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME, I'LL PUT YOU IN THE MIND OF A YOUNG MAN, MAYBE LATE 20S, EARLY 30S, NEWLY MARRIED, SMALL CHILD, RIGHT? HE SAW DE SOTO AND THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL PLACE TO RAISE HIS CHILD, AND HE JUST FELL IN LOVE WITH THE COMMUNITY. AND HE SAID, I'M GOING TO WORK TO MOVE TO THAT LOCATION. AND HE FINALLY WORKED HARD ENOUGH TO THINK HE COULD MOVE THERE. AND WHEN HE WENT TO LOOK, WHAT DID HE FIND? HALF ACRE LOTS, THREE QUARTER ACRE LOTS, 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOMES, VERY HIGH PROPERTY TAXES.

AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A YOUNG MAN STARTING OUT WITH A NEW FAMILY. HIS DREAM ALMOST DIED BECAUSE HE COULD NOT AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT HE LOVED. NOW I IDENTIFY WITH THAT STORY BECAUSE THAT STORY WAS ME. I'VE LIVED IN DESOTO FOR FIVE YEARS. I HAVE A THREE QUARTER ACRE LOT AND A 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. MY WATER BILL IS ENORMOUS. THE HOA WON'T LET ME NOT WATER THAT YARD FRONT AND BACK. I GOT TO DO IT RIGHT. IT'S STILL JUST ME AND MY WIFE AND MY DAUGHTER. WE'VE GOT THREE EXTRA ROOMS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH. WE BOUNCE AROUND ALL THROUGHOUT THEM. RIGHT. I GOT AN OFFICE AND TO AN EXTRA OFFICE. I'M THINKING OF DOWNSIZING. I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE DESOTO. I CAN'T FIND A PLACE TO MOVE MY FAMILY THAT DOESN'T HAVE A HUGE YARD. I'M DONE WITH YARDS. JUST IN CASE Y'ALL DIDN'T REALIZE THAT I WANT A DECENT SIZED HOUSE WITH NO MAINTENANCE. MESA, ARIZONA. THINK THAT AREA, RIGHT? NO YARD ROCKS. IF I CAN'T FIND SOMETHING, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE DESOTO. I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OUT THERE JUST LIKE ME, WITH NEW FAMILIES WHO WANT SMALL COMMUNITIES THAT REFLECT THEIR VALUES AND LOOK LIKE THEM. AND SO I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR DESOTO. AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY THINK ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE AND THAT ATTRACTION. I THINK LAST MEETING WE MENTIONED THAT OUR CHILDREN, OUR GRANDCHILDREN, OUR NIECES AND NEPHEWS, WE WANT THEM TO COME BACK TO DESOTO. WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO LIVE? WE KNOW HOW THE ECONOMY IS. THEY AIN'T GOT NO JOB PAYING 100 K. YOU KNOW, GOD BLESS ME, WHERE I WAS ABLE TO SOMEHOW FIGURE IT OUT. I THINK I WAS HOUSE POOR WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M SAYING ALL THAT TO SAY, I GIVEN THAT OUT OF ALL OF THE NOTIFICATIONS, I'M SURE THERE WAS HUNDREDS, TEN PEOPLE SHOWED UP. I THINK THERE WAS A DIALOG. I THINK THE DEVELOPERS DID WHAT THEY COULD. GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WATER FLOODING. NO ONE COULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT THEY MADE THE NECESSARY CHANGES. WE DON'T HAVE ANY DENSITY, SO WE'RE GOING TO GET SOME DENSITY OUT OF THIS. I THINK THESE ARE PERFECT LITTLE HOUSES, IN MY OPINION. I WOULD SAY I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S MY PIECE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, SO MUCH. YOU'RE A GREAT STORYTELLER. I LOVE IT. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED MR. BREWER WHEN YOU SAID HOW MANY NOTIFICATIONS WENT OUT. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NOTIFICATIONS FOR OUR MEETING OR NOTIFICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC FOR THEIR MEETINGS, TO THE PUBLIC FOR THIS MEETING THAT WE NORMALLY SEND OUT WHEN WE'RE HAVING THESE MEETINGS? OKAY, THE NOTIFICATION AREA, MR. BREWER, WOULD YOU JUST WALK US THROUGH THAT AREA AGAIN? BECAUSE IF YOU NOTICE, THERE'S A LOT OF PLACES NOT GETTING HIT. AGAIN, THE BLACK IS THE FIVE LOSSES UNDER CONSIDERATION RIGHT NOW. THE 200 FOOT ARC IS THE BLUE. SO THIS NORTHERN AREA DOES NOT TOUCH ANY OF THE HOMES TO THE NORTH. YOU COME ACROSS ON THE WEST IT IS INTO THE APARTMENT AREAS. YOU COME TO THE SOUTH, THERE'S A LARGE VACANT, NOT A VACANT LOT. IT HAS A BARN AND SOME COWS AND HORSES ON IT. YOU GO BACK TO THE

[01:50:05]

EAST. THESE ARE LARGE TRACTS OF LAND, MAYBE ABOUT FOUR HOMES. HERE. YOU DO HIT IN THIS AREA.

THIS IS THAT HIDDEN LAKES THAT WE'RE TALKING THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT DEALING WITH THE FIRST TEXAS HOME. THEY WERE SENT NOTICES. WELL I'M SORRY, THE BLUE THEY MAY NOT HAVE EVEN TOUCHED THE FIRST TEXAS HOMES, BUT STILL YOU HAVE THIS AREA HERE. SO PROBABLY IF AT THE MOST MAYBE 5 OR 6 TO THE NORTH IN THAT SUBDIVISION, AS A COURTESY NOTICE, WHICH IS THE PURPLE, BUT ZERO AS THE BLUE, WHICH IS THE HUNDRED FEET, 200 FOOT DISTANCE. SO THE LOCATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSING AROUND IT, YOU WOULD SAY, AT LEAST NOT WITHIN 400FT. I WOULD SAY RESIDENTIAL IS AROUND IT, ALL AROUND IT, BUT NOT WITHIN THAT 200FT DISTANCE. AND AGAIN, THE 200FT DISTANCE IS GOING TO DICTATE HOW THE CITY COUNCIL VOTES. FIRST VOTE WOULD COME FOR YOU IF YOU, AS THE COMMISSION VOTE TO DENY THIS AND THAT MOTION'S PASSED, THEN WHEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE THE COUNCIL TO HAVE TO DO A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT, IF THEY HAVE SIX MEMBERS PRESENT, IT HAS TO BE FIVE. THEY HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF FOUR. SO IF SEVEN MEMBERS ARE THERE, THEN IT HAS TO GET SIX. THAT'S HOW IF YOU VOTE AND YOUR MOTION PASSES TO DENY, IF IT'S BY THE 200 FOOT DISTANCE, THEN THAT WILL ESTABLISH A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE COUNCIL. NO MATTER HOW MANY ARE SITTING. IT'S SEVEN SHOWS UP. IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST SIX. IF SIX SHOWS UP, IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST SIX. IF FIVE MEMBERS SHOW UP, IT'S DEAD ON ARRIVAL. IF WE GET BACK, AT LEAST BY THE DAY BEFORE THAT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH TO LET YOU KNOW, THIS CASE WILL BE GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH THE 18TH. SO ALL THE WAY UP TO MARCH 17TH, WE'RE GOING TO BE COLLECTING NOTICES, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO DETERMINE IF IT TRIGGERS THAT 20%. BUT THE ONLY WAY IT COULD IS GOING TO BE DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH IS BEING TOUCHED OVER HERE AND IF ANY OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS, BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS IS A PROPERTY OWNER, BUT IT'S NOT THE INDIVIDUAL TENANTS IN THE APARTMENT. THIS IS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. BUT WE'LL TAKE THEM ALL THE WAY UP TO THE 17TH. WELL STAFF WILL TAKE IT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE 17TH. MR. HILL, ARE YOU GOOD, MR. BURRELL? YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? OF COURSE I DO. SO WHEN WE HEAR CASES HERE ON THIS COMMISSION, WE ARE BALANCING A COUPLE OF THINGS BEFORE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL. FIRST, ZONING IS A VERY PUBLIC PROCESS. AND ONCE THE ZONING IS APPROVED, OUR ROLE IS TO TRY TO ENSURE WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED. WHATEVER'S COMING BEFORE US KIND OF ALIGNS WITH THAT. THAT APPROVED ZONING, BE IT THE COMP PLAN, BE IT STRAIGHT ZONING, BE IT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, OUR ROLE IS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE CASES ARE ALIGNING WITH THAT. THOSE ZONING THAT'S BEEN APPROVED AND HAD A PUBLIC PROCESS AND HAD STAKEHOLDERS WEIGH IN. SECOND, WE'RE BALANCING WHAT WE HEAR FROM RESIDENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS LIKE TONIGHT AND THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS. WE HEAR FROM OUR STAKEHOLDERS, WE HEAR FROM OUR RESIDENTS. WE HEAR YOUR POSITION ON THE CASES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OR IF YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION. SO THAT'S THE SECOND THING WE KIND OF HAVE TO BALANCE BEFORE WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. AND THIRD, IN MY PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL OPINION, I BELIEVE THAT ALMOST ANYTHING CAN BE ENGINEERED. AND IF IT CAN'T, I EXPECT FOR THE APPLICANTS TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY WHY IT CAN'T. I DIDN'T HEAR ANY.

THE APPLICANT OR DEVELOPER MAKE A CASE TO JUSTIFY WHY THEY CANNOT DO THIS PROJECT WITHIN

[01:55:06]

THE EXISTING ZONING, AND WHY THE DEVIATIONS ARE ACTUALLY NEEDED IN ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO MOVE FORWARD. I DIDN'T HEAR IT. SO THOSE ARE THE THREE THINGS I'M BALANCING WITH MAKING A DECISION. AND WITH THAT SAID, I CAN'T SUPPORT THE CASE BECAUSE NONE OF THOSE HAVE BEEN. I HAVEN'T HEARD ENOUGH TO GO AGAINST WHAT THE ZONING STATES AND WHY WE NEED THOSE WAIVERS, AND HE COULDN'T JUSTIFY WHY IT COULDN'T BE DONE WITHIN THE EXISTING REGULATIONS. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. AND I THANK ALL OF YOU ALL FOR WEIGHING IN ON THIS, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT CASE, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE DEVIATIONS. I JUST WE HAVE ORDINANCES AND WE FIND REASONS TO GET AROUND THEM. AND THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN THIS EVENING. BUT AT THIS TIME I WILL TAKE A MOTION, A MOTION TO DENY CASE NUMBER Z153024. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OH, IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GRAHAM TO DENY AND IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR. ARE YOU READY FOR THE QUESTION? YES. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. IT'S 4 TO 3. THE AYES HAVE IT. HOW DID YOU VOTE? I'M SORRY. NAY. DENIED. OKAY. TO DENY IT. THEY MADE A MOTION TO DENY THAT IT MET. MOTION TO DENY. AND IT PREVAILED BY 4 TO 3. BUT I MEAN, YOU VOTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION? DID NOT.

YEAH, I VOTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION? YES. TO DENY IT APPROVAL. MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M A NO VOTE TO DENY. OKAY. OH, YOU ARE A NO VOTE TO DENY. THEN YOU'RE. ARE YOU DENYING. I THOUGHT THAT YOU VOTED? I AM FOR. OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS VOTE OVER. OKAY. YES, YES. DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE THEN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YES. MISS WARNER, DO YOU MIND CONDUCTING THE ROLL CALL? YOU HAVE TO. YES. YOU GOT TO UNDO THE MOTION.

OKAY. MR. GRAHAM, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PULL YOUR MOTION A MOTION? A MOTION TO PULL BACK MY MOTION TO DENY CASE NUMBER Z153024. IS THERE A SECOND TO PULL BACK THE ORIGINAL MOTION? SECOND. ALL RIGHT, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY NAYS? OKAY, NOW WE'LL START FROM SCRATCH, MISS. I'LL ENTERTAIN A NEW MOTION. I MOTION TO DENY. CASE NUMBER Z153024. IT HAS BEEN MOVED TO DENY THIS CASE. DO I HAVE A SECOND. SECOND BEEN MOVED BY MR. GRAHAM. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR. ARE YOU READY FOR THE QUESTION? I MISS WARNER, IF YOU WOULD, COULD YOU GIVE US A ROLL CALL? ONE SECOND. JUST WANT TO BE SURE WE'RE CLEAR. IF YOU VOTE YES, YOU ARE VOTING TO DENY IT? YES. IF YOU VOTE NO, YOU WANT IT APPROVED. VOTING YES SUPPORTS THE MOTION TO DENY. YOU DON'T KNOW, MISS COMMISSIONER WARNER BELL, HOW DO YOU VOTE? MY VOTE IS NO FOR THE REASON THAT THE DEVIATIONS HAVE. DON'T NEED AN EXPLANATION. JUST STATE YOUR KNOW. YES OR NO.

COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, HOW DID YOU VOTE? YES, COMMISSIONER LAROCHE, HOW DO YOU VOTE NO.

CHAIRMAN RAVENEL, HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES. YES, YES. COMMISSIONER BERRY. YES, YES.

THIS MOTION PASSED 6 TO 1. WE GET TO. KNOW THE NAYS WERE MR. BELL AND MR. LEROY. MR. LAURA.

I'M SORRY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IT'S STILL A DENY. YES. THE MOTION PREVAILS BY A VOTE OF 5

[02:00:01]

TO 2. THANK YOU. MAY WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND WE'LL RETURN. THE TIME IS 8:00. WE'LL RETURN AT 805. ALL RIGHT. THE TE IS 805. AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING IS BACK IN

[2. Discuss and consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding an applicant's request to rezone Tracts 7.1 and 8.1 in the John Lewis Survey, Abstract 774 (1404 and 1406 S. Hampton Road) from existing Agricultural (A) to Single Family Attached (SFA). (Public Hearing was officially continued and closed during the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on January 14, 2025. A motion prevailed to table the case and continue discussion of the case on February 11, 2025.) The combined property is approximately 2.96 acres and is generally located along the east side of S. Hampton Road, south of E. Parkerville Road and north of the DeSoto/Glenn Heights city limit. The applicant is JJ Cuellar of Southland Consulting Engineers and the property owner is Rodolfo (Rudy) Carrillo. (Case # Z-1534-24)]

SESSION. OUR SECOND CASE THIS EVENING IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AN APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO REZONE TRACTS 7.1 AND 8.1. IN THE JOHN LEWIS SURVEY EXTRACT 774, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS 1404 AND 1406 SOUTHAMPTON ROAD FROM EXISTING AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OFFICIALLY CONTINUED AND CLOSED DURING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ON JANUARY THE 14TH, 2025, A MOTION PREVAILED TO TABLE THE CASE AND TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF THE CASE ON FEBRUARY 11TH, 2025. THE COMBINED PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 2.96 ACRES AND IS GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTHAMPTON ROAD, SOUTH OF EAST PARKERVILLE ROAD, AND NORTH OF THE DESOTO GLEN HEIGHTS CITY LIMIT. THE APPLICANT IS J. J SAILOR OF SOUTHLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RODOLFO CARRILLO. THIS IS CASE NUMBER Z153424. AND MISS JORDAN WILLIAMS, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION. AS THE CHAIRMAN SAID BEFORE, THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH CALLS FOR MEDIUM DENSITY AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, WHICH IS TOWNHOMES, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE. HERE IS THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE DEVELOPMENT IS TO THE SOUTHERN WEST CORNER. THE NOTIFICATIONS WAS PUBLISHED ON NOVEMBER 24TH, 2024, IN THE DAILY FOCUS NEWS. THERE WERE 62 LETTERS THAT WENT OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS DURING THE FIRST MEETING. WE HAD NO LETTERS THAT CAME BACK. WE DID RECEIVE THREE AT THE MEETING AND WE HAD ONE TO COME IN YESTERDAY. IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PROJECT. STAFF RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO REQUEST THE REZONING FROM AGRICULTURE TO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AS REQUESTED. COMMISSIONERS, JUST STAY THERE, MISS JORDAN WILLIAMS, JUST IN CASE. COMMISSIONERS, YOU REMEMBER WE HAD THIS CASE, THE LAST CASE, AND WE DID CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT. SO THAT'S BASICALLY THIS CASE IS COMING BEFORE US TO JUST ASK THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS THIS EVENING. BUT IF YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR MISS JORDAN WILLIAMS, WE WILL ENTERTAIN THEM AT THIS TIME. OKAY. SEEING NO QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MISS JORDAN WILLIAMS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S THE APPLICANT HERE. YES, SIR. HE IS. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE. AND IF COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY ME. JUST GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTIONS.

HELLO. GOOD EVENING, I'M JJ CUELLAR, I'M WITH THE SOUTHLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND I AM THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THIS PROJECT. I'M WITH MR. RUDY CARRILLO, WHO'S THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE FOR THE PROJECT. SO WE'LL HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

NO QUESTION. COMMISSIONERS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME. A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE Z153424. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. GRAHAM TO APPROVE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BELL? GIVE ME ONE. ONE SECOND THERE. CAN YOU LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS ALREADY CLOSED AND WE CAN'T REOPEN? OKAY. IF YOU WERE HERE, THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT THE LAST MEETING. IT WAS TABLED TO COME BACK, ONLY TO HEAR FROM THE

[02:05:05]

APPLICANT. SO THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS ALREADY OCCURRED ON THIS CASE. AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE OPENING IT BACK UP IS THAT THERE WERE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. BUT APPARENTLY THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED AT THIS POINT. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IS WHY WE'RE NOT OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IT CANNOT BE REOPENED, BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO SEND NOTIFICATIONS OUT, ETC, IN ORDER TO OPEN IT UP. SO IT'S ALREADY BEEN OPENED. IT'S BEEN CLOSED AT THE FINAL MEETING. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. GRAHAM TO APPROVE. WAS IT SECOND BY MR. BELL AND SECOND BY MR. BELL? ARE YOU READY FOR THE QUESTION? ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY I. I ANY OPPOSES. ALL RIGHT.

IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ITEM THREE. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND

[3. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council for the applicant's request to amend Planned Development-121 (PD-121) in order to revise both the Landscape Plan (Exhibit "F") and the Building Elevation Plans (Exhibit "G") for the proposed Multi-Family Development section of this PD identified as the "Parc at Daniel Farms". This 81.539 acre Planned Development is legally described as being Tract 24 in the Jeptha May Survey, Abstract 860 (9100 Bolton Boone Drive). This property is generally located north of W. Danieldale Road and west of Bolton Boone Drive. The applicant is Ashley Reynolds of Westwood PS and the property owner is DPP DeSoto Professional Park LLC. (Case # Z-1535-24)]

CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT. 121 IN ORDER TO REVISE BOTH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THE BUILDING ELEVATION PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THIS PD, IDENTIFIED AS THE PARK AT DANIEL FORMS. THIS IS AN 81.539 ACRE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING TRACT 24. IN THE JEPHTHAH MAY SURVEY ABSTRACT 8860, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS 9100 BOLTON DRIVE. THIS PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST DANIEL ROAD, DANIEL DALE ROAD, AND WEST OF BOLTON DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS ASHLEY REYNOLDS OF WESTWOOD, P.S, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DPP DE SOTO PROFESSIONAL PARK, LLC. THIS IS CASE Z1535-24 AND MR. BREWER, WE'RE READY FOR THE PRESENTATION. YES. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. I WILL SAY I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS PRESENTING THIS UNTIL EARLIER TODAY. SO I DID A QUICK POWERPOINT PRESENTATION AND HOPEFULLY I DON'T HAVE ANY ERRORS IN IT. I'M FAMILIAR WITH BEST'S REPORT, BUT I WASN'T AS NECESSARILY PLANNING ON PRESENTING IT. BUT I'LL DO THE BEST THAT I CAN. THE PROPERTY LOCATED IS ABOUT IS OVER 81 ACRES. THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY BY ORDINANCE 2094 17. SO BACK IN 2017. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF DANIEL DALE. THIS IS BOLTON BOONE HERE. THE 81 ACRES CONSISTS OF ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES. AND THE PD THAT WAS APPROVED CARVED THIS LOT UP, CARVED THIS PROPERTY UP. SO THAT WHERE I'M SHOWING THE ARROW HERE FROM HERE, GOING ALL THE WAY UP NORTH ARE THREE SETS OF MULTIFAMILY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE OFFICE OFFICES. SO WITHIN THIS THREE SECTION, THERE'S AN ENGINEER REPRESENTING A 30 ACRE SECTION OF THIS PROPERTY THAT HAS IDENTIFIED DESIRE TO AMEND THE BUILDING ELEVATION REVIEW AND LANDSCAPE PLANS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PD THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE, IT DOES CLEARLY IDENTIFY THAT IN 2017 YOU HAD TO BUILD, YOU HAD TO BE YOU WERE APPROVED BY THAT CONCEPT PLAN, YOU WERE APPROVED BY THOSE BUILDING ELEVATIONS, AND YOU WAS APPROVED BY THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN. AND SO THEY ARE FEELING THAT THEY ARE DESIRING TO CHANGE THE BUILDING ELEVATION REVIEW AND THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. AS SHOWN HERE. THE ENTIRE ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY IS PD 21. YOU HAVE A CROSS STREET ON THE EAST VACANT PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED ZERO ONE. TO THE SOUTH IS THE HOMESTEAD DANIEL DALE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. AND THEN YOU HAVE A OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT HERE WITH THE PD GOING ANOTHER SET OF PD OF OFFICES GOING TO THE NORTH. ON JULY THE 18TH, 2017, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED ORDINANCE 2094 17, AMENDING AND RESTATING PD 121 FOR AN AREA NORTH OF DANIEL DALE AND WEST OF BOWDEN BOONE.

AGAIN, IT'S 81.539 ACRES. SECTION NINE OF THAT APPROVED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SECTION OF THIS PD, IDENTIFIED AS THE DANIEL PARK MULTIFAMILY.

[02:10:06]

THIS MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MF1 REGULATIONS OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. THE DETAILED SITE PLAN, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT E, WAS APPROVED. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN OF EXHIBIT F WAS APPROVED, AND THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS G WAS APPROVED. THIS IS THAT UPPER. IT'S NORTH IS GOING TO THE BOTTOM. SOUTH IS GOING TO THE TOP. THE SECTION WE'RE REFERRING TO HERE IS NOT ALL OF THIS. THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE MULTIFAMILY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS AREA HERE. THIS IS THAT PARK OF DANIEL DALE HERE. A THIS IS A THE ACTUAL LANDSCAPE VIEW OF THAT WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THAT ORDINANCE. EXHIBIT F THESE WERE THE SOME OF THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS, EACH ONE OF THE SITES HAVE THREE PROPOSED DIFFERENT BUILDINGS.

AND I WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE LARGER VIEW TO REALLY SEE THE TRUE DIFFERENCE OF WHAT THEY WERE PROPOSING THEN AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING NOW. SO THESE ARE YES, IT'S BLACK AND WHITE, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN THE ORDINANCE FILE. BUT AS YOU SAID, THEN, YOU KNOW, IT SHOWS THE ELEVATION ELEVATION REVIEW AGAIN CITIES WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GO INTO THE BUILDING MATERIAL, BUT THE ELEVATIONAL VIEW IS WHAT WE ARE STILL ALLOWED TO HOLD DEVELOPERS. AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS APPROVED. YOU HAVE THREE SETS OF BUILDINGS A, B AND C PLUS A CLUBHOUSE. SO THIS IS WHAT WAS PROPOSED BACK IN 2017. THIS IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN. AND AGAIN WE'RE REFERRING TO THIS SECTION ON THE RIGHT. NORTH IS GOING TO THE RIGHT WEST OF SOUTH. BUT IT'S THIS SITE HERE THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING BECAUSE THEY DID SOME SMALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE PARKING LAYOUT WHICH WE COULD WORK WITH. THEY'RE PROPOSING HAD TO DO A DIFFERENT LANDSCAPING. AND SINCE THAT PLAN WAS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY SUBMITTED, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT TO US. AND WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS AMENDMENT PROCESS TO AMEND THE SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATION REVIEW.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A SINGLE SHEET OF THE LARGER DRAWINGS THAT I GAVE TO YOU TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. THIS IS THE CLUBHOUSE. AND THAT'S THE NEW VIEW. AND AS YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY WAS CREATING BACK IN 2017. STARFIELD IS A NICE PRODUCT, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, AGAINST IT. SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND BY MOTION, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE EXISTING PD 121, IN ORDER TO REVISE BOTH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHICH EXHIBIT F, AND THE BUILDING ELEVATION PLANS, WHICH IS G FOR THIS, PD 121 AS PRESENTED. EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND. A REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY DETAILED QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION, MR. BREWER. COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. BREWER? MR. BALE, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. MR. BREWER, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE SPECIFIC CHANGES THAT THEY WERE REQUESTING? AS WE SAID, THE BUILDING ELEVATION REVIEW AND CHANGING THE LANDSCAPING, BUT THERE'S NO DETAIL BEYOND CHANGING THE LANDSCAPING AND CHANGING WHAT THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THOSE TWO. OKAY, SAME NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, SAME PROPOSAL OF HAVING THREE DIFFERENT MODELS OF THOSE BUILDINGS AND A CLUBHOUSE. GREEN AREA SIZE REMAINS THE SAME, SO IT'S JUST COSMETIC CHANGES BASICALLY. THEN IN A SENSE, YES. GOT IT. BUT IT'S REQUIRED BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE SAYS IT HAS TO BE BUILT PER THAT APPROVED BUILDING ELEVATION AND THAT APPROVED LANDSCAPING. AND WE HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY, BUT THEY HAD TO MAKE SOME CHANGES. SO THAT'S WHY THEY GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. MR. BREWER. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THERE WAS A LETTER THAT CAME FROM WESTWOOD THAT WAS ADDRESSED TO MR. ROSSI. AND IN IT, IN ITEM ONE IT SAYS REVISE EXHIBIT E, THE CHANGES

[02:15:10]

BEING MADE TO THE EXHIBIT ARE AS FOLLOWS. AND PERHAPS I OVERLOOKED, BUT I COULD NOT FIND THEIR STATING THAT THE THINGS A THROUGH M ARE CHANGES WHICH WOULD INDICATE TO ME THAT THEY'RE MAKING CHANGES OTHER THAN THE ELEVATION CHANGES, THE ROOF CHANGES, AND THE LANDSCAPE CHANGES. SO DO YOU HAVE THAT LETTER? YES, SIR. ONE SECOND. IT'S REFERRING TO EXHIBIT E. DO YOU HAVE A DATE ON THAT LETTER? I'M SEEING A DECEMBER, JANUARY THE 22ND HERE. YOU CAN TAKE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH AND GET THIS. OKAY. RIGHT HERE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

YES, CHAIRMAN. THOSE ARE THE BUILDINGS THAT I WAS REFERRING TO THAT HAVE CHANGED THE CLUBHOUSE. I MENTIONED HOW THEY HAD THREE TYPES OF BUILDINGS A, B AND C, AND WHAT THIS IS SHOWING IS THAT THE FOOTPRINT DEALING WITH THOSE BUILDINGS ARE CHANGING. OKAY. THE REASON I WAS ASKING IS BECAUSE IT MENTIONED SQUARE FOOTAGE AND I WASN'T SURE IF IT WAS A SQUARE FOOT INCREASE, A SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION. BUT THEY'RE REFERRING TO THEY REFER TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AS A CHANGE. IF YOU NOTICE IF YOU THEY SAY CLUBHOUSE AND THEN THEY SAY SQUARE FOOT.

AND HONESTLY, AT THIS POINT I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER WHAT WAS VERSUS WHAT IS OKAY. IF THAT NEEDS TO COME BACK, THAT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK TO YOU SHOULD YOU DECIDE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. BREWER? ALL RIGHT. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND THEY WISH TO COME AND HAVE. DO THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION, MR. BREWER? NO, SIR. THEY DO NOT HAVE A. I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO COME AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY COME FROM THE COMMISSION. HI, I'M ASHLEY REYNOLDS. I'M A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF DALLAS. I'M JUST HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. MR. BELL. HELLO, MR. REYNOLDS, THANK YOU FOR COMING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS SAYING WHEN I POSED THE STAFF, CAN YOU KIND OF DETAIL EXACTLY WHAT CHANGES YOU GUYS ARE PLANNING TO MAKE TO THE LANDSCAPING AND THE ELEVATION OF THE BUILDINGS? SURE. I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN SPEAK TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. I'M JUST THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT. I KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE LOCATIONS OF PLANTINGS, AND MAYBE THE TREE TYPES THAT WERE BEING PLANTED. I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT WAS ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS FAR AS THE BUILDINGS GO. I THINK THERE WERE MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING AND MAYBE SOME TWEAKS TO THE INDIVIDUAL UNIT LAYOUTS, AND THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THE CHANGES TO THE FOOTPRINT SQUARE FOOTAGE.

AND THEN I BELIEVE THE CLUBHOUSE SIZE WAS INCREASED FOR THE FIRST PHASE. GOT IT. WAS THERE ANY ENCUMBRANCES OR ANY ISSUES WHICH PROMPTED THE NEED TO MAKE THESE CHANGES? I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

I THINK THE ARCHITECT OR THE DEVELOPERS HERE AS WELL, THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. I AM JOHN CLAYTON, THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND I REPRESENT THE OWNER. I'LL GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIC. I PICKED THIS PROJECT UP A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. IT HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. PREVIOUS VERSIONS IN OUR OFFICE, AND WE'VE OWNED THIS LAND FOR A WHILE. AND HONESTLY, THE ELEVATIONS AS THEY WERE PRESENTED IN 2017 AND THE UNIT LAYOUTS AND THE CLUBHOUSE LAYOUT ARE NO LONGER REALLY WHAT WE'RE BUILDING IN THE MARKET THESE DAYS. CLOSE TO TEN YEARS LATER, I REALLY WANTED TO FRESHEN UP THE LOOK OF THE BUILDINGS AND THE UNIT SIZES. THE CHANGES ARE MODERATE. JUST BECAUSE YOU SWITCHED A FEW THINGS AROUND THE BUILDING MIGHT HAVE GROWN A FOOT OR TWO HERE OR THERE, BUT VERY MINOR CHANGES. WE DID NOT CHANGE ANY OF THE LAYOUT OF THE SITE AND AS TO THE LANDSCAPE CHANGES, YOU SAID MORE OF TREE TYPES. WE DID REQUEST IN THE PARKING ISLANDS TO REMOVE THE TURF GRASS AND REPLACE IT WITH GROUND COVER AND THE LIKE, PLACES WHERE WE HAVE A HARD TIME

[02:20:01]

GETTING TURF GRASS TO GROW, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO VERY, VERY MINOR CHANGES. LAST QUESTION.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, THERE WEREN'T ANY CHANGES TO DOOR NUMBERS OR PARKING SPACE NUMBERS. NO, NO, WE DID REMOVE A COUPLE OF PARKING ISLANDS AROUND A LITTLE BIT, BUT VERY SMALL TWEAKS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THANK YOU. YES. PLEASE COME IN. TELL ME YOUR NAME AGAIN. JOHN CLAYTON, MR. CLAYTON? YES, SIR. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS LETTER THAT WAS SENT IN? I AM, I'M GOING TO.

I'M HESITANT TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT I HAVEN'T. I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. SURE. AND I WASN'T ABLE TO GET THAT INFORMATION BEFORE THE MEETING. BUT YOU'VE GOT JUST A LIST OF ITEMS THAT YOU SAY ARE BEING CHANGED, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHANGES WERE THAT WE AGREED UPON AND WHAT THE CHANGES ARE NOW. CORRECT. AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING WAY OUT OF WHAT THE ORDINANCE WITH THE PD STATED. AND THIS LIST IS, I GUESS NUMBER ONE IS PROBABLY THE ONE MOST GERMANE. AND THAT IS JUST ACTUALLY A LIST OF THE CURRENT LOT COVERAGES AND BUILDING SIZES TO SAY THEY HAVEN'T CHANGED BY MORE THAN A HANDFUL OF SQUARE FEET, SQUARE FEET. AND HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW THE ORIGINAL ONES. SO WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY SPECIFIC CHANGES, ANY GIGANTIC CHANGES TO THE FOOTPRINT. SO I HONESTLY, I DIDN'T BOTHER TO MEMORIZE THE OLD ONES AND THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN LISTED HERE.

AND THEN, SORRY, LET ME PUT MY GLASSES ON. IT STINKS GETTING OLDER. TREES ON SITE. THE NUMBER OF TREES, THE ONLY ONE THAT IS REALLY A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WAS THE GROUND COVER AND NOT TURF AS INITIALLY SPECIFIED IN THE PD. AND THAT'S ALL PARKING ISLANDS. AND OF COURSE, AS THE ELEVATIONS CHANGED, WE CHANGED ROOF LINES FROM HIPS TO GABLES, UPDATED WINDOW STYLES AND MATERIAL FINISH CHANGES REMOVED A WHOLE LOT OF STONE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY VERY KIND OF COLOR ON COLOR STONE AND BRICK. WE'VE ADDED A LITTLE BIT MORE COLOR VARIATION, SOME STONE AND SOME SIDING ON THERE. THAT ACTUALLY ALLOWS US TO PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE COLOR INTO THE BUILDING, A LITTLE MORE INTEREST, A LITTLE MORE MODERN. FROM WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT IN TODAY'S APARTMENT MARKET THAT WE'RE COMPETING AGAINST, THE PRODUCT THAT WAS DESIGNED WAS HONESTLY OLD WHEN IT WAS PUT ON THERE IN 2017 AND HAS NOT AGED WELL, YOU KNOW, SINCE THEN. SO I, I CAN UNDERSTAND THE HIP AND GABLE CHANGE. I GET IT AND NO PROBLEMS WITH WITH THE ESTHETICS. HAPPY TO COME BACK WITH A VERY DETAILED LIST OF SQUARE FOOT CHANGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IF THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION? OH YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN THE OTHER THING THAT I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS ON THE LANDSCAPE, AND I LOOKED AT ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LANDSCAPE AND THEY ARE ALL STILL AVAILABLE. YOU COULD YOU CAN FIND EVERYTHING. NO, I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE AVAILABLE. I'M TRYING TO MAKE SOME BETTER SELECTIONS. AND HONESTLY, I'D BE LYING IF I WAS. I'M NOT THE LANDSCAPER EITHER, BUT WE'VE STARTED TO PAY MORE PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THOSE THAT ARE DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES AS OPPOSED TO NOT DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES. NOT THAT BIG A DEAL, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO TEN YEARS AGO AS IT IS NOW.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL ABOUT TRYING TO CONSERVE THE WATER. WE PAY FOR A GOOD CHUNK OF THAT IRRIGATION OURSELVES. SO THOSE ARE THE MAIN CHANGES THAT WE'D LIKE TO MAKE. AND WE SPECIFICALLY MAKE THOSE AND SOME OF OUR OLDER PROJECTS WHERE WE'D BE TEARING OLD STUFF OUT AND PLANTING NEW STUFF. OKAY, THAT MAKES THAT MAKES SENSE. THE OTHER THING THAT I WONDERED IS RELATIVE TO THE QUANTITIES, ARE YOU GOING TO BE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF QUANTITIES, THE SAME AMOUNT OF SPACING. EVERYTHING STAYS THE SAME, STAYS THE SAME, JUST THE TYPE OF VEGETATION THAT'S GOING THERE. YES, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN WE LIKE WE LIKE TREES. I'LL PLANT MORE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE THIS EVENING. AT THIS TIME, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. JUST FOR I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. JUST CONFIRMING WHAT THIS RECOMMENDATION MADE BY STAFF WHO IS NO LONGER WITH US. AND MY QUESTION IS BECAUSE I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF CHANGES, IT'S STILL ALIGNS WITH OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND OUR CURRENT ZONING. CAN STAFF CONFIRM THAT THE RECOMMENDATION AND WRITTEN REPORT WAS DONE BY THE PREVIOUS

[02:25:03]

PLANNING ZONING MANAGER? THIS WAS HER REPORT. I WAS INVOLVED WITH A REVIEW OF IT. I DID NOT GO INTO THAT ENTAILS INTENSE DETAILS. WE CAN GET A LARGER COPY TO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN THAT HAS THE BUILDING SIZES. WE CAN DO A COMPARISON OF IT, AND I JUST REALLY WANT TO KNOW IF THE CHANGES STILL COMPLY WITH THE ZONING THAT'S IN PLACE. YES. AND A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. NO OTHER QUESTIONS OKAY. THE TIME IS 830 AND WE WILL. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN OR DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING AND SEEING. NONE. THE TIME IS 831 AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. COMMISSIONERS, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY ONE THING AND I'D OPEN UP THE REST OF YOU. THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS MAKING A DECISION ON SOMETHING. WHEN WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION. AND I JUST DON'T THINK MAKING A DECISION WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES, APPLES TO APPLES, IT TO ME IT'S CONCERN. BUT I'M GOING TO LOOK TO YOU ALL TO BRING THE MOTION THAT YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE, AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO COMMENT ON THIS CASE? ALL RIGHT. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME. I HAVE A COMMENT, MR. CHAIR. I AGREE WITH YOUR APPROACH. WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE DECISIONS WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE COMPARING. AND AS FAR AS I CAN TELL FROM WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, TO ME IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE ARE ANY MAJOR CHANGES OTHER THAN THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. STAFF CONFIRMED THAT WE ARE STILL IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT ZONING AND REGULATIONS. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE JUST UPDATED THEIR PLANS FOR ESTHETICS AND LANDSCAPING. AND SO IF THAT BE THE CASE, THEN I WOULDN'T SEE ANY REASON NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. WHAT ARE YOUR CONCERNS MORE BROADLY? I'M NOT PRIVY TO THE LETTER THAT YOU'VE BEEN REFERENCING. WHAT IN THAT LETTER IS? IT'S IN THE PACKAGE, I MISSED IT, I'M SORRY, BUT IF YOU CAN KIND OF GIVE ME SOME INSIGHT INTO WHAT IS ALARMING IN THE LETTER TO YOU, I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE ALARMING. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M COMPARING IT TO. AND SO THEREFORE WE COULD BE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT IS SO FAR OFF OF THE ORIGINAL. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING IT HAS. THERE HAS ONE EXHIBIT THAT THEY'RE REFERENCING TO E! AND THEY SAID THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING MADE TO THIS EXHIBIT ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE CLUBHOUSE SQUARE FOOTAGE BUILDING TYPE A SQUARE FOOTAGE BUILDING, TYPE B LOT COVERAGE. LOT COVERAGE. BUILDING C THE LOT COVERAGE UNIT TYPE A SQUARE FOOTAGE, A TWO SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND THEN IT JUST GOES ON. THEN IT SAYS EXHIBIT F, SLIGHT ALTERATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGES TO THE PARKING LOT AND TO THE POOL HOUSE. WHAT IS WHAT IS SLIGHT ALTERATIONS MEAN TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES ON THE SITE.

TOTAL NUMBER OF SCREENING SHRUBS. ALL PARKING ISLANDS, PLANTING WITH GROUND COVER.

REVISED EXHIBIT G. THE CHANGES BEING MADE TO THIS EXHIBIT ARE AS FOLLOWS. AND THIS. WE KNOW.

THIS. WE SEE THIS. THE ROOF LINE CHANGE FROM GABLES TO HIP. OVERALL, MASSING HAS BEEN REVISED TO INCLUDE SHED ROOFS AT ENTRY. TOWER ELEMENTS. DORMERS HAVE BEEN REMOVED. WINDOW STYLES HAVE BEEN UPDATED. SO THOSE TYPES OF THINGS AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IF MR. BREWER, YOU HAVE TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG WHEN THESE ORDINANCES WHEN WE PASS THESE PDDS, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. AND WE JUST HAD THAT CASE WHERE THE DEVIATIONS WERE SHIFTING, BUT THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR DEVIATIONS. SO BUT THEY HAVE A WHOLE LONG LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE CHANGING. SO THAT'S MY CONCERN. BUT AS I STATED, I'M LOOKING TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO BRING THE MOTION TO THE FLOOR. AND ATTORNEY, IF I MAY JUST SAY SOMETHING, JUST HOPEFULLY TO CLARIFY THE WAY THIS WAS ADVERTISED, EXHIBIT E IS NOT CHANGING. SO THE SITE PLAN IS NOT CHANGING WHETHER IT SHOULD BE OR NOT. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY. SO I KNOW A BIG CHUNK OF THAT LETTER IS DISCUSSING EXHIBIT E, BUT BASED ON THE CHANGES WE'RE RECOMMENDING TONIGHT, EXHIBIT E IS NOT CHANGING. BEYOND THAT,

[02:30:01]

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SWITCHING OUT A SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION PLAN THAT'S ESSENTIALLY OPTICS AND LAYOUT. NONE OF THE DEVIATIONS OR REGULATIONS OR ZONING STANDARDS ARE CHANGING IN THIS PD. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THOSE HOPEFULLY, MAYBE CLARIFY SOME OF WHAT'S GOING ON. BUT BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CASE. I JUST WANT TO KIND OF GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO BASICALLY JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M HEARING YOU PROPERLY, WE GOT MORE INFORMATION THAN WE NEEDED. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. TO APPROVE THE PLAN.

DEVELOPMENT 121. IN ORDER TO REVISE BOTH LANDSCAPE AND BUILDING ELEVATION PLANS ON CASE Z153524. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COMMISSIONER. DEWBERRY FOR APPROVAL. AS STAFF PRESENTED. IT HAS BEEN SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BURRELL. ARE YOU READY FOR THE QUESTION? ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY, I, I. THAT MOTION PREVAILS UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU ALL. NOW. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE NOW TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. WE HAVE ONE ONE

[1. Consider making a recommendation to the City Council on the applicant's request to approve the Preliminary Plat titled "Angel Home Addition, Block 1, Lots 1-5". The property consists of approximately 1.785 acres and is legally described as being Tract 15 in the Curtis Parks Survey, Abstract No. 1124 (1124 E. Parkerville Rd). The applicant and property owner is Angel Rascon of Angel Home Builders Inc. (Case No. PP-349-24)]

ITEM THERE. CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TITLE. ANGEL HOME ADDITION BLOCK ONE, LOT ONE THROUGH FIVE. THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 1.785 ACRES AND IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING TRACT 15. IN THE CURTIS PARK SURVEY. ABSTRACT NUMBER 1124, WHICH IS 1124 EAST PARK ROAD. THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ANGEL RASCON OF ANGEL HOMEBUILDERS, INC. THIS IS CASE NUMBER P34924. AND MISS JORDAN WILLIAMS, BEFORE YOU BEGIN CAN I GO TO THE ATTORNEY ON PLATS? PRETTY MUCH IF THEY'RE IN LINE THAT'S JUST WHAT WE DO. CORRECT. IF THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE ORDINANCES AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THEY MUST BE APPROVED. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY, MISS JORDAN. OKAY. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ANGEL HOME ADDITION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT. AS STATED BEFORE, THE PROPERTY IS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST PARKERVILLE ROAD AND TERRACE DRIVE. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SF TEN AND IS APPROXIMATELY 1.8 ACRES IN SIZE. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE PROVIDED FROM EAST PARKERVILLE ROAD AND TERRACE DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE. THE SUBMITTED PLAT WAS PREPARED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR AND MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATION ORDINANCE. THE CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY TEN. TO THE NORTH IS SINGLE FAMILY TEN, WHICH. AMBER TERRACE EARLY CHILDHOOD SITS THERE. TO THE SOUTH IS PD 114 MOCKINGBIRD HILL. TO THE EAST IS SF TEN.

PARK RIDGE ACADEMY DAYCARE, AND TO THE WEST IS PD 38 CHRONIC CARE FACILITY, HOME OF THE FOR THE AGE. THIS IS THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND STAFF RECOMMENDS. APPROVAL. I JUST WANT TO READ WHAT'S ON THE REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PRELIMINARY PLAT, TITLED ANGEL HOME ADDITIONS, BLOCK ONE, LOTS ONE THROUGH FIVE, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BE CORRECTED TO IDENTIFY THAT THE PLAT IS ACTUALLY A PRELIMINARY AND NOT A FINAL PLAT, AND TO ADD LANGUAGE FROM A RECENT CASE WHERE THE APPLICANT WAS APPROVED FOR A VARIANCE REQUESTING THAT ALL THE ALLEYS BE REMOVED. MAY I HAVE TIME? YES, SIR. COMMISSION. JUST FOR ADDED CLARIFICATION. AS YOU SEE HERE, THEY WROTE THE WORD FINAL PLAT. SO THAT'S AN ERROR WITH THIS PLAT BECOMING THAT FIRST STAGE OF A BIBLE. WHILE IT'S PRELIMINARY, THE BIBLE IS GOING TO BE WHEN IT DOES A FINAL PLAT. BUT SINCE THEY WENT THROUGH THE

[02:35:01]

ZBA AND GOT A VARIANCE FROM NOT HAVING ANY ALLEYS, IT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN HERE SO THAT FOR THE RECORD, IT IS ALWAYS DOCUMENTED THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO AN ALLEYS. AGAIN, OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATION ESTABLISHES THAT ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ALLEYS. HE'S PROPOSING FIVE LOTS ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR AND FIVE. THIS IS FRONTAGE HERE ON. PARKERVILLE ROAD. HE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF ALLEY, BUT HE WENT TO THE ZBA AND GOT A VARIANCE. AND THIS DOCUMENT NEEDS TO SHOW THAT YOU AGAIN MAKING RECOMMENDATION ONLY ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. YOUR RECOMMENDATION WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THEN THEY WILL BE INVOLVED WITH GIVING US CIVIL PLANS. IF THEY HAVE ANY SUCH THINGS, I THINK ALL THEY'RE GOING TO BE HAVING JUST IS INDIVIDUAL TAPS PER LOT. ONE OF THE KEY THINGS TO RECOGNIZE IS THAT THERE IS A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT THAT GOES ACROSS. SO WE'RE GIVING YOU THIS. THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE TO SHOW A SIMILAR PROPERTY ALONG PARKERVILLE ACTUALLY HAD TO DO THE SAME THING. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC ROADWAY. IT IS A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT THAT IS ALL ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. WE WILL BE DOING THE SAME THING IN THEIR ORDINANCE. THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT'S GOING TO PAY FOR THAT. ANY MAINTENANCE THAT IS DUE AS AN EASEMENT, EACH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER IS OWNING ALL OF THEIR PROPERTY ALL THE WAY UP TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

BUT THIS ALLOWS THEM AND ANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WANTS TO VISIT THEM TO DRIVE ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY AS A PRIVATE, AS A PRIVATE ACCESS, NOT A PRIVATE, A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. THIS IS DIFFERENT. BUT AS WE SAID, THIS SHOWS HOW IT'S DONE RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. AND WE LOOKED AT THE PLAT AND THAT IS HOW THIS ONE WAS SET UP ALSO. ALSO A KEY PART OF THIS ELEMENT IS OVER HERE FOR LOT FIVE. YOU SEE IT'S A LOT BIGGER LOT, BUT THERE IS A DRAINAGE CHANNEL THAT COMES THROUGH HERE. THIS IS THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL HERE WHERE YOU SEE THE TREES. IT IS ACTUALLY COMING FROM HAMPTON ROAD THAT'S COLLECTING WATER FROM THAT INTERSECTION. AND ALSO WALMART THAT GOES THROUGH THAT OPEN PROPERTY THAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT SUBDIVISION, GOES THROUGH THAT SUBDIVISION, GOES THROUGH THEIR RETENTION POND AND OUTFALLS INTO THIS DRAINAGE CHANNEL. SO THIS DEVELOPER IS GOING TO HAVE PROPERTY THAT HE CAN'T DEVELOP BECAUSE AGAIN, HE CAN'T CLOSE OFF THE DRAINAGE. IT IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED AS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT. AND THEN THIS WATER CONTINUES NORTH AND THEN GOES UNDER TERRACE. SO THE PLAT SF TEN MINIMUM SQUARE LOTS, 10,000FT■S. HE MEETS THAT THE PLAT IS SHOWING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. SO WE'VE VERIFIED ALL OF THAT. BUT HE DOES HAVE TO MAKE THE REQUIREMENT. FIX THE PLAT BEFORE IT GOES TO P AND Z AFTER YOU CITY COUNCIL, AFTER YOU ACT ON IT TO CORRECT THE NAME FROM FINAL TO PRELIMINARY AND SHOW THAT ZBA APPROVAL, I WILL ADDRESS ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. MR. BREWER, I JUST GOT ONE, AND THIS IS JUST BECAUSE I'M CURIOUS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS, BUT WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT THAT YOU SHOWED US, THAT KIND OF HALF DONUT THING TO ALLOW ANYBODY, IN ADDITION TO THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER TO DRIVE THEIR VEHICLES ON THIS OTHER PERSON'S LAND. OH, SO THAT LITTLE PIECE IS OWNED BY SOMEBODY ELSE? NO, NO, LET ME TAKE YOU TO THIS ONE. YEAH. IF YOU WOULD IMAGINE EACH ONE OF THESE LOTS WILL GO ALL THE WAY UP TO THE STREET ITSELF. YEAH. THIS WE WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY CUTS ON THIS MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, I SEE. OKAY, SO THIS IS HOW WE TARGET THAT TO ALLOW A PUBLIC ACCESS DRIVE EASEMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE MAINTAINED BY, IN THAT CASE, ALL FIVE OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS. IT'S NOT A PUBLIC ROAD. IT WON'T BE DESIGNED TO ANY OF OUR ROADWAY

[02:40:04]

STANDARDS, BUT THEY'LL HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT. SO IF THIS PERSON WHO LIVES HERE WOULD LIKE TO DRIVE IN FROM THE EAST AND GET TO HIS PROPERTY THIS WAY, HE IS CROSSING THIS MAN'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, THIS MAN'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND THIS MAN'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND HIS GUEST ARE CROSSING PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO YOU DO IT AS A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. IF YOU WANTED TO DRIVE THROUGH IT, YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH IT BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC, NOT JUST THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS. IT'S PUBLIC. GOT IT. ANYBODY HERE COULD DRIVE THROUGH IT? I COULD DRIVE THROUGH IT AND NOT GET RUN OFF. I THINK I'M GOING TO GO DRIVE THROUGH IT JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT. IS IT? YEAH. I HAVE A QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION. JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, THERE'S AN ACTUAL WAY THAT MAINTAINS THAT. ARE THEY ABLE TO GATE THAT IF THEY WANTED TO? NO, BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. IF IT WAS GOING TO BE A PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY, THEIR PLAT WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT, AND WE'D HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE RIGHT OF WAY IS DEDICATED, BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO HAVE UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR ANY WATER AND SEWER. BUT THE ROADWAY ITSELF WILL BE HANDLED BY THEM.

BUT WE HAVE SOMEBODY THAT THAT WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY. AND BUT THEN AGAIN, THE KEY THING, REALIZE YOU GOT A BIG DRAINAGE AREA THAT GOES THROUGH HERE THAT IS PRIMARILY IT LOOKS LIKE ON LOT FIVE, TOTALLY. THAT'S THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN LOTS FOUR AND FIVE. THAT'S THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT IS CATCHING THE DRAINAGE THAT'S COMING AGAIN ALL THE WAY OVER FROM HAMPTON ROAD THROUGH HERE. YOU CAN'T GET THE DETENTION POND FROM MOCKINGBIRD HILL EMPTIES UNDERNEATH IT. YES, SIR. AND HEADS NORTH TO TEN MILE CREEK. UP THROUGH THERE? YES.

MOCKINGBIRD HILL IS THAT SUBDIVISION REFERRING TO SOUTH SIDE OF PARKVILLE, WEST OF SOUTHAMPTON. SO JUST ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION. WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING, I GUESS, THE SETBACK. DOES THAT INCLUDE THE EASEMENT FROM THE STREET LIKE FOR LIKE AN SF TEN. IT HAS. NO, IT'S GOING TO BE BEHIND THAT EASEMENT. SO THAT EASEMENT IS REALLY ON THEIR PROPERTY. AND IT'S PART OF THAT JUST GOES THROUGH IT. YES. AGAIN THE EASEMENT EACH INDIVIDUAL IS PAYING TAXES ALL THE WAY UP THERE. THIS HAS NOT CUT OFF AND MADE SHORT OF THEIR PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH OTHER FOLKS ARE DRIVING. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE USABLE LAND FOR THEM. THAT'S A PART OF HOW THEY WANT TO DEVELOP IT. SINCE WE WON'T REQUIRE WE WON'T ALLOW INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY CUTS ON THIS MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MR. BREWER. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIR, MAKE A MOTION TO. APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. AS STATED BY STAFF. SECOND CORRECTION. I NEED YOU TO. IF YOU WOULD READ THE RECOMMENDATION. THIS IS CASE NUMBER. RP 34924. MR. CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE CASE NUMBER RP 3492 FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. SECOND, I THINK HE NEEDS YOU TO REFER TO THE ZONING BOARD OF THE BOA AND THEN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. REFERRED TO. OKAY, OKAY, SO, MR. CHAIR, WE'LL TRY THIS AGAIN. RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PRELIMINARY PLAT TITLED ANGEL HOME ADDITION BLOCK ONE, LOT ONE THROUGH FIVE, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BE CORRECTED TO IDENTIFY ON THE PLAT THAT THE CITY'S ZEEBO APPROVED THE APPLICANT'S VARIANCE REQUEST IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE A OR CONSTRUCT ANY ALLEYS WITHIN THE PROPOSED ADDITION AND THE TITLE BOX OF THE PRELIMINARY

[02:45:05]

PLAT TO IDENTIFY THE PLAT AS BEING PRELIMINARY AND NOT A FINAL PLAT. CASE NUMBER RP 34924. THANK YOU. MR. MR. BELL, DO I HAVE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND THAT WE APPROVE CASE NUMBER RP 34924 WITH THE AMENDED STATED IN THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PREVAILS. THANK YOU. WILL YOU HELP US TO KNOW WHO SECONDED, MR. LOHR? COMMISSIONERS, ON THE NEXT ITEM. WE'RE GOING TO NOT HAVE A

[2. Discuss and consider the cancelation of the Planning and Zoning Commission's February 25, 2025 regular meeting due to no new zoning change request applications being submitted to staff as of February 7, 2025.]

MEETING. UNANIMOUS CONSENT, I WOULD SAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND ANY ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST.

[G. ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST Discussion will be limited to the following pursuant to Gov't Code 551.0415: (1) Expressions of thanks, congratulations, or condolence; (2) information regarding holiday schedules; (3) a recognition of an individual; (4) a reminder about an upcoming Planning & Zoning events; (5) announcements involving an imminent threat tithe public health and safety. ]

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO RECOGNIZE A COUPLE OF BIRTHDAYS. VICE CHAIR. SURE. I THINK WE HAVE TWO BIRTHDAYS, TWO COMMISSIONERS CELEBRATING BIRTHDAYS THIS WEEK. COMMISSIONER BELL AND COMMISSIONER EDWARDS. OKAY. HAPPY HAPPY BIRTHDAY. THANK YOU. MY BIRTHDAY WAS YESTERDAY ON THE 10TH WHEN GEORGE. COMMISSIONER, MY BIRTHDAY IS ON FRIDAY, VALENTINE'S DAY. OH. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. HAPPY BIRTHDAY. HAPPY BELATED AND HAPPY PRE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BREWER. ARE THE RUMORS TRUE? IT'S NO RUMORS OKAY. SO YOU DON'T YOU DON'T TELL US ABOUT MISS MOON. YOU DON'T TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF. I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT ME. I HAVE ACCEPTED A POSITION WITH THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE AS THEIR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND ENGINEERING. I HAD THE CITY MANAGER ACTUALLY REACH OUT TO ME MAYBE ABOUT FOUR MONTHS AGO, AND INDICATED THAT ACTUALLY, HE WANTED ME AS HIS DIRECTOR, AND I TOLD HIM I LOVE MY JOB HERE. HE THEN CALLED ME BACK IN DECEMBER AND SAID, MAN, I KNOW YOU TOLD ME NO. I FILLED MY POSITION, BUT I STILL REALLY NEED YOU. AND I HAVE AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR POSITION. YOU KNOW, WE'RE A MUCH LARGER CITY SO I CAN MAKE IT WORK FOR YOU. AND SO I DID SOME SOUL SEARCHING, AND I DECIDED IT WOULD BE BEST FOR ME. SO MY LAST DAY WITH THE CITY SO THAT IT DOESN'T FALL OVER. NORA, I'VE MADE THE COMMITMENT TO TAKE THAT HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE CASE TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON NEXT TUESDAY. AND THEN MY LAST PHYSICAL DAY WILL BE THAT WEDNESDAY THE 19TH. WHO THE CITY MANAGER APPOINTS UNDER THE INTERIM. I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA AT THIS POINT, BUT THEY ARE ADVERTISING FOR MY POSITION. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. PLEASE HAVE THEM APPLY. GO TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE W W W DOT DESOTO TEXAS.GOV. BUT IT'S BEEN. I WOULD HAVE MADE THREE YEARS ON MARCH THE 5TH, BUT I'VE TRULY ENJOYED IT AND ENJOYED WORKING WITH YOU PRIOR. COMMISSIONERS, YOU'VE ALL BEEN VERY PROFESSIONAL. I HAVE WORKED WITH COMMISSIONERS AT OTHER CITIES.

YOU ARE FAR ABOVE THEM IN YOUR PROFESSIONALISM THAT YOU GIVE. SO I THANK YOU FOR THAT AND I'VE ENJOYED IT. IF YOU NEED ME FOR ANYTHING, FEEL FREE TO CALL ME. I'LL STILL GIVE YOU MY PERSONAL PHONE NUMBER. I WON'T SAY IT OVER ONLINE RIGHT NOW, BUT THANK YOU, THANK YOU. HE MIGHT ANSWER THAT PERSONAL PHONE NUMBER. MR. BREWER, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO YOU IS, MAN, YOU KNOW YOUR STUFF. YOU KNOW IT. AND EVERY TIME THAT YOU GOT UP. PARDON? BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO ASK ME QUESTIONS. OKAY. EVERY TIME YOU GET UP THE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE AND THAT YOU DISPLAY TO ME ASSURES DESOTO, YOU'VE GOT A GOOD MAN IN THAT POSITION. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR EVERYTHING AND THANK YOU FOR BEING AVAILABLE. IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO SAY GOODBYE, PLEASE DO SO. I'LL JUST SAY, MR. BREWER, IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE. ALWAYS HAPPY TO SEE YOU. YOU'VE BEEN GREAT. GOOD LUCK. CONGRATULATIONS. I'LL SECOND THAT. CONGRATULATIONS ON TO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT BETTER THINGS, BUT OTHER THINGS. AND I ALSO JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. I WAS A PART OF THE WHAT IS IT CALLED, THE CIVIC ACADEMY. AND YOU ARE ONE OF THE HIGH ON THAT LIST. REASON OF WHY I DECIDED TO JOIN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BOARD. SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING FOR YOU, WITH YOU AND FOR YOU OVER THE LAST

[02:50:01]

YEAR OR SO. I WILL DEFINITELY MISS YOU. BUT I DID MEET THE GRAND. THE GRAND PRAIRIE MAYOR.

HE'S CRAZY. YES, YOU'LL YOU'LL ENJOY THAT. HE'S AN OLD HIPPIE. I'LL START WITH SAYING CONGRATULATIONS. I'M ALWAYS CONCERNED IN THIS REGION BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH GOOD PROFESSIONAL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING STAFF. I'M ALWAYS CONCERNED THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO KEEP PEOPLE LONG BECAUSE THEY'RE HIGHLY RECRUITED ALL THE TIME. SO I KNEW IT WAS PROBABLY GOING TO BE A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE SOMEBODY WAS HITTING YOU UP IN YOUR EMAIL. I WAS JUST HOPING YOU WOULD CONTINUE TO SAY NO, BUT IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU. YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND PROFESSIONALISM IS OFF THE CHAIN AND I'VE REALLY ENJOYED THIS TIME. YOU'VE TAUGHT US A LOT. YOU'VE ALWAYS MAINTAINED YOUR COOL AND PROFESSIONALISM AND I TRULY APPRECIATE THAT. AND I'M SURE I'LL SEE YOU THROUGHOUT THE REGION GOING FORWARD AS WELL. YOU'RE WELCOME. WELL, CONGRATULATIONS. I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER ASKED A QUESTION THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR ME, AND I APPRECIATE IT. YOUR EXPERTISE IS INSANE, SO I LOVE IT. I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO GO OVER THERE AND DO WELL BECAUSE THEY REALLY WANT YOU. SO YOU GO OVER THERE AND DO WELL. THANK YOU. I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY CONGRATULATIONS AND CONTINUE TO SOAR. I JUST WANT TO TELL.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

E. PUBLIC HEARING

F. REGULAR AGENDA

Feb 11, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

E. PUBLIC HEARING

F. REGULAR AGENDA

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item