GOOD EVENING. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
[A. REGULAR SESSION - CALL TO ORDER - 6:30PM in Council Chambers ]
[00:00:03]
BEING LED BY COMMISSIONER DEWBERRY, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING.
THE TIME IS 630, AND THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF DESOTO IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER.
WE DO HAVE ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT.
MISS EDWARDS, MR. LEROY, TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT.
VICE CHAIR BROOKS, MR. GRAHAM AND MR. DEWBERRY.
STAFF IS ALSO PRESENT THIS EVENING.
AND MR. TRENT CARROLL, WOULD YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE SPEAKING THIS EVENING AND WISH TO HAVE YOUR POSITION NOTED BY THIS COMMISSION, PLEASE SEE MR.. CARROLL.
HE'LL GIVE YOU A FORM TO FILL OUT AS LONG AS THOSE FORMS ARE TURNED IN.
BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE WILL HEAR FROM YOU.
WE ALSO HAVE OUR NEW PLANNING MANAGER PRESENT, MISS JORDAN. AND WELCOME.
AND OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MISS COLTON, IS HERE.
AND THE CITY ATTORNEY MR. CALEB SMITH. ALL RIGHT.
OUR FIRST. EXCUSE ME. STAFF, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE THE CITIZEN APPEARANCES BEFORE THE CONSENT AGENDA? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THE CORRECT WAY. YOU ALL WANT TO DO IT. OKAY.
THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS EVENING IS ITEM C.
[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. ]
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 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.
WE HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS WISHING TO SPEAK ON CITIZEN'S APPEARANCES THIS EVENING.
WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE ONLY? MISS VICE CHAIR BROOKS WILL BE TIMING.
YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
THE FIRST PERSON THIS EVENING IS ANNA WILLIAMS. GOOD EVENING, MISS WILLIAMS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.
CHAIRPERSON, VICE CHAIR AND THE COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS ANNA WILLIAMS. BEEN A RESIDENT FOR ALMOST 36 YEARS HERE IN DESOTO, TEXAS. I HAVE A THING OF A COUNTRY WESTERN SINGER THAT I LOVE.
HE. AND IT SAYS IF I'M THE PROBLEM.
BACK AND FORTH. LIKE LIKE SWINGING DOORS.
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE 801 AND I, EAST BELTLINE ROAD AND POLK STREET.
I KNOW, I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T.
YOU SAID WASN'T GOING TO BE HERE, BUT THAT RETAIL PROBLEM IS WHEN THEY HAD THE SIGN THERE. HUGE. WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WOULD JUST BE A RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT.
NOW WE FIND OUT THAT IT IS AN OIL CHANGE.
THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO DESTROY OUR COMMUNITY.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE KIDS THAT WHEN THEY COME TO SCHOOL, WALK ACROSS THE STREET.
WE'VE ALL HAD ALSO HAD SOME THAT HAVE BEEN HIT.
BUT HOW DOES A PERSON LIE AND SAYS, I'M GOING TO DO RETAIL, BUT OH YEAH, BY THE WAY, I'M GOING TO DO SOME OIL CHANGE.
FRANK. I KNOW ROOSEVELT TAUGHT ME I CAN CHANGE MY OWN OIL.
[00:05:01]
WE NEED OUR ENVIRONMENT.THIS WOULD DESTROY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THERE'S HOMES OVER THERE, AND I COULD SEE THE RETAIL PART OF IT.
BUT YOU SEE SOMEONE LIVING IN A HOME, LIVING IN HOMES.
AND YET. AND STILL YOU WANT AN OIL CHANGE THERE.
THAT IS HORRIBLE. OUR CHILDREN, OUR SENIOR CITIZENS, WE ARE BEING FLEECED BY A LOT OF THE MONEY ON THIS EAST SIDE OF DESOTO.
ABSOLUTELY FLEECED. WE PAY OUR TAXES.
WE STRUGGLE TO PAY OUR TAXES BECAUSE WE HAVE A MINIMUM INCOME.
BUT NOBODY SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND THAT OR WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THAT.
WE HAVE HOTELS NOW THAT PEOPLE DON'T EVEN PAY FOR.
BUT. AND I SAY THE POLICE NEED TO GO LOCK UP ALL THEM HOTELS WHO DON'T PAY THEIR TAXES AND PAY ANYTHING ELSE. BUT WE CITIZENS, WE HAVE TO PAY OUR TAXES.
WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO PAY OUR TAXES.
THERE IS NO BUT FOR BUT FOR THE REST OF US.
NO. DAKOTA. THE EAST SIDE OF DESOTO.
WE GOT THE CRIMES. WE GOT THE BOBCATS.
WE GOT THE DOGS. WE GOT THE FERAL CATS.
WE'VE GOT ALL THE STUFF THAT WE DON'T NEED.
I CAN'T EVEN BUY A PAIR OF SOCKS HERE UNLESS IT'S CHRISTMAS TIME AT WALGREENS.
THAT'S IT. AND WE TALK ABOUT RETAIL.
OH, THANK YOU. MISS. YOUR TIME IS UP.
BEFORE I CALL THE NEXT PERSON I'D LIKE TO ATTORNEY, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.
THE CITIZEN REFERENCED A PROPERTY, AND I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY IS AT THE CORNER OF BELTLINE AND POPE AND POLK.
THAT CASE HAS ALREADY COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, AND WE MADE A DECISION ON THAT.
OR ARE WE ABLE TO SHARE THAT IT IS ONLINE? AND OR DO WE JUST NOT CLARIFY ANY INFORMATION? I MEAN, IF THE CASE IS ALREADY PASSED, YOU CAN DIRECT.
IT'S ALREADY PASSED. ALL RIGHT. NO OTHER REALLY DISCUSSION. SO I'M FREE TO SHARE THE INFORMATION. YEAH. YOU CAN JUST TELL HER THAT IT PASSED OR DIDN'T PASS OR WHATEVER HAPPENED. THE CASE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS CASE Z1525-2 FOR WHERE THE APPLICANT WAS A MELISSA HARNETT AND THE OWNER IS AHMAD MOD FOR RAS.
AND THAT CASE DID COME BEFORE US SEEKING A A QUICK LUBE TYPE OF A STATION. THIS COMMISSION DID VOTE ON THAT PARTICULAR IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024, I BELIEVE IT WAS. AND WE DENIED THE RECOMMENDATION.
SO THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, BUT I WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT CASE DID COME BEFORE US AND IT WAS DENIED.
THE NEXT INDIVIDUAL THAT WE HAVE IS SCOTT MCDONNELL.
STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE, PLEASE.
NOW IT IS. MY NAME IS SCOTT MCDONALD AND I'M A RESIDENT OF DE SOTO.
MY PLAN WAS TO COME SPEAK TO YOU AT THE CITIZEN APPEARANCE SECTION AND ALSO ON THE FIRST, FIRST MATTER BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
AND NOW, HAVING HEARD WHAT YOU SAID, I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THAT'S THAT'S PERMITTED.
I WAS I WAS GOING TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE.
YES. MR. MCDONALD, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, WE WILL CALL YOU UP DURING THAT PUBLIC HEARING. MAY I HAVE SIX MINUTES, THEN? NO, YOU MAY HAVE THREE.
COULD YOU READ THE NEXT ITEM FOR ME? OKAY. ITEM D IS OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
[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. ]
ANY ITEM MAY BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND ACTED ON SEPARATELY.AUTHORIZES APPROVAL OF EACH ITEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
[00:10:02]
ANY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR, WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING.
JULY THE 22ND, 2025. COMMISSIONERS.
YOU HAVE RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION ELECTRONICALLY.
MR. CARROLL AND I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS ON SOME NECESSARY CORRECTIONS TO THOSE MEETING NOTES, AND I'M GOING TO SHARE THEM WITH YOU IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL ONES, SHARE THEM AFTER I SHARE WHAT MR. CARROLL AND I HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN ABOUT.
SO WHEN THE MOTION COMES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, YOU WILL BE APPROVING THE MINUTES BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT I'M SHARING WITH YOU OF THOSE CHANGES THAT MR. CARROLL AND I HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND ANY OTHER CHANGES THAT YOU MAY HAVE THIS EVENING.
ON THOSE PARTICULAR MINUTES, WE JUST WENT BACK AND TIDIED UP THOSE NOTES AND GAVE THE THE ITEMS THAT WERE LISTED THE CORRECT ALPHA ORDERING.
WE ALSO MOVED CITIZEN CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FROM CITIZENS APPEARANCES, AND HE MOVED THOSE UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE CHAIR AND THE ATTORNEY.
I ASKED HIM TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE MINUTE.
CHAIRMAN RAVENEL BROUGHT TO THE STAFF'S ATTENTION THAT PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER Z153825 WAS CONTINUED TO JULY THE 22ND, 2025.
THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING SINCE THE CASE WAS NOT PART OF THE JULY THE 22ND, 2025 MEETING. AGENDA. CHAIRMAN INQUIRED OF STAFF AND ATTORNEY HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.
ATTORNEY SMITH ADVISED THAT THE CASE WOULD REQUIRE STARTING OVER WITH FORMAL NOTIFICATIONS UPON APPLICANT DESIRING TO BRING THE CASE BACK TO THE COMMISSION, SINCE IT WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA AS PREVIOUSLY VOTED.
THE OTHER CORRECTION THAT I'VE ASKED HIM TO ADD IS UNDER ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST, AND THAT WOULD BE LINED WHERE VICE CHAIRPERSON TANYA BROOKS RECOMMENDED POSTPONING OR CANCELING THE LAST MEETING IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, AND BECAUSE AN ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THAT ITEM, I'VE ADD HIM TO INCLUDE THIS STATEMENT.
THE DECISION WAS MADE BY THE CHAIR THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING, AUGUST THE 12TH, WOULD SERVE AS THE REQUIRED MONTHLY MEETING, AND ADDED THAT THERE WILL ALSO BE A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING HELD ON AUGUST THE 18TH.
ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS, MR. CARROLL? ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER NECESSARY CORRECTIONS FOR THE MEETING NOTES? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME.
MOVE. APPROVAL. I SECOND THAT MOTION.
ALRIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS. ALL IN FAVOR BY I AND RAISE THE RIGHT HAND.
ALL RIGHT. AND THERE WILL BE NO OPPOSES.
THAT IS UNANIMOUS. THE MOTION PREVAILS.
WE'RE GOING NOW TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CHAIRMAN? YES. I WAS NOT AT THE MEETING, SO I DID NOT VOTE.
THE VOTE IS 6 TO 0. THANK YOU FOR THE CORRECTION, MR. DEWBERRY. ALL RIGHT.
MOVING TO ITEM E, THE PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCT.
BEFORE I BEGIN, COMMISSIONERS, I WAS GOING TO ASK, WOULD THERE BE ANY OBJECTION IF I MOVED PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER TWO UP TO THE TOP OF THE LIST. ANY OBJECTION? ALL RIGHT, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[2. Conduct a public hearing and consider making a recommendation for an Ordinance to rezone the property at 409 E. Parkerville Road, DeSoto, Texas from Single-Family Residential District – 10,000 (SF-10) to Two-Family Residential District (2F) (Duplex). The site is legally described as CURTIS PARKS Abst 1124 Pg 365 Tract 13 and is located at the northeast corner of East Parkerville Road and Terrace Drive and addressed as 409 E. Parkerville Rd. The property consists of approximately 0.6877 acres. The applicant is Israel Garcia, and the property owner is GMR Prime Investments, LLC. (Zoning Case No.: Z-1538-25)]
CASE NUMBER TWO. FIRST, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 409 EAST PARKERVILLE ROAD TO DESOTO, TEXAS, FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 10,000FT² TO TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 12, WHICH IS CONSIDERED DUPLEX.THE SITE IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS CURTIS PARKS ABSTRACT 1124, PAGE 365. TRACK 13, AND IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST PARKERVILLE ROAD AND TERRACE DRIVE, AND ADDRESSED AS 409 EAST PARKERVILLE ROAD.
THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 0.6877 ACRES.
THE APPLICANT IS ISRAEL GARCIA AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS GMR PRIME INVESTMENTS LLC.
AND WE ARE READY FOR PRESENTATION.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JORDAN, AND I'M THE CURRENT PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF DESOTO.
[00:15:02]
AND TODAY I BRING FORWARD TO YOU A PRESENTATION REQUESTING YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND CONSIDERATION. FOR A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST THAT WOULD REZONE A SINGLE PROPERTY FROM SF10 OR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 10,000 TO 2 F OR TWO FAMILY, WHICH IS THE CITY OF DESOTO'S DUPLEX DISTRICT.SO IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, WE'LL WE'LL WALK THROUGH LOCATION, CONTEXT AND ALSO THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE REQUEST.
AND AT THE END, IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, PLEASE ASK.
OKAY, SO THE ZONE CHANGE REQUESTS AGAIN.
THE APPLICANT, A MR. ISRAEL GARCIA, AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH IS GMR PRIME INVESTMENTS LLC.
THEY SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO THE PLANNING AND, EXCUSE ME, THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT HERE AT THE CITY OF DE SOTO PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE CURRENT ZONING OF A SINGLE PROPERTY, WHICH IS ADDRESSED AS 409 EAST PARKERVILLE ROAD FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 10,000 OR SF TEN TO OUR TWO F OR TWO FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS CONSIDERED OUR DUPLEX DISTRICT HERE IN THE CITY OF DE SOTO.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL MAP, THE THE PROPOSED LOCATION, WHICH IS ADDRESSED AS, AGAIN, 409 EAST PARKERVILLE ROAD, IS OUTLINED IN RED. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, SO THE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLICATION FOR THE CASE AT HAND WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DAILY COMMERCIAL RECORD ON JULY 28TH OF 2025.
IN TOTAL, 31 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTICED WITHIN THE 200 AND 400 FOOT RADIUS OF THE SUBJECT SITE AT FOUR NINE EAST PARK RIVER ROAD AND IN TOTAL WE HAVE RECEIVED, EXCUSE ME, AS OF AUGUST 12TH, WHICH IS TODAY, STAFF RECEIVED ZERO LETTERS OF SUPPORT IS EXCUSE ME AS WELL AS ZERO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION. SO STRAIGHT AHEAD OR BEFORE YOU RATHER YOU HAVE THE SUBMITTED CONCEPTUAL PLAN. ON THE CONCEPT PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS A PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT WITH TWO UNITS AS A DUPLEX TYPICALLY HAS OR DOES HAVE BOTH UNITS ARE FRONTING OFF OF EAST PARK RIVER ROAD, AND BOTH UNITS ARE ALSO TAKING ACCESS OFF OF TERRACE DRIVE. SO THE ZONING AND ZONING AND EXISTING USES OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE SUBJECT SITE, WHICH IS AGAIN ADDRESSED AS FOR ALL NINE EAST PARK RIVER ROAD TO THE NORTH, THERE IS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS TWO F OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH AGAIN IS THE CITY OF DESOTO'S DUPLEX ZONING DISTRICT. PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE ALSO EXISTING AND DEVELOPED EITHER OR AND CURRENTLY ZONED AS SF TEN, WHICH IS OF COURSE ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH.
THERE ARE ACTUALLY THREE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS, THE FIRST ONE BEING SF TEN, THE NEXT ONE BEING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS PD 63, AND THE LAST AND THIRD BEING ANOTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS PD 114, ALL OF WHICH HAVE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
AND THEN OUR LAST, WHICH IS PROPERTIES, ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE WEST IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS SF TEN AND IS UNDEVELOPED.
AND YOU CAN SEE ALL THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT I CALLED OUT ON THE ZONING MAP TO THE FAR RIGHT. SO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY.
SO PART OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT IS INCLUDED IN OUR.
THE CITY OF DESOTO'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN 2020 FOR THE.
THE DESIGNATION FOR THE SUBJECT SITE, WHICH IS OF COURSE 409 EAST PARK RIVER ROAD, IS MEDIUM DENSITY. SO, TYPICALLY SPEAKING, IN MEDIUM DENSITY YOU SEE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENTS WITH THAT SHARE WALLS SUCH AS TOWNHOMES, DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES AND FOURPLEXES.
SO WITH THAT IN MIND THE PROPOSED EXCUSE ME, THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE THEIR BASE ZONING FROM SF 10 TO 2 FAMILY OR TWO F, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, AGAIN THE DUPLEX DISTRICT.
IT DOES ALIGN WITH THE CITY OF DE SOTO'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT BEING SAID, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAKE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE DE SOTO CITY COUNCIL FOR AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY AT 409 EAST PARKERVILLE ROAD, DESOTO, TEXAS, FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 10,000 OR SF 10 TO 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR TWO F, WHICH IS AGAIN OUR DUPLEX DISTRICT.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION FOR ZONING CASE NUMBER Z-153825.
COMMISSIONER DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? AND THANK YOU,
[00:20:03]
MISS JORDAN, FOR THAT PRESENTATION.APPRECIATE THAT. COMMISSIONERS, AT THIS TIME, DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS JORDAN REGARDING THIS CASE? JUST A CLARIFICATION FOR MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT AREA IN THE RIGHT ROAD.
IS THERE A DAYCARE CENTER RIGHT NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY? IT'S ACROSS THE STREET.
ALL RIGHT. CAN WE GO BACK TO PAGE SLIDE NUMBER THREE, PLEASE? YEAH. OKAY. OKAY.
I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM IT WAS ZERO LETTERS RECEIVED IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION.
AND TURN TO MR. CARROLL AND ASK IF THERE WERE ANY PHONE CALLS OR EMAILS SENT THEN REGARDING THIS CASE. NO, REGARDING THIS CASE.
MR. GRAHAM WAS BRINGING SOMETHING TO MY ATTENTION.
WOULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT? OKAY. I WAS CONFIRMING THAT THERE WERE ZERO LETTERS RECEIVED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION OF THIS CASE. AND I ASKED MR. CARROLL IF THERE WERE ANY PHONE CALLS OR EMAILS IN REGARD TO OPPOSITION IN FAVOR OF THIS CASE, AND HE INDICATED THERE WEREN'T ANY.
OKAY. I NEED TO CORRECT TO THE MINUTES.
THAT LOT IS NOT THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET.
IT IS THE ONE THAT'S NEXT DOOR TO THE DAYCARE CENTER.
OKAY. SO, MR. GRAHAM, WITH THAT INFORMATION, DO YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS? NOT AT THE MOMENT. ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING AND SEEING.
NONE. THEN AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO INTO OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
THE TIME IS 652 AND WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MISS JORDAN, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? AND DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK? BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE FIRST TIME THE COMMISSIONERS HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE HE DOES WISH TO SPEAK.
ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY COME AT THIS TIME.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD.
HELLO. MY NAME IS ISRAEL GARCIA.
DALLAS, TEXAS. I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE THAT THERE IS A DAYCARE NEXT TO IT.
HOWEVER, THERE IS ALREADY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME RIGHT NEXT TO IT AS WELL.
SO IT IS WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR A COUPLE THINGS TO RUN SOME SEWER LINES TO THAT ACTUAL HOME. SO JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS A HOME THERE ALREADY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. STAY RIGHT THERE AND LET'S SEE IF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT, MR. GRAHAM. OKAY, SO THE HOME I'M LOOKING AT ON THE PHOTO THAT WAS TAKEN IN APRIL OF 2025 ON THE GOOGLE MAPS, IS THAT THE HOME YOU'RE REFERRING TO? IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BOARDED UP.
YES. YES, SIR. SO THAT IS ONE OF THE.
BECAUSE WHAT I'M KNOW, THAT'S TO THE RIGHT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD SHOW YOU MY SCREEN, BUT BUT THIS IS THE HOME YOU OWN, AND YOU'RE WAITING FOR SEWER LINE.
CORRECT. OKAY. IS THIS PART OF THE DUPLEX OR.
THIS IS. YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT DUPLEXES IN FRONT OF THIS? IT'LL BE NEXT TO IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN GO TO ONE OF THE SLIDES THAT SHOWS LIKE THIS.
OKAY. SO YOU SEE THE LOT TO THE RIGHT.
THAT'S WHERE THE ACTUAL HOME IS.
I'M SORRY. SO YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IT RIGHT OVER HERE, CORRECT? ON THE EMPTY LOT.
OKAY. WHICH IS WHAT? WHAT? THAT IS ON THE ON THE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS MR. CARROLL, DO WE HAVE ANY PEOPLE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE MR. TERRANCE GORE. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.
OH, OKAY. IS THAT BETTER? ALL RIGHT, TERRANCE GORDON SOTO.
JUST A CLARIFICATION. THEY SAID THE EGRESS ON THIS PROPERTY IS GOING OFF PARKERVILLE.
WELL, THE THING ABOUT PARKERVILLE IS ONE LANE GOING EACH DIRECTION.
AND IN THE MORNINGS, BECAUSE THERE IS A SCHOOL ZONE THERE,
[00:25:02]
IT IS VERY CONGESTED AND VERY DANGEROUS BECAUSE THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS.MY THING IS WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE MADE TO MAKE IT.
BECAUSE IF I'M THINKING ABOUT THE RIGHT PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, THERE ARE DUPLEXES, BUT THEY HAVE A TURN.
THEY HAVE A PRIVATE DRIVE THAT DIVERTS MAKES IT SAFE TO GET TO THOSE HOMES.
WHAT PROPOSAL IS THERE FOR THIS, THIS DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE A SAFE EXIT AND ENTRANCE TO GET TO THE HOUSE OFF PARKERVILLE, BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT'S TWO IT'S TWO LANE BLACKTOP NO SIDEWALKS.
IT'S VERY PRECARIOUS. JUST GOING DOWN THAT WAY AND JUST DOING YOUR MORNING COMMUTE OR AFTERNOON COMMUTE OR EVENING COMMUTE.
I CAN'T SEE CARS OR COMING IN AND OUT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT CAUSING SOME ACCIDENT OR ANY KIND OF CONGESTION OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT.
SO THAT'S THAT'S JUST MY MY OBSERVATION, MY YEARS OF DRIVING UP AND DOWN PARKERVILLE FROM COPPER HILL ALL THE WAY TO 35.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. GORE. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CITIZENS COMMENT? I MEAN, ANY OTHER CARDS? ALL RIGHT. THE TIME IS NOW.
656 IN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK WE NEED TO TALK TO THE APPLICANT AGAIN.
ON THE BACK SIDE. IF YOU NOTICE ON THE BACK SIDE, WE DID AN ALLEY BY THE PLATTE, WHICH IS OFF OF TERRANCE, SO IT'S NOT ON PARKERVILLE ROAD.
IF YOU NOTICE ON THERE AS WELL, THE DRIVEWAY IS IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSES, SO THAT PARKERVILLE IS SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.
I MEAN, THE THE DAYCARE NEXT TO IT HAS AN ENTRANCE ON PARKERVILLE.
I ASSUME THEY HAVE MORE VEHICLES THAN TWO FAMILIES.
JUST TO CLARIFY THAT. MR. DEWBERRY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SIR, THAT'S THE WAY I READ THE PLAT.
AND SO IT JUST NEED TO BE CLARIFIED.
THERE IS NO EGRESS AND EGRESS OFF OF PARKER ROAD.
THE TIME IS NOW. 658. AND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CASE IS NOW CLOSED.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. I'M READY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION RELATIVE TO THIS CASE.
MR. CHAIR, AND THE MATTER OF ZONING CASE Z1538-25I MOVE.
WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
SECOND. SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COMMISSIONER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROHRER THAT WE APPROVE AS CASE NUMBER Z153825 AS PRESENTED.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE.
THANK YOU ALL. NOW WE WILL BE GOING TO PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NUMBER ONE.
[1. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider making a recommendation for an ordinance granting a change in rezoning for 94 parcels of land, generally located along Hampton Road between Pleasant Run Road and Belt Line Road, from Single Family Residential District - 9,000 (SF-9), Single Family Residential District – 10,000 (SF-10), Multiple Family District (MF), General Retail District (GR), Office District - 1 (O-1), Office District - 2 (o-2), Planned Development No. 42 (PD-42), Planned Development No. 58 (PD-58), and Planned Development No. 73 (PD-73) to Urban Center District (UC); for 82 parcels of land, generally located along Hampton Road between Pleasant Run Road and Belt Line Road, from Single Family Residential District - 8,000 (SF-8), Single Family Residential District - 9,000 (SF-9), Single Family Residential District - 10,000 (SF-10), Single Family Residential District - 15,000 (SF-15), General Retail District (GR), Office District - 1 (O-1), and Office District – 2 (O-2) to Urban General District (UG); for 28 parcels of land, generally located along Hampton Road between Pleasant Run Road and Belt Line Road, from Single Family Residential District - 9,000 (SF-9), Single Family Residential District - 12,000 (SF-12), and General Retail District (GR) to Neighborhood Services District (NS); for 3 parcels of land, generally located along Hampton Road between Pleasant Run Road and Belt Line Road, from Single Family Residential District – 10,000 (SF-10) and General Retail District (GR) to Urban Neighborhood District (UN); and for 3 parcels of land, generally located along Hampton Road between Pleasant Run Road and Belt Line Road, from Single Family Residential District – 9,000 (SF-9), Single Family Residential District – 10,000 (SF-10), and Planned Development No. 58 (PD-58) to Neighborhood Transition District (NT).The applicant is the City of DeSoto. (Zoning Case No.: Z-1514-24)]
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CHANGING REZONING FOR 94 PARCELS OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG HAMPTON ROAD BETWEEN PLEASANT RUN ROAD AND BELTLINE ROAD, FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 9000.SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 10,000 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.
GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICT OFFICE.
DISTRICT ONE OFFICE DISTRICT TWO.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 42 PLAN DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 58 AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 73 TO URBAN CENTER DISTRICT FOR 82 PARCELS OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG HAMPTON ROAD BETWEEN PLEASANT RUN AND BELTLINE ROAD FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 8000 SINGLE FAMILY
[00:30:03]
RESIDENTIAL. 9000 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.10,000. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
DISTRICT 15,000 GENERAL RETAIL.
DISTRICT TWO TO URBAN GENERAL DISTRICT FOR 28 PARCELS OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG HAMPTON ROAD BETWEEN PLEASANT RUN ROAD AND BELTLINE ROAD FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. 9000 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
12,000 AND GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICT.
TWO NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DISTRICT FOR THREE PARCELS OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG HAMPTON ROAD BETWEEN PLEASANT RUN ROAD AND BELTLINE ROAD, FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
10,000 AND GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICT TO URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT AND FOR THREE PARCELS OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG HAMPTON ROAD BETWEEN PLEASANT RUN ROAD AND BELTLINE RUN.
BELTLINE ROAD FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 9000.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 10,000 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 58 TO NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF DESOTO.
THIS IS ZONING CASE NUMBER Z1514-24.
AND PRESENTING THIS EVENING IS MISS JORDAN.
SO GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS JORDAN, AND I'M THE PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER HERE AT THE CITY OF DESOTO.
AGAIN TODAY, I BRING BEFORE YOU A OR.
EXCUSE ME, I BRING TO YOU A REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION AND CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED OR, EXCUSE ME, FOR AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE, OR ABBREVIATED AS THE REDUCED RE-ENVISION ZONING BOUNDARY AREA. OKAY, SO AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING TODAY OR THIS PRESENTATION RATHER, IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION FOR OR EXCUSE ME, RECOMMENDATION OF AN ORDINANCE REGARDING THE REZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE OR THE REDUCE, RE-ENVISION ZONING BOUNDARY AREA, THE PROPOSED ZONING. EXCUSE ME, THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD CHANGE THE DESIGNATED AREAS WITHIN THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE.
REDUCE RE-ENVISION BOUNDARY TO ONE OF THE FIVE PROPOSED ZONING AREAS.
AND I'LL CALL THOSE OUT. THE FIRST ONE BEING URBAN CENTER, SECOND IS URBAN GENERAL, THIRD IS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION.
AND AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF DESOTO.
OKAY. SO THE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLICATION WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DAILY COMMERCIAL RECORD ON JULY 28TH OF 2025. IN TOTAL, PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF NOTICED 1001 LETTERS TO PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE REDUCED RE-ENVISION BOUNDARY, AS WELL AS THE 200 AND 400 FOOT RADIUS OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WHICH IS THAT BOUNDARY. IN TOTAL.
IN TOTAL STAFF RECEIVED NINE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT WERE EXCUSE ME, FROM PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN THE REDUCED RE-ENVISION BOUNDARY AREA.
WE RECEIVED 12 LETTERS THAT WERE FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITH THAT WERE WITHIN 200FT OF THE THE REDUCED RE-ENVISION BOUNDARY.
AND WE RECEIVED ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION IN THAT ONE LETTER CAME FROM A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THE BOUNDARY. AND WE DID NOTICE JUST AS A STANDARD WE NOTICED THE 400 FOOT RADIUS.
WE DON'T THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATIONS.
WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE, FOR ME? YES. SORRY. LET ME REWORD THAT.
SO HERE AT THE CITY OF DE SOTO, WE ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE ON NOVEMBER 1ST OF 2022 THAT SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT WE NOTICE NOT ONLY THE 200 FOOT RADIUS, WHICH IS A PART OF A STATE STATUTE, BUT WE ALSO EXCUSE ME, WE ALSO NOTICE THE 400 FOOT RADIUS, OR EXCUSE ME, PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 400 FOOT RADIUS OF A SUBJECT SITE THAT'S BEING BRIEFED BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WHILE WE DO NOTICE THOSE INDIVIDUALS, WE DO NOT INCLUDE THEIR WE DON'T WE DON'T INCLUDE THEIR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION IN THE TALLIES WHEN WE COME TO ABORTION.
EXCUSE ME, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL. AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP TO THE FAR RIGHT THE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT WERE RECEIVED IN WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE PARK, AS WELL AS THE 200 FOOT RADIUS.
THERE'S ALSO A TALLY FOR THAT ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT.
[00:35:05]
SO THIS SLIDE JUST SPEAKS TO THE SUPERMAJORITY CALCULATION WHICH FOR EITHER OR EXCUSE ME, WHICH EITHER OR MEANING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE PARK BOUNDARY OR PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS, THE PERCENTAGE OF LETTERS OF OPPOSITION HAS TO EQUAL OR EXCEED 20%.SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE CHART BEFORE YOU.
NEITHER ONE OF THE CALCULATIONS REACHED 20%.
BUT IT'S JUST A TALLY OF, I GUESS NOT A TALLY, BUT IT'S EXPANDED UPON VERSION OF WHAT WE SAW IN THE LAST SLIDE.
SO ORIGINALLY THE HRC OR THE HAMPTON ROAD CORRIDOR EXCUSE ME, WHAT WE KNOW NOW AS THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE, WAS INTRODUCED TO THE CITY OF DE SOTO IN 2005 AS THE HAMPTON ROAD CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND FROM THERE IT'S BEEN REINTRODUCED TO THE CITY UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES, AND IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE VERY BOTTOM, THE PROPERTY REZONING WAS WITHDRAWN.
SO WE'VE WE'VE PASSED THAT AND NOW WE'RE HERE FOR FOR THE TO DISCUSS AND HOPEFULLY GET A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY OF DE SOTO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE REDUCED AND RE-ENVISION BOUNDARY. SO HEARING AND OUTCOME SUMMARIES.
SO THESE THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE THE NEXT TWO SLIDES.
AND IT JUST SPEAKS TO SOME OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS THAT THIS CASE WAS BRIEFED AT. SO LET'S SEE HERE.
ORIGINALLY IN MAY AND JULY OF 2024, THERE WAS A CREATION OF THE REDUCED BOUNDARY MAP AND BUS TOUR PROPOSALS.
AND IT ALSO SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT IN JANUARY 2025, I'LL SKIP OVER A FEW OF THESE FEW OF THESE POINTS AND TALK ABOUT THE MOST RELEVANT ONES.
SO I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT JANUARY 28TH OF 2025.
SO THERE WAS A PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING AND BY A 6 TO 1 VOTE CITY COUNCIL OR, EXCUSE ME, TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU GUYS PROVIDED A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPROVING THE HRC REDUCE, RE-ENVISION BOUNDARY, INCLUDING OUR ALL PARCELS AT THAT TIME.
THEN IT WENT TO CITY COUNCIL AND LET'S SEE.
BETWEEN AFTER JANUARY 28TH OF 2025, STAFF CONDUCTED OUTREACH.
AND FROM THERE WE MOVED FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING AT THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING THERE WAS A EXCUSE ME.
CITY COUNCIL. SO THERE IS A THERE IS A CONSENSUS TO JUST REVISIT BASED OFF OF THE INFORMATION THAT HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THEM.
AND THEN WE'LL GO OVER TO OUR NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN ON AFTER THE REQUEST TO REVISIT IN FEBRUARY OF 2000 OR EXCUSE ME, FEBRUARY 28TH OF 2025 ON MARCH 4TH, THE DESOTO CITY COUNCIL MOTION TO REMAND THIS CASE BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AFTER IT WAS COMMUNICATED TO THEM BY A FEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OWNERS THAT THEY HAD SOME RESERVATIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS BEING INCLUDED IN THE HRC BOUNDARY. TWO OF THOSE EXCUSE ME, TWO OF THOSE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNERS OR PROPERTIES WERE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 58 AS WELL AS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 170 AND SO WE'LL GO DOWN TO JULY OF 2025 IN HERE, AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER, I I PERFORMED OUTREACH TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE TWO PDS THAT I JUST CALLED OUT.
SO PD 58 AND PD 170, AND I HEARD OUT THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT BEING INCLUDED IN THE REDUCED AND RE-ENVISION PROPERTY, EXCUSE ME, BOUNDARY OF THE RCC.
AND THEN THAT LEADS US TO THIS TO OUR NEXT SLIDE.
SO AGAIN AS COMMUNICATED BACK IN.
BACK IN MARCH OF 2025, THE CITY CITY OF DESOTO CITY COUNCIL DID VOTE TO REMAND THIS CASE BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING.
AND THAT WAS DUE IN LARGE PART TO SOME RESERVATIONS THAT WERE EXPRESSED BY THE PD OWNERS. AND SO THE NEXT SLIDE IS GOING TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENTS AS WELL AS THEIR CURRENT DEVIATIONS THAT THAT WOULD STILL EXIST AS LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES AND OR DEVELOPMENTS THAT THEY DID HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT LOSING.
WOULD LIKE TO COMMUNICATE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS THAT IT WAS ALREADY COMMUNICATED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS SINCE BEFORE MY PRESENCE HERE IN JUNE 2025, UP TO NOW THAT THE THE CURRENT DEVIATIONS THAT EXIST WITHIN THE PDS WOULD NOT THE PD.
[00:40:03]
THE PD OWNERS WOULD NOT LOSE THOSE THOSE DEVIATIONS.INSTEAD THOSE USES AND THOSE DEVELOPMENTS WOULD BECOME NONCONFORMITIES.
SO HERE'S AN ANALYSIS OF THE FOUR PDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OR THAT WERE CURRENTLY ANTICIPATED TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE HCRC BOUNDARY.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS GOING TO BE PD 73.
AND THEN YOU SEE THE IMPACT OF THE REZONING.
CURRENTLY THERE'S NO MINIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. IF REZONE, THE MINIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WOULD CHANGE TO A MINIMUM OF TWO STORIES.
AND ALSO VEHICLE REPAIR WOULD IS NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THEY WOULD BE REZONED TO AND ALSO ON SITE BICYCLING FACILITIES WOULD BE REQUIRED.
AND THEN PD 42, IT'S A SMALLER PD.
SO THE MAIN CHANGE WOULD BE ON SITE BICYCLE FACILITIES WOULD BE REQUIRED.
PD 58 GENERAL OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION USE WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED WITH PNC APPROVAL. SO THROUGH YOU ALL'S APPROVAL. AND THEN FOR PD 170 WHICH IS A LARGER PD.
CURRENTLY THERE IS NO MINIMUM PARKING.
SO AGAIN UNDER IF THEY WERE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PARK REDUCED AND RE-ENVISIONED BOUNDARY ZONING AREA THEIR DEVIATIONS WOULD STILL BE PERMISSIBLE.
THEY WOULD JUST BE CONSIDERED LEGAL. NON-CONFORMITIES. SO AND THEN ALSO A PARKING STUDY FOR THIS AREA WOULD BE REQUIRED.
PARKING ON GRASS WOULD NO LONGER BE ALLOWED.
THOSE ARE SOME DEVIATIONS THAT PRETTY MUCH SUMMARIZE THE THE CONCERNS THAT THE OWNERS OF THE PD WERE HAVING. OKAY.
IN JULY OF 2025 STAFF, DID GO AHEAD AND PARTICIPATE IN FURTHER OUTREACH WITH THE TWO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OWNERS? THAT DID RAISE CONCERNS DUE TO THE ANTICIPATION OF LOSING DEVIATIONS.
SO THOSE PD OWNERS AGAIN ARE PD 58, WHICH SITS AT THE CORNER OF HAMPTON ROAD AND PLEASANT RUN. SO IT'S AT ONE OF THE MAIN CORRIDORS OF THE THE HRC BOUNDARY REDUCED.
EXCUSE ME, REDUCED AND RE-ENVISION BOUNDARY.
AND THEN THE SECOND ONE WOULD BE PD 170, WHICH IS ADDRESSED AS 324 EAST BELTLINE ROAD.
SO IN ADDRESSING OR IN HEARING OUT THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR CONCERNS THAT THEY EXPRESSED THAT DID GIVE STAFF THE OPPORTUNITY STAFF I.E.
THE PLANNING, PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER, THE OPPORTUNITY TO REEVALUATE THE ENTIRE AREAS THAT SURROUNDED NOT ONLY OR THAT INCLUDED NOT ONLY THE PDS THAT RAISED THE CONCERNS OF PD 58 AND PD 170, BUT ALSO THE AREA SURROUNDING.
SO AFTER AFTER RESEARCH AND OF COURSE, APPLYING PLANNING AND ZONING PRINCIPLES IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT PD 58 WILL REMAIN WITHIN THE PD DUE TO THE FACT OR DUE TO ITS UNIQUE LOCATION, AS WELL AS THE THE VISION THAT THE CITY OF CITY OF DESOTO HAS FOR THE PARK.
AND SO AGAIN, PD 58, IT WAS CONCLUDED TO GO AHEAD AND STAY WITHIN THAT BOUNDARY.
AND THEN PD 170, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THIS THIS SPECIFIC PD WOULD BE EXCLUDED.
AND THEN ALSO THE FOUR PARCELS TO THE NORTH, WHICH MAKE UP WHAT WE REFER TO AS DESOTO PRIVATE SCHOOL. SO DESOTO PRIVATE SCHOOL WAS DETERMINED OR IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WHAT THE DESOTO PRIVATE SCHOOL, THE FOUR PARCELS THAT MAKE UP THE DESOTO PRIVATE SCHOOL WOULD REVERT TO, WHICH IS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES.
IT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THAT WITH THE ANTICIPATED USES OR THE THE, THE INTENSITIES FOR THAT AREA THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AREA.
SO THOSE FOR, FOR LOTS WERE IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THOSE WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS WELL AS PD 170, PD 170. IT HAS A UNIQUE LOCATION WITHIN THE CORRIDOR.
IT DOES NOT SIT OR EXCUSE ME, A UNIQUE LOCATION WITHIN THE REDUCED AND RE-ENVISIONED BOUNDARY, DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT SIT AT A CORRIDOR. IT'S FURTHER INTO EAST BELTLINE ROAD.
AND ALSO JUST APPLYING PLANNING PRINCIPLES IN INTENTIONALITY INCLUDING IT WAS IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT INCLUDING PD 170 IN THE REDUCED AND REVISION BOUNDARY WOULD KIND OF TAKE AWAY THE, THE THE PROPOSED INTENT OF THAT PD 170.
SO IN CONCLUSION. IN CONCLUSION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WE WOULD KEEP PD 170 OUT OF THE PARK BOUNDARY, KEEP PD 58 WITHIN THE PARK BOUNDARY, AND THEN ALSO EXCLUDE THE FOUR PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH OF PD 170.
OKAY, SO TO THE LEFT YOU HAVE THE THE NEW PROPOSED REDUCED AND RE-ENVISIONED PARK BOUNDARY MAP. IF YOU SEE I'LL ACTUALLY USE MY POINTER.
[00:45:02]
SEE HERE. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL LOCATION FOR PD.WELL THIS IS THE LOCATION FOR PD 170.
AND THEN THE FOUR PARCELS IMMEDIATELY NORTH TO THE PROPERTY WHICH MAKE UP DESOTO PRIVATE SCHOOL AGAIN. THE INTENDED EDUCATIONAL USES FOR THE FOUR PARCELS TO THE NORTH.
PD 170. THEY DON'T ALIGN WITH WHAT'S ANTICIPATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES ZONING DISTRICT. AND PD 170 IS FURTHER OUTSIDE OF THAT OF THAT CORRIDOR.
IT'S ACTUALLY ANTICIPATED TO ACT AS A GATEWAY.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, STILL, WE STILL HAVE A LARGE PORTION OF A GATEWAY LEADING OFF OF OFF OF BELTLINE ONTO HAMPTON ROAD AND THEN OVER TO OUR FAR RIGHT.
YOU CAN SEE THE ORIGINAL HR CC REDUCED RE-ENVISION BOUNDARY THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THE PDS. AND YOU CAN SEE PD ONE 70S OVER TO THE FAR, FAR RIGHT THERE. SO IN CONCLUSION, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING OF ALL PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE REDUCED RE-ENVISIONED BOUNDARY OF THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE, EXCLUDING PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 170, WHICH IS ADDRESSED AS 324 EAST BELTLINE ROAD, AND THE FOUR PROPERTIES LOCATED IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OF THE PD 170, WHICH WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS DESOTO PRIVATE SCHOOL AND ADDRESSED AS TWO BOB WHITE STREET, 301 EAST BELTLINE ROAD, 307 EAST 70S BELTLINE ROAD AND 321 EAST BELTLINE ROAD AS PRESENTED.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION FOR ZONING CASE NUMBER Z15424.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MISS JORDAN, FOR THAT OVERVIEW.
AND FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR PUTTING OUT THE ELECTRONIC SIGNAGE TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC OF THIS HEARING.
AND AT THIS TIME COMMISSIONERS, I SEE MR. LERER IS EAGERLY AWAITING.
YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? GO AHEAD.
HOW YOU DOING, MISS JORDAN? ON THE LAST SLIDE, THIS ONE HERE. THE ONE. THE ONE BEFORE. THE ONE BEFORE.
I ASSUME THOSE ARE THE OTHER NON-CONFORMING PROPERTIES. YES, THOSE ARE NON-CONFORMING.
ARE THERE ANY OUTREACH CONDUCTED WITH THOSE PROPERTY MANAGERS? YES, THERE WERE OUTREACH.
OR OUTREACH HAS BEEN DONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE DURATION OF THE, THE HDC PROCESS WITH THOSE PROPERTY MANAGERS OF I GUESS.
ARE THERE ANY UPDATES THAT THEY RECEIVED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS AND FEELING MORE CONFIDENT WITH THE THE CHANGE, OR DO YOU KNOW TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION? SO TWO OF THE KEY COMPONENTS OF ANY PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT OR AT ANY MUNICIPALITY IS PUBLIC ACCESS AND TRANSPARENCY.
SO FULL TRANSPARENCY. I WAS NOT A CITY OF DESOTO EMPLOYEE WHEN THE MAJORITY OF THOSE OUTREACH MEETINGS WERE HELD.
BUT I CAN SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT NON-CONFORMING USES OR NONCONFORMITIES, WHICH INCLUDES WHICH INCLUDES USES AND STRUCTURES, WERE COMMUNICATED AND DISCUSSED ON A VERY BROAD OR EXCUSE ME, NOT CONSISTENTLY. YES, CONSISTENTLY.
SO DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, I THINK SO. AND I REMEMBER PREVIOUS CONVERSATION BEFORE, I THINK I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF ANY ADDITIONAL OUTREACH WAS SIMILAR TO THE PDS WERE WERE HANDLED. WELL SINCE I'VE BEEN WITH THE CITY OF DESOTO.
THE MAIN, THE TWO MAIN I GUESS THE OUTREACH FOCUS ON THE PD OWNERS, BECAUSE THOSE WERE THE ONES THAT WERE STILL REACHING OUT WITH SOME CONCERNS OPPOSING THE OPPOSING THE INCLUSION OF THEIR PROPERTIES.
HELLO, MISS JORDAN, HOW ARE YOU? I'M GOOD. HOW ARE YOU? DOING ALL RIGHT.
SO JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND THAT PD 170 IS THE ONLY ONE THAT WILL BE EXCLUDED NOW.
SO 73, 42 AND 58 WILL NOT BE EXCLUDED ANY LONGER.
THAT IS CORRECT. SO 43 PD 43 AND PD EXCUSE ME PD 42 AND PD 73.
WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OFFERS OR STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OPPOSITION FROM THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS OR THOSE PD OWNERS RATHER.
AND PD 58 IS STILL BEING INCLUDED DUE TO ITS UNIQUE LOCATION AND THE VISION THAT THE CITY OF DESOTO HAS FOR THE PARK BOUNDARY.
MR.. MR.. BILL, ARE YOU READY TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? MAY I ASK HER A QUESTION RELATIVE TO WHAT YOU JUST ASKED? SO WE HAD WE HAVE FOUR PDS IN THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE, BUT ONLY TWO HAVE EXPRESSED A DESIRE NOT TO BE INCLUDED.
THAT IS CORRECT. IN OUR PACKAGE, YOU SAID, AND I AND I WANT TO GET CLARITY ON THIS VERBIAGE. WHILE PD 170 HAS BEEN EXCLUDED, PD 58 IS LOCATED DIRECTLY ALONG THE CORRIDOR AND DUE TO ITS PROMINENT PLACEMENT AND
[00:50:04]
RELEVANCE TO THE CORRIDOR, VISION CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THE HAMPTON ROAD REDUCED RE-ENVISION BOUNDARY.NOW AS I SEE IT, THE OTHER PD IS ALSO ON A ROAD THAT IS CARVED OUT TO BE PART OF THAT RE ENVISION REDUCED, BUT YET YOU DO NOT CONSIDER IT TO BE RELEVANT TO THE CORRIDOR VISION.
ARE YOU REFERRING TO PD 170? YES, YES. SO IF YOU SEE HERE, I'M NOT SURE YOU ALL CAN SEE.
SO PD 58 ACTUALLY THE THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THAT HAD SOME, I GUESS, RESERVATIONS ABOUT BEING INCLUDED WITHIN THE PARK.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY A PART OF A LARGER PD.
SO PD, PD 58 IS NOT JUST THE THE INSURANCE COMPANY IN WHATABURGER AT THE CORNER OF PLEASANT ROAD AND HAMPTON.
SO IT'S ALSO THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND JUST TO SPEAK TO THE THE PD 170, IT IS NOT AT THE IT'S NOT AT A CORRIDOR.
IT WILL BE CONSIDERED A GATEWAY TO A CORRIDOR.
SO THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM TO, I GUESS, ROOM FOR CONSIDERATION WHEN IT CAME TO PD 170 AS OPPOSED TO PD 58.
OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE RELATIVE TO THIS, JUST SEEKING SOME CLARITY.
YOU ALSO, IT WAS ALSO STATED IN THE PACKAGE THAT WE RECEIVED RELATIVE TO THIS, THE BOUNDARY THAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING, TAKING OUT PD 170.
BASED ON SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND THE NEED TO PRESERVE COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND FUNCTIONALITY. RIGHT. SO THE QUESTION THAT I HAD WHEN I READ THIS WAS WE PAID A CONSULTANT COMPANY HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND DOLLARS TO COME INTO OUR CITY AND TO MAKE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO ARE YOU, ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE ARE JUST NOW USING SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES? NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M REFERRING TO.
SO WHEN I SAY SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES, I'M REFERRING TO THE ONES THAT I APPLIED TO WHAT I APPLIED IN MY REVIEW.
SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, HALF ASSOCIATES OR ANYONE ELSE, ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DIDN'T APPLY THOSE SAME PRINCIPLES.
IT'S JUST THAT I KNOW THAT THE OPPOSITION AND THE THINGS THAT I HEARD WHEN I WAS WHEN I DID MY, YOU KNOW, OWN FORM OF OUTREACH TO THE PD OWNERS, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS EVER COMMUNICATED TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS, AS, YOU KNOW, THE SAME WAY IT WAS COMMUNICATED TO ME. OKAY.
AND THE LAST THING ON THIS, WHEN YOU SAY THE NEED TO PRESERVE COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND FUNCTIONALITY, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER ON BELTLINE DIFFERS FROM THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER THAT'S ON HAMPTON ROAD, BECAUSE I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS THAT FEEL THAT THEY HAVE COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND IT'S FUNCTIONAL, AND THAT PERHAPS THIS IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY FUNCTIONALITY.
SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW ONE AREA DOES NOT HAVE COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND FUNCTIONALITY, BUT ANOTHER AREA WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND FUNCTIONALITY. YES. SO THAT PORTION OF THE THE STAFF REPORT WASN'T TO SAY THAT ONE AREA DOES NOT HAVE A COMMUNITY CHARACTER WORTH PRESERVING VERSUS THE AREA OVER IN PD 170.
IT WAS JUST AFTER EXCUSE ME, AFTER I REVIEWED THE ENTIRE CASE AND HEARD THE CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED TO ME BY THE PD 170 OWNER.
AND ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PRESERVATION OF COMMUNITY INTENT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF INTENTION TYPICALLY SPEAKING BEHIND CREATING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT'S NOT A SHORT PROCESS.
SO WHEN I SAY THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER, I'M SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY THAT PD.
THERE WAS SOME INTENTION BEHIND CREATING THAT PD THE WAY THAT IT WAS CREATED.
AND SO I, I TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN REDEVELOPING MY MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
MISS JORDAN, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION ON THIS SUBJECT HERE.
YOU STATED THAT CONCLUSIONS WERE MADE, AND THE OUTCOME OF THOSE CONCLUSIONS BEING MADE WAS THAT THOSE THREE PD WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE EXCLUSIONS.
AND FOR OUR INFORMATION, WHO MADE THE CONCLUSIONS?
[00:55:01]
PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGERS. THAT WOULD BE ME. SO YOU MADE THE CONCLUSION.I MADE THE CONCLUSION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
AND I NOTICED THAT THERE WERE 11 NON-CONFORMING PROPERTIES ALONG THAT CORRIDOR. AND IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT THEY WERE ALL RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
AND THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF IT THAT I KNEW UNTIL JUST NOW.
TODAY. THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS SLIDE HERE IS NEW TO ME, BECAUSE I SEE ANOTHER GREEN AREA HERE, WHICH IS LOOKS LIKE SOUTH OF BELTLINE WITH NEW NON-CONFORMING PROPERTIES.
CAN YOU GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ON WHEN AND HOW THOSE WORK ARE INCLUDED IN NON-CONFORMING, AND WHAT KIND OF STRUCTURES ARE ON THOSE PROPERTIES? YES. SO THIS MAP JUST AGAIN, ONE OF THE KEY COMPONENTS OF PLANNING AND ZONING IS TRANSPARENCY.
SO THIS MAP ACTUALLY PREDATES MY PRESENCE HERE OR MY TENURE HERE AT THE CITY OF DESOTO.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO IF I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THE ANSWER, EXCUSE ME ANSWERING THIS QUESTION TO HALF ASSOCIATES.
IS OKAY. ONE QUESTION WHILE YOU'RE SCANNING THE ROOM.
I'M ASSUMING FOR HALF ASSOCIATES.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE CITY? I'VE BEEN WITH THE CITY OF DESOTO FOR TWO MONTHS AND THREE DAYS.
OKAY. AND DO WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE THAT CAN SPEAK TO THIS QUESTION? I BELIEVE SO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE.
BRAD JOHNSON. I LIVE IN AUSTIN.
OUR HALF OFFICE IS IN RICHARDSON.
I DON'T KNOW IF I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO ENLIGHTEN THE DETAILS AROUND THIS.
WHAT KIND OF NONCONFORMING ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? A LAND USE NONCONFORMANCE OR STRUCTURAL.
SORRY. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE GREEN AREA AT THE SOUTH OF THE MAP.
EXCUSE ME, SIR. WAS YOUR LAST NAME? DID YOU SAY YOUR LAST NAME WAS RICHARDSON? JOHNSON.
JOHNSON. MR. JOHNSON IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, THAT IS FINE. WHAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THIS IS NEW.
I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS AREA HERE ON THIS MAP AND NONCONFORMING.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE EITHER.
AND THIS MAY NOT BE PERTINENT TO YOU, BUT MISS JORDAN SAID SHE'S BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR TWO MONTHS, AND IT WAS BEFORE HER.
BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE, SO IF WE CAN HAVE SOMEONE WITH THAT ANSWER, HELP US OUT. AND IF IF THERE ISN'T, SOMEONE CAN STATE THAT AND WE CAN MOVE ON.
MISS JORDAN, ARE THOSE NON-CONFORMING? ARE THOSE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ONLY, OR ARE THOSE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND SOME COMMERCIAL? THANK YOU.
SO THOSE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
SO MY MEMORY ALSO, MR. BELL, IS THAT THERE WERE 21 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT Y'ALL'S RECOLLECTION? AND ALL OF THOSE WERE BETWEEN WHEN WE'VE SEEN IT BEFORE WERE BETWEEN PLEASANT RUN AND BELTLINE. SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE ARE SEEING ANY NONCOMPLIANCE TO THE SOUTH OF BELTLINE. SO DO WE KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE? SO WE DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS THE MOST TENURE HERE IN THE CITY OF DESOTO ON THE HR HE'S OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, MR. MATT CARLSON. SO HE'S GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. COMMISSIONER BELL.
WELL, I'LL CERTAINLY TRY TO ANSWER IT TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES ANYWAY.
THERE ARE, I THINK, AS YOU MENTIONED, 21 NONCONFORMING PURPOSES THERE.
AND I THINK IF YOU IF WE WERE TO ENLARGE THIS, IF WE COULD, YOU WOULD SEE THAT ONLY ABOUT 6 OR 7 OF THOSE ARE ACTUALLY ON BETWEEN PLEASANT RUN AND BELTLINE. ON THAT RIGHT HAND SIDE YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE MAP WOULD BE GREAT TRENT. THE SPECIFIC ONES.
HOW DID YOU MAKE THE PRETTY THING WORK HERE? LET'S SEE. HOW DO I GET THE POINTER? GREAT JOB. YEAH. THERE WE GO.
[01:00:04]
IN HERE. LIKE I SAID, IF WE WERE ABLE TO ENLARGE THIS, YOU'D SEE THIS AS I THINK IT'S SEVEN, BUT I'M WORKING FROM RECOLLECTION AND MY GRAY HAIR WOULD TELL YOU IT'S AN OLDER MIND. THE BALANCE OF THOSE ARE DOWN HERE. AND THESE ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HERE.IN FACT, I THINK THEY ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS NOT WAS THAT CORNER THERE.
AND IT'S ACTUALLY IT WAS A CHIROPRACTOR'S OFFICE, AND NOW IT'S SCHEDULED TO BE A CHURCH, OR I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY BEING USED AS A CHURCH, BUT THE REST OF THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES COMING DOWN WHAT IS SOUTH LINDA DRIVE. THOSE ARE ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
SO AS NONCONFORMING USES, THEY'LL CONTINUE TO EXIST AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THEIR USE OR THEIR ABILITY TO USE THOSE PROPERTIES AT ALL.
IT JUST SIMPLY CONFORMS WITH THE OVERALL CODE.
IF AT SOME POINT THOSE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD OR REDEVELOPED, THEN THEY'D BE DONE WITHIN WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CODE.
UNDERSTOOD. SO I JUST HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF NONCONFORMING PROPERTIES AND ARE THEY ALL RESIDENTIAL HOMES? I CAN'T ANSWER THE TOTAL NUMBER, I THINK.
I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. I THINK MR. CHAIRPERSON, DIDN'T YOU MENTION 21? I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. IF I'M 22, I WAS GOING TO SAY I'M WORKING FROM MEMORY HERE. THAT'S OKAY. MR..
THEY'RE NOT ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES BEING USED AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
SOME OF THOSE WERE FORMER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS THAT ARE NOW BEING USED IN A COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY A DOCTOR'S OFFICE, A LAWYER'S OFFICE, A CHIROPRACTOR'S OFFICE, AND VIRTUALLY ALL OF THOSE ALONG THIS PORTION OF OF OF HAMPTON ROAD ARE OFFICES BEING USED NOW? YVONNE DAVIS'S OFFICES ARE THERE OR ARE REPRESENTATIVE? BUT THESE DOWN HERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT POINT OF INFORMATION.
MR. LEROY JUST PULLED UP AN OLD DOCUMENT THAT DOES SHOW THOSE PARTICULAR NONCONFORMING THEY ARE, AND IT'S A TOTAL OF 2211 BEING BETWEEN PLEASANT RUN AND BELTLINE, AND THEN THE OTHER 11 TO THE SOUTH OF BELTLINE.
THANK YOU, MR. LAURA. AND THE DOCUMENT I PULLED UP IS THE MINUTES FROM WHEN WE VOTED BACK IN JANUARY 20TH. JANUARY 28TH, 2025.
AND IT DOES SHOW THOSE PROPERTIES AS NONCONFORMING.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT TAKE A POINT OF PRIVILEGE WE'RE TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PD 107 AND ITS INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION.
AND I THINK YOUR QUESTION TO TO MISS GAMBRILL WAS ONE OF HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN HERE? AND DO YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING I THINK OF I THINK WHAT YOU'RE LEADING TO WAS AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THAT CHARACTER.
LET ME HELP OUT A LITTLE BIT THERE. I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE FOUR YEARS, SO I'M NOT SURE I'M AN AUTHORITY EITHER, BUT CERTAINLY MISS CAMBRIA WORKED IN COMBINATION WITH MY OFFICE AND MY TEAM WITH THE DIRECTOR AS WELL, TRYING TO GET SOME SENSE OF OF 107 INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION. AS ONE OF THE GUYS WHO SAT WITH A FAT PEN AND A BLACK A BLACK MARKER, AND ORIGINALLY INCLUDED THAT AS THE EDGE OF THE GATEWAY, WE FELT LIKE THERE WAS SOME SENSE OF INCLUSION WITH THAT, WITH THE INVESTMENT THE CITY HAS MADE, AS WELL AS MR. MAHONEY ANDERSON, THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE PAST, WITH THE MARKETPLACE, ITS INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION DOESN'T CHANGE ITS CHARACTER. ITS INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION DOESN'T CHANGE THAT.
WE HOPE TO CREATE A BOUNDARY AT THAT EDGE.
BUT WHETHER IT'S AT THE EAST EDGE OF THAT PROPERTY OR THE WEST EDGE OF THAT PROPERTY, REALLY DOESN'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF IMPACT IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO CREATE THAT SENSE OF OF COMING INTO A NEW AREA, IF YOU WILL.
THE HAMPTON ROAD CORRIDOR WILL DEVELOP AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FEEL, BUT WE DON'T INTEND TO TO SORT OF BEGIN TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN OTHER THAN AN INCREMENTAL WAY AS WE COME TO. AND IT'S REALLY JUST A SENSE OF I'M COMING TO SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE REALLY INTERESTING. HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS A LITTLE BIT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO, MR. JORDAN, I JUST FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, JUST TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND, COULD YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE AND EXPLAIN ABOUT YOUR SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES? I JUST I KNOW YOU TOUCHED ON IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT COULD YOU, YOU KNOW, DELVE INTO THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND? SO THE SOUND PRINT OR EXCUSE ME, SOUNDING PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND ZONING ALSO WERE APPLIED.
WERE APPLIED WHEN I DID COME TO THE CONCLUSION TO GO AHEAD AND EXCLUDE THE FIVE PARCELS. SO THAT BEING DESOTO PRIVATE SCHOOL, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE OR EXCUSE ME, IMMEDIATELY NORTH TO PD 170 AND THEN ALSO PD 170.
SO THE FIRST THINGS I LOOKED AT WAS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY.
AND THAT REALLY COVERS THE THE, EXCUSE ME, THE EXCLUSION OF DE SOTO PRIVATE SCHOOL FROM THE FROM THE THE REDUCED RE-ENVISION BOUNDARY,
[01:05:05]
JUST BECAUSE THE WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, WHICH IS THE THE PROPOSED, EXCUSE ME, THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THOSE FOUR PARCELS, ACTUALLY FIVE. BUT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT THE FOUR WOULD REVERT TO THEY DON'T ALIGN WITH THE EXCUSE ME, THE I GUESS THE USE OR INTENSITIES THAT YOU WOULD FIND AT A PRIVATE SCHOOL. SO THE PRIVATE SCHOOL DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AND THE INTENSITIES AND USES THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO SEE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT.AND SO THERE'S AN INTENT AS FAR AS, EXCUSE ME, AS FAR AS EDUCATIONAL USE BEHIND THE EXISTING THE EXISTENCE OF THAT THAT PRIVATE SCHOOL ON THOSE FOUR PARCELS AND THEN AS FAR AS PD 170.
SO I REALLY LOOKED AT THE PRESERVATION OF COMMUNITY INTENT.
SO AGAIN, AS I COMMUNICATED PD ONE SEVEN OR TO CREATE ANY PD IN ANY MUNICIPALITY, THERE'S A LOT OF INTENT THAT GOES BEHIND THAT AND A PLANNING PRINCIPLE THAT I DO APPLY FIRST AND FOREMOST IS ACKNOWLEDGING THE THE RESIDENTS AND THE OWNERS OF PDS, POTENTIALLY, AND THINGS OF THAT SORT, AND JUST LOOKING THROUGH AND READING THROUGH THE THE ORDINANCE THAT DESCRIBES WHAT'S PERMISSIBLE AND WHAT'S NOT IN PD ONE SEVEN, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF INTENT THERE. AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THEY DID THEY'VE COMMUNICATED CONSISTENTLY THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE A PART OF THE, THE HRC OR THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS, RATHER ABOUT THEIR THEIR POTENTIAL INCLUSION IN THE HRC. SO THAT WAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
SO I GUESS THAT THAT KIND OF TOUCHES ON COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS.
THAT'S A, YOU, YOU KNOW, A BIG PART OF PLANNING. YOU DON'T YOU WANT TO TAKE THOSE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE MOVING FORWARD WITH PLANNING A PLANNING AN AREA OR PLANNING A DEVELOPMENT.
SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I APPLIED.
I GUESS THE THE PLANNING PRINCIPLES THAT I APPLIED TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I'VE TO COME TO THE RECOMMENDATION RATHER THAN THAT I GAVE TO YOU ALL THE COMMISSIONERS TO EXCLUDE THE FIVE PARCELS BEING PD 170 AND ALSO THE DESOTO PRIVATE SCHOOL THAT MAKES UP FOUR SEPARATE PARCELS.
ANOTHER QUESTION. DID YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE YOU CAME TO THIS DECISION? YES, I DID TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION CONSIDERATION, PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS. I KNOW ONE OF THE LAST RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID GIVE WAS A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
BUT THEN IF YOU GO BACK IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT, OR I GUESS NOT IMMEDIATELY, BUT THE NEXT WHEN IT MOVED ON TO CITY COUNCIL AFTER THAT IT WAS DISCUSSED OR COMMUNICATED THAT AFTER, YOU KNOW, THE TWO PD OWNERS CAME UP AND SPOKE AND DISCUSSED THEIR CONCERNS WITH BEING INCLUDED WITHIN THE HRC THAT STAFF SHOULD CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, NOT CONSIDER, BUT STAFF SHOULD CONTINUE TO DO MORE OUTREACH JUST TO GET, YOU KNOW, A FULLER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE PD OWNERS ARE WANTING AND WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE.
SO YES, THE VOTE WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND IT'S HOW I REACHED THE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT I GAVE TO YOU ALL.
VICE CHAIR. LAURA. I HAVE A FOLLOW UP.
IS THERE ANYTHING LOST WITH THE EXCLUSION? WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE WORK ORDER? WHAT IS ACTUALLY LOST WITH THE EXCLUSION OF THOSE PROPERTIES? YOU SAID WHAT IS LOST? YEAH. SO, LIKE, WITH THE INTENT OF THE INITIAL CORRIDOR.
IS THERE ANY THING LOST FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT? LIKE, ARE WE LOSING ANYTHING FROM EXCLUDING THE FIVE PARCELS? YEAH. NO, NOT THAT I CAN THINK OF.
BUT AGAIN IF AND WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS OR THE PD OWNER DOES OR IF HE DOES DECIDE THAT, YOU KNOW, ON DOWN THE LINE HE WANTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PARK, YOU KNOW, HE DOES HAVE THAT OPTION. ON DOWN THE LINE, HE COULD AMEND THE PD. HE COULD YOU KNOW, THERE'S DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR THE PD OWNER AND ALSO FOR DESOTO PRIVATE SCHOOL.
I DON'T SEE THEM WANTING TO I MEAN, I DON'T SEE WHY A A PRIVATE SCHOOL WOULD WANT TO REZONE THEIR THEIR PROPERTY TO INCORPORATE THE REGULATIONS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD MIX OR, EXCUSE ME, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, ZONING DISTRICT.
SO JUST TO REITERATE MY FIRST RESPONSE.
NO, THE CITY OF DESOTO IS NOT LOSING ANYTHING WITH THE EXCLUSION OF THE FIVE PARCELS.
LET ME ASK A QUESTION WITH THAT COMMENT.
SO THEN I WOULD ASK YOU, RELATIVE TO THE HAMPTON CORRIDOR, YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO LOSE WITH THE EXCLUSIVITY OF THESE PARTICULAR PARCELS? IS IT NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL CORRIDOR?
[01:10:02]
IS IT NECESSARY FOR IT TO BE ONE MILE LONG? I WOULD SAY YES. YES, IT IS NECESSARY.NOT, I WOULD SAY, BUT YES, IT IS NECESSARY. AND WHY? WHY WOULD YOU SAY IN ORDER FOR THE CORRIDOR TO BE SUCCESSFUL, IT NEEDS TO BE A MILE LONG.
WHY WOULD YOU SAY THAT? WHAT ARE YOU BASING THAT ON? I WOULD BASE IT OFF OF THE THE THE INTENT OF THE CORRIDOR.
THE INTENT OF THE CORRIDOR IS TO CREATE A A WALKABLE AREA FOR THE CITY OF DE SOTO THAT HAS MIXED USE OR THAT ENCOMPASSES USES SUCH AS MIXED USES.
THAT OR EXCUSE ME, MIXED USES.
HIGH RISE OR HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENTS AND THINGS OF THAT SORT.
JUST TO APPEAL, I GUESS, MAKE THAT PORTION OF THE CITY MORE APPEALING TO INCOMING AND CURRENT RESIDENTS OF CURRENT RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF DESOTO.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE BOUNDARY THERE WAS A LOT OF INTENT THAT PREDATES MY EXISTENCE WITH, I GUESS, MY TENURE RATHER WITH THE CITY OF DESOTO, THAT THAT JUSTIFIES THE THE NEED FOR THE BOUNDARY TO BE ONE MILE LONG OFF OF HAMPTON.
THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO GO TO VICE CHAIR.
BUT THEN, MR. CARLSON, I'M GOING TO COME TO YOU WITH SIMILAR QUESTION. GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT, MR. CARLSON, WOULD YOU COME, PLEASE? OKAY. OVER THE HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT.
AND I REMEMBER GOING BACK AT THE VERY FIRST.
PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING, WHERE HIS ROOM WAS FULL OF PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS. AND THEY BROUGHT UP VERY MANY DIFFERENT REASONS THAT I WOULD SAY I PROBABLY HEARD, BUT DIDN'T LISTEN TO.
SO NOW MY QUESTION IS, RELATIVE TO THAT, WE HAD ONE CASE THAT CAME BEFORE US THAT SAID THEY WERE READY TO MEET THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE AND BUILD HERE. AND OUR ATTORNEY ADVISED US, NO, WE CAN'T APPROVE THAT THAT WAY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE IS GOING TO BE APPROVED.
AND THAT WAS THE CHICK RUTH'S CHICKEN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO RELATIVE MY QUESTION OF ONE MILE LONG.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE KIND OF ON THE HOOK THAT ARE SAYING WE WANT TO BUILD THERE.
OKAY. ARE THERE OTHER DEVELOPERS INTERESTED IN BUILDING AROUND THE HAMPTON CORRIDOR THAT HAVE MADE THEIR INTENTION? WE WOULD LOVE TO BUILD THERE IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS WERE TO OCCUR. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY.
ABSOLUTELY. AND AN IMPEDIMENT TO DOING THAT IS THE ABSENCE OF REZONING THIS CORRIDOR.
YOU ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT A MILE LONG, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING MAGIC TO 5287FT. 280FT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING MAGICAL ABOUT THAT OTHER THAN REMEMBER WHERE THIS STARTED. I THINK THE EARLIEST DOCUMENT I EVER SAW WAS 1999, AND THIS IS HOW IT WAS LAID OUT WHEN FREESE AND NICHOLS DID THIS.
WHEN WE'VE DONE REPETITIVE OUTREACH TO THE COMMUNITY FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES OVER THAT 25 YEARS. THIS IS HOW IT WAS LAID OUT.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ENVISIONED BETWEEN BELTLINE AND PLEASANT RUN, AND IT INCORPORATES SOME LAND NORTH OF THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE CREEK IS, AND FRANKLY, IT REACHES SOUTH AGAIN, LOOKING FOR A GREAT PLACE TO CREATE A GATEWAY TO IT, IF YOU WILL, AND ALSO TO CHANGE THE TRAFFIC PATTERN.
YOU SIMPLY CAN'T HAVE THAT HAPPEN AT AN INTERSECTION.
SO IS THERE MAGIC TO THAT? NO. IS THERE IS THERE OPPORTUNITY IN THAT? ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE WAY THIS IS LAID OUT, IT'S LAID OUT IN SORT OF HALVES, IF YOU WILL.
THERE'S A CENTRAL SECTION WHICH WE'VE CALLED THE MEDICAL VILLAGE WHERE WE HAVE A REHAB HOSPITAL ALREADY. WE'VE ENVISIONED THAT AS MEDICAL CLASS, A MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE ADJOINING THAT WITH THE METHODIST REHAB ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT WE'VE ENVISIONED.
WHAT WOULD THE OPPORTUNITY LOOK LIKE TO HAVE SENIOR HOUSING THAT WAS VERY CLOSE TO THEIR DOCTORS AND THEIR ABILITY TO USE THE VILLAGE GREEN? AGAIN, ANOTHER PIECE OF THAT.
IN FACT, WE'VE RECEIVED FUNDING FROM FROM CONGRESSWOMAN CROCKETT FOR THAT VILLAGE GREEN. SO, I MEAN, THESE VARIOUS COMPONENTS THAT WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT ARE PIECES THAT HAVE INCREMENTALLY BEEN ACTIVATED, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH WITH CITY INVESTMENT IN THOSE PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT ARE KEY PROPERTIES ALONG THAT CORRIDOR AS WELL.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF ITS LENGTH.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD EXIST WITHIN THAT FOR BOTH SMALL SCALE AS WELL AS LARGER SCALE REDEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN.
AND THERE'S ALSO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WEIGHT THAT HAS TO HAPPEN TO MAKE MAKE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES, THOSE LARGER OPPORTUNITIES HAPPEN.
LOOK, YOU DON'T WANT A MILE LONG CORRIDOR NECESSARILY. IN DE SOTO OF NINE STORY
[01:15:04]
BUILDINGS RUNNING FROM PLEASANT RUN TO BELTLINE.THAT'S NOT WHAT'S ANTICIPATED IN THIS CHARACTER CODE.
THIS CHARACTER CODE ANTICIPATES A VARIETY OF HEIGHTS, A VARIETY OF USES, A VARIETY OF SETBACKS, ALL OF WHICH TEND TO GIVE THIS AREA THAT DOWNTOWN FEEL. BUT WHILE WE'RE RETAINING ITS OWN CHARACTER, IT'S. WILL IT LOOK LIKE BISHOP ARTS? NO. WILL IT LOOK LIKE LOWER GREENVILLE? NO. WILL IT BE ACTIVATED SIMILARLY? MOST LIKELY. WILL WE HAVE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DEVELOPMENT, JUST AS YOU DO IN THOSE CORRIDORS.
MOST DEFINITELY. THAT'S WHAT WE HOPE TO ENVISION OR THAT'S WHAT WE HOPE TO ENACT BASED ON THIS VISION. OKAY.
AND THIS LASTLY, ALONG THAT LINE IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THE THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT HERE NEXT TO THE CENTER WAS TO BE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH RETAIL ON THE BOTTOM, HOUSING ON THE TOP. BUT FOR SOME VARIOUS REASON IT DID NOT END UP THAT WAY.
ALSO, THERE WAS A RESTAURANT HERE NAMED BUTTONS, WHICH WAS A GREAT RESTAURANT IN FORT WORTH.
THEY HAD A IT WAS VERY NICE IN ADDISON, TWO WONDERFUL LOCATIONS.
AND THEN WE HAD THAT LOCATION COME TO DESOTO.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AND I WANT TO BE CORRECTED IF I'M WRONG, THAT WE GAVE THAT RESTAURANT SEVERAL DIFFERENT GRANTS TO KEEP IT OPEN AND TO KEEP IT HERE. BUT ULTIMATELY, THE RESTAURANT STILL LEFT OUR CITY.
SO IF I'M INCORRECT, PLEASE CORRECT ME AFTER I FINISH.
BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
IF WE BUILD THIS ONE MILE CORRIDOR WITH ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS TO HAVE RETAIL.
ET CETERA. ET CETERA. ARE WE ARE WE GOING TO GET THEM FILLED? WILL THEY BE SUCCESSFUL? WILL PEOPLE WANT TO MOVE INTO OUR CITY AND BRING THE RESTAURANTS THAT WE SAY WE DESIRE? BUT WHEN WE HAD THE RESTAURANT, THE TYPE OF RESTAURANT THAT WE SAID WE DESIRED, IT FAILED HERE.
SO CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND? JUST GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THAT BUILDING.
AND IF IT'S TRUE THAT WE DID GIVE SEVERAL GRANTS TO KEEP IT OPEN, BUT IN THE END IT ENDED UP LEAVING US ANYWAY.
TO BE PERFECTLY FRANK. NO, I CAN'T, I WASN'T HERE.
I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF THAT BUILDING. I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL USERS THERE, SOME THAT WERE SUCCESSFUL, SOME THAT WERE NOT.
I THINK ANY RESTAURANT AND AS A FORMER RESTAURATEUR MYSELF, I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES OF STARTING A RESTAURANT AND IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AND TRYING AND HOPING THAT THAT ACTUALLY WORKS.
I ASSURE YOU, BUTTONS DIDN'T COME IN WITH THE IDEA THAT THEY WOULD FAIL.
I I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY STARTED TO MEET CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF WERE THEY TURNING ENOUGH TABLES? DID THEY HAVE A MORNING AND A NOONTIME CROWD? DID THEY HAVE A NOONTIME AND AN EVENING CROWD? BECAUSE MOST RESTAURANTS DON'T SURVIVE ON A SINGLE SERVICE.
I CAN SPEAK TO THAT AUTHORITATIVELY BECAUSE I'VE DONE IT NOW, IN PARTICULAR IN THAT AREA.
I THINK THAT THAT THE WAY THIS BUILDING NEXT DOOR TO US WAS ENVISIONED ORIGINALLY BEFORE IT WAS TURNED OVER TO TRAMMELL CROW, WHO BUILT THAT BUILDING, HAD A VERY, VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF ACTIVITY THAT WAS PLANNED FOR IT.
WAS THAT WHAT WAS BUILT BY TRAMMELL CROW.
IT'S NOT. SO WE SORT OF ENDED UP CHANGING, IF YOU WILL, MIDSTREAM FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BUILT AND THE WAY IT CAME OUT.
IF YOU REMEMBER, ON THE ON THE HAMPTON ROAD SIDE, ORIGINALLY THERE WERE OPPORTUNITIES THERE FOR RETAIL THAT WERE BURIED UNDERNEATH THAT BUILDING.
YOU COULDN'T SEE THEM, THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THEY WERE, THAT THAT CAUSED THOSE TO END UP ULTIMATELY BEING NO LONGER RETAIL, BUT TO HAVE NOW BEEN CONVERTED TO APARTMENT UNITS LIKE THE REST OF THE BUILDING.
IT'S ALWAYS A CRAPSHOOT, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU DO THE VERY BEST YOU CAN TO SEE FORWARD, TO UNDERSTAND IT, TO DO MARKET STUDIES THAT TELL US WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, TO LOOK AT OTHER AREAS WHO HAVE SUCCEEDED AND THOSE WHO HAVE FAILED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? AND NO ONE PROPERTY MAKES OR BREAKS THAT.
IT'S YOU'RE BUILDING AN ENTIRE AN ENTIRE AREA WHO WILL BE SUPPORTIVE OF ITSELF.
THAT WILL BRING MORE AND MORE ACTIVITY BASED ON THOSE ON ITS ON ITS BUILDING OUT.
THE EARLIEST PARTS OF THAT WILL BE HARD.
AND THAT'S THE REASON WE ENVISION THE CITY PARTICIPATING IN THOSE WHAT I CALL SEMINAL INVESTMENTS, THOSE FIRST UP SOUTH END, MIDDLE OF THE OF THE PACK, NORTH END, AND THEN TO START TO FILL IN ALONG THAT ONE MILE CORRIDOR.
WILL IT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT? NO, IT WILL BE.
IT WILL TAKE YEARS FOR THOSE PROPERTIES TO BECOME AVAILABLE FOR SOMEBODY TO SEE THE VALUE, THE INCREASED VALUE, AND THEN RECOGNIZE THAT BY BUILDING IN HOPEFULLY WE RETAIN MORE BUSINESSES WHO TAKE UP NEW SPACES.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO OWN SOME OF THOSE SPACES WHO HAVE ALREADY COME FORWARD
[01:20:04]
AND SAID THEY WOULD SUPPORT REDOING THEIR THEIR PARTICULAR PROPERTIES.AND WE HAVE DEVELOPERS WHO WHO ARE ANXIOUS TO ENGAGE IN THIS PROCESS, BUT THEY AREN'T GOING TO DO SO IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BUILDING ON EITHER SIDE OF THEM.
SOMEBODY REFERENCED ROOTS CHICKEN SHACK.
LOOK, THAT'S A THAT'S THAT'S A DEAL THAT I NEGOTIATED PERSONALLY.
AND I CAN TELL YOU WHAT STANDS BETWEEN.
THEY'RE BUILDING A BUILDING THERE NOW AND OPEN AND OPERATING AND NOT IS NOT HAVING THIS REZONING BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING THEM TO COME IN AND SPEND $3 MILLION ON BUILDING A BUILDING ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO PLACE IT. THEY DON'T KNOW HOW FAR TO SET IT OUT.
IS IT A NARROWED ROAD OR IS IT NOT A NARROWED ROAD? WHAT'S GOING TO BE BESIDE OF ME? I'M GOING TO SPEND $3 MILLION ON A REALLY GREAT LOOKING BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO REALLY LOOK LIKE WHAT WE'VE SAID WE WANT.
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BESIDE ME? YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO REZONE THAT? IT TELLS ME THE CITY'S INTENTION IN TERMS OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THERE.
ARE WE WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT KIND OF CHANGE OR NOT? THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MISS JORDAN, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
SLIDE NUMBER THREE. I BELIEVE IT IS.
YES. THIS ONE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE MAP WE JUST LOOKED AT FOR, YOU KNOW, A LONG PERIOD OF TIME THERE WERE ABOUT 21 NONCONFORMING 20, 21, 22 NONCONFORMING. AS WE SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO ALL OF THE INPUT FROM STAFF AND FROM THE COMMUNITY FACTOR IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY OF COMING UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AND SEE THAT YOU MAILED OUT A TOTAL OF 1001 LETTERS TO PROPERTY OWNERS, AND YOU ONLY RECEIVED 21 BACK IN OPPOSITION.
IT SEEMS PRETTY LIKE A LOW NUMBER.
BUT THEN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE 21 NONCONFORMING, I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION THAT THE 21 LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT YOU RECEIVE, HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE FROM SOME OF THE SITES THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING IF THIS MOVES FORWARD? I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT JUST TO CONFIRM, ALL 21 LETTERS OF OPPOSITION WERE NOT RECEIVED.
THEY WEREN'T ALL EXCLUSIVELY RECEIVED BY NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY OWNERS.
BUT I CAN GET THAT NUMBER TO YOU.
OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT THAT NOT ALL OF.
THAT IT WAS NOT. IT WAS JUST IRONIC.
I MEAN, IT'S IRONIC THAT THE NUMBERS WERE SIMILAR.
YES. BUT IT WASN'T THE SAME 21 FOLKS WHO WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING SHOULD THIS MOVE FORWARD? THAT'S CORRECT. AND WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO SAY AGAIN, 1001 LETTERS TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND RECEIVING 12 IS ABOUT WHAT, 2%. IT'S A LITTLE OVER 3%.
SO I BELIEVE IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE JUST THE CONTINUATION OF THE HRC.
SO PROPERTY OWNERS, THEY HAVE THEY'VE BEEN NOTICED SEVERAL TIMES AND I HAVE GOTTEN PHONE CALLS AND EMAILS REFERRING TO THAT FACT.
SO I BELIEVE IT HAS A LOT TO DO.
AGAIN, WITH THE FACT THAT THEY'VE BEEN NOTICED SO MANY TIMES FOR THE MEETING OR FOR NOT THE MEETING, BUT FOR THE HEARING THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE JUST TEND TO GET A LITTLE LESS RESPONSIVE LATER ON DOWN THE LINE.
BECAUSE EVEN LOOKING AT PREVIOUS HEARINGS AND PRESENTATIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED AND LOOKING AT THOSE NUMBERS, THEY WERE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER AT THE THE EARLIER START OF THE DARK.
RIGHT. AND AGAIN AS CHAIR RAVENELL SAID, I APPLAUD STAFF FOR GOING OUT AND DOING THE ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EVEN BEFORE YOU WERE HERE.
SO THANKS FOR THAT. THAT'S MY QUESTION.
ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
THE TIME IS 754 AND WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR CITIZENS.
ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME AND STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD.
MARY BONAPARTE. TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL RIGHT. I'LL OPEN IT UP ALREADY.
[01:25:02]
GOOD EVENING, MARY BONAPARTE.I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START LISTENING TO THIS KERFUFFLE.
AND THAT'S IN MY JUDGE JUDY VOICE.
YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR A LOT OF LEGAL TERMS FROM OTHER SPEAKERS.
BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT ONE THING.
FIRST OF ALL, ABOUT 35% OF OUR STUDENTS MOVED HERE 37 YEARS AGO.
A 35 PLUS PERCENT OF THE STUDENTS IN THIS SCHOOL GET FREE LUNCH.
OKAY, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT STATISTICALLY, STATISTICALLY, YOU DO YOUR RESEARCH ON IT.
THERE IS NO WAY THAT A AREA SUCH AS DESOTO, INNER CITY, DEVELOPING A COMMUNITY SUCH AS YOU DID, THE TOWN CENTER HEARD THE SAME THING WHEN THEY DEVELOPED THIS TOWN CENTER.
TALKING ABOUT BUTTONS WENT TO THE FORT WORTH.
CAME HERE. WHAT YOU JUST HEARD? NOT TRUE. FULLY STAFFED, SAME CONCEPT.
YOU JUST DON'T HAVE THE CLIENTELE HERE IN DESOTO.
YOU HAVE OVER. YOU HAD OVER 100 AND SOME ACRES ON I-35, WHICH WAS YOUR PRIME RETAIL.
YOU KNOW, I'LL WATCH THIS SAME STATISTICAL BS IN DALLAS, 1988. YOU KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS AT LARGE VOTING.
THIS IS A DEVELOPER'S DREAM HAMPTON ROAD, BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHO'S BACKS IS GOING TO ROLL OFF OF THE TAXPAYERS OF DESOTO.
DO YOUR RESEARCH. WHEN YOU GO BACK AND YOU LOOK AT MARVIN CRENSHAW AND YOU LOOK AT ROY WILLIAMS, WHERE THE DEVELOPERS TOOK OVER DALLAS UNTIL 88, UNTIL THAT LAWSUIT. THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT HERE IN DESOTO.
UNTIL WE GET SOME CHANGE, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DECLINE.
VERY HORRIBLE BREAD AND BREAKFAST.
35% PLUS OF YOUR CHILDREN ON LOW INCOME, BUT YET AND STILL.
THESE BLACK FOLKS DONE MOVED ON UP.
NO. YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M TIRED OF RIDING FLIES ON MY BACK FOR MAGGOTS.
AND IT STARTS RIGHT HERE WITH Y'ALL.
I'M SAYING NO. AND WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THE OTHER CITIZENS AND YOU DO YOUR RESEARCH THIS AT LARGE VOTING. I LIVE ON THE EAST SIDE OF DESOTO.
YOU WANT TO KNOW SOMETHING HIGH? HIGH CRIME RATE, HIGH RENTAL PROPERTIES, LOW VOTING TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
HERE WE GO AGAIN. THE CITY IS SINKING, AND I HOPE THAT Y'ALL VOTE NO TONIGHT AND NOT BE PART OF THIS SINKING SHIP.
GOOD EVENING AGAIN. SCOTT MCDONNELL AND I STILL LIVE IN DESOTO, AND I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS HAMPTON ROAD CORRIDOR PROJECT SINCE SIX YEARS, ALMOST SIX YEARS SINCE IT STARTED SHOWING UP.
I URGE YOU TONIGHT TO VOTE THIS DOWN.
OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE THE CITY COUNCIL ARE SO FOR THIS.
I THINK AT LEAST SIX OF THEM OUGHT TO HAVE TO VOTE FOR IT.
STAND UP AND SAY, YEAH, I'M FOR IT.
NOW, IN MY OPINION, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT MORE PROPERTIES IN THERE THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE THIS IS A FAR REACHING PROJECT.
IT'S COMPLICATED. HERE'S HERE'S AN IDEA.
IF YOU WANT APARTMENTS UP AND DOWN HAMPTON ROAD, MULTIFAMILY IS PERMITTED IN FOUR OF THE FIVE DISTRICTS.
THERE ARE NO DENSITY LIMITATIONS.
THE ACRE, WHICH IS WAY TOO TOO SHALLOW.
BUT THERE'S NONE AT ALL IN THIS ORDINANCE, AND THERE'S NO LIMITS ON HOW SMALL THE UNITS CAN BE. AND IT ONLY REQUIRES ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT, NOT ONE PARKING SPACE PER BEDROOM, ONE PER UNIT.
SO YOU COULD HAVE SOME FAIRLY HIGH DENSITY.
THE TRAFFIC PLAN WAS APPROVED BY FREESE AND NICHOLS, AND THE CITY HAS ALREADY APPROVED THE IDEA OF TAKING TWO LANES, TWO TRAFFIC LANES OUT OF HAMPTON ROAD.
[01:30:02]
FOLKS, THAT IS GOING TO CREATE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS UP AND DOWN HAMPTON ROAD AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF BELTLINE AND PLEASANT RUN, AS PEOPLE TAKE ALTERNATE ROUTES AND TURN RIGHT AND LEFT, AND THAT TRAFFIC IS GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE EITHER TO POKE OR TO WESTMORELAND OR COCKRELL HILL.IT'S GOING TO DISRUPT TRAFFIC ALL THROUGH THE CITY.
THERE ARE A BUNCH OF OTHER REASONS WHY I THINK THIS IS A REALLY, REALLY BAD IDEA. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT BUTTONS, AND I THINK THE NUMBER WAS NORTH OF $300,000 AND IT DIDN'T WORK HERE.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GET A $3 MILLION CHICKEN PLACE.
OKAY. WE NEED ANOTHER CHICKEN PLACE.
I URGE YOU TO REALLY THINK LONG AND HARD ABOUT THIS.
THIS THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO COST MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
MANY, MANY MILLIONS, MAYBE AS MUCH AS THE AQUATIC CENTER.
AND THEN IT'S GOING TO TAKE HOW MANY YEARS? DE SOTO IS A GREAT BUYER OF THE PRODUCT OF SNAKE OIL SALESMEN.
THERE'S PROJECT AFTER PROJECT THAT DE SOTO HAS TRIED TO DO TO BRING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO DE SOTO, AND WITHOUT FAIL, THEY JUST SEEM TO PETER OUT AND I'M OUT OF TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE.
THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. DONALD THIS PERSON DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK.
IT'S CANDACE BOWMAN, AND HER STATEMENT IS I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE REZONING OF MY PROPERTY TO URBAN GENERAL. THE NEXT PERSON IS ANNA WILLIAMS. STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.
DESOTO, TEXAS ANNA WILLIAMS, 54 YEARS OF RETAIL.
AND WHEN WE SEE I-35 AND WE'VE GOT ANOTHER MOTEL WITH SOME TOOLS. SO DO I MAKE A TOOL DRESS? TWO SHOES. WHAT DO WE GET? NOTHING. WHEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, I IT'S NOW BED BATH BEYOND AND HOME.
WHO'S ON TOP OF THIS? WHO'S ON TOP OF BALES OVER THERE BY GRAND PRAIRIE.
WHO'S ON TOP OF ALL OF THE OF MR. ELLZEY. WHO IS A GOVERNOR.
I'M NOT GOVERNOR. I'M SORRY, BUT CONGRESSMAN.
HE'S OUT THERE MAKING SURE THAT VENUS.
CORSICANA, ALL OF THOSE PLACES.
AND I SAID SOMETHING TO A YOUNG MAN.
WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE DON'T WE DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE.
YES. THE BUSINESS THAT WAS AT CEDAR HILL WAS UNCONSCIONABLE.
THEN I WENT OVER TO GRAND PRAIRIE OVER THERE.
CAN'T GET NO SHOES. I HAD TO TAKE MY BABY OVER THERE TO CEDAR HILL.
MY GRANDKIDS. I GOT NINE OF EM.
THEY GOING TO SCHOOL? WE'RE DOING NOTHING HERE IN DESOTO, BUT JUST CRAP. THAT'S IT.
I WANT ANOTHER CHICKEN AND ANOTHER BURGER.
I WE DON'T NEED THAT. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE APARTMENTS IN THE COMPLEX, ACTUALLY IN AT THE SCHOOLS, ACTUALLY, MISS MARY IS 84.
80% OF THE KIDS SPEAK TO MISS WILLIAMS. PLEASE SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY, MR. RAVENEL. 80% OF THE CHILDREN HERE.
AND YOU TALK ABOUT SOME OF THEIR PARENTS, AND YOU SEE KIDS WALKING THROUGH AT NIGHT.
HAMPTON ROAD PROJECT. LEAVE IT ALONE.
IT'S NOT THERE. WE HAD SOMEONE A MAYOR HERE.
[01:35:02]
HE KNOWS. HE KNOWS A LOT OF MONEY WAS GIVEN AND WE THOUGHT THAT WE WERE GOING TO GET BETTER. WE HAVE GOTTEN WORSE.PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
I AM MICHAEL HURT. I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF DESOTO SINCE 1988.
BUT I HAVE A HISTORY OF THE PEOPLE WHO FOUNDED THIS COMMUNITY.
AND I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU AS COMMISSIONERS, BECAUSE YOUR CITY COUNCIL HAS DONE YOU A GRAVE DISSERVICE BY THROWING THIS TO YOU.
SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS WHAT THIS COMMUNITY IS NEEDS A COMMUNITY VOTE.
AND THEN WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH WHAT THE COMMUNITY DOES.
WHEN I WAS MAYOR, WE TRIED WITH TOWN CENTER SO HARD TO SPUR SOMETHING.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK ACROSS THE STREET IS STILL EMPTY.
I-35 HAS NOTHING NEW EXCEPT HOTELS SINCE 1998 TO 2006. I DON'T HAVE A MAGIC WAND.
I'M NOT A DEVELOPER. BUT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DECIDE.
YOU SHOULD SEND THIS TO THE COUNCIL WITH A SUPERMAJORITY SAYING TAKE SOMETHING OF THIS MAGNITUDE TO YOUR COMMUNITY.
FIND OUT TRULY WHAT THEY WANT.
MOST OF THE SOME OF THE I SHOULDN'T SAY MOST.
SOME OF THE OWNERS THESE LETTERS GO OUT TO THOSE PEOPLE DON'T EVEN LIVE HERE.
AND NEEDS REGISTERED VOTERS TO TELL US WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO SURVEY PEOPLE ANYMORE.
WE USED TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO THEM ON THE TELEPHONE, DO THINGS. AND THAT'S GONE AWAY.
BUT YOU'VE GOT TO BUILD A COMMUNITY THE WAY YOUR COMMUNITY WANTS.
BUILD IT IN PODS. SOMEBODY SAID, HOW DO YOU EAT AN ELEPHANT? ONE BITE AT A TIME. YOU DON'T TRY AND COOK THE WHOLE RASCAL.
I'M SORRY. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
ANDERSON. MR. ANDERSON, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. GOOD EVENING, BOARD CHAIRMAN. I'M MARTY ANDERSON AT DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS. I'M THE OWNER OF DESOTO MARKETPLACE, PD 170 HERE.
AND I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT BACK WHEN, WHEN WHEN I FIRST PURCHASED THIS AND THE ONLY TYPE OF TENANT WE WERE PROBABLY GOING TO GET IN THE BIGGER BOX WAS A DOLLAR STORE.
AND MAYOR MCCOWAN AND NOW CURRENT MAYOR PROCTOR BOTH CAME TO ME AND SAID, CAN WE DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT? AND SO WE DID, AND WE HAD SEVERAL COMMUNITY MEETINGS.
WE MET WITH BOARDS AND STAFFS AND ALL OF THAT, AND WE CREATED A CODE FOR THAT.
WE CREATED IT'S WHAT THE DIRECTOR SAID WAS UNINTENTIONAL AND INTENTIONAL USE FOR THAT PROPERTY WITH INTENTIONAL.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT TRYING TO EXCLUDE OURSELVES FROM SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, MAY OR MAY NOT BE GOOD, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO JUST KEEP THE INTENT OF THAT AND NOT TO MAKE IT.
AND IT IS DISCONNECT. YOU KNOW, IT IS QUITE A WAYS FROM HAMPTON ROAD.
IT'S NOT ON. IT'S REALLY NOT IN THE HAMPTON ROAD CORRIDOR.
AND WE WE ARE CURRENTLY IMPROVING IT AND UPDATING IT AS WE SPEAK.
IT'S BEEN THERE SEVEN YEARS. IT'S GOT NATIONAL ATTENTION.
IT'S ON THE IT'S GOT NATIONAL AWARDS.
IT'S ON THE FRONT OF THE CONGRESS FOR THE NEW URBANISM WEBSITE.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE COME HERE FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, TO STUDY IT. IS IT PERFECT? NO. DOES IT NEED.
DOES IT ALWAYS NEED IMPROVEMENT? YES. AND I'M JUST ENCOURAGING YOU TO LEAVE IT OUT OF THIS.
AND I APPRECIATE THE DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS TONIGHT ON THAT.
AND GOOD LUCK ON THE REST OF IT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SPEAKING AND AND NO OUTBURSTS, PLEASE. THE NEXT PERSON.
AND IF I MISPRONOUNCE YOUR NAME, PLEASE FORGIVE ME.
[01:40:02]
I'M GOING TO BE SPEAKING ON THIS.OKAY. YOU DO NOT WANT TO SPEAK.
DO YOU WANT TO MAKE YOUR POSITION KNOWN? YES. I'M. I'M IN SUPPORT OF LEAVING TV 170 OUT OF THE REZONING.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OH, I NEED TO KNOW YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE NEXT PERSON IS TANISHA KINSEY.
HER POSITION IS HER COMMENTS ARE.
STAFF MALE 1001. LETTERS TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 AND 400FT OF THE SUBJECT SITE, THEN STATED THEY DON'T COUNT OPPOSITION LETTERS OUTSIDE OF 200FT.
THAT IS MISLEADING AND NOT ACTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE OPPOSITION.
DOCTOR LEWIS, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCY. DOCTOR MONICA LEWIS, DESOTO, TEXAS. I'VE BEEN IN DESOTO SINCE 2013 AND NEVER IMAGINED.
THIS WOULD HAPPEN, THAT WE WOULD BE HERE HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS.
I JUST WANT TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING THAT MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE BEEN VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE REZONING. HOW WILL IT AFFECT THE RESIDENTS AND THEIR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE? IF YOU MAKE THIS MIXED USE MIXED PROPERTY, IS IT GOING TO MAKE THEIR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE GO UP, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WILL AFFECT THEM OR IN THE SALE OF THEIR PROPERTY, AS HAS BEEN SAID EARLIER, THAT THAT THE ZONING OR WHATEVER WON'T AFFECT THE RESIDENTS UNLESS THEY SELL THE HOME.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY KUDOS TO MISS JORDAN.
I THINK SHE'S DONE AN AMAZING JOB TO ONLY HAVE BEEN HERE FOR TWO MONTHS AND HAS BEEN PUT TO THE FIRE ON THIS.
AND I JUST FIND IT INTERESTING WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS MIXED USE, AND I'M FINDING OUT THAT THE, THE HOMES OR APARTMENT COMPLEX OVER HERE WAS A MIXED USE PROPERTY AS WELL.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT I CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I KNOW KEITH BUTTONS WELL, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE EXPLAINED TO ME WHY HE HAD TO CLOSE BUTTONS WAS BECAUSE THE STAFF WAS STEALING.
IN HIS WORDS, THEY WERE STILL IN CORNBREAD, SUGAR OFF CORNBREAD.
SO ARE WE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME ISSUE AGAIN? BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE STAMINA AND THE DRIVE FOR THESE PROPERTIES AND FOR WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN THIS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
I JUST THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN TO ANOTHER ROUTE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT A PROJECT THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR 25 YEARS, WHERE IT WAS 36,000 RESIDENTS AT THAT TIME, AND NOW WE'RE AT 56, WHICH IS ABOUT 11,000 MORE AND GROWING.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS MEDICAL DISTRICT FOR SENIORS TO BE ABLE TO WALK AND, YOU KNOW, AND ENJOY THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE HAMPTON ROADS CORRIDOR.
RIGHT. WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY FOR ME, AT 57 WITH A REPLACED HIP, I HAVE HAVE A RAPPORT WITH MY DOCTOR.
IS ANYBODY DOING ANY MARKETING TO SEE IF OUR DOCTORS ARE GOING TO COME TO THIS AREA? I MEAN, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT I MEAN, WE NEED TO MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.
A LOT OF PEOPLE, NO DISRESPECT, ARE AREN'T IN THE GREATEST OF HEALTH.
THEY'RE MORE SO IN HOVERERS THAN WALKING.
SO WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? YOU KNOW, AND THEN WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT TO ME IS EVERY TIME THIS MAP IS PRESENTED, IT'S BEEN CHANGED. EVERY SINGLE TIME, FROM THE BEGINNING OF CONCEPTION OF IT, TALKING ABOUT IT TILL NOW, IT'S BEEN CHANGED AGAIN.
THESE BEADS HAVE BEEN CHANGED AGAIN.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL.
SO THERE'S JUST SOME CONCERN THERE.
I'M FOR THE PROJECT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE ON HAMPTON ROAD.
I REALLY DON'T, SO I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF THE DIFFERENCES OF THE ONE PERSON ON THIS COMMISSION AND VOTED NO, YOU MIGHT NEED TO TAKE HEED TO WHAT HE'S HIS VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DOCTOR LEWIS, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT WE'RE. YOU ARE SAYING NO TO THE PROJECT? YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
I. LINDA. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.
AND TO THE STAFF. TO THE COMMISSION COMMITTEE.
AS A CONCERNED RESIDENT OF DE SOTO, I WANT TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO ANY CONSIDERATION OF REMOVING PARCELS FROM THE REZONING PROPOSAL.
FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY ARE CRITICAL IN THESE DECISIONS,
[01:45:02]
AND IT IS TROUBLING THAT WHILE CERTAIN STAKEHOLDERS REQUEST ARE STRONGLY CONSIDERED, THE VOICES AND CONCERNS OF TAXPAYERS, THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE HERE, INVEST HERE AND PAY TAXES SEEM TO BE MINIMIZED OR OVERLOOKED.TAXPAYERS INTERACT. INTERESTS DESERVE EQUAL RESPECT AND WEIGHT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS.
IT IS ALSO NOTABLE THAT MANY INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT DO NOT APPEAR TO LIVE IN DE SOTO.
I WONDER HOW MANY WOULD CHOOSE TO MOVE HERE OR RAISE THEIR FAMILIES HERE IF THIS CHARACTER CODE PASSES.
GIVEN THAT THE LONG TERM IMPACTS WILL BE MOST DEEPLY FELT BY CURRENT RESIDENTS.
SPECIFICALLY, I WANT TO ADDRESS PD 170, KNOWN AS GROW DE SOTO MARKET.
TO ME, THIS DEVELOPMENT RESEMBLES A MINI BIG TEA BAZAAR, AN AREA I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND TO VISITORS OR RESIDENTS ALIKE.
IF WE EXPECT RESIDENTS TO MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THEIR HOMES AND IMPROVE AND IMPROVE THEIR HOMES TO MEET CITY CODES, THAN IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT STAKEHOLDERS BE REQUIRED TO BRING THEIR PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENTS UP TO THE SAME STANDARD.
THIS CITY CODE SHOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL ENSURING SAFETY, QUALITY AND A POSITIVE IMAGE FOR DE SOTO.
I ASK YOU THIS COMMITTEE TO LISTEN CLOSELY TO THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS, REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENTS LIKE DE SOTO MARKET FULLY MEET CITY CODES.
ENSURE THAT TAXPAYER INTERESTS REMAIN CENTRAL AS YOU CONSIDER REZONING PROPOSALS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, YOUR TIME, AND THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION.
MISS CUSHMAN, WOULD YOU RETURN, PLEASE STATE YOUR POSITION.
ARE YOU IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION? OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO WAIVE MY RIGHT TO SPEAK.
ALL RIGHT. AND COULD YOU WOULD YOU LIKE TO REGISTER POSITION? NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
MR. GORE, AS I'M SURE YOU KNOW.
COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TERRANCE GORE.
I RESIDE IN DESOTO. LET ME STATE MY POSITION.
I'M IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PLAN.
AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT WE'RE SMALL.
WE'RE JUST A LITTLE COUNTRY TOWN.
ALWAYS. I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 2004.
AND I'VE SEEN THE CHANGES IN THE GROWTH IN DESOTO.
YOU KNOW, FROM DIRT ROADS, BELTLINE BEING ONE LANE GOING EACH DIRECTION AND COWS AND AND EVERYTHING.
WE HAVE WE ACTUALLY GOT THREE MAJOR PROJECTS GOING ON.
WE JUST RECENTLY INHERITED ANOTHER ONE THAT'S GOING TO GOING TO FEEL BADLY FOR THE CITY.
THORNTREE GOLF CLUB. WE GOT THE HAMPTON ROAD PROJECT AND WE GOT THE ARK.
WHY DON'T WE? WHY CAN'T WE JUST DO THINGS IN SMALL PARCELS AND BUILD ON THAT? WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO GRAND? IT'S EITHER, YOU KNOW, GO GRAND OR WE DON'T DO ANYTHING.
YOU GOT A WHOLE GREEN SPACE BEHIND CITY HALL.
THERE'S A JOINT THAT'S ADJACENT TO THAT CREEK.
BIG SPACE. ENOUGH TO PUT STOREFRONTS, BOUTIQUE, WHATEVER. NOTHING HAS BEEN SAID.
I LOOKED AT THE MAP. THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THAT.
YET YOU HAVE A SMALL BUSINESS THAT RIGHT OFF OF PLEASANT RUN AND CHATTY, BOUGHT THAT HOUSE A TWO STORY HOUSE.
REVITALIZED IT. AND THE WHOLE BACK AREA OVER THERE IS JUST SUPERB.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST FABULOUS WHAT THEY DID WITH THAT.
THAT LAND AND THAT CREEK BACK IN THE CREEK THAT GOES THROUGH THAT.
WHY CAN'T THE CITY DO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
START SMALL. THAT WOULD BE YOUR YOUR.
IT'S RIGHT THERE AT CITY HALL.
EVERYBODY WAS SAYING THAT WHEN THEY DID THE CITY AND REVITALIZED CITY HALL, THAT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE JEWEL OF OF THE CENTERPIECE AND JEWEL OF DESOTO.
AND IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THESE OTHER THINGS. AND WE GOT, YOU KNOW, WE GOT THE DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH RIGHT HERE.
YOU GOT A CREEK AND ACRES OF LAND RIGHT BEHIND US THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED.
[01:50:01]
AND, YOU KNOW, NOBODY WANTS TO DO THAT.THEY WANT TO GO UP AND DOWN TERRY HAMPTON ROAD APART AND, YOU KNOW, TRY TO THROW THESE HIGH RISES.
I SEEN THE DRAWINGS. THESE HIGH RISES AND AND MULTI USE.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. YOU GOT TO FIRST OF ALL YOU GOT TOO MANY PRIVATE OWNERS COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE NOT GOING TO BUDGE.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUDGE, AND IT'S GOING TO COST TOO MUCH MONEY TO BUY THEM OUT. YOU KNOW, THERE IS PLENTY OF LAND IN AND AROUND HERE TO DEVELOP ON.
THANK YOU, MR. GORE. YOUR TIME IS OVER.
I, I BELIEVE I'VE CALLED ALL OF THE CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK, AND I WANT TO JUST ENSURE THAT I DIDN'T OVERLOOK ANYONE.
ALL RIGHT. IF NOT, THE TIME IS 821 AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE. COMMISSIONERS AT THIS TIME, IF DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU WISH TO MAKE BEFORE I CALL FOR A MOTION? I SEE, MR. GRAHAM, YOU WANT TO CLICK THE VICE CHAIR GO FIRST.
IN REGARDS TO THE OPPOSITION THE NUMBERS WE RECEIVED, ARE THEY ONLY IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS THERE? THE EXCUSE ME, THEIR OPPOSITION, THE OPPOSITION THAT WE RECEIVED IS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS AS WELL AS THE BOUNDARY.
OKAY. DO WE KNOW THE NUMBERS FOR THE OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 400 FOOT RADIUS? WE DON'T KNOW. I DON'T BELIEVE WE RECEIVED MAYBE ONE OR.
BUT IT STATED ON THE LETTER THAT THEIR I GUESS THEIR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT CALCULATION.
SO WE DON'T TYPICALLY RECEIVE THOSE LETTERS BACK, BUT TYPICALLY THE COMMISSION GETS BOTH NUMBERS.
SO GOING FORWARD, CAN YOU PLEASE MAKE A NOTE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION? ABSOLUTELY. IN THE 200 AS WELL AS THE 400 RADIUS.
THANK YOU. MISS JORDAN, I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I GOT IT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN VERY BRIEFLY, QUICKLY, LAYMAN TERMS? WHY ARE WE PULLING OUT THE PD 170? SO WE'RE PULLING OUT PD 170 DUE TO.
I GUESS NOT, I GUESS SO I CONCLUDED THAT WE NEED TO REMOVE PD 170 FROM THE REDUCED AND RE-ENVISIONED BOUNDARY.
DUE TO THE THE INTENT, THE PROPOSED INTENT FOR PD 170.
AGAIN, PD'S TAKE A LOT OF THERE'S JUST A LOT OF INTENTION BEHIND PD AND LOOKING AT THEIR LOCATION ON THE I GUESS WITHIN THE CORRIDOR.
THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY ON THE CORRIDOR.
THEY'RE FURTHER INTO EAST BELTLINE ROAD.
UNDERSTOOD. AND JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY.
SO YOU MADE THAT DECISION TO PULL ONE PD 170.
I DID, AND THAT WAS AFTER YOU HAD THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE BUSINESSES THAT WAS OPPOSED TO THIS. CORRECT? THAT WAS CORRECT AFTER I REACHED OUT TO THE PD OWNERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SINCE WE GOT MISS JORDAN, I THINK. OKAY, GO AHEAD, MR. POWELL. OKAY, MISS JORDAN, I GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS, AND THIS IS JUST FOR GENERAL INFORMATION.
I THINK YOU YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS PROJECT WAS STARTED IN 1999.
IS THAT CORRECT? I MENTIONED 2020 OR 2005, BUT OUR DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, MR. MATT CARLSON, HE CORRECTED ME AND MENTIONED THAT IT WAS 1999, 1999. AND DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW MANY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTS WE'VE DONE SINCE 99? SINCE 99? NO, NOT AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LARGE AMOUNT, A LARGE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTS.
HOW MANY PROPERTIES ARE IN THE REDUCED AREA CORRIDOR? IN THE REDUCED AREA CORRIDOR? THERE ARE 215. WELL, THERE ARE 210, EXCLUDING THE FIVE PARCELS THAT I RECOMMENDED BE EXCLUDED. ALL RIGHT.
215. HOW MANY NOTIFICATIONS THAT YOU SEND OUT.
WE SENT OUT 1001, 1000 NOTIFICATIONS, AND IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE WE GOT MAYBE 30 OR 40 PEOPLE IN HERE. WE HAD ABOUT TEN PEOPLE GET UP AND SPEAK TO OPPOSITION, NONE OF WHICH ARE IN THE BOUNDARIES.
EXCUSE ME. PLEASE. PLEASE DO NOT ADDRESS THE DAIS.
CORRECTION. WE HAD AT LEAST ONE PROPERTY OWNER THAT WAS IN THE BOUNDARY THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT GOING FORWARD.
I HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS FROM THE CITIZENS OF THAT SHOWED UP HERE TONIGHT TO VOICE THEIR
[01:55:06]
CONCERN. AND I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOME VALID CONCERNS IN THERE.A PROJECT OF THIS SCOPE IS VERY LARGE, AND WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE CITY. WHEN WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS PART OF MY DECISION PROCESS IS BASED ON THE PARAMETERS IN WHICH US AS COMMISSIONERS ARE BOUND TO PAY ATTENTION TO, AND THAT IS THE NOTIFICATION AREA, THE NUMBERS OF NOTIFICATIONS, THE NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS, THE PEOPLE WHO COME AND SPEAK BEFORE US.
AND SO WHILE WE WANT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE OPINIONS OF THE PEOPLE WHO CERTAINLY COME IN FRONT OF US AND SPEAK, WE ALSO KNOW THAT MAYBE NOT EVERYONE IS ABLE TO SHOW UP. SO WE WANT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THOSE FOLKS WHO MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE UP. BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGES, WE SEE THAT THERE'S A VERY LOW PERCENTAGE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR TWO DECADES.
AND THERE, IN MY OPINION, HAS BEEN PLENTY OF TIME FOR THE CITIZENS OF DESOTO TO STOP THIS DEVELOPMENT, IF THAT IS IN FACT WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS OF DESOTO WANTED TO DO.
AND IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ME TO ME THAT THAT IS THE SENTIMENT OF THE CITY OF DESOTO.
THE WAY I HEARD IT WAS THAT THE CITIZENS OF DESOTO WANTED TO MODERNIZE THE CITY AND CREATE A SPACE IN THE, IN THE CITY THAT THEY COULD BE PROUD OF.
AND I THINK WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL SET OUT TO TAKE ON THIS TASK, THAT WAS THE VISION THEY HAD IN MIND.
ONE OF THE CITIZENS WHO CAME UP HERE MADE SOME VALID POINTS.
WE'VE GOT THESE OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING ON, AND I'VE HEARD THAT I'VE HEARD MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THIS LAST ONE, THE ARC IS CAUSING MAYBE SOME QUESTIONING ABOUT HOW THE FUNDING IS GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. ONE THING THAT I KNOW THAT I'VE SEEN IN ONE OF THE RECENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBER MEETINGS IS THAT IT WAS FLAWED FOR THE UPCOMING BUDGET THAT THE THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY WOULDN'T RECEIVE THEIR INCREASES, THEIR REGULAR INCREASES, BECAUSE OF THE SCARCITY OF FUNDING.
AND I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING ON ANOTHER MASSIVE PROJECT THIS BIG, WHEN WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO OTHER PROJECTS. ON ITS FACE, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
JUST FOR THE INFORMATION OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, THE ONLY REAL PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS THE FACT THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO REDUCE HAMPTON ROAD TO TWO LANES.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A DISASTER. THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK THE CITY NEEDS SOME OF WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. I WANT TO SAY THAT THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE CITIZENS MATTERS AND THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE A BIG ROLE TO PLAY IN THIS, AND I'M A WITNESS TO MANY OTHER OUTREACH PROGRAMS. AND YOU KNOW, MANY MEETINGS WE'VE HAD HERE IN THIS, IN THIS ROOM ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
BUT WHAT I WOULD URGE EVERYONE WHO IS LISTENING AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO IS TAKE A VERY STRONG LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DECIDING WE WANT TO DO WITH THIS PROJECT MOVING FORWARD.
CITIZENS OF DESOTO, PLEASE COME OUT HERE AND LET US KNOW YOUR OPINION ON THESE MATTERS AND WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE.
BECAUSE IF WE STRICTLY GO OFF OF THE NUMBERS, THE NUMBERS SAY THAT THIS IS WHAT THE CITY WANTS.
AND SO WE CANNOT NEGATE THAT UNDERSTANDING FOR THE OPINIONS OF A FEW.
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO EVERYONE WHO IS IN THE EARSHOT OF MY VOICE.
IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY DOES NOT WANT, WE NEED Y'ALL TO SHOW UP AND LET US KNOW THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY DOES NOT WANT. AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO YIELD THE FLOOR TO THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE.
THANK YOU, MR. BELL. I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I JUST WANT TO.
AND I HOPE I DON'T PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.
VICE CHAIR. WE JUST RECENTLY HAD A TRAINING DONE BY THE THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
AND UNDER THE ZONING AMENDMENTS, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME OUT.
ZONING REGULATIONS MUST BE MUST BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MUST BE DESIGNED TO. THERE ARE SEVERAL BULLETS, BUT THE FIRST BULLET IS TO LESSEN CONGESTION IN STREETS. NOW, YOU JUST BROUGHT UP THE ROADWAY.
[02:00:01]
THIS IS SAYING THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF THE ROADWAY WHEN WE'RE MAKING THE DECISION. SO AS THE TRAFFIC PERSON ON HERE THAT WE KNOW, HELP ME UNDERSTAND. HERE YOU HAVE TRAFFIC THAT IS UTILIZING FOUR LANES AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO REDUCE IT DOWN TO TWO AS WE'RE APPROACHING THE INTERSECTIONS.THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME DOWN.
IF HALF OF THE PEOPLE UTILIZE IT, PERHAPS HALF OF THE PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO UTILIZE IT. BUT NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE 50% OF THAT TRAFFIC, AND WE'RE GOING TO DIVERT IT OFF TO I THINK SOMEBODY MENTIONED MAYBE, MAYBE WESTMORELAND OR SOMETHING.
SO NOW YOU'RE INCREASING THE TRAFFIC ON THOSE STREETS, WHICH MAY NOT BE DESIGNED TO CARRY THAT MUCH TRAFFIC.
MY THINKING IN THE IN THE PLAN, IT WAS STATED THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING THIS TO DRIVE TRAFFIC INTO OUR CITY.
OKAY. NOW WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE IT DOWN TO TWO.
THEN WE'RE GOING TO DRAW PEOPLE IN, TO SHOP, TO EAT, TO DINE. SO HERE'S MORE TRAFFIC.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND. WILL THE DIVERSION OF TRAFFIC, WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED? COULD THAT CAUSE TO CREATE CONGESTION ON OTHER ROADS? IS THERE A CAUSE AND EFFECT? WHAT IS THE CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP? ARE WE GOING DOWN FROM 4 TO 2? FROM YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF TRAFFIC.
SO I'M LOOKING AT HALF BECAUSE THEY DID THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.
BUT I'LL GIVE YOU MY OPINION BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FOR OVER TWO DECADES MYSELF.
I REALLY DO BELIEVE IN BUILDING ROADWAYS TO ACCOMMODATE NOT ONLY THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
I BELIEVE IN BUILDING ROADWAYS TO ACCOMMODATE PEDESTRIANS, BUILDING ROADWAYS TO ACCOMMODATE BICYCLISTS, AND BUILDING ROADWAYS TO ACCOMMODATE MY ELDERLY NEIGHBOR WHO'S IN A WHEELCHAIR.
SO IF WE CAN TAKE THE ROADWAY THAT'S EXISTING AND REALLOCATE SOME OF THAT SPACE TO BE UTILIZED FOR OTHER MODES, I'M COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF IT, ESPECIALLY AT THE EXPENSE OF MAKING IT INCONVENIENT FOR THOSE WHO ARE ONLY CUTTING THROUGH OUR CITY TO CONTINUE ON FURTHER SOUTH.
SO TO CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC SHOULD REMAIN ON 30 ON THE INTERSTATE WHERE IT BELONGS, AS OPPOSED TO USING THE SCENIC ROUTE HAMPTON ROAD TO, YOU KNOW, BUILD UP CONGESTION.
AND I'LL SAY EVERYONE'S PERCEPTION OF CONGESTION IS THEIR OWN PERCEPTION.
A ROADWAY SUCH A TWO LANE ROADWAY COULD EASILY ACCOMMODATE OVER 10,000 TO 12,000 VEHICLES PER DAY WITHOUT IT BEING CONGESTED.
NOW THERE ARE WAYS. EXCUSE ME.
EXCUSE ME. PLEASE. THE CONVERSATIONS ARE DISTRACTING, AND WE'RE TRYING TO HEAR WHAT THE COMMISSIONER IS SAYING.
YEAH. SO I GUESS TO YOUR POINT, AND IF YOU WANT MORE DETAILS ON HOW THE TIA WAS DONE AND WHAT CAME OUT OF THAT, I'M GOING TO LEAN TO HALF.
BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IT WILL INCREASE.
THE ABILITY FOR OTHER MODES TO COME THROUGH THAT CORRIDOR IN A SAFER MANNER.
PEOPLE MAY WANT TO RIDE TO HOPEFULLY GET SOME RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL, MAY WANT TO RIDE THEIR BIKES TO THAT LOCATION.
THEY MAY WANT TO WALK, YOU KNOW.
SO I'M, I'M DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF A REDUCTION IN ROADWAY IF IT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE ABILITY OF OTHER USERS TO SAFELY UTILIZE THAT ROADWAY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR YOU. LET ME ASK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY STUDIES OR DO WE KNOW HAVE A KNOWLEDGE OF HOW CYCLISTS ARE USING THE CITY OF DE SOTO PRESENTLY? PRESENTLY, I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION, BUT I CAN GET THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY LANES PRESENTLY THAT ARE CARVED OUT FOR CYCLISTS IN THE CITY OF DE SOTO? I CAN ANSWER THAT. NOT DEDICATED SPECIFICALLY FOR CYCLISTS.
THEY'RE SHARING LANES WITH THE REGULAR ROADWAYS, AND THEY'RE USING THOSE CYCLISTS.
THEY'RE SHARING THOSE ROADS WITH VEHICLES WHO ARE DRIVING 50 AND 60MPH.
NOT WITHOUT A DEDICATED FACILITY.
AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY DEDICATED BICYCLE FACILITIES IN THE CITY.
SO THEN I'M JUST TRYING TO GRAB GRASP THIS.
SO HAVING A ONE MILE STRETCH OF, OF ROADWAY FOR CYCLISTS WITH WE THINKING THAT'S GOING TO HAVE MORE CYCLISTS COME THROUGH OUR CITY,
[02:05:02]
OR IS THAT ROAD GOING TO BE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE LIVING IN THAT CORRIDOR? WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? REPEAT THAT QUESTION, SIR.SO IF WE TAKE THIS AND REDUCE IT DOWN TO TWO LANES, GET THE PARKING AND THEN WE ADD THE BICYCLE PATHS.
DO YOU THINK THAT ONE MILE ROADWAY IS GOING TO INCREASE CYCLIST USAGE IN OUR CITY, OR DO YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO ONLY BE USED BY PEOPLE WHO MAY BE LIVING WITHIN THE CORRIDOR? ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT IT'LL BE SAFER FOR CYCLISTS TO USE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE TODAY, SO I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THAT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M JUST GOING FOR ONE MORE CLARITY TO MAKE SURE I GOT IT.
DID YOU TALK TO ANY OF THE RESIDENTS THAT ISSUED A OPPOSITION? DID YOU PERSONALLY CALL THEM OR TALK TO THEM LIKE WE DID THE BUSINESS OWNERS? NO, I DID NOT PERSONALLY.
SO I RECEIVED THE LETTERS OR ON THE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.
THERE'S NOT A PLACE FOR A TELEPHONE NUMBER, BUT SOMETIMES I KNOW RESIDENTS.
THEY DO. JUST GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION ON. NONE OF THE LETTERS THAT I SAW WAS THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED. AND DO WE NOT HAVE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN GET THAT INFORMATION AND MAKE THOSE PHONE CALLS IF WE DON'T? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A WAY IF IT'S NOT PROVIDED, THE INFORMATION IS TYPICALLY NOT AVAILABLE ON, I GUESS, WEBSITES LIKE DCAD AND THINGS OF THAT SORT.
SO NO, THERE WASN'T A WAY THAT I'M AWARE OF.
OKAY. AND IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THE I'M SORRY.
SO WE DID TALK TO ONE RESIDENT THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION, BUT IT WAS BECAUSE THEY CAME INTO THE OFFICE AND THEY SPOKE TO US. SO THAT WOULD BE LIKE THE TYPICAL WAY WE WOULD GET TO, I GUESS, PUT A FACE TO THE PUT A FACE AND NAME TO THAT LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED.
SO JUST SPEAKING WHILE I HEARD YOU CLEARLY THAT YOU THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT GO BEHIND THESE KIND OF DECISIONS AND I TRULY DO BELIEVE THAT IN DEVELOPMENT.
MY QUESTION IS, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THE RESIDENT THAT IS IN OPPOSITION THAT DID NOT GET TO SPEAK TO YOU DIRECTLY? AND THEN YOU SPOKE TO A BUSINESS OWNER AND THERE WAS CHANGE THAT WAS MADE AFTER THAT CONVERSATION. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THAT PERSON NOW THAT THEY'RE HERE? OR JUST LIKE IF THEY WERE TO COME TO ME? OH, IN GENERAL, I WOULD GIVE THEM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LET THEM KNOW THAT I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THEIR OPPOSITION. AND THEN I WOULD GO AND I GUESS, GO FORWARD TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS BEHIND THE PROPOSED HCRC REDUCED AND RE-ENVISION BOUNDARY. AND THEN I WOULD, I GUESS, MOVE FORWARD TO FIND THEIR LOCATION WITHIN THAT BOUNDARY AND THEN TO DISCUSS I MEAN, I GUESS TO CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION BASED OFF OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE PULLED THERE.
GOT IT. AND THEN I'M DONE AFTER THIS.
WAS THERE ANY DEALS, CONVERSATIONS OR ANYTHING MADE BETWEEN THE BUSINESSES AND THE CITY WHEN WE DECIDED TO REMOVE THEM FROM PD 170? NO DEALS? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.
YES, MR. CHAIR. SO YOU MENTIONED THE TRAFFIC ISSUE.
CONGESTION. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT CAN SPEAK TO TO THAT ISSUE? DO WE HAVE A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT OR IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? YES, WE HAVE MR. LENNY HUGHES WITH HALF ASSOCIATES.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. CITY OF RESIDENCE.
GOOD EVENING, LENNY HUGHES. HALF ASSOCIATES. RICHARDSON, TEXAS.
GOOD EVENING. CHAIRPERSON. COMMISSIONERS. BY BY LAW.
I'M A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND I DO CITY CONSULTING FOR PLANNING.
I'M NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, BUT DURING THE PROCESS OF THE THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN FOR THE HAMPTON ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY, WE DID LOOK AT A TIA, WHICH IS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE THE ROADWAYS IMPACTED HERE FOR HAMPTON ROAD.
WE DID LOOK AT THE OTHER NORTH SOUTH CONNECTIONS SUCH AS WESTMORELAND AND POLK.
THOSE TWO ROAD AREA CORRIDORS ARE RIGHT NOW HAVE EXCESS CAPACITY.
MEANING THERE'S THOSE THOSE ROADWAYS ARE AS FAR AS TRAVEL VEHICLE AREA.
THEY ARE THEY HAVE I THINK AROUND 40, 45,000.
THAT'S THEIR CAPACITY. AND SO IF YOU TAKE, SAY TAKE FOR INSTANCE, YOU HAVE A BATHTUB, RIGHT? AND YOU HAVE IF YOU'RE ABLE TO FILL IT UP, THEN YOU'RE AT CAPACITY.
WELL, RIGHT NOW THERE THE THE ROADWAY FOR POLK AND WESTMORELAND, THERE ARE ABOUT A QUARTER OF THEIR CAPACITY.
SO THEY HAVE ABLE TO ALLOW FOR MORE WATER, BASICALLY MORE MORE CARS TO TRAVEL ALONG THAT ROADWAY NETWORK THERE.
AND SO THE THOUGHT OF HAVING YOU KNOW, WHEN WE START TO LOOK AT THE CONVERSION OF FOUR LANES DOWN TO TWO LANES TO THREE LANES HAMPTON ROAD IS ACTUALLY DIVIDED IN TWO SECTIONS. SO YOU HAVE THE NORTHERN SECTION FROM PLEASANT RUN TO THE CREEK AREA.
THAT WILL BE THE TWO LANE SECTION.
SORRY. THERE'LL BE THE THREE LANE SECTION, BUT THE AREA THAT'S GOING FROM THE CREEK DOWN TO BELTLINE WILL BE THE TWO LANE ROADWAY SECTION THERE.
AND SO WE'RE ARE ABLE TO TAKE THE CAPACITY OF THE ROAD AND TO DIVERT THAT TRAFFIC ONTO A BELT LINE AND TO RUN TO THOSE OTHER NORTH SOUTH STREETS, WHICH WHICH WOULD BE WESTMORELAND AND POLK STREET.
[02:10:01]
AND SO A LOT OF TRAFFIC.I THINK SOMEONE HAD SAID EARLIER THAT THERE'S A LOT OF MORNING TRAFFIC COMING IN FROM THE, THE COMMUNITIES FROM THE, FROM THE SOUTH.
AND THEN IN THE AFTERNOON, YOU GET A LOT OF TRAFFIC COMING FROM THE NORTH. AND SO BASICALLY, HAMPTON ROADS IS A PASS THROUGH YOU GET A LOT OF TRAVELERS THAT ARE COMING IN FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES, NOT OUTSIDE OF HAMPTON.
AND SO THE THOUGHT IS TO IF WE WANT TO MAKE HAMPTON ROADS DESTINATION, WHICH WAS BASICALLY THE 2005 VISION I THINK I WAS HERE ALSO IN 2019, WE ALREADY COMMISSIONED FOR THE PROJECT, BUT WE HAVE INTEREST INTO HOW THIS AREA WOULD BE DEVELOPED. AND SO THEY WANTED TO BE A DESTINATION.
THEY WANTED A PLACE TO BE FOR FAMILIES, FOR EATING, FOR RESTAURANT. THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE CHARACTER OF WHAT THIS PLACE IS. AND SO WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION SAFETY ACCESS.
HOW DO WE CREATE A DESTINATION HERE FOR THE RESIDENTS IN DE SOTO, BUT ALSO HOW TO ATTRACT PEOPLE FROM OUT OF TOWN TO BE ABLE TO SPEND AND INVEST THEIR MONEY WITHIN THE AREA ITSELF? AND SO WITH THAT STUDY, WE DID LOOK AT TRAVEL PATTERNS, SO WE WANTED TO MAKE IT MORE BIKE FRIENDLY, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY, ALSO SAFER FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE DRIVING WITHIN THE AREA ITSELF.
AND SO LOOKING OUTSIDE, WE FEEL THAT CURRENTLY, RIGHT NOW THAT WESTMORELAND AND POLK STREET, THEY ARE ABLE TO HANDLE THE EXCESS CAPACITY FROM HAMPTON ROAD. TRAFFIC COULD BE DIVERTED TO THOSE TWO ROADWAY CORRIDOR AREAS AND MAKE THIS A MUCH SLOWER. WE DID LOOK AT SPEED STUDIES.
RIGHT NOW PEOPLE ARE DRIVING 4550 MILES AN HOUR.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SLOW THAT TRAFFIC DOWN.
SO AS YOU'RE DRIVING THROUGH AREAS, YOU'RE SLOWING TRAFFIC DOWN. BUT ALSO YOU'RE LOOKING AT, MAN, THAT'S A NICE LITTLE RESTAURANT OVER THERE I MAY WANT TO HAVE STOP AND COME THROUGH. I MAY NOT HAVE TIME TODAY, BUT LET ME COME BACK THE NEXT TIME.
OR I MAY WANT TO GO SHOPPING HERE WITHIN THE ZONE, THIS AREA. SO IT'S THINK ABOUT THE BIGGER PICTURE OF WHAT CAN CAN BE, BUT ALSO HOW DO WE ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE HERE CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY? THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MISS JORDAN, WOULD YOU PLACE ON THE SLIDE WHICH YOU PUT DOWN, WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO VOTE ON? ALL RIGHT. THE RECOMMENDATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE LAST THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS BEFORE WE GO.
THANK YOU. MISTER BILL, YOU BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I HAD NOT THOUGHT OF AS RELATIVE TO BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS AND THE IMPACT THAT MOVING FORWARD COULD, COULD HAVE ON THE CITY AS WE WE MOVE FORWARD.
THE OTHER THING THAT YOU ALSO MENTIONED, BUT THERE WAS ALSO A CITIZEN MENTIONED, IS ALLOWING THE CITIZENS TO REALLY HAVE MORE INPUT WHEN WE'RE GETTING INTO THESE LARGE FUNDING TYPES OF PROJECTS.
AND WHILE THAT MAY BE A GREAT THING TO DO, HOW THIS COMMISSIONER MAKES THAT HAPPEN, THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT THAT CAN HAPPEN, BUT I WANTED TO TO READ TO YOU ALL NOW WHAT THE STAFF IS HAVING US VOTE ON.
AND THEN AT THAT TIME I WILL HAVE YOU ALL SOMEONE TO TO PROVIDE A MOTION.
STAFF IS WANTING US TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO THE CITY OF DESOTO FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING OF ALL PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE REDUCED RE-ENVISIONED BOUNDARY OF THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE, EXCLUDING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
PD ONE SEVEN, ALSO KNOWN AS 324 EAST BELTLINE AND THE FOUR PROPERTIES LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF PD ONE SEVEN TO BOB WHITE STREET, 301 EAST BELTLINE ROAD, 307 EAST BELTLINE ROAD 321 EAST BELTLINE ROAD, THAT BEING THE SCHOOL AND DESOTO.
AS PRESENTED, THIS IS CASE NUMBER Z151424.
AT THIS TIME I'LL TAKE I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. CHAIR, AS IT RELATES TO CASE NUMBER Z1514-24.
I MOVE, WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
SECOND. ALL RIGHT. IT HAS BEEN MOVED BY MR. BELL. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR THAT WE MOVE FOR APPROVAL AS PRESENTED.
ARE YOU READY FOR THE QUESTION OR.
ALL RIGHT. HEARING AND SEEING NONE.
THE MOTION IS ON WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER C1514-24.
ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
[02:15:01]
ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE THAT'S THREE.ALL OPPOSED. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY I.
[3. Conduct a public hearing and consider making a recommendation for an ordinance to amend Planned Development No. 193 (PD-193). The current PD-193 includes base zoning districts of Single Family-8 (SF-8), Single Family-9 (SF-9), and Single Family-10 (SF-10), with specific deviations. The proposed amendment would revise PD-193 to include only Single Family-8 (SF-8) and Single Family-9 (SF-9) as the base zoning districts, with updated deviations. PD-193 governs the development and land use of a 50.35-acre tract located at the northeast corner of South Polk Street and East Parkerville Road. The properties included in this request are 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. (Zoning Case No.: Z-1530-24)]
WE'RE MOVING NOW TO OUR LAST CASE.CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT. NUMBER 193.
THE CURRENT PD 193 INCLUDES BASE ZONING DISTRICTS OF SINGLE FAMILY EIGHT, SINGLE FAMILY NINE AND SINGLE FAMILY TEN AND SPECIFIC DEVIATIONS.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD WOULD REVISE PD 193 TO INCLUDE ONLY SINGLE FAMILY EIGHT AND SINGLE FAMILY NINE AS THE BASE ZONING DISTRICTS WITH UPDATED DEVIATIONS.
PD 193 GOVERNS THE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE OF A 50.35 ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH POLK STREET AND EAST PARKERVILLE ROAD.
THE PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN THIS REQUEST ARE ADDRESSED AS 800, 803, EIGHT, 11, EIGHT, 19, 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 ZONING CASE NUMBER Z153024.
COMMISSIONERS. I AM BRING FORWARD TO YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND A EXISTING PD, WHICH IS PD 193. SO SPECIFICALLY SPEAKING, THE APPLICANT, MR. JOHN MACKENZIE OF M&A, DEVCO, AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH IS A LEGACY GROVE DEVELOPMENT LLC, SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REQUESTING TO AMEND AN EXISTING PD, WHICH IS PD 193 FROM ITS CURRENT BASE ZONINGS OF SF EIGHT, SF NINE AND SF TEN WITH DEVIATIONS TO TO AN AMENDED PD WITH BASE ZONINGS OF SF EIGHT AND SF NINE WITH DEVIATIONS.
THE LOCATION IS ADDRESSED AS 800 803, 811 81819 AND 901 EAST PARKER ROAD, AND THE LOCATION SIZE IS 50.35 3.35 ACRES AND YOU CAN SEE THE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCATION ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED ON THE NOTIFICATION MAP.
OKAY. SO THE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLICATION WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DAILY COMMERCIAL RECORD ON JULY 28TH OF 2025. IN TOTAL, 56 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTICED WITHIN THE 200 AND 400 FOOT RADIUS OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
AND IN TOTAL, ZERO LETTERS OF SUPPORT WERE RECEIVED AND ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION WAS RECEIVED. YOU CAN SEE ON THE NOTIFICATION MAP THE LETTER OF OPPOSITION IS DOWN TOWARDS THE BOTTOM. I'LL USE THE POINTER TO POINT TO IT.
SO IT'S HERE. IT'S JUST INSIDE THE 200 FOOT RADIUS.
SO HEARING OUTCOME IN SUMMARY.
SO IN FEBRUARY OF 2025, THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST TO AMEND PD 193.
THERE WERE RESIDENTS THAT SPOKE AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING IN OPPOSITION.
AND SOME OF THEIR MAIN CONCERNS WERE THE ELIMINATION OF THE SF TEN LOTS, WHICH ARE THE LARGER LOTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY EXISTING IN THE THE PD AS IT STANDS TODAY.
THE REDUCTION OF SF EIGHT LOTS TO 6500FT², WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO TO CALL OUT THAT THAT REDUCTION OF PD SF EIGHT TO HAVE 6500FT² CURRENTLY EXISTS IN THE PD.
SO THE RESIDENTS THAT CAME UP AND SPOKE, THEY WERE OPPOSING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PD. I JUST WANTED TO CALL OUT THAT CALL OUT THE FACT THAT THIS THIS REDUCTION TO THE SF EIGHT LOTS, IT HAD ALREADY EXISTED BEFORE THIS HEARING.
AND THEN THEY WERE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE THEY SPOKE TO CONCERNS ABOUT SMALLER MINIMUM HOME SIZES, HOME SIZES AND FRONT ENTRY GARAGES.
BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR BELIEF OR THEY COMMUNICATED THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT THE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES WILL LEAD TO TRASH CANS BEING VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
AND THEN AT THIS HEARING IN FEBRUARY OF 2025, PNC COMMISSION VOTED 5 TO 2 TO DENY THE REQUEST TO AMEND PD 193.
ON FEBRUARY 13TH ATTORNEY ROBERT MILKO, HE SUBMITTED A LETTER APPEALING THE COMMISSION'S DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL AND THEN ATTORNEY STEVEN DARLING.
HE SUBMITTED A NEW CONCEPTUAL PLAN TO PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF ON APRIL 1ST.
[02:20:02]
BECAUSE OF THE NEW THE NEWLY SUBMITTED CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT HAS THAT PROPOSES DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS THAT ARE THAT DIFFER FROM THE ORIGINAL PD AMENDMENT REQUEST THAT WAS BRIEFED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON IN FEBRUARY OF 2025, WHEN THE CASE WENT BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.ON JUNE 17TH, CITY COUNCIL VOTED 7 TO 0 TO AMEND THIS CASE BACK TO CITY COUNCIL DUE TO THE THE UPDATED DEVIATIONS IN THAT CONCEPT PLAN.
SO HERE ARE THE CURRENT PD ZONING SPECIFICS OR DEVIATIONS RATHER AS THEY EXIST.
AND I DID WANT TO AGAIN GO BACK TO THE SF EIGHT.
SO THE AT THE FEBRUARY 2025 HEARING WITH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THIS WAS ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS, THE FACT THAT SF EIGHT WAS PERCEIVABLY GOING DOWN TO 6500, AS OPPOSED TO THE STANDARD 8000FT² THAT YOU CAN FIND IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE.
BUT I DID WANT TO GO AHEAD AND CALL OUT THE FACT THAT THIS WAS ALREADY PRE EXISTING BEFORE THAT HEARING WAS ALREADY PERMITTED IN THE PD.
AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS ALSO THERE'S SOME DEVIATIONS TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ON SF EIGHT.
AND AS WELL AS THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD AND THE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE IT ACTUALLY EXCEEDS THE, THE STANDARD WHICH IS 1550 FOR PD.
ACCORDING TO THE ZONING COMPREHENSIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I'M HERE AT THE CITY OF DESOTO, AND THEN OVER IN SF9.
THERE'S A FEW THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT.
EXCUSE ME. SIGNIFICANTLY LESS AMOUNT OF DEVIATIONS IN COMPARISON TO SF EIGHT AND THEN SF TEN, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS THERE'S FEWER DEVIATIONS IN SF TEN AS WELL.
SO AS THE PD 193 CURRENTLY STANDS IT PROMISES A TOTAL OR TOTAL OF 177 LOTS.
AND THEN AGAIN, THESE ARE JUST THE DEVIATIONS AS IT STANDS TODAY.
AND. SO NEXT SLIDE IS GOING TO IT GIVES YOU A SYNOPSIS OF THE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE PD THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TODAY BEFORE YOU BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS. SO AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE PD, PD 193 AS IT EXISTS TODAY, IT ALREADY PERMITS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA, IN SF EIGHT TO TO BE A MINIMUM OF 6500FT² VERSUS THE STANDARD 8000 THAT YOU CAN FIND IN THE SF EIGHT REGULATIONS THAT ARE FOUND IN THE CITY'S ZONING COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS 50 VERSUS 70.
MINIMUM SIDE YARD IS FIVE VERSUS 70.
SO THESE THREE ITEMS ARE THESE ARE ALREADY EXISTING.
BUT OF COURSE, BECAUSE THERE ARE DEVIATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT IS WISHING TO MAINTAIN, THEY DID HAVE TO CALL THOSE OUT AGAIN. SO THIS IS ALREADY EXISTING.
SO THE MAIN TAKEAWAY IS AND ALSO THE ALLEYS, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE THE LAST PAGE HERE OR EXCUSE ME, THE PREVIOUS SLIDE HERE, YOU'LL SEE THAT ALLEYS WERE ALSO NOT REQUIRED IN EITHER OF THE THREE ZONING DISTRICTS.
EXCUSE ME. RESIDENTS ALSO VOICED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE THAT'S LISTED UNDER SFA REGULATIONS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO AND THEN YOU GO OVER TO SF NINE.
THERE'S NOT TOO MANY DEVIATIONS HERE. AGAIN THESE ARE ALREADY EXISTING.
THE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD AS WELL AS THE THE THE EXISTENCE OF OR THE REQUIREMENT OF NO ALLEYS.
SO THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DEVIATIONS THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEING PROPOSED. MOST OF THE DEVIATIONS THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU, THEY'RE ALREADY THEY'RE ALREADY PERMITTED IN THE PD. AS IT STANDS TODAY, THE MAIN TAKEAWAY OR THE MAIN CHANGE IS THE REMOVAL OF THE SF TEN ZONING DISTRICT FROM THE PD.
AND SO WITH THE TWO PROPOSED WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE TWO PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO STAY OR STAY AS I GUESS BASED ZONING DISTRICTS FOR THE CURRENT PD OR FOR THE PD, IF IT'S PERMITTED TO BE AMENDED.
IT WOULD TOTAL A, AN AMOUNT OF 173 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
AND YOU CAN SEE HERE AGAIN, ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS THAT THE APPLICANTS VOICED IN FEBRUARY OF 2025, BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS THE THE SMALLER THAN AVERAGE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZES.
AND IF YOU SEE HERE THEY'RE ACTUALLY EXCEEDING THE STANDARD.
SO IN SF NINE THE THE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE IS 1750.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 2000.
AND THEN HERE ON FOR SF EIGHT THE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE IS 1550.
AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 91 OF THOSE 91 OF THE 124 LOTS THAT WILL BE ZONED AS SF EIGHT TO BE AT A MINIMUM 2000FT², AND THE REMAINING 33 TO BE AT A MINIMUM,
[02:25:04]
1800 SQUARE FEET. SO THE APPLICANT DID TAKE HEED TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT OR TO ALL THE CONCERNS RATHER THAT THE THE RESIDENTS DID SPEAK TO AT THAT FEBRUARY 2025 HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.SO NEXT UP IS GOING TO BE THE SUBMITTED CONCEPT OR CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
IN THE SHADED RED PORTIONS THAT IS ACTUALLY SYMBOLIZING THE PROPOSED 124 124 SF EIGHT OR EXCUSE ME, LOTS THAT WILL BE DESIGNATED AS SF EIGHT, AND THEN THE REMAINING ARE GOING TO BE THE THE 49 PROPOSED LOTS THAT WILL BE DESIGNATED AS SF NINE. THIS IS GOING TO BE OPEN AREA HERE WHERE YOU SEE THE CREEK IN THE GREEN AREA. AND THIS PORTION HERE IS GOING TO BE DESIGNATED FOR A CHURCH IN ORANGE.
OKAY. SO PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE THE SUBJECT SITE IN THEIR EXISTING USES.
SO TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE THERE IS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS SF EIGHT.
TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE THERE IS AN EXISTING.
THERE IS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PERMITTED UNDER A PLAN DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS PD 127.
TO THE SOUTH IS A IS OUR LARGEST RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT AND THAT IS ALSO THERE.
THERE ARE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS THERE IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT.
AND THEN TO THE WEST WE HAVE A PD 74 THAT HAS A BASE ZONING DISTRICT OF SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY. AND AGAIN, THIS ONE IS DEVELOPED AS WELL.
OR EXCUSE ME, THIS AREAS TO THE WEST ARE DEVELOPED AS WELL.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY COMPATIBILITY.
SO PER THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE CITY'S 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE AREAS THAT MAKE UP PD 193 ACTUALLY FALL INTO TWO.
OR THEY'RE DESIGNATED AS TWO SEPARATE CATEGORIES.
SO ONE PORTION IS NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE.
AND THAT ENCOMPASSES LOCAL LOCAL COMMERCIAL USES SUCH AS CAFES, DRY CLEANERS AND CONVENIENCE STORES, AND AS WELL AS MIXED USE IN MIXED USE AND OTHER USES THAT ALLOW SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
AND THEN THE SECOND OF THOSE TWO DESIGNATIONS IS GOING TO BE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
AND OF COURSE THAT IS TYPICALLY ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS WITH SHARED WALLS SUCH AS TOWNHOMES, DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, AND FOURPLEXES.
SO WITH THAT IN MIND THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT DOES PROVIDE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL HOMES, WHICH ARE PERMISSIBLE IN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. EXCUSE ME, AT APPROXIMATELY 3.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS EVEN THOUGH IT'S PERMITTED PERMITTED IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IT IS STILL BELOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTENDED RANGE OF 5 TO 8 UNITS PER ACRE FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA.
SO WHILE THE PLAN DOES ACKNOWLEDGE EXCUSE ME.
WHILE THE PLAN DOES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE DETACHED HOMES MAY OCCASIONALLY OCCUR WITHIN THIS CATEGORY, THE PROPOSED DENSITY PER THE PD 193 AMENDMENT DOES IN IN JUST FULL TRANSPARENCY. IT DOES JUST NOT BY MUCH.
IT DOES FALL SHORT OF THE EXPECTED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.
HOWEVER WITH ALL THAT IN MIND, THIS AREA OR THE PROPOSED EXCUSE ME, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PD 193 COULD STILL OR WOULD STILL ALLOW THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO ACT AS A TRANSITIONAL BUFFER TO THE TO THE LOWER, EXCUSE ME, THE LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS, AS WELL AS THE HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT ARE SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.
SO WITH THAT IN MIND. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PD 193, CHANGING THE ZONING FROM SF EIGHT, SF NINE, AND SF TEN WITH DEVIATIONS TO A REVISED PD WITH THE BASE ZONING OF SF EIGHT AND SF NINE WITH DEVIATIONS.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION FOR ZONING CASE NUMBER Z153024.
COMMISSIONERS. DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MISS JORDAN, VERY NICE JOB. CAN YOU JUST REALLY QUICKLY YOU MAY HAVE THE SLIDE.
WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THE LAST TIME? THE APPLICANT WAS BEFORE US.
IT WAS ON THE NUMBER. IT WAS, I THINK, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE HOMES AND THINGS. YES. SO THE MAIN CHANGES THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE, OR, I GUESS, BEEN PROPOSED TO PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF SINCE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LAST OR WAS LAST BRIEFED ON THE CASE.
CIRCLE IN HERE. SO IT WOULD BE THE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE.
[02:30:01]
THAT WOULD BE THE MAIN CHANGE HERE BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME REALLY THERE WERE A LOT OF EXCUSE ME, NOT CUSTOMERS, CITIZENS WHO NOT ONLY REACHED OUT OR SPOKE AT THAT AT THAT HEARING ON FEBRUARY 11TH OF 2025.BUT THEY ALSO THEY'VE REACHED OUT OF VIA TELEPHONE CALLS AND ALSO VIA THEY'VE COME IN PERSON AND THEY'VE ALSO REACHED OUT VIA EMAIL.
SO THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS THAT THE CUSTOMER HAD DISTURBING THE CHARACTER OF THAT AREA BY ALLOWING SMALLER THAN AVERAGE, SMALLER THAN NORMAL MINIMUM DWELLING SIZES.
BUT THIS WAS I MEAN, THIS HAS BEEN RESOLVED BY ALLOWING FOR I GUESS A, A A WIDER VARIETY OF LOTS OR, EXCUSE ME, MINIMUM DWELLING SIZES WITHIN THE PD. THE OTHER THING IS THE SIDE YARD BETWEEN THE HOMES.
IT'S REMAINING THE SAME AT FIVE FEET, FIVE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF TEN FEET BETWEEN HOMES. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. VERSUS THE SEVEN.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MISS JORDAN, IS THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT? THE APPLICANT IS HERE? YES.
AND THEY DO HAVE A PRESENTATION.
OKAY. ONE, ONE QUESTION BEFORE THE PRESENTATION ON THIS SLIDE.
IT DIFFERS FROM WHAT WE RECEIVED IN THE PACKET.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WHAT'S THE FINAL NUMBER.
SO IN THE BACK OF THE RECEIPT WE HAVE FOR EXAMPLE SF EIGHT WE HAVE 70% AT 2000FT², 20% AT 18 1800 SQUARE FEET, SORRY, AND 10% AT 1600 SQUARE FEET.
I DON'T SEE 600 AS PART OF SF EIGHT OR AS PART OF SF NINE.
SO IS THIS THE FINAL VERSION? THIS IS THE FINAL VERSION. THAT VERSION THAT YOU'RE READING OFF OF. IT SPEAKS TO WHAT WAS BRIEFED BEFORE YOU ALL ON FEBRUARY OF 2025.
MR. GRAHAM, AND THEN MY QUESTION WAS THAT WE MADE A DECISION ON THIS EARLIER THIS YEAR.
AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT YOUR PRESENTATION PRESENTED TONIGHT WAS THAT THE APPLICANT APPEALED THAT WITH AN ATTORNEY AND THEN THEN MADE FURTHER DEVIATIONS TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE COUNCIL WITH THEM.
AND THEN THE COUNCIL REMANDED THEM BACK TO US.
MISS JORDAN. I'M GOING TO MAKE A STATEMENT THAT I MADE THE FIRST TIME THIS CAME BEFORE US. FIVE FOOT SIDE YARDS IS TOO SMALL.
I HAVE A VERY GREAT CONCERN FOR LIFE SAFETY.
IF THERE'S A FIRE WITH A HIGH WIND I DON'T WANT TO GET.
IT'S BAD ENOUGH THAT ONE HOUSE BURNS.
BUT WITH A HIGH WIND AND BEING THAT CLOSE TOGETHER, YOU COULD HAVE MULTIPLE HOUSES GO UP.
I CANNOT SUPPORT THESE DEVIATIONS.
VICE CHAIR. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET THE CLARITY ON.
ARE THESE DEVIATIONS OR ARE THEY CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE PD.
SO THEY'RE AS FAR AS OR I GUESS IN SPEAKING TO THE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT THAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED WITHIN THE PD. THE FIVE FEET.
IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A DEVIATION BECAUSE IT DIFFERS FROM THE STANDARD FOR THE CITY OF DESOTO. SO BECAUSE THEY'RE CHANGING THE PD WE CONSIDER IT A DEVIATION.
THAT'S WHAT I NEED. TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
SPEAK BACK TO WHERE YOU WERE JUST AT OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT. HEARING AND SEEING NONE BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING I HAVE A I NEED TO PULL MY COMMISSIONERS BASED ON SOMETHING.
I RECEIVED AN EMAIL, AND I WANT TO KNOW IF ANY COMMISSIONER WAS INVITED TO MEET WITH THE APPLICANT PERSONALLY OUTSIDE OF THIS MEETING.
NO, MISS EDWARDS. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I WAS COPIED ON AN EMAIL WHERE VICE CHAIR WAS INVITED TO MEET WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT. THE REASONS GIVEN WERE.
HEARINGS CAN BE BRIEF RELATIVE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
AND I WAS HOPING TO SIT DOWN WITH PRIOR TO DISCUSS OUR PROJECT IN PERSON.
A SECOND FOLLOW UP I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP TO DISCUSS THE NUANCES OF THE PROJECT.
[02:35:04]
VICE CHAIR RESPONSE. I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE A FAIR AND TRANSPARENT DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED, TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THAT PROCESS AND AVOID ANY PERCEPTION OF BIAS.I MUST RESPECTFULLY DECLINE ANY PRIVATE MEETINGS OR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ITEMS, PRESENT OR FUTURE, THAT ARE PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH STAFF, ETC.. THE REASON THAT I.
I WANTED TO PULL YOU ALL IS BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS THAT WHEN ONE PERSON IS OFFERED SOMETHING THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE NOT OFFERED, YOU GET AN INFORMATIONAL ADVANTAGE.
AND ALL COMMISSIONERS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION IN ORDER TO MAKE A DECISION.
SO I KNOW THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS ALWAYS WORKED WITH ETHICS, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE FOR NOT ACCEPTING IT.
I MEAN, IF YOU WANTED TO, YOU COULD. I GUESS YOU COULD HAVE. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR FOR YOUR RESPONSE.
BUT THANK YOU ALL FOR JUST ADVISING ME OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD ANY MEETINGS OUTSIDE OF OUR REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING.
THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, IT IS 906, AND I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR A PRESENTATION.
VICE CHAIRPERSON AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.
I ALSO HAVE WITH ME HERE SARAH LAMB.
SARAH LAMB, DALLAS. WE ARE HERE THIS EVENING TO KIND OF GO THROUGH SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE EVOLVED SINCE THE LAST TIME WE PRESENTED TO YOU GUYS.
AND PART OF THAT IS REALLY BASED UPON THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WE HAVE STARTED. WELL, LET ME ASK ONE THING IS STEVEN WILL KIND OF GIVE A SYNOPSIS OF THIS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, AND THEN I'LL PROCEED FROM THERE. SO, YEAH, IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU, CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AGAIN. MY NAME IS STEVEN DARLING, AND I AM NOT YOUR REGULAR ATTORNEY.
YOU CAN TELL THAT JUST BY LOOKING AT ME.
I CAME FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS ORIGINALLY HANDLING A WIDE NUMBER OF THINGS, AND SINCE TRANSITIONED INTO A QUASI ZONING CONSULTANT AND ATTORNEY.
COMMISSIONER GRAHAM SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME, WHY DIDN'T YOU ENGAGE IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SOONER? AND I TOLD YOU AT THE TIME, VERY HONESTLY, I GOT HERE AS SOON AS I COULD.
AT THAT TIME, AND AS REFLECTED IN THE RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION, BEFORE WE ENGAGED IN TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT JUST THINKS IF YOU GET PEOPLE TOGETHER AND THEY CAN TALK HONESTLY, SOMETHING COMES OUT OF THAT AND IT DIDN'T NECESSARILY GO PERFECTLY, WHICH IS HONESTLY PERFECT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, GETTING HONEST CITIZEN FEEDBACK FROM SOME OF THE MEMBERS WHO ARE ACTUALLY SITTING HERE BEFORE THE BODY AS WELL, REALLY HELPED SHAPE THIS.
ORIGINALLY IT WAS ABOUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SOME OF THE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS THAT WE COULD ADDRESS. AGAIN, COMMISSION MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS A DRAINAGE ISSUE.
UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO SOME OF THE STUFF THAT OUR ENGINEER CAN CERTAINLY TALK TO.
BUT AGAIN, THE MAIN REASON FOR THIS PD AMENDMENT WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK WITHOUT DESIGNING A HOME EFFECTIVELY THAT WOULD BE IN THE CITY'S FLOODPLAIN AGAINST THEIR OWN ORDINANCES.
AFTER THAT, WE DID HEAR SOME ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK THAT WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. SO I'M SURE AT THIS POINT YOU'RE PROBABLY SICK OF HEARING MY VOICE. BUT THE IDEA IS THAT THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THAT WE PROMISED YOU, WE DID HAVE MEETINGS NOW, THE MEETINGS THEMSELVES WERE ATTENDED VERY SPARSELY. AND AS COMMISSIONER BELL NOTED, NOT EVERYBODY ATTENDS THE OUTREACH PROGRAMS THAT ARE THERE, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE REALLY SINCERELY GAVE US THEIR TIME AND THEIR OPINIONS. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE TRIED TO SHAPE WHAT WOULD WORK.
CERTAINLY, JOHN CAN SPEAK MORE TO HOW THE PROJECT HAS EVOLVED, BUT WE DID ENGAGE THAT.
AND MISS SARAH LAMB ALSO ENGAGED IN ADDITIONAL MEETINGS BECAUSE AN ATTORNEY CERTAINLY PUTS A HEX ON CERTAIN THINGS.
AND MISS SARAH LAMB IS NOT AN ATTORNEY.
SO ME STEPPING ASIDE AND HAVING HER TAKE THE REINS OF THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, I THINK TO HELP PEOPLE OPEN UP MORE IN PERSONAL WAYS THAT MAYBE PEOPLE WILL SEE IN A SUIT AND TIE.
MR. CALEB SMITH CAN RELATE TO THAT.
THEY DON'T NECESSARILY OPEN UP IN THE SAME WAY.
BUT CASE IN POINT, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DID HAPPEN, TWO MEETINGS THAT WERE RESERVED, AND YOU CAN CERTAINLY CHECK THE RECORDS ON THAT HERE AT THE DESOTO PUBLIC CENTER, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT TO HEAR PEOPLE AND THEY WERE NOT KIND WITH US SO THAT WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT WE AMENDED THIS INTO
[02:40:01]
SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THIS COMMUNITY.SO. I WON'T BORE YOU WITH ALL THE REDUNDANT PARTS, BUT I WILL SPECIFY WE DID CREATE THIS PLAN JUST TO GIVE A, A BETTER IDEALISTIC OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AS FAR AS TAUPO.
AND SO AND DEALING WITH THE, THE PARCELS ITSELF THIS ALSO CAN KIND OF PROVIDE MORE OF A AERIAL VIEW OF THE WATERWAY AND HOW WE'VE INCORPORATED ALL THIS.
AND THIS IS PART OF OUR DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD PREVIOUS WITH THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT, OF COURSE, THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IS THE SIZE OF LOTS.
AND I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY, BUT I'LL JUST KIND OF GO OVER IT AGAIN IS THE REASON WHY WE'VE DONE THE SFA AND THE SF9 IS BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S ALREADY SFM PRODUCT ADJACENT TO THIS PROJECT.
RIGHT? AND SO WE KNOW THAT THE PROJECT NEXT DOOR HAS INFINITE AMOUNT OF INVENTORY AS THEY ARE BUILDING OUT THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO AS A MARKET STUDY PROCESS, WE WENT THROUGH ALL THAT MARKET DATA AND WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING A WIDE VARIETY OF PRODUCT FOR DESOTO, RIGHT? WHETHER THAT BE LARGE LOTS, MEDIUM SIZED LOTS.
WE ALSO TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION OF WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE IS CALLING FOR IN A HIGHER DENSITY PROSPECT. PART OF WHAT OUR ENGAGEMENT WAS WITH THE COMMUNITY IS TO FIND SOMETHING OF A HYBRID, A HYBRID THAT WOULD WORK WITH WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE, ALONG WITH WORK WITH WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE AND WHAT WAS VOTED ON IN 2024.
SO WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT WE'RE MEETING BOTH CRITERIAS.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WE TUCKED THE WATERWAY, THE DRAINAGE AREA THE OPEN SPACE, AND WE ESSENTIALLY DOUBLED IT.
WE CREATED A MILE WALKING TRAIL.
BUT PART OF OUR CONVERSATIONS ONGOING, EVEN AFTER THE TWO PUBLIC COMMUNITY MEETINGS SARAH ENGAGED SOME SMALLER MEETINGS WAS MORE AMENITIES.
THE REQUEST FROM THE COMMUNITY WAS MORE AMENITIES.
A REQUEST TO ESSENTIALLY UPSCALE THE PROJECT.
A REQUEST TO ACTUALLY MAKE THIS A PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY.
SO WE'VE TAKEN A LOT OF THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND PART OF THIS COMING BACK TO PNC IS ACTUALLY PROPOSING WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS A PRIVATE GATE COMMUNITY WITH EXCLUSIVE AMENITIES, INCLUDING A11 MILE TRAIL SYSTEM OVERSEEN AND MAINTAINED BY HOA.
THESE WERE DIRECT COMMENTS THAT WE FELT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY. AND SO WE ADHERE TO THOSE COMMENTS AND MAKING THE ADJUSTMENTS.
PART OF THE ADDITIONAL AMENITIES WAS A PLAYGROUND AND ALSO A PICKLEBALL COURT AND PROBABLY EVEN TWO PICKLEBALL COURTS.
THEY ENVISIONED THIS AS BEING MORE ACTIVE.
WE SAW THAT IN THE MARKET DATA THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR ALL SEASONS OF LIFE.
ALL SEASONS OF LIFE WOULD INCLUDE THOSE PROFESSIONALS, THOSE YOUNG FAMILIES THOSE SENIORS LOOKING TO DOWNSIZE.
AND SPEAKING OF WHICH, THAT'S HOW WE KIND OF ENVISIONED THE REQUEST OF WHY WE WANTED 1800 SQUARE FOOT DWELLING UNIT SIZE.
YES, WE STARTED OFF WITH THE REQUEST OF 1600.
BASED UPON THE SF EIGHT HAVING A BASE OF 1550, AND WE LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY, THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT HAVING THE 1600.
AND SO WHAT WE FELT LIKE WAS WITH THE 1800, A MINIMUM OF 33 UNITS OUT OF 173 THAT WE WERE HEARING TO THEIR CONCERN.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, JUST A RENDERING. THESE ARE SOME OF THE NEW IMAGES OF A PLAYGROUND PICKLEBALL COURT. THE PAVILION WAS ALWAYS INCLUDED IN THE PD 193.
SO THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN ADDED.
BUT ONE OF THE CAVEATS TO WHAT THIS PROJECT WILL BRING FOR DE SOTO IS THE ABILITY TO TAKE SOMETHING THAT'S EXISTING, THESE MATURE TREES, THIS EXISTING WATERWAY, AND TURN IT INTO A HIGH VISIBLE A WELL MAINTAINED VAST WATERWAY COMMUNITY.
OKAY. AGAIN, THERE WAS CONCERN ON THE NORTH SIDE TO SOMEWHAT TAKE THE COMMUNITY ITSELF AND THEN ENCLOSE IT.
[02:45:03]
AND SO WE'RE OFFERING UP THE ORNAMENTAL FENCE THAT CROSSES THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY WHERE THE WATERWAY STARTS. YOU WOULD ALSO SEE THE ORNAMENTAL FENCE FOR ALL THE HOMES THAT ARE BACKED UP TO THE OPEN SPACE.OKAY. SO THIS ADDS A VERY HIGHER END.
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A HIGH VALUE COMMUNITY THAT WILL RIVAL ANYTHING IN THE NORTH TEXAS MARKET. THIS KIND OF GIVES A COUPLE OF IDEAS OF THE WATERWAY ITSELF.
BUT ALSO I WANT YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND.
THIS WOULD BE WITHOUT THE MATURE TREES.
AND SO OUR PROJECT, TAKING WHAT IS ALREADY THERE EXISTING WITH THE MATURE TREES IS GOING TO LOOK VASTLY DIFFERENT.
AND BRINGING MORE OF A ESTHETIC LOOK IN A FEATURE FOR THE RESIDENTS.
I CALL THIS JUST A COMPARISON.
RIGHT. AND SO STAFF HAS SOMEWHAT INDICATED JUST WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE THE PD THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2022. AND AGAIN, OUR GOAL WAS TO ADHERE AS MUCH TO THAT PD AS WE COULD. THE ONLY THING DIFFERENT ON OUR REQUEST FROM THE ORIGINAL PD IS THE 33 LOTS.
AT 1800 SQUARE FEET. THAT IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.
AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE.
THE COMMUNITY DID HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE MEDIUM, THE MULTIFAMILY ASPECTS THE HIGHER DENSITY.
AGAIN, OUR PLAN CALLS FOR 3.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL PD 193 3.5.
THE FUTURE LAND USE CALLS FOR 5 TO 8.
SO THIS IS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT IS MEANINGFUL NOT ONLY TO WHAT THE CITY VISIONS, BUT WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAS ASKED FOR.
THIS, AGAIN, IS THE DIRECT ADJACENT PROPERTY OF FIRST TEXAS HOMES.
THEY HAVE 154 HOME SITES, OF WHICH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ROUGHLY ABOUT 40 HOME SITES BUILT, OF WHICH MAYBE 25 HAVE BEEN SOLD.
SO THEY THEY'RE BUILDING OUT THIS AND JUST A SIMPLE PROJECTION.
THERE'S ENOUGH INVENTORY OF THE LARGER LOTS FOR THE NEXT 5 TO 7 YEARS.
AND SO AGAIN, IF WE LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE BEING 5 TO 8, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE SF TENS IN THE FUTURE LAND USE TO GET TO 5 TO 8 DWELLING UNITS.
SO OUR GOAL IS TO LOOK AND COMBINE THIS PROJECT FOR THE LARGER LOTS, AND THEN FOR US TO HAVE A MEDIUM SIZED LOT THAT WOULD THEN FULFILL BOTH THE COMMUNITY IDEAS AND WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE LOOKS LIKE.
WITH THAT. SO WITH WITH THIS PLAN WITH THIS PLAN, WE STEVEN MET WITH THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF HOLDING MORE PUBLIC FORUM.
COMMENTS. I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH MISS VALENTINE AND A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS JUST NORTH OF THIS PROJECT, AND WE WERE ABLE TO SIT DOWN AND AND, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY APPRECIATE THEIR TIME AND GENEROSITY OF MEETING WITH ME SO FREELY.
AT ONE POINT, WE EVEN WERE ABLE TO WALK THE TRAIL JUST NORTH OF THIS PROJECT, THE ONE THAT SEPARATES THIS, OUR DEVELOPMENT AND THEN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO I DID HAVE WE GARNERED A LOT OF INSIGHT IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR AND WHERE WE COULD.
WE REALLY TRIED TO IMPLEMENT ALL OF THEIR FEEDBACK.
AND I THINK WHAT'S REALLY UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PROJECT IS IT'S 52 ACRES AND ALMOST 22% OF IT IS OPEN GREEN SPACE. AND SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO BASED ON THE FEEDBACK, IS TO PROVIDE A ONE OF A KIND COMMUNITY THAT YOU DON'T SEE IN DE SOTO IS TRULY A PRIVATE COMMUNITY. IT'S A GATED COMMUNITY.
THE HOMES WILL BE IN THE MID 400, 400 THOUSANDS ALL THE WAY UP TO THE MID 500,000. SO WE'RE REALLY KIND OF AIMING AT THAT UPPER MIDDLE CLASS, THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME AROUND 150,000 PLUS A YEAR.
AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT MIX OF PRODUCTS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NICE MIX OF THAT 1800 SQUARE FOOT HOME.
YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME SINGLE STORY HOMES FOR THOSE THAT MAYBE WANT TO DOWNSIZE BUT WANT TO STAY IN THE COMMUNITY, MAYBE THOSE YOUNG PROFESSIONALS LOOKING TO BUY THEIR FIRST HOME. AND THEN WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE A NICE TWO STOREY PRODUCT THAT TENDS TO BE 2000FT² OR GREATER.
THIS WILL ALLOW PEOPLE TO BUY IN THIS COMMUNITY, AND THEN WHEN THEY START HAVING FAMILIES AND GROWING OUT OF THE SMALLER SPACES, THEY'LL BE ALLOWED TO KIND OF STAY IN THE COMMUNITY AND CONTINUE TO GROW WITH THAT COMMUNITY. AND SO WE'RE REALLY OFFERING SOMETHING THAT IS UNIQUE TO DE SOTO.
IT WILL BE SELF MAINTAINED, A VERY HIGH END PRODUCT, A PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY, AND IT TAKES THE BURDEN OFF OF THE CITY OF DE
[02:50:03]
SOTO IN TERMS OF MAINTENANCE. WE FULLY INTEND FOR THIS TO BE HOA COMPLETELY GOVERNED BY HOA HERE. ALSO, THEY WILL SELF MAINTAIN ALL OF THE COMMON AREA SPACES, INCLUDING THE ONE ONE MILE TRAIL THAT CIRCULATES THE PROPERTY.AND THEN I KNOW THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT SOME THINGS, SUCH AS THE FRONT FRONT LOADED GARAGES AND TRASH CANS THAT WILL ALL BE ADDRESSED WITH HOA.
THERE CERTAINLY WILL BE PROHIBITED YOU KNOW PROHIBIT THE USE OF TRASH CANS BEING PROLONGED OUT THE FRONT. SO A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY HEARD, THE FEEDBACK, WE'VE ADJUSTED THAT AND CERTAINLY SOME OF THEM CAN BE ADDRESSED IN THE HOA. BUT WE REALLY THINK THIS IS A VITAL PROJECT TO THE CITY OF DESOTO.
IT WILL HELP CREATE ADDITIONAL ROOFTOPS, WILL HELP SUPPORT THE THE THE RETAIL RETAIL FOLLOWS ROOFTOPS. AND BY CREATING 173 NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO PURCHASE, DRAW PEOPLE IN DESOTO AND PROVIDE A PRODUCT THAT ISN'T QUITE HERE YET IS, I THINK, AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WOULD BENEFIT BOTH DESOTO AND THE COMMUNITY. WE'RE FREE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.
COMMISSIONERS OR MR. BELL? YES. MISS LAMB, HOW ARE YOU? I'M. WELL. HOW ARE YOU? THANK YOU FOR COMING.
CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOUR FUNCTION IS WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT? YES. I WAS BROUGHT IN TO ENGAGE WITH THE COMMUNITY ON JUST A LEVEL TO SIT AND GET FEEDBACK AND THEN HELP KIND OF FACILITATE THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE NEIGHBORS. OKAY. THIS REQUEST WAS BEFORE US.
PREVIOUSLY, YES. WE VOTED NOT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND THEN IT WAS APPEALED AND TAKEN TO CITY COUNCIL.
THE REASON WHY YOU'RE BEFORE US AGAIN IS BECAUSE THE PLAN WAS CHANGED BETWEEN THE TIME WE WE DENIED IT AND IT MADE IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
CAN YOU OR MAYBE MR. MCKENZIE CAN ENLIGHTEN US.
ON WHAT? HOW THAT CHANGE WAS BROUGHT ABOUT AND WHY IT WAS DONE AFTER AN APPEAL.
SO I CAN SPEAK TO A LITTLE BIT OF THAT.
SO I MET WITH THE COMMUNITY STARTING IN MARCH.
SO AFTER EVERYTHING, HAD YOU ALL HAD MADE YOUR VOTE IN PNC? AND SO I MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS AND TOOK FEEDBACK. AND EACH TIME WE HAD REVISIONS AND REALLY TRIED TO BRING FORTH A LOT OF THE FEEDBACK AND EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD IMPLEMENT, WE DID HERE.
AND SO THEN IT WAS ONCE WE FAILED HERE, WE WENT UP TO CITY COUNCIL AND WE STILL HAD SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE ON THE PLAN, WHICH SOME OF WHICH WAS REALLY THAT 1800 SQUARE FOOT DWELLING UNIT AND GRANER. AND AT THAT POINT, WE ACTUALLY REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL TO BRING IT BACK TO US BECAUSE WE FELT Y'ALL SHOULD SEE THIS AGAIN AND THE COMMUNITY SHOULD SEE THIS REVISED PLAN.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. UNLESS YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW.
I'LL PASS. THANK YOU, MR. GRAHAM. AND THEN MISS EDWARDS AND THEN VICE CHAIR, COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT LAST PART.
JUST THREW ME FOR A LOOP. YES.
SO AT THE MEETING AT CITY COUNCIL, IF STAFF OR ANYBODY CAN ATTEST TO THAT, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU GUYS REQUESTED THAT IT BE REMANDED BACK TO US? WE DID, BECAUSE WE HAD SOME CHANGES THAT THAT PNC HADN'T SEEN, AND WE REMINDED OUR APPEAL AND REQUESTED TO COME BACK TO PNC.
OKAY. MR. GRAHAM, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT WOULD BE THE PROPER PROCESS TO FOLLOW, BECAUSE WE HAD WE HAVE NOT VOTED ON WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO PRESENT.
SO IT HAS NEEDS TO COME BACK TO US.
OKAY. YES. OKAY. MY CLARIFICATION, MY CLARIFYING QUESTION IS BECAUSE THEY MADE THE ADDITIONS, WHETHER THEY REQUESTED IT OR NOT, THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE SENT IT BACK TO US, IS WHAT I'M ASKING. THEY REQUESTED TO SEND IT BACK TO US BECAUSE THEY MAY CHANGE BASED ON FEEDBACK WE MAY HAVE RECEIVED OR FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND THEY WANTED US TO SEE WHAT THOSE CHANGES LOOK LIKE SO WE CAN VOTE ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY WANT TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL.
SO I GUESS A BETTER QUESTION NOW WOULD BE, DID YOU GUYS DO IT ON THE DAY OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, BECAUSE THERE WAS A VOTE TAKEN? SO I'M CONFUSED THAT IF YOU GUYS REQUESTED THIS, YOU GUYS KNEW ABOUT THOSE DEVIATIONS PRIOR TO THAT MEETING, BUT YOU STILL SHOWED UP AND GOT VOTED, AM I CORRECT? MAY I? I WAS AT THAT PARTICULAR MEETING.
IT WAS ON THE AGENDA. BUT THE PLANNING AND ZONING PERSON THAT WAS PRESENTING THAT PRESENTED IT, MENTIONED THAT THEY WANTED IT TO BE REMANDED, BUT BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY PUBLICIZED IT AS A PUBLIC HEARING, THEY NEEDED TO TAKE THAT TO THE COUNCIL TO VOTE IN ORDER TO SEND THAT BACK.
THANKS FOR COMING TONIGHT. SO QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER DEWBERRY MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THE DISTANCE IN BETWEEN THE HOMES. OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS MENTIONED BEFORE.
WAS THAT NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITH THESE DEVIATIONS?
[02:55:01]
SO I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. SO WE BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH GREEN SPACE THERE IS AND HOW MANY MATURE TREES THERE ARE.SO KEEP IN MIND THERE'S ALMOST 22% HERE OF GREEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE.
WE REALLY MANUFACTURED AND CREATED A PLAN HERE THAT WOULD REALLY KEEP IN MIND PRESERVING AS MUCH OF THOSE MATURE TREES AS POSSIBLE.
SO BY. BY DOING THAT, WE DID MAINTAIN THE PREVIOUS PD THAT WAS PASSED WITH A FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS, WHICH WAS A DEVIATION THAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PD. AND JOHN CAN SPEAK TO THAT IF HE NEEDS TO.
AGAIN, WE LOOKED AT THE ORIGINAL PD AND WE TRIED TO ADHERE TO EVERYTHING WITHIN THAT ORIGINAL PD. SO THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK THAT ALREADY WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PD.
SO WE JUST ADHERE TO EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THE PD.
VICE CHAIR THEN MR. BELL WILL COME BACK TO YOU.
SO MY FIRST QUESTION TO DEVELOPERS WHEN THEY'RE ASKING FOR DEVIATIONS IS CAN THIS DEVELOPMENT NOT MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE DEVIATIONS.
I MEAN, HOW MANY UNITS WOULD BE CUT.
AND WOULD IT NOT MAKE IT A DOABLE PROJECT IF THERE WEREN'T ANY DEVIATIONS.
YEAH. THIS THIS FROM THE ORIGINAL PD THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THIS DEVELOPMENT LOST 56 LOTS.
SO 56 AT 177 WOULD HAVE BEEN WOULD HAVE BEEN NON DOABLE.
OKAY. YOU'VE LOST 56 WITH WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TODAY.
SO THIS IS A REDUCTION OF 56 LOTS.
SO THIS IS SO ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED FOR PD 193.
AS WE WERE TAKING THAT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PRELIMINARY PLAT TO ADHERE TO THE THE ISSUES REGARDING THE DRAINAGE AND TRYING TO MAKE THE PROJECT FEASIBLE.
WHERE WE STAND TODAY IS WE HAVE A LOSS OF FOUR LOTS BY INCORPORATING THE SF EIGHT AND THE SF NINE. AND I'LL SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU ADD UP THE ORIGINAL PD 193 OF THE SF NINE AND SF TEN, PER THE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED, THAT QUANTITY COMES SF NINE, SF TEN COMES TO RIGHT AROUND 60.
I WANT TO SAY 56. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK IN MEMORY.
BUT WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS INCORPORATING THE SFF NINES AT 49, BUT LOOKING AT THE OVERALL, THERE IS MORE LOTS THAT ARE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT THAT ARE ACTUALLY SF EIGHTS BECAUSE OF CUL DE SACS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AS THAT GOES ALONG, THAT EXCEEDS THE 56.
SO AGAIN, TRYING TO TAKE A PROJECT, BUT TO YOUR POINTED QUESTION, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOSS OF 56 IF WE HAD NOT TRIED TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS AND KEEP THE THE DEVIATIONS THAT WERE ALREADY APPROVED.
IN SHORT ANSWER NO, THIS PROJECT DOES NOT WORK. IF WE IF WE DEVIATE FROM THE THE ORIGINAL PD WITH THE WITH THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS THAT IT ON THE GREEN SPACE.
WHAT IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED GREEN SPACE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE EXCEEDING IT.
WE ARE AT THE ORIGINAL PD THAT WAS PASSED.
IT WAS AROUND 6%. SO WE HAVE NOW REALLY KEPT IN MIND.
SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE 12 ACRES ON THE 50 ACRE, NEARLY 52 ACRE SITE.
AND SO WE'RE REALLY DOING OUR BEST TO REALLY PRESERVE THOSE TREES AND REALLY CREATE AN AMENITY THAT YOU DON'T SEE ANYWHERE ELSE.
AND COUPLED THAT WITH A PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY, IT'S A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE. AND THINK OF IT AS ALMOST LIKE A PARK THAT THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE TO MAINTAIN. THAT'S FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF OF THESE 173 RESIDENTS.
AND AGAIN, THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S IN THIS GOING TO BE BUILT IN THIS COMMUNITY IS ALL BEING MAINTAINED BY THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S ROADWAYS AND SEWER AND WATER AND ALL OF THAT.
THAT'S RIGHT. AND WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE ARE PROVIDING A GATED COMMUNITY AND ITS OWN HOA THAT WILL SELF MAINTAIN, WHICH ONCE AGAIN TAKES OFF THE BURDEN OF THE CITY OF DESOTO. AND THEN PUTS THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE TENANT.
BUT ARE THE RESIDENT BUT THEN ALSO ADDS THE AMENITIES.
IT'S GOING TO DRAW RESIDENTS TO WANT TO LIVE THIS MORE ACTIVE LIFESTYLE, AND IT PROVIDES THOSE FOR SENIORS AND THEN FOR YOUNG FAMILIES THAT REALLY CREATES THIS ENVIRONMENT WHICH THEY CAN.
YOU CAN EITHER DOWNSIZE OR THESE FAMILIES CAN CONTINUE TO GROW AND STAY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.
MISS LAMB AND MR. MCKENZIE YOUR RENDERINGS ARE BEAUTIFUL.
THE DEVELOPMENT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL.
YOUR THE GREEN SPACE IS A BIG SELLING POINT, I CAN TELL.
HOWEVER, I GUESS THAT GREEN SPACE SIZES WAS MORE OF AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE,
[03:00:08]
AS OPPOSED TO A CHOICE THAT WAS MADE BY YOU ALL.HAVING SAID THAT, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR INTENTIONS.
WHEN YOU REACHED OUT TO THE VICE CHAIR HERE FOR A MEETING.
I DON'T RECALL RECEIVING A MEETING INVITE.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS DID RECEIVE AN INVITE, BUT I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW WERE YOU TRYING TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS THIS PROJECT? I'LL SPEAK TO THAT. SO I REACHED OUT TO THE CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON TO TO SEEK A MEETING JUST TO TALK ABOUT HOW COMPLEX THIS MEETING WAS.
THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN KIND OF WHERE WE'VE BEEN SINCE PNC ONCE.
THEY THEY MADE A COMMENT THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO ENGAGE OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC FORUM.
I TOOK THAT BECAUSE THEY DO CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THIS PANEL THAT IT WAS PROBABLY NOT.
IT WAS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST INTEREST FOR ME TO CONTINUE TO REACH OUT TO OTHER PANELISTS.
SO AT THAT TIME, I KIND OF TOOK IT AS A READ THAT I SHOULD REVOKE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND THEN JUST HAVE EVERYTHING IN THE PUBLIC FORUM. EXCUSE ME.
POINT OF INFORMATION. YOU DID NOT INVITE ME TO THAT MEETING.
THAT EMAIL ONLY WENT TO VICE CHAIR.
SIR, I SAID I WAS NOT. I APOLOGIZE, I DID ACTUALLY SEND AN INDIVIDUAL EMAIL TO YOU AND THEN SOMEBODY RESPONDED AND LET YOU BOTH IN.
I SENT I SENT ONE TO YOU INDIVIDUALLY AND THEN ONE TO MADAM VICE CHAIR, AND THEN SOMEHOW THEY WERE LOOPED TOGETHER AND RESPONSE WAS WITH BOTH MEMBERS.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, I DID NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL.
FOR THE RECORD, LAST QUESTION DID YOU REACH OUT TO THE STAFF IN AN EFFORT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE APPLICATION HERE, THE DEVELOPMENT? I MET WITH THE CITY STAFF JUST IN REGARDS TO THIS PROJECT, BUT NOT IN REGARDS TO MEETING WITH PNC.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HEARING AND SEEING NONE.
THE TIME IS NOW 932. THANK YOU ALL.
THE TIME IS 932. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAVE FOUR COMMENT CARDS PRESENTLY AND IF ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK, YOU MAY GET IT IN BEFORE THE LAST PERSON SPEAKS AND WE WILL HEAR YOUR COMMENTS.
THE FIRST PERSON TO SPEAK THIS EVENING IS HOPE STEVENS.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.
GOOD EVENING. HOPE STEVENS, CITY OF DESOTO.
I HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE MANY HOA BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAS BEEN MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER SINCE 2022, AND I DO STILL HAVE EMAILS FROM 2022.
IT IS. SOME THINGS THAT ARE STATED THAT ARE SHARED WITH THE COMMUNITY.
GATED COMMUNITY. FIRST TIME I'VE EVER HEARD THAT TONIGHT.
AND I HAVE BEEN TO THE MAJORITY OF THESE MEETINGS UNTIL I HAD A MAJOR SURGERY IN DECEMBER, WHICH I COULDN'T GET TO MEETINGS.
AND THEN WHEN THERE WERE SOME HERE RECENTLY, THEY WERE DURING THE BUSINESS DAY.
I'M WORKING SO I COULD NOT GO.
I HAVE STRONG PAUSE WITH THAT.
I KNOW IT IS SAID THAT THE BURDEN IS GOING TO BE UPON THE HOA AND THE COMMUNITY, BUT I JUST HAD MY DCAD CALL THREE WEEKS AGO.
I AM IN DESOTO RANCH, WHICH IS A CONTIGUOUS COMMUNITY, ALONG WITH WITH WILDWOOD AND OAKMONT, WHERE WE HAVE SF9 SF, TEN SF, 12 HOMES CONTIGUOUS TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING.
AND MY HOME, WHICH IS A 2660 SQUARE FOOT HOME.
AND I HAVE A DRIVEWAY THAT I CAN FIT EIGHT CARS IN IN THE REAR.
I CAME IN AT A VALUE RIGHT NOW BASED ON THE COMPS OF THE HOME.
SELLING AT 319,000. THEY ARE COMING NOW WITH 2000 SQUARE FOOT HOMES STARTING AT 400,000.
THE BURDEN IS NOT GOING TO BE STRICTLY ON THE HOA.
WITH THEM COMING IN WITH HOMES, WITH FRONT FACING GARAGES AND MUCH SMALLER LOTS, THAT'S GOING TO DRIVE UP ALL THE REST OF US.
THAT'S GOING TO BE A BURDEN ON US TOO.
SO IT'S NOT JUST STRICTLY THEIR COMMUNITY.
MY LAST EMAIL FROM MR. DARLING WAS FROM FEBRUARY 2025.
SO THE EFFORT TO REALLY COMMUNICATE WITH THE COMMUNITY, THAT IS THAT IS NOT 100% FACTUAL.
I WILL SAY THAT WITH THERE BEING MANY OF US WHO HAVE BEEN IN THIS GRIND SINCE 2022, WITH THE WITH THE FIRST GENTLEMAN, MR. HARGROVE, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSISTENCY TO SPEAK WITH ALL OF US.
[03:05:03]
AND EVEN WHEN THERE WAS A MEETING THAT I ATTENDED AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER, IT WAS THE VERBATIM SAME PRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE TO YOU.WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE EXACT SAME THING WHEN YOU HEARD THEN WITH PLANNING AND ZONING, THAT THERE WERE VERY STRONG CONCERNS COMING TO TELL US THE SAME THING WAS JUST A WASTE OF A LOT OF PEOPLE'S TIME.
SO WHILE IT'S GOOD THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME INCREASE IN SIZE, THAT BURDEN IS NOT GOING TO BE STRICTLY ON THAT HOA.
IT IS GOING TO PUT A BURDEN ON THE REST OF US WHO ARE OUTSIDE OF THAT COMMUNITY, AND FOR IT TO BE GATED AND NOW TO BE EXCLUSIVE, AND YOU'RE DRIVING UP MY COST, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME ACCESS BECAUSE I'M GOING TO BE PAYING FOR PART OF IT, TOO.
THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
SHARON TEMPLE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.
I AM A DESOTO RESIDENT, HAVE BEEN FOR OVER 33 YEARS.
WITH THAT BEING THE CASE, WE'VE HEARD THIS STORY OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
I'M NOT GOING TO KEEP ELABORATING.
MY COUNTERPART HAS ALREADY STATED THE FACT THAT WE DON'T WANT THE SMALLER HOMES.
ANOTHER COMMISSIONER STATED ABOUT THE FIRE HAZARD.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ONE HOUSE CATCH ON FIRE.
THEN YOU HAVE A MATCHBOX EFFECT, SO EVERYTHING GOES UP.
SO THIS BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY AND THIS ECOSYSTEM AT THIS POINT, IT DOESN'T EXIST AT THAT POINT ANY LONGER, RIGHT.
BUT I'M GOING TO STAY ON POINT.
TRANSPARENCY FROM WHAT I'M HEARING TONIGHT IS NOT THERE.
I BELIEVE IN FIRST THINGS FIRST.
AND THAT WAS WHAT I STATED WHEN I MET.
WITH ONE OF THEM. AND I SAID COSMETICS IS NOT THE THING FOR ME.
IT WAS ALSO ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE GARAGE.
LET'S TAKE IT A LITTLE DEEP FURTHER.
LET'S LOOK AT IT FROM THIS POINT, WITH ALL HOMES HAVING FRONT ENTRY GARAGES, YOU CAN EXPECT THAT THE PERSONS WILL BE PARKING IN THE DRIVEWAY AND ON THE STREETS, ESPECIALLY SINCE TRENDS SHOWS THAT MANY ARE TURNING THEIR GARAGES INTO ENTERTAINMENT AREAS, STORAGE SPACES, WORK HOUSE, WORKSHOP AND OTHER USES.
WITH THAT BEING THE CASE, I HAVE SEEN THIS SPECIFICALLY IN THE THE BLUEFIELD DEVELOPMENT IN AN ADJACENT TOWN.
ALSO, MORE CARS WILL PARK ON STREETS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE MORE CAR OWNERS LIVING IN A SINGLE RESIDENT.
TOO MANY CARS ON THE STREET CAN ALSO CREATE SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
CHILDREN RIDING THEIR BIKES, WALKING TO SCHOOL AND DRIVERS HAVING TO NAVIGATE CONGESTED STREETS WHEN THEY.
WHEN THERE ARE CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
WHAT IS MORE CONCERNING IS THAT CHILDREN RIDING THEIR BIKES DRIVERS VIEWS MAY BE OBSTRUCTED BY PARKED CARS AND POSSIBLY ACCIDENTS.
ARE YOU READY TO HAVE THIS ON YOUR CONSCIENCE? JUST SO THEY CAN HAVE SMALLER LOTS AND GREEN SPACE, I BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE FORCED TO DO IT, BUT MY TASTE HAS ALWAYS BEEN FIRST THING FIRST. AND WHAT I ASKED FOR WERE LARGER HOMES.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I VOTE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS TEMPLE.
MISS DENISE BALLANTYNE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS DENISE VALENTINE DE SOTO.
I HAVE SO MANY EMOTIONS RUNNING AROUND LISTENING TO SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN PART OF THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE BEEN MEETING THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE ASKED FOR THAT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED.
THERE ARE SOME MAJOR THINGS THAT WERE PRIORITY FOR US THAT HAVE NOT NUMBER ONE, THE NUMBER ONE THING, LOT SIZE.
THE DEVELOPER HAS TAKEN THE PERSPECTIVE OF.
WE HAD THIS APPROVED BEFORE, SO WHY ISN'T IT GOOD ENOUGH NOW? WHEN IT WAS APPROVED BEFORE, IT HAD NINES AND TENS IN IT.
IT WAS A MUCH MORE GRADUAL TYPE OF MOVEMENT THROUGH THAT PROPERTY.
IT'S NOT THERE NOW. WHAT THEY DECIDED TO DO WAS TO TAKE THE PART THAT WAS THE GOING TO BE
[03:10:01]
MOST ECONOMICAL, AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT.AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE, YOU KNOW, AS WE CAN FIT IT IN, WE'LL FIT IT IN. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE COMMUNITY ASKED FOR.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION THAT I DID NOT SEE THE ANSWER TO.
I'M HOPING SOMEONE CAN ANSWER IT.
WHICH IS HOW MANY OF THE SF EIGHTS WITH DEVIATIONS WERE APPROVED IN THE PREVIOUS PD.
CAN I GET THAT? ANSWER THAT QUESTION AFTER YOU FINISH YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT, I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE IN OUR LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS NOT IT WAS NOT A FRIENDLY MEETING.
MY LAST COMMENT WAS REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SF EIGHTS.
WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET TO IS IF YOU WANT TO HOLD ON TO SOME BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY IN THE PD, REDUCE IT, GIVE US MORE NINES AND TENS.
IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DEAL, LET'S MAKE A DEAL.
DON'T PLAY. AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME VERY NICE PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE SAYING SOME THINGS THAT ARE NOT QUITE CORRECT.
WE'VE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.
THE GATED COMMUNITY AFTER THAT, THAT CONTENTIOUS MEETING, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IF THEY CAME BACK TO US AND SAID, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT.
THAT NEVER HAPPENED. I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED.
I AM AGAINST THIS SUBDIVISION THE WAY IT IS PLANNED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. BALLANTYNE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION NOW? AND I CAN COME BACK? YES.
OKAY, SO TO SO TO ANSWER MISS VALENTINE'S QUESTION ABOUT THE THE NUMBER OF SFA LOTS PERMITTED IN THE CURRENT IN THE PD 193 AS IT STANDS CURRENTLY THERE'S A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF 85 THAT ARE PERMITTED IN THE CURRENT PD 193.
THE NEXT PERSON TO SPEAK IS ALANA COSIMO.
AS MY FELLOW COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN, I SAY DITTO. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THIS PROJECT AS PRESENTED DOES NOT REFLECT THE VISION OR STANDARDS WE HAVE SET FOR OUR COMMUNITY IN PLACE.
THREE DE SOTO RESIDENTS IN PLACE.
THREE HAVE WORKED HARD OVER YEARS TO MAINTAIN BALANCE OF GROWTH, SAFETY AND QUALITY OF LIFE.
WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN JUST BUILDING ECONOMICAL HOUSES.
WE ARE INTERESTED IN BUILDING A COMMUNITY WHERE FAMILIES WILL CALL HOME FOR GENERATIONS. WE DO NOT NEED, AND CERTAINLY DO NOT DESERVE SMALLER THAN NORMAL LOT SIZES AND LOWERED BUILDING STANDARDS.
ONCE WE COMPROMISE THOSE STANDARDS, IT BECOMES EASIER TO DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL THE VERY CHARACTER OF DE SOTO IS GONE.
WE MUST STOP MAKING EXCEPTIONS FOR DEVELOPERS AND STAKEHOLDERS.
OUR STANDARDS ARE OUR STANDARDS.
THEY SHOULD APPLY TO EVERY PROJECT WITHOUT FAVORITISM OR SHORTCUTS.
JUST AS RESIDENTS ARE EXPECTED TO FOLLOW CITY CODES FOR THEIR OWN HOMES AND PROPERTIES, IF WE ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO BEND THE RULES, WE SEND A MESSAGE THAT PROFITS TAKE PRIORITY OVER PEOPLE. I ASK YOU TO THINK BEYOND TODAY'S MEETING AND CONSIDER THE LONG TERM IMPACT ON OUR PROPERTY VALUES, NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY, AND TRUST RESIDENTS HAVE IN CITY LEADERSHIP.
THE DECISION TODAY IS NOT ABOUT TODAY.
IT IS NOT ABOUT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT TODAY.
IT IS ALSO THE PRESIDENT WE SET FOR EVERY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN DESOTO.
I URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT AND STAND WITH THE RESIDENTS YOU REPRESENT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS KUSUMA.
THE LAST PERSON. DID WE RECEIVE ANY OTHER CARDS? ALL RIGHT. THE LAST PERSON THAT WE HAVE TO SPEAK THIS EVENING IS NICOLE.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS NICOLE. RAFAEL DE SOTO, TEXAS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE.
FIRST OF ALL, AND IN GETTING THROUGH ALL THESE HARD THINGS.
AND I JUST WANT TO COMMEND YOU ALL FOR YOUR INTEGRITY, I APPRECIATE THAT. AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, ON MAY 22ND, I DID HOLD A COMMUNITY MEETING FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT,
[03:15:05]
IN PARTICULAR, POLK AND PARKERVILLE.POLK AND PARKERVILLE HAS BEEN AN INTERESTING AND INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THE, THE, THE FIRST DEVELOPER THAT CAME ABOUT, I BELIEVE HIS FIRST NAME, DAVID HARGROVE, WAS THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND, HAD LINKS AND TIES TO THE COMMUNITY.
WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING WHERE HE CAME TO US THREE TIMES.
IT WAS A NO, NO, NO, THE LAST TIME, TWO TIMES.
AND THE THIRD TIME IT WAS A YES.
THE YES HAPPENED BECAUSE THERE WAS THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE COMMUNITY AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED AND WHAT THE DEVELOPER WAS SAYING, WHAT HE COULD DO AND AND HOW HE WANTED TO BEND AND GIVE AND SUCH, WHICH ALSO CAME WITH A COMMUNITY BENEFIT AT THAT TIME.
AND SO AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, WHEN THE NEW DEVELOPERS CAME IN TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO. I DID RECEIVE A AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER, I DID RECEIVE AN INVITATION TO HEAR AND SEE AND ASK QUESTIONS TO GET INSIGHTS FROM MY POINT OF VIEW.
AND SO HAVING BEEN THE HOLDER OF PUBLIC TRUST FOR OVER SEVEN YEARS, ONE OF THE THINGS I CAN TELL YOU EMPHATICALLY ABOUT PLACE THREE AND THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA IS THAT THERE'S A TRUENESS WHEN IT COMES TO REAR FACING GARAGES IN, IN FRONT OF FORWARD FACING GARAGES JASON GARAGES VERSUS REAR FACING GARAGES, LOT DIVERSITY AS IT RELATES TO SAME SAME SAME AND SIMILAR AS IT RELATES TO IF YOU'VE NEVER SEEN WHAT, FIVE INCHES BETWEEN TEN INCHES BETWEEN A HOME LOOKS LIKE I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO SO. IN SOME COMMUNITIES THAT LOOKS GREAT, IN THIS COMMUNITY, IT'S A DIFFERENT LOOK WHEN YOU COME TO A SUBURB AND YOU SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE UNTIL I EXPERIENCED IT AS A COMMUNITY DEVELOPER. AND SO MY ENCOURAGEMENT TO YOU WOULD BE TO SEND THIS BACK, LISTEN TO WHAT THE RESIDENTS ARE SAYING.
AND I CAN ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY IN PLACE.
THREE WHO'S LOOKING FOR GREATER HOME VALUES, LOOKING FOR LOOKING FOR DIVERSITY THAT OTHER PARTS OF DESOTO HAVE. WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT'S IN THAT IMMEDIATE AREA, YOU HAVE MULTIFAMILY. YOU DO HAVE THE SMALLER LOT SIZES.
YOU DO HAVE SOME OF THE FRONT FACING GARAGES.
BUT WHAT I HAVE HEARD FOR PLACE THREE FOR THAT CORNER IS TO HAVE THE DIVERSITY, HAVE THE REAR FACING GARAGES.
AND WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE TOPOLOGY AND WHAT THEY PRESENTED.
BECAUSE OF THE TOPOLOGY WITH HAVING THE LAND AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE WATER FEEDER FEATURE. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE GATING AS A AS A CITY, I BELIEVE AS A REGULATION THAT WE, WE MAINTAIN OUR MASONRY FENCES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. HAVING RECEIVED NO OTHER COMMENT CARDS, THE TIME IS 948 AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
SURE. COME ON. YOU CAN RESPOND EVEN THOUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
I DO WANT TO ADDRESS ONE THING.
CHAIRPERSON, YOU ARE CORRECT. I DID GO BACK AND DID NOT EMAIL YOU.
I DO BELIEVE I CALLED YOU, BUT I MIGHT HAVE HAD THE WRONG NUMBER. BUT I WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP FOR THE RECORD. I APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BE MINDFUL AGAIN.
OUR GOAL IS DEVELOPERS IS TO LOOK AT VERY SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND TRY TO BRING SOMETHING TO THE COMMUNITY. OKAY.
OUR GOAL IS ESSENTIALLY LOOKING AT THIS OF WHAT BUILDERS WOULD CONSIDER AND MARKETABILITY. IN THIS PARTICULAR POCKET OF DESOTO.
IF OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IF A GATED COMMUNITY IS NOT WANTED.
THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO.
WE LOOK AT ALL FACTORS WHEN IT COMES TO A.
WE LOOK AT WHAT THE CITY IS ENVISIONED.
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE, THAT WERE HAD AT VARIOUS TIMES WAS WHY WOULDN'T YOU DO A HIGHER DENSITY? THIS IS A THOROUGHFARE GOING FROM NORTH TO SOUTH.
WHAT? AND OUR RESPONSE TO THAT WAS BECAUSE WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY, THE ONES NEARBY, THAT THEY DID NOT PREFER THE HIGHER DENSITY, THE MULTIFAMILY, THE TOWNHOMES THE ATTACHED PRODUCT, THAT WOULD BE LESS THAN FIVE FEET, OF COURSE, RIGHT. AS ATTACHED PRODUCT.
SO WE WANTED TO BE MINDFUL OF BOTH SIDES.
I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT, YES, TO YOUR POINT THAT THE WATER FEATURE WAS
[03:20:06]
NOT PROPOSED BY THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER, BUT AS IT CAME ABOUT AND THE WHOLE DRAINAGE CAME ABOUT, WE SAID, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY.THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE SOMETHING AND MAKE IT ENHANCED.
AND WHETHER THAT'S FOR A ENCLOSED GATED COMMUNITY OR OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF EITHER ONE.
SO IF IT IS THAT THE COMMUNITY IS SAYING, WE DON'T LIKE THE GATED, OKAY, WE CAN FIX THAT.
IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO LOOK AT A DIFFERENT DESIGN.
AND REALLY, IF IT'S ALL ABOUT THE FIVE FOOT, WE COULD LOOK AT SIX, SEVEN, WHATEVER IT IS, SEVEN IN YOUR ORDINANCE.
BUT WE KNOW ALSO PRODUCT THAT IS SELLING.
I KNOW I HEAR A LOT ABOUT THE FRONT FACING GARAGES.
I LIVE IN A FRONT FACING, BUT I KNOW I HEAR A LOT.
I HEAR JUST AS MUCH ABOUT THE REAR FACING SIDE.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT REAR FACING AND A CHILD COMES OUT OF THE GARAGE WITH FENCES ALL ALONG AND ZOOMING DOWN THE ALLEYWAY.
I DON'T SEE THEM. WHEN I THINK ABOUT SAFETY FEATURES, AND I THINK ABOUT HOW EVERYBODY HAS TO HAVE A RING ON THE FRONT, A RING ON THEIR BACK, THEY HAVE TO HAVE STROBE LIGHTS IN THE BACK BECAUSE OF AN ALLEY. THERE ARE SAFETY FEATURES THAT COME ALONG WITH ALI'S.
SO THERE ARE PROS AND CONS FOR BOTH.
AND WHAT WE ARE ENVISIONING HERE WITH THE FRONT ENTRY IS THAT YOU COME OUT AND YOU TAKE THIS MILE TRAIL, RIGHT.
YOU'RE GETTING THIS EXERCISE, YOU GO TO THE PLAYGROUND, YOU'RE BRINGING THE KIDS TO THE PLAYGROUND. WHILE THEY'RE AT THE PLAYGROUND, YOU'RE AT THE PAVILION, THERE'S PICKLEBALL.
I DON'T PLAY PICKLEBALL, BUT I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE DO.
SO WE WERE ASKED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL PICKLEBALL COURT.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE, AGAIN, WE ENVISION THIS OPEN SPACE, THIS GREEN SPACE THAT IS NOW 20, ALMOST 22% OF THE PROJECT TO BE THE CENTER POINT. AND WE THINK THAT TRENDS ARE FORWARD THINKING ABOUT PEOPLE COMING OUT OF THEIR FRONT AND WALKING THAT TRAIL.
SO THERE ARE SAFETIES ON BOTH SIDES.
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY IF IT BRINGS MORE DIALOG, IF IT BRINGS MORE THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE DOWN THE PATH OF LOOKING AT SIDE YARD SETBACKS. WE NEED TO CONTINUE LOOKING AT THE PATH OF, AGAIN, THE COMMUNITY. WE WILL DO THAT.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO JUST SAY, THIS IS TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, BUT WE ARE HERE TO TRY TO BRING SOMETHING TO THE CITY OF DESOTO.
I THINK THERE'S SOME CONCERNS THAT COMMISSIONER DEWBERRY HAD IN REGARDS TO SETBACK AND BEING FIVE FEET ON EACH SIDE.
I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE PROBABLY SOMETHING YOU ALREADY KNOW, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS APPROVED TODAY AND THEN APPROVED IN COUNCIL BEFORE WE, YOU KNOW, HAVE ANY FINAL PLANS, IT DOES HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY WITH ENGINEERING AND THERE WILL BE SOME.
THERE WILL BE FIRE THAT WILL ASSESS THIS AND IT WILL BE ALL THESE HOUSE WILL BE AT FIRE STANDARD, THAT THERE WILL NOT BE A RISK THAT IF ONE HOUSE CATCHES ON FIRE, THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY GOES UP MUCH THAT YOU WOULD SEE IMPLEMENTATIONS THAT COME, COME FORTH IN MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS WHERE PEOPLE SHARE A COMMON WALL.
SO I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE ADDRESSING BEFORE WE GET FINAL PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT. I DID HEAR SOME COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT SAFETY CONCERNS WITH CHILDREN ON BIKES WITH HAVING A FRONT GARAGE.
I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TO UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THAT.
IF YOU DO HAVE ALLEY ACCESS, WHERE DO YOUR GUESTS PARK? THEY HAVE TO PARK ON THE STREET. AND SO THAT DOESN'T HAVING ALLEY ACCESS VERSUS FRONT GARAGE DOES NOT MINIMIZE CARS BEING PARKED ON THE STREET.
WE ARE CERTAINLY OPEN TO ADDRESSING SOME OF THESE CONCERNS.
AND WE DID LISTEN ALL THIS FEEDBACK WHEN WE MET WITH THE COMMUNITY MULTIPLE TIMES.
AND WE WE MADE SURE TO TRY TO ADDRESS AS MUCH OF IT AS POSSIBLE.
THANK YOU, MISS LAMB. MISS EDWARDS.
YOU'RE THE COMMUNITY LIAISON, COMMUNITY OUTREACH.
ENGAGEMENT. WERE YOU ABLE TO LISTEN TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS, OR WERE YOU IN ATTENDANCE AT FORMER RAPHAEL'S COMMUNITY MEETING? SO SHE DID INVITE US. SHE INVITED US TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THE COMMUNITY MEETING.
UNFORTUNATELY, MY CHILDREN WERE GRADUATING FROM FROM THEIR THEIR PROSPECTIVE SCHOOLS, AND SO WE WERE NOT ABLE TO SEND A REPRESENTATIVE. IT WAS TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND IT WAS THE WEEK BEFORE MEMORIAL DAY.
AND SO WE DIDN'T HAVE REPRESENTATIVE WITH SUCH LATE NOTICE WITH GRADUATIONS AND AWARD CEREMONIES TO MAKE IT TO THE COMMITTEE MEETING.
OKAY. AND SECOND QUESTION, SO I MY MEMORY PROBABLY FAILED ME, BUT I DO REMEMBER THE PRESENTATION WITH YOUR COMPANY.
I DON'T RECALL THERE BEING A REFERENCE TO A GATED COMMUNITY.
HAS DID THAT EVOLVE AFTER IT LEFT? AND A LOT OF IT WAS. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT CIRCLING BACK WITH MISS VALENTINE ON THIS.
A LOT OF THIS ACTUALLY CAME FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM ABOUT HOW IT WOULD BE,
[03:25:03]
YOU KNOW, WE PROPOSED THE IDEA SHOULD WE GATED SHOULD WE NOT DO NOT NOT DO GATED.AND THEIR FEEDBACK OVERWHELMINGLY WAS LIKE, WELL THIS IS A GREAT AMENITY.
THIS SHOULD BE GATED. AND SO I WENT BACK TO THE DEVELOPERS AFTER THIS FEEDBACK AND SAID, IS THIS SOMETHING WE CAN DO? CAN WE, CAN WE FULLY ENCLOSE THIS? AND SO IT WAS KIND OF THAT OVERWHELMING SENTIMENT THAT THIS WOULD BE A GREAT AMENITY AT THE HOA IF THEY COULD SUPPORT IT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S JUST PROVIDED JUST FOR THE COMMUNITY. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE KIND OF TOOK THAT INSIGHT, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'VE REALLY TAKEN THE DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT. SO I APOLOGIZE.
I SHOULD HAVE REACHED BACK OUT TO MISS VALENTINE SAID. I APPRECIATE THIS ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK. WE DID MEET WITH THEM THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS ON TOP OF OF STEVEN MEETING WITH THEM IN 2024.
I SHOULD HAVE CIRCLED BACK WITH HER AND LET HER KNOW THAT WE WERE GOING TO FULLY MAKE THIS A GATED COMMUNITY MOVING FORWARD.
THANKS FOR THE RESPONSE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, MR. GRAHAM. I JUST HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE FOR EACH OF YOU. MY FIRST QUESTION IS FOR YOU, SIR. EARLIER WHEN WE HEARD THIS, I WAS INFORMED, AND I COULD BE WRONG. CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.
WAS THAT ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS YOU GUYS RESTRUCTURED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS BECAUSE FIRST TEXAS AND SOMEONE ELSE WAS BUILDING THOSE LARGER LOTS, AND THEY WERE SITTING TODAY.
I KIND OF HEARD YOU SAID THAT, LIKE THEY'VE BEEN SITTING THERE FOR A LONG TIME, AND THEY GOT A LOT OF THE UNIT TODAY.
MORE SO AS THEY ARE. THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT INVENTORY.
SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PRESENT SOMETHING ELSE TO THE INVENTORY.
WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL REASON? I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION.
WHAT I MEANT WAS THE MARKET INVENTORY.
SO I DRIVE BY FIRST TEXAS EVERY TIME I COME TO DESOTO, WHICH IS FAIRLY OFTEN.
AND I ACTUALLY KNOW A RESIDENT IN THAT DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO THEY LOVE THE DEVELOPMENT.
THEY MOVED TO THAT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE THAT IT WAS A A VERY HIGH END PRODUCT. WHAT I ALSO KNOW IS THAT IT STARTED IN 2021, 2022. I'VE GOT A CHART THAT TALKS ABOUT WHAT THEIR SALES ARE AND WHAT THEIR SALES ARE PROJECTED FOR THAT TYPE OF PRODUCT.
SO OUT OF 154 TOTAL LOTS THE LAST TIME I COUNTED, THERE WERE 40 HOME SITES THAT WERE BUILT, AND SO THEY BUILT SOME TO SPEC, OF COURSE, SO THAT THEY CAN MARKET THOSE FOR MOVE IN READY.
MOST OF THE PRODUCT IS BUILT ON DEMAND.
SO YOU CUSTOMIZE IT AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
OF THAT 40. AND AS I DRIVE, EACH TIME I SEE HOW MANY CREWS ARE WORKING BECAUSE THAT'S MY THAT'S MY WORK IS DEVELOPMENT.
SEE HOW MANY CREWS ARE ACTUALLY WORKING AND WHAT THE SPEED OF ABSORPTION IS.
RIGHT. AND SO I WILL TELL YOU, BASED UPON WHAT THEY'VE BUILT FOR THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT THEY HAVE AND THE ABSORPTION RATE THAT THEY'RE SELLING AT RIGHT NOW, THAT THERE IS ENOUGH INVENTORY OF THAT 154 LOTS TO GO ON FOR FIVE, IF NOT SEVEN YEARS. SO WE LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, IF WE PUT THE SAME SF10 IN OUR DEVELOPMENT, THOSE WOULD NOT LIKELY SELL UNTIL YOU KNOW YOU'RE COMPETING WITH THE SAME PRODUCT THAT ALREADY HAS A VAST AMOUNT OF ABSORPTION TO GO. THAT'S JUST OUR. YEAH.
AND THEN MY QUESTION FOR YOU, MA'AM, JUST IS TRYING TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AND HAVE SOME INTEGRITY HERE.
I'VE BEEN ON YOUR SIDE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT FOR MY CAREER, BUT I'VE ALSO BEEN ON THIS SIDE.
AND TYPICALLY WHEN THOSE EMAILS GO OUT, IT'S A PRETTY DIRECT THING THAT HAPPENS AND HOW IT HAPPENS. THE QUESTION THAT CHAIRMAN ASKED YOU TODAY WAS THAT WAS THERE OR ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, I THINK IT WAS BELL OR COMMISSIONER BELL OR CHAIRMAN.
THEY ASKED, WHY DIDN'T YOU SEND IT TO THE OTHER PEOPLE? AND YOUR RESPONSE WAS THAT BECAUSE AFTER VICE CHAIR DENIED IT AND SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE A FORUM, YOU THEN DIDN'T SEND IT TO US? I WANT TO KNOW WHEN YOU SENT THAT INITIAL EMAIL, WHY WEREN'T WE ALL ON THAT EMAIL? I DIDN'T WANT TO VIOLATE QUORUM, BECAUSE IF I PUT YOU ON AN EMAIL AND YOU ALL RESPONDED, YOU'D BE VIOLATING QUORUM, WHICH WOULD BREAK THE PUBLIC OPEN MEETINGS ACT. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS ALREADY CLOSED.
AND AT THIS TIME, IF YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, YOU MAY DO SO. AND IF NOT, I AM READY FOR A MOTION.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, MISS JORDAN.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET UP IF YOU DON'T WANT TO.
IF THE DEVELOPER HERE, THE THE APPLICANT, GAVE UP THEIR DESIGNS ON MORE DEVIATIONS, COULD THEY BUILD ON THE CURRENT APPROVED PD THEY HAVE? YES, THEY CAN BUILD, BUT IT WOULD IT'D BE A HUGE.
[03:30:09]
MR. BELL. JUST GIVE ME A SECOND.THE REASON I WENT BACK AND I REVIEWED THIS CASE FROM INCEPTION THE THE MEETING DATE THAT WE HAD ON OCTOBER THE 22ND, 2024.
THIS WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF, IN SPITE OF LOSING LAND WITHIN THE 50.35 ACRE TRACT OF LAND, DUE TO IT BEING DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPERS ENGINEERING THAT THE EXISTING STORMWATER DRAINAGE FLOODPLAIN WITHIN THIS TRACT OF LAND WOULD NEED TO REMAIN WITHIN THIS PROPERTY. IT IS STAFF'S OPINION THAT THIS TRACT OF LAND CAN STILL BE PROPERLY DEVELOPED WITH A COMBINATION OF SF PH9 AND F EIGHT SIZE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AS APPROVED BY THE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2272822 SLASH PD 193.
STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S MINIMUM LOT AREA, MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, OR MINIMUM SIDE YARD DEVIATION REQUEST.
STAFF ALSO DOES NOT SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO HAVE 100% FRONT ENTRY GARAGES.
SO SINCE YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION, I HAD IT.
I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD SHARE WITH YOU.
ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU SAID, IT STILL COULD BE DEVELOPED AND STAFF HAD ALREADY GIVEN US THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. CHAIR, IF I MAY.
YES, SIR. I HAVE TALKED WITH STAFF AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT.
THE WAY THE PD IS WRITTEN, THEY CANNOT BUILD, SO THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH A SITE PLAN.
THAT SITE PLAN IS IN THE ALREADY APPROVED PD WITH THE DRAINAGE ISSUES AT THIS LOT.
THEY CANNOT BUILD AS BECAUSE OF THE SITE PLAN.
SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS REWORKED THE SITE PLAN.
AND I DO REMEMBER THAT IN ONE OF THE DURING THE INITIAL DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD, ONE OF THE THINGS AS WE TALKED ABOUT DUE DILIGENCE OF DEVELOPERS.
TOPOGRAPHY STUDIES WAS ONE OF THOSE THINGS, AND THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD DO A TOPOGRAPHY STUDY TO TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT LAND USAGE CAN BE, HOW MUCH OF THAT LAND.
AND THIS IT WAS DETERMINED AFTER THAT FACT THAT THEY COULD NOT UTILIZE THE LAND.
MY PREMISE AT THAT TIME WAS, IS IT THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY THAT YOU HAVE LAND THAT YOU'RE NOT BEING ABLE TO USE? THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, IN YOUR DUE DILIGENCE THAT YOU DETERMINE HOW THAT LAND WOULD BE USED.
AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE STORMWATER IS THE REASON FOR IT.
AND THAT DRAINAGE WAS THERE WHEN THE LAND WAS PURCHASED.
THE DRAINAGE WAS THERE THEN, BUT THE DUE DILIGENCE WAS NOT PERFORMED.
SO, RESPECTFULLY, I DO UNDERSTAND THERE IS A SITUATION THAT CAUSES THEM TO NOT BE ABLE TO DEVELOP. BUT STAFF TOLD US ONCE ALREADY THAT THEY COULD DO IT ACCORDING EVEN WITH THE REDUCTION IN THE LAND.
SO IF YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE THERE'S EVEN A LOT MORE LAND THAT'S BEING REDUCED, THEY CAN'T DO IT JUST SO I CAN HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING.
THE PD, AS IT'S PASSED NOW INCLUDES THE SITE PLAN.
MAYBE THAT SITE PLAN BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER, I DON'T KNOW, YOU COULD ASK THEM WAS DONE TOO HASTILY, BUT AS THE SITE PLAN IS ADOPTED RIGHT NOW IN THE ZONING CODE THAT THEY MUST COMPLY WITH AS PART OF THE PD, YOU CANNOT BUILD IT BECAUSE DRAINAGE LAWS WOULD NOT ALLOW YOU TO BUILD IT.
SO YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVING CONFLICTING LAWS IN THE PD.
SO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEMA OR THE CITY'S DRAINAGE LAWS AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PD, THEY'RE CONFLICTING.
THEY CAN'T DO IT, SO IT CANNOT BE BUILT.
SO MY QUESTION IS TO YOU, COULD THEY DEVELOP A NEW SITE PLAN THAT ALLOWS THEM TO DEVELOP ON THE LAND ACCORDING TO THE LAND USAGE THAT THEY HAVE.
BECAUSE IS THAT KIND OF IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE DONE TODAY. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING TODAY.
ALL RIGHT. AND BASED ON A QUESTION THAT VICE CHAIR ASKED, THIS IS WHY DO YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE THESE TOTAL NUMBER OF OF HOMES? AND I BELIEVE THE REASON, THEY SAID, IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO BUILD THE DEVELOPMENT UNLESS THEY GET A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOMES.
AND IF I'M INCORRECT IN THAT THEY CAN CORRECT ME.
THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IF THEY WERE TAKING AND LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY AND DOING THOSE THINGS, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DEVELOP THAT CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT MORE MEETS THE NEEDS OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING OR ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE HAVING.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
[03:35:03]
ALL RIGHT. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME.MR. GRAHAM. CHAIRMAN, AS IT PERTAINS TO ZONING, CASE NUMBER Z1530 DASH 24.
SECOND. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY.
SECOND, THAT WE DENY THE THE REQUEST.
AS PRESENTED. ARE YOU READY FOR THE QUESTION? ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, THE QUESTION IS ON.
SAY AYE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
WAS EVERYBODY ON THIS SIDE? EVERYBODY ON. OKAY. THE CASE FAILS.
THE MOTION. THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
PASSES. ALL RIGHT, THAT IS IT FOR OUR CASES.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK FOR THE ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST.
[F. ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST Discussion will be limited to the following pursuant to Gov't Code 551.0415: (1) Expressions of thanks, congratulations, or condolences; (2) information regarding holiday schedules; (3) recognition of an individual; (4) a reminder about upcoming Planning & Zoning events; (5) announcements involving an imminent threat to public health and safety. ]
JUST REMIND YOU THAT THERE IS NO LONGER THE JOINT MEETING THAT HAS BEEN CANCELED.SO YOU CAN CLEAR YOUR COUNCIL.
IT'S BEEN RESCHEDULED TO TO THE NEXT ONE IN OCTOBER, BUT WE WILL NOT HAVE ONE IN IN AUGUST.
AND ALSO REMEMBER THE JOINT, THE BANQUET WHICH WILL BE IN SEPTEMBER.
HOPEFULLY WE'LL SEE EVERYONE THERE.
AND THEN LASTLY, THANK YOU TO MR. BELL, WHO REPRESENTED THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THE RECENT VOLUNTEER FAIR.
THANK YOU SIR. ANYTHING FROM STAFF? NOTHING FROM STAFF. ALL RIGHT.
I'LL. I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
SECOND. ALRIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED.
AND SECOND. EVERYONE IN FAVOR, SAY GOOD NIGHT.
GOOD NIGHT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.