4.A.Burleson Retail Summercrest at 700 Wilshire Blvd (Case 23-252): Hold a public hearing and consider approval of a resolution for a variance to Chapter 36, fencing and screening regulations, allowing for an alternative transitional screening material. (Staff Presenter: JP Ducay, Senior Planner)

[4.A.Burleson Retail Summercrest at 700 Wilshire Blvd (Case 23-252): Hold a public hearing and consider approval of a resolution for a variance to Chapter 36, fencing and screening regulations, allowing for an alternative transitional screening material. (Staff Presenter: JP Ducay, Senior Planner)]

CASE NUMBER 23-252, TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR VARIANTS OF CHAPTER 36 FENCING AND SCREENING REGULATIONS, ALLOWING FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TRANSITIONAL SCREEN AND MATERIAL.

STAFF PRESENTED AS J. P. DECAY.

>> THANK YOU MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

FOR THE RECORD, J. P. DECAY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRESENTING CASE 23-252.

THIS IS A FENCE VARIANCE AND THE APPLICANT IS ANNA CARRILLO.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 2.64 ACRES AND IT'S ADDRESSED AS 700 SOUTHWEST WILSHIRE BOULEVARD.

FOR THE BACKGROUND, OUR FENCING AND SCREENING REGULATIONS PROVIDES REQUIREMENTS THAT STATES, ANYTIME THERE'S A NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OR A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE THAT IS GOING TO BE NEXT TO OR BE DEVELOPING NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL USE OR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, THEY SHALL PROVIDE TRANSITIONAL SCREENING.

IT STATES THAT IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE DEVELOPER OF THE MORE INTENSELY ZONED PROPERTY TO SCREEN THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE LESS INTENSIVE ZONING DISTRICT.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE SUBJECT SITE IS ZONED GENERAL RETAIL, AND IT'S HIGHLIGHTED WITH THAT BLUE BOUNDARY ON THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN AND THIS LOT CURRENTLY HAS A COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN THAT IS GOING THROUGH THE DAC REVIEW PROCESS RIGHT NOW.

THAT SITE PLAN INCLUDES SOME RETAIL RESTAURANT TENANT SPACES.

IT'LL BE ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS, AND EACH ONE OF THOSE LOTS WILL HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH ON IT.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROPERTY THAT IS A BUDDING THE GENERAL RETAIL LOT THAT IS GOING THROUGH A POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S DIRECTLY NEXT TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONED AREA, SPECIFICALLY SF7 AND ITS FIVE SF7 LOTS.

AS I MENTIONED, THAT MEANS THAT THE THE GENERAL RETAIL ZONED DEVELOPER WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF TRANSITIONAL SCREENING ALONG THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

THE TRANSITIONAL SCREENING STANDARDS SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT TRANSITIONAL SCREENING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF A SOLID MASONRY OR REINFORCED CONCRETE MATERIAL.

THIS SECTION GOES ON TO STATE THAT ALL OTHER DESIGNS AND MATERIALS WILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE PROVIDED THAT THE SCREENING MEETS THE INTENT OF THE SECTION.

ULTIMATELY, THE BASE STANDARD FOR TRANSITIONAL SCREENING IS MASONRY MATERIALS OR REINFORCED CONCRETE FOR THAT SCREENING.

IF THE DEVELOPER WISHES TO PURSUE ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT, IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE.

WHEN THE DEVELOPER WAS INFORMED OF THE TRANSITIONAL SCREENING STANDARDS,

[00:05:04]

THE DEVELOPER CAME FORWARD AND REQUESTED AN ALTERNATIVE TO THOSE MATERIALS, AND THAT ALTERNATIVE WAS EIGHT FOOT WOODEN FENCE.

THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE ORIGINALLY REVIEWED THIS REQUEST AND ULTIMATELY DENIED THIS REQUEST.

THEY JUST WEREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH APPROVING THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY.

THE APPLICANT THEN APPEALED THIS DETERMINATION TO CITY COUNCIL UPON A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THE CURRENT REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR THE TRANSITIONAL SCREENING TO BE AN EIGHT-FOOT WOODEN FENCE IN LIEU OF A MASONRY SCREENING WALL.

THE JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT INCLUDED THAT THE PROPOSED WOODEN FENCE WOULD BE LESS OBTRUSIVE THAN A MASONRY WALL GIVEN THAT THIS FENCE OR SCREENING WALL WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN A 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OR JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT IS THAT THE WOODEN FENCE SATISFIES THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE SCREENING FROM THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND THAT IT IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT FROM THE CURRENT OR EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.

YOU CAN SEE THAT BY AN IMAGE PROVIDED ON THIS SLIDE HERE.

YOU CAN SEE IT'S A MIX OF EIGHT FOOT WOODEN FENCE, AS WELL AS A FOUR-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE.

HERE ARE THE FENCING AND SCREENING CODE CRITERIA WHEN IT COMES TO CONSIDERING AND APPROVING ANY FENCE OR SCREENING VARIANCES.

AS FOR PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES, A NOTICE WAS MAILED OUT TO PROPERTIES WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THERE WAS ALSO A NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER.

STAFF HAS RECEIVED ONE LETTER OF CONCERN FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THAT LETTER ESSENTIALLY CONTAINS SOME CONCERNS, SPECIFICALLY REGARDING DRAINAGE, PRIVACY, AND NOISE IMPACTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR, THE LETTER DID NOT EXPRESSLY OPPOSE THIS REQUEST, HOWEVER, JUST WANTED TO BRING TO LIGHT SOME POTENTIAL CONCERNS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN LOOKING AT THIS PROPOSAL.

AS FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, STAFF HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPROVE THIS ADMINISTRATIVELY ALREADY, HOWEVER, WAS NOT COMFORTABLE MAKING THAT ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL DUE TO THE POTENTIAL DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY NEARBY.

SOME OF THOSE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES WOULD BE THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE DRIVE-THRU, THE LOCATION OF THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, THEN THE GENERAL PROXIMITY OF THE RESIDENCES TO THIS PROPERTY LINE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN ON THE SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE TWO STARS.

THE STAR TO THE FAR RIGHT IS THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVE-THRU ON THE FIRST LOT AND THAT'S ROUGHLY FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS STRIPED IN RED.

THEN THE SECOND STAR IS THE LOCATION OF THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 10 FEET AWAY FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE.

JUST FOR GENERAL PROXIMITY AND MEASUREMENTS, THE RESIDENCES WILL BE LOCATED ROUGHLY 40-60 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ON EACH ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

I ALSO WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT STAFF DID CONSIDER THE UTILITY EASEMENT ACCESSIBILITY FOR SIGNAGE AS WELL.

THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY A CONSIDERATION OF OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS.

THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DID HAVE SOME SUPPORT TOWARDS THE ALTERNATIVE REQUESTS OR THE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS JUST FOR THE INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY MOVING FORWARD IN REGARDS TO THAT EASEMENT.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK MYSELF OR THE APPLICANT.

>> I'VE GOT A COUPLE. ACTUAL MARKERS AT PINS, HAD THEY BEEN LOCATED AT OUR CURRENT FENCES WITHIN THAT OR ON THE OUTSIDE?

>> CAN YOU ASK THAT ONE MORE TIME, SIR?

>> YEAH. THE LOCATION MARKERS FOR THE LOTS, THE DEFENSE, IS IT WITHIN THE MARKERS? I MEAN, ARE THEY RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINES?

>> I BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS THE EXACT PROPERTY LINE.

YES. THE BOUNDARY OF WHERE THEY BOTH MEET.

>> I REMEMBER WHEN THEY BUILT A GAS STATION, STOP AND GO, I GUESS IN THE EARLY '70S, BUT I HAD NO IDEA IF IT WAS [OVERLAPPING]

[00:10:02]

>> YEAH. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC HEARING IN 610.

>> MY CONCERN WAS, IS IF YOU PUT A NEW FENCE IN, OUR LINE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE MOVED OR THESE FENCES HAVE TO BE TAKEN OUT SOME OF THESE TREES, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME DOWN REGARDLESS.

BEING THAT THEY'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THE POWER LINES.

>> THAT'S BEEN AN ONGOING CONVERSATION.

JUST WHAT THE PRE-EXISTING FENCES OUT THERE CURRENTLY AND THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED FENCE.

I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE HAD RECENT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT WHERE THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO POTENTIALLY WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE FIVE RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE ABUTTING THIS SITE AND SEE IF THEY CAN WORK ON SOME DEAL OF HAVING ONE UNIFORM FENCE ALONG THE ENTIRE BOUNDARY.

>> YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE IDEAL, OTHERWISE YOU END UP WHAT THEY CALLED NO MAN'S LAND, [OVERLAPPING] WEEDS THAT GROW UP AND IT'S WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING ENTRANCES AND EXITS ON THIS.

FROM WHAT I SEE, THERE ONLY LOOKS TO BE ROUGHLY MAYBE THREE IN TOTAL, AM I WRONG ON THAT? I SEE THAT THERE'S ONE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON SUMMER CREST, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE THAT IS SHARED BETWEEN THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, NEXT TO THE FAT BURGER AND COOL GREENS.

THERE LOOKS TO BE POSSIBLY TWO ON THAT, AM I CORRECT ON THAT ASSUMPTION?

>> NO, MA'AM. THERE'S ONLY ONE.

CURRENTLY. WHAT IT IS IS JUST WELL, THEY'VE TOWARD UP, BUT IT'S JUST ONE FLAT, ENTRANTS IN THERE AND WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS CONSOLIDATE EVERYTHING INTO ONE LOCATION AND MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF DRIVES TO THE RIGHT TURN LANES AND THAT MINIMIZES THE POTENTIAL FOR REAR-END COLLISIONS.

>> OKAY.

>> PEOPLE SLOWING DOWN.

>> NONE OF THIS WILL FEED INTO THE LOT NEXT DOOR.

THE ONLY ENTRANCE AND EXIT IS OFF OF SUMMER CREST?

>> NO. THERE'S A SHARED ACCESS BETWEEN THE LANE AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY OUT TO, I WANT TO SAY IT'S SPRING TIDE ON THE OTHER SIDE AND IT GOES IN FRONT OF THE BANK.

>> OKAY.

>> THERE IS ANOTHER ENTRANCE AND LIKE I SAID, YOU CAN GET TO IT FROM, I BELIEVE THE ROAD IS SPRING TIDE TO THE SOUTH, SO IF SOMEONE COMING DOWN SPRING TIDE, THEY COULD GO THROUGH THE BANK PROPERTY AND ACCESS THIS.

>> [BACKGROUND].

>> UTILITIES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THE ENGINEERING'S REVIEWED.

THEY'RE ALL ABOVE THE GROUND OR ARE THEY NOT?

>> NO, WE HAVE A SEWER LINE BACK IN THE BACK WITH AN EASEMENT AND THAT'S WHY THE WOODEN FENCE IS MORE OF A PREFERENCE FOR PUBLIC WORKS IN LIEU OF A MASONRY FENCE.

WE ALSO DID A LITTLE INVESTIGATION TO SEE HOW DEEP IT WAS AND THEN HOW DEEP THE FENCE IS GOING TO BE AND THEN THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED.

WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO THE OUTLINE AS WELL JUST TO MAKE SURE IT HAS NOT BEEN DAMAGED.

>> IS THE SEWER GOING TO BE WITHIN THE 10 FOOT BOUNDARY?

>> THE SEWER IS BASICALLY STRADDLING.

THERE'S A FIVE FOOT EASEMENT ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE AND A FIVE FOOT EASEMENT ON THE COMMERCIAL SO IT'S BASICALLY THAT'S WHAT THEY USE.

WE DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE.

>> GOT YOU.

>> IT'S ALL ON ONE PROPERTY.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> I'VE GOT A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS.

DO THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANES OR THEY'RE GOING TO BE CURBED [NOISE]?

>> YES.

>> IT WON'T BE DIRECTING WATER BACK INTO THE BACKYARDS OF OTHER PEOPLE?

>> I CAN'T SPEAK ON NECESSARILY THE DRAINAGE PORTION OF THAT, BUT I AM AWARE THAT THEY WILL BE CURBED, CORRECT.

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN EIGHT-FOOT.

DID YOU GUYS CONSIDER ANYTHING ABOUT 10 FOOT? THE ONLY THING THE REASON I'M THINKING THAT AS A SECURITY GUARDS ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING INTRUDING ON YOUR BACKYARD? THE PROPERTY IS RIGHT BEHIND HIM SINCE IT'S GOING TO BE SO CLOSE.

>> IN EIGHT FOOT WHAT?

>> FENCE.

>> TEN FOOT FENCE.

>> A TEN FOOT FENCE. THE CODE REQUIRES AN EIGHT-FOOT AND [OVERLAPPING] IT BLOCKS OUT.

THAT'S WHAT THE BASE STANDARD OF THE CODE IS.

>> I'M NOT AGAINST A WOOD.

I DO KNOW THAT WOOD SHRINKS OVER TIME.

I'D LIKE TO SEE A BOARD ON BOARD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO WHERE IT WOULD TAKE OUT ANY EXTRA NOISE OR LIGHT DOES NOT PENETRATE THROUGH THE PICKETS.

>> UNDERSTOOD.

>> WELL, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY NICE HAD THE DEVELOPER CONTACTED THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE GOING TO LIVE RIGHT BEHIND THIS DEVELOPMENT AND COME UP WITH AN AGREED UPON, WHERE ALL PARTIES AGREE UPON A COMMON FENCE.

THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I CAN SUPPORT THIS.

I WILL NOT VOTE TO SCREEN A BUSINESS LOCATION FROM A BACKYARD OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHERE PEOPLE LIVE WITH A DOG-GONE WOODEN FENCE.

[00:15:06]

I'M VOTING NO AND I URGE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO VOTE NO.

THOSE TAX-PAYING RESIDENTS, THEY LIVE THERE [NOISE] AND THEY DESERVE MORE THAN THAT DOG-GONE WOODEN FENCE.

THIS IS A HARD NO FOR ME AND I'M ACTUALLY OFFENDED THAT WE EVEN GET THIS.

ITS THAT IT WOULD DO A DISSERVICE TO OUR RESIDENTS IF WE VOTED TO APPROVE THIS SO I'M A HARD NO.

>> SEMEN IS WHAT I WOULD PREFER IF IT HAD COME DOWN TO IT.

FOR RESTRICTIONS, WE'RE STUCK ON IT, BUT YES, THE MASONRY IS WHAT I WOULD PREFER.

IT WOULD BOUNCE NOISES BACK ONTO THE BUSINESS OWNERS PROPERTY.

YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY LIGHT EMITTING THROUGH THE PICKETS ARE ANYTHING LIKE YEAH, 10 FOOT IS WHAT I WOULD PREFER.

THERE'S NOTHING GOING UP AND OVER THE FENCE DISTURBING YOUR SLEEP OR WHATEVER.

>> WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER CARD FOR THIS.

>> THAT IS THE APPLICANT OWNER [OVERLAPPING] WHO'S PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

>> IF ANY WANTING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. DON'T HAVE ANY HERE?

>> [OVERLAPPING] EMILY.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY?

>> SORRY. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, SIR.

[NOISE]

>> MY NAME IS TONY PHILLY, RETAIL GARDENERS [OVERLAPPING] 2525. WHAT'S THAT?

>> I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T READ IT.

>> THAT'S OKAY, 2525 MACKINNON, DALLAS, TEXAS.

>> THIS IS THE OWNER APPLICANT SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM.

HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO PROVIDE NECESSARILY.

>> I'LL GO BACK TO THE ONE BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE THINGS I ALWAYS LOOK AT DRAINAGE.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF PAYMENT.

WATER IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO SOMEWHERE BUT IF THE DRIVE-THROUGH LINES ARE CURBED, WHERE'S THE WATER IS GOING TO BE EVACUATING TO?

>> WELL. I BROUGHT MY ENGINEER SHE'D BETTER QUALITY FOR THAT QUESTION THAN I AM, BUT THEY ARE CURBED?

>> YEAH.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANNA COREOKE, 9001 AIRPORT FREEWAY AND NORTH RICHLAND HILLS.

WE HAVE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL BACK-AND-FORTH WITH ENGINEERING AND WITH PLANNING GROUP ON THE SITE PLAN AS WELL AS PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING.

WE HAVE ADDRESSED ALL OF THE DRAINAGE COMMENTS.

WE HAVE DONE AN EXTENSIVE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS OF THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE'S SOME EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT NEED TO BE DEALT WITH.

THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RUNOFF THAT IS GOING THROUGH THE SITE AND OUT IN TEXAS RIGHT AWAY AND IT TURNS ON TO SUMMER CREST AND IT HEADS NORTH.

WE HAVE MADE SURE THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY EXTENSIVE IMPROVEMENT TO THE EXISTING CONDITION BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE WATER JUST SHEET FLOWS ACROSS WHEREAS WE ARE DOING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT IN A WAY THAT BECAUSE WE DO HAVE CURB AND WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO GRADING AND WE ARE DIRECTING IT IN, LIKE I SAY, IN A CONTROLLED MANNER ALONG THE DRIVES AND THEN OUT TOWARDS SUMMER CREST.

IT STILL GOES IN THE SAME GENERAL DIRECTION, IT MIMICS THE EXISTING PATTERNS, BUT IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY.

>> THE CURB ARE SOLID RADIUS FROM SUMMER CREST ALL THE WAY BACK.

THERE'S NO LITTLE DIVOTS WHERE WATER CAN EXHAUST THROUGH.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. WELL, THE WATER WELL, THERE IS SOME OUTAGE.

YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN THERE THERE'S SOME FLUMES, LOCALIZED FLUMES THAT DIRECT THE WATER TO THE TEXAS RIGHT AWAY AND THEN ALSO ONTO SUMMER CREST IN A CONTROLLED MANNER SO THAT IT DOES NOT JUST SHOOT FLOW ACROSS LIKE IT DOES NOW.

>> DOES STAFF HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE DRAINAGE FROM WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN? OKAY.

>> I DO HAVE TO SEE IF IT'S BEEN THOUGHT OF SINCE YOU DO HAVE AN ENTRANCE AND EXIT GOING RIGHT NEXT TO A BANK, I KNOW THAT THERE IS AN ENTRANCE TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANES FOR THE BANK THAT IS EXTREMELY CLOSE TO THE BACK EXIT.

MY CONCERN POSSIBLY WITH THAT MIGHT BE THE INFLUX OF HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL BE THERE AND SHOOTING ACROSS THAT PARKING LOT AND POSSIBLY HITTING CUSTOMERS OF THE BANK TO POSSIBLY TRY TO GO THROUGH THAT DRIVE-THROUGH.

IT GOES WITH THE FENCE TO THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT WILL BE COMING IN AND OUT,

[00:20:01]

IS THAT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN A CONCERN TO POSSIBLY THE OTHER PROPERTIES SURROUNDING.

>> JUST SO I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M HEARING YOU.

ARE YOU REFERRING TO THAT PARKING LOT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE MULTI-TENANT BUILDING?

>> I AM. YES.

>> YES. WHAT WE HAVE AND ARE PROPOSING, THERE IS AN ACTUAL CURB OR A BARRIER SO THAT YOU DON'T GET THAT TRAFFIC CIRCULATION.

YOU DO HAVE ENOUGH OF AN OPPORTUNITY AT SOMEBODY THAT GOES IN AND PARKS, CAN BACK UP AND COME BACK AROUND, BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BANK PROPERTY.

I THINK MICHELLE MENTIONED IT EARLIER, THE REASON THAT WE HAD TO CONSOLIDATE THE DRIVEWAY INTO ONE SHARED DRIVEWAY IS BECAUSE OF TEXTS DOT CRITERIA.

WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY CUT AND ACCESS POINT ALONG THE PROPERTY, SO WE HAD TO SHARE IT WITH AN EXISTING ONE AT THE BANK AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WE ALSO HAVE THE ONE AT SUMMER CREST THAT IS FAR ENOUGH FROM THE INTERSECTION.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF EXTENSIVELY ON THE ACCESS PORTION OF THIS WHERE WE ARE, IF YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'RE DOING, WE'RE ADDING A RIGHT TURN LANE THERE.

WE'RE MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SO WE'RE REALLY HELPING THE TRAFFIC FROM WHAT IT IS NOW, WHICH IS CHALLENGING AS YOU ALL KNOW ON 174.

>> YES.

>> WE'RE ALSO STRIPING AND IMPROVING TO ADD A RIGHT-TURN LANE.

YOU CANNOT SEE IT ON THE SCREEN BUT THAT'S ALSO AN IMPROVEMENT TO TRAFFIC TOO, THAT SHARED ACCESS DRIVE WITH THE BANK.

WE'RE MAKING SEVERAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION AS A WHOLE.

LIKE I SAID, WE DID A DRAINAGE STUDY BECAUSE THERE'S SOME EXISTING CHALLENGES.

WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM ON UTILITY UPGRADES AND THE MOST DEFINITELY ON THE TRAFFIC.

FROM THE STANDPOINT OF UTILITIES, AS MICHELLE WAS MENTIONING EARLIER, WE DID LOOK AT THIS AT THE FENCE FROM DIFFERENT STANDPOINTS.

ONE OF THEM WE PROPOSED TO DO ENHANCED LANDSCAPING IN THE BACK.

OBVIOUSLY, THE EXISTING CONDITION IS VERY POOR.

WE WOULD CLEAN THAT UP.

WE DID ALSO LOOK AT DOING THE MASONRY FENCE AND PUTTING IT AWAY CLOSER TO THE EDGE OF THE DRIVE-THROUGH, BUT THAT DIDN'T RESULT IN THE NO MAN'S LAND AND THAT WOULD HAVE A LOT OF ULTIMATELY PASSED AND WEEDS AND TRASH AND AND ALL KINDS OF CHALLENGES THAT IT WOULD RESULT IN FOR THIS PROPERTY OWNER AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, SO WE DID LOOK AT SEVERAL DIFFERENT CONDITIONS AND WE FELT LIKE THE WOODEN FENCE WAS MORE ADEQUATE FOR BEING ABLE TO REMOVE PANELS AND ACTS AS A UTILITIES, A SEWER AND ALSO THE OVERHEAD POWER LINE.

>> IF THEY DIDN'T GO MASONRY, WHAT IS THE THICKNESS FRONT-TO-BACK IN-DEPTH ON THE MASONRY THAT YOU REQUIRE?

>> IT DOES NOT PROVIDE A DEPTH REQUIREMENT.

ONLY HEIGHT MATERIAL.

>> GOT IT. NOW THAT ARE SOMEWHERE THEY DO COLUMNS AND THEN THEY DO PANELS LIKE MASONRY TOP PANELS WHERE THERE'S A SEDIMENT PLACE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS SOME YOU REALLY NEED TO, OR IF IT HAD TO BE MASONRY FROM TOP ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND?

>> YEAH. IF YOU GIVE ME ONE MOMENT, I CAN ACTUALLY PULL THE LANGUAGE FOR YOU.

I JUST MENTIONED, SHALL BE EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT, SHALL SERVE THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A VISUAL BARRIER BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF SOLID MASONRY OR REINFORCED CONCRETE, AND THEN AS I MENTIONED, ALL OTHER DESIGNS MATERIALS WILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE PROVIDED THE SCREENING MEETS THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION.

>> OKAY. A FEW QUESTIONS, BUT WHATEVER IS DONE, I'D LIKE TO SEE FOOT OR ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE BOTTOM OR WATER DOES IT JUST NATURALLY FLOW ACROSS? THE MASONRY IS THE WAY I WOULD PREFER AND I KNOW SOME LIKE THE WOOD.

YOU HAD MENTIONED THE LANDSCAPING STUFF, THE SAME SHRUBBERY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE YOU ALREADY MENTIONED, YOU MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL, THE DEPTH.

IF YOU PUT LANDSCAPING YOU'RE GOING TO ENCROACH ONTO

[00:25:01]

THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE SO IT'S GOING TO COME OUT EVEN FURTHER.

>> THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE WITH THE MASONRY TYPE OF FENCE IS THE FOUNDATION, THE COLUMNS.

WHEN YOU HAVE A WOOD FENCE, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY OF JUST HAVING POLES WHEREAS WITH THE MASONRY FENCE, EVEN IF YOU DO PREFABRICATED PANELS, YOU STILL HAVE THE LEAST A TWO BY TWO-FOOT FOOTINGS THAT ARE DEEPER AND MORE STOUT, THAT CREATE JUST A MORE OF A CONSTRAINT BUT WE DO, WE HAVE PROPOSED ENHANCE LANDSCAPING IN THAT AREA.

WE WENT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE EVEN BEFORE THE WOODEN FENCE AND THEY FELT LIKE THAT WASN'T ENOUGH.

NOW, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T DO A COMBINATION OF THAT WE CAN HAVE THE FENCE AND SOME LANDSCAPING TO DRESS IT UP.

THE OTHER THING THAT WE CAN DO IS ALSO MEET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO YOUR POINT WHEN LISTENING TO THAT AND TO SEE IF THEY HAVE A PREFERENCE OF ACTUALLY US REMOVING THE OLD CHAIN LINK FENCES AND CLEANING EVERYTHING UP AND PUTTING ONE LIKE A BOARD ON BOARD FENCE THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE.

IT'D BE VERY AESTHETICALLY PLEASING TO EVERYBODY AND IT WOULD BE UNIFORM AS WELL, AS OPPOSED TO JUST COMING IN AND PUTTING THAT LEAVING THE CHAIN LINK FENCES AND PLACE, AND THEN ADDING A FENCE.

IT MIGHT BE JUST A WIN-WIN SITUATION WHERE IT'S MORE CONSISTENTLY ACROSS ALL THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE CAN TABLE THIS.

THEY CAN COME BACK AROUND TO US IN A MONTH OR SO IF THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO MEET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND BY PROPERTY OWNERS, I MEAN THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE THERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF SOME OF THOSE ARE RENT HOUSES OR NOT, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE THERE AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS, IF THERE WAS A DIFFERENT PARTIES AND COME TO AN ACCEPTED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND EVERY ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THOSE HOMES AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS, IF THEY'RE DIFFERENT THAN THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE AS TO A SINGLE ACCEPTED FENCE DESIGN THAT MIGHT MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR EVERYONE BUT I WILL TELL YOU THIS, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR A WOOD FENCE AT ALL.

IF SOMETHING WAS BROUGHT BACK TO THIS COMMISSION, IF WE TABLED IT FOR LATER CONSIDERATION AND WE HAD IT IN WRITING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS AGREE TO A COMMON FENCE DESIGN AND IF IT ENDS UP BEING WOOD, I'M OKAY WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT MEANS THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE HAVE HAD A SAY AND THEY'VE MADE A CHOICE, BUT THERE'S NO WAY THAT I'M GOING TO VOTE AS A COMMISSIONER ON THIS COMMISSION TO SADDLE PEOPLE LIVE IN THOSE HOMES WITH A WOODEN FENCE IN-BETWEEN THIS BUSINESS LOCATION IN THEIR BACKYARDS.

THERE'S NO WAY. WE CAN TABLE IT FOR CONSIDERATION LATER.

IT'LL KEEP THIS CASE OPEN UNTIL IT'S BROUGHT BACK AND IF THE APPLICANT NEEDS MORE TIME THAN SAY, A MONTH, I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MATTER THE TIME LIMIT.

IT CAN BE THE NEXT MEETING, TWO WEEKS FROM NOW OR SOMETHING IF THEY CAN GET IT DONE IN TIME BUT THERE'S NO WAY WITHOUT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE AND THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THAT PROPERTY AGREEING TO A COMMON FENCE DESIGN, THEN I'M JUST GOING TO GO WITH A WOODEN FENCE.

>> ONE MORE QUESTION FOR STAFF THE EXISTING SEWER LINE FACTOR.

DO YOU GUYS KNOW HOW DEEP IT IS AND IF IT'S CAST IRON?

>> IT IS PVC, I BELIEVE AND IT'S ANYWHERE FROM 4-6 FEET DEEP AS THE FLOW TRAVELS FROM BASICALLY WEST TO EAST IF THAT WAS PLANNED MORE.

IT'S NOT VERY DEEP WHICH IS?

>> A CONCERN

>> YOU JUST GOT TO BE CAREFUL WITH THE FOOTINGS OF THE MASONRY WALL.

>> NOW, WHAT DOES THE CITY REQUIRE IF YOU DO A WOOD FENCE ON A GALVANIZED POST?

>> THAT WOULD BE JP. I'M MORE WITH ENGINEERING ISSUES THAN FENCES AND WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE, BUT IN ANY EVENT, IT IS IN AN EASEMENT, SO THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO DO A RIGHT-OF-WAY USE AGREEMENT REGARDLESS.

>> YEAH. BECAUSE SOME OF THESE MIGHT BE FENCES, SOMEONE WHO SEES THEY REQUIRE A THIRD OF IT.

THE POST TO BE THAT DEPTH SO IF IT'S EIGHT FOOT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD OF THAT IN THE GROUND.

SEE IF YOU'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THE PIPE.

>> WE DID LOOK AT IT. JP I THINK THERE'S A PROFILE IN HERE IF YOU WANT TO, OF THE FENCE.

>> I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT TOD TO YOUR POINT.

WE DO HAVE ONE LETTER OF CONCERN ALREADY FROM A RESIDENT ABOUT THE NOISE.

>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. NOW I'M GOING TO TELL YOU ALL SOMETHING THAT'S NOT TOO GREAT FOR ME, BUT I SAT UP HERE AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE'LL HAVE AN ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY IN WHICH THERE'S THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT ARE HELD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES A DECISION AND THEN THE NEXT MEETING, HALF THIS ROOM IS FILLED UP WITH ANGRY PEOPLE WONDERING WHY THE HECK WE DID WHAT WE DID.

BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T PAY ATTENTION, THEY GET THIS LETTER FROM THE CITY ABOUT THIS THING AND THEN THEY LOOK AT IT, IF THEY EVEN LOOK AT IT.

WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION,

[00:30:01]

THAT, JUST BECAUSE LETTERS WENT OUT, DOESN'T MEAN ANY OF THESE PEOPLE PAID ATTENTION TO IT AND THEN WE MAKE A DECISION HERE AND WE SAY YES.

IT'S VERY LIKELY CITY COUNCIL WOULD SAY YES TO THIS IF WE SAID YES TO THIS, RIGHT? WE SADDLED THESE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE WITH A WOOD FENCE, AND I'M NOT PREPARED TO DO THAT IN ANY WAY.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO BECAUSE THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT WE TABLE THIS CASE.

MATT, WE CAN DO THAT, RIGHT? MR. CITY ATTORNEY?

>> YES SIR. IF WE WANT TO TABLE THE ITEM, WOULD BE BEST IF WE TABLE THAT FOR A DATE CERTAIN.

CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THAT DATE CERTAIN.

>> IF THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO, BUT THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS TO SAY YES OR NO TO THIS FENCE.

RIGHT NOW MY VOTE IS A NO, AND I URGE EVERYBODY TO VOTE NO ON IT SO IT'S REALLY UP TO WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO.

>> I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS SOMETHING IF I COULD PLEASE.

OUR SOLE INTENT IS TO CONTACT THOSE HOMEOWNERS AND TO YOUR POINT, IF ANY OF THOSE HOMEOWNERS, NOT JUST THE RENTERS, BUT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, IF ANYONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH OUR DESIGN OF A WOODEN FENCE, OR REPLACING OR CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH FENCES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PURSUE THIS VARIANCE.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIGHT AN UPHILL BATTLE AND WE'LL LIVE WITH WHAT WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH.

WE HAVE NO INTENT OF TRYING TO SHOVE ANYTHING DOWN ANYONE'S THROAT ON THIS.

WE WOULD GO TO THOSE HOMEOWNERS AND WE WOULD GET TO APPROVAL.

IF WE DON'T HAVE THE APPROVAL TO YOUR POINT, WE WON'T MOVE FORWARD.

>> WELL, IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT NEVER WORKS THAT WAY.

IF YOU'D ALREADY HAD THE APPROVAL, THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS.

YOUR EXPERIENCES MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN MINE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT MY EXPERIENCE ARE, IT NEVER WORKS THAT WAY.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO CALL THE QUESTION.

>> CAN YOU CLOSE THE HEARING?

>> YEAH. I MOVE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I GOT ONE MORE QUESTION REAL QUICK BEFORE THAT.

IF THIS DIDN'T GO FORWARD, DO THEY HAVE TO PUT A FENCE UP?

>> TRANSITIONAL SCREENING IS REQUIRED.

THEY COULD REQUEST A WAIVER TO NOT HAVE ANY, BUT THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY HAVE TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL AS WELL.

>> I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THAT, THANK YOU.

>> MR. TAYLOR, BEFORE YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC, CAN WE ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION?

>> DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION DURING THIS ITEM?

>> YOU'RE FREE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> CAN I ADDRESS SOMETHING ELSE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO DO, BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOUR EXPERIENCE IS, IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY, MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT IT DOES, AND IT'S A VERY SIMPLE REQUEST, YOU EITHER APPROVE OUR FENCE, MEANING THE HOMEOWNERS I'M TALKING ABOUT, YOU EITHER APPROVE OUR FENCE OR YOU DON'T.

IF YOU DON'T APPROVE OUR FENCE, THEN WE LIVE WITH THE ORDINANCE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

IF YOU DO APPROVE OUR FENCE THEN WE MOVE FORWARD, IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.

OF THOSE FIVE HOMEOWNERS ALONG THAT ALLEY, IF WE'RE GOING TO REPLACE THEIR FENCES WITH A BRAND NEW FENCE, IF ANYBODY SAYS, NO, I WANT TO KEEP MY FENCE THE WAY IT IS.

I WANT YOU TO PUT UP A MASONRY FENCE AND WE'LL WORRY ABOUT THAT FIVE-FOOT GAP WHEN THE TIME COMES, THEN SO BE IT.

IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.

WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE IT COMPLICATED.

WE'LL GO TO THOSE HOMEOWNERS, IF ANYBODY COMES BACK AND SAYS, NO, I DON'T WANT YOU TOUCHING MY FENCE, THEN SO BE IT.

>> I THINK WHAT WE COULD DO IF THAT'S THE CASE IS WE COULD CONTINUE, WE TABLE THE ITEM AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TILL DATE'S CERTAIN, GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO CONTACT THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

IF WE CANNOT REACH AN AGREEMENT, YOU CAN JUST WITHDRAW YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE VARIANCE, AND IF THEY DO, THEN YOU CAN APPEAR BACK BEFORE THIS BODY AT THE DATE AND TIME WE SAID.

WE JUST NEED TO DATE CERTAIN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TOO.

>> OUR NEXT MEETING IS NOT UNTIL DECEMBER 19TH.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I'M FINE WITH THAT, MR. RIBITZKI.

THAT SOUNDS FINE TO ME.

>> I'D PREFER TO TAKE A VOTE TODAY, BUT I'LL DEFER TO EVERYBODY ELSE.

>> MOTION CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? GIVE YOUR HANDS UP.

OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

[00:35:02]

>> CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:35.

>> I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING ON DECEMBER THE 19TH.

THAT IS MY MOTION, THAT WE TABLE THIS ITEM, CASE NUMBER 23-252 UNTIL THE DECEMBER 19TH MEETING.

>> MR. HALL Z, WOULD THAT BE ALSO TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THAT DATE AND TIME?

>> THANK YOU, MR. RIBITZKI.

THAT'S WHY YOU'RE A BETTER LAWYER THAN I AM.

>> THAT'S NOT TRUE.

>> IT IS TRUE, AND TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THAT DATE.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY TOD AND THEN A SECOND BY DAVID.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MOVING ALONG,113 NORTH DOBSON STREET, CASE 23-270,

[4.B.113 N Dobson Street (Case 23-270): Hold a public hearing and consider approval of an ordinance for a zoning change request from “SF7”, Single-family dwelling district 7 to “CC”, Central Commercial for a 0.15 acre site. (Staff Presenter: JP Ducay, Senior Planner) ]

HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE, FOR ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS FROM SF7, SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT 7 TO CC, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL FOR A 0.15 ACRES SITE.

STAFF AND PRESENTER IS JP DUQUE.

>> THANK YOU MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

FOR THE RECORD, JP DUQUE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PRESENTING CASE 23-270, A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.

THE OWNER IS ANDREW MILLIMAN AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 0.15 ACRES AND ADDRESS IS 113 NORTH DOBSON STREET.

THE CURRENT ZONING, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SF7.

THIS SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY UTILIZED AS A RESIDENCE, HOWEVER, HAS SINCE BEEN VACANT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

LAST YEAR, THE CURRENT OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH THE INTENTION OF UTILIZING THIS SPACE AS A FUTURE OFFICE SPACE FOR HIS PERSONAL HOME-BUILDING COMPANY.

FOLLOWING THE PURCHASE, THE ENTIRE SITE HAS SINCE UNDERWENT EXTENSIVE REMODELING TO BETTER SERVE A COMMERCIAL USER, WHICH IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED HERE TODAY.

THE OWNER IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SF7 TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL.

THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS SITE AS OLD TOWN AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS SF7.

AS REPUBLIC HEARING NOTICES, A NOTICE WAS MAILED TO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET, THERE WAS A NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER AND A SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY.

STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING IN RESPONSE FROM THE OWNERS OR PUBLIC REGARDING THIS REQUEST.

IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM SF7 TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL FOR 113 NORTH DOBSON STREET AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.

STAFF SUPPORTS THIS REQUEST AS IT IS IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FURTHERS THE VISION OF THE OLD TOWN DESIGNATION.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE IMAGES ON THE SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE SITE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MYSELF AND THE APPLICANT ARE AVAILABLE.

>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, I'LL OPEN THE HEARING AT 6:38 AND ASK MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE OR THE COMMISSIONERS IF THEY'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS.

>> THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I MIGHT HAVE, IS THERE ANY INTENTION TO EVER HAVE ANY REAR BACKYARD PARKING OR IS IT JUST GOING TO STAY THE WAY IT IS?

>> YOU CAN SEE THERE HAS BEEN SOME GROUNDWORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE EXACT DISTANCE IS OF IT BUT THE PARKING LOT, AGAIN, I THINK PARK ROUGHLY 4-5 CARS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, AND THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING, ACCORDING TO THAT ZONING DEVELOPMENT REGULATION WITHIN THAT SECTION, THAT ZONING DISTRICT DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY PARKING.

IT IS A CENTRAL COMMERCIAL, IT IS A DOWNTOWN-BASED ZONING DISTRICT WHICH ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS FOR A SITE PLAN TO NOT REQUIRE ANY PARKING FOR THAT SITE.

>> BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY LOOKS WIDE ENOUGH FOR TWO CARS SIDE-BY-SIDE.

>> YEAH.

>> IF YOU COULD GO BACK A LITTLE BIT IN THE PACKET, IT SHOWS THE DRIVEWAY AT A BETTER ANGLE.

IT SHOWS A LITTLE BIT AROUND THE OUTSIDE AS WELL AS THE INSIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

>> YEAH. I'D LOOKED AT IT ONLINE.

I JUST DID NOT REMEMBER READING ANYTHING IF THEY INTENDED TO EXTEND ANY PARKING INTO THE BACK FOR ANY TYPE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES OR WALKING DOWN OR WORK TRUCKS.

>> THAT WAS DISCUSSED DURING SOME OF THE EARLIER REVIEWS.

[00:40:03]

STAFF ENSURED THAT NO COMMERCIAL OR EQUIPMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE PARKED AT THIS LOCATION.

>> THAT WAS MY CONCERN THERE. I APPRECIATE IT.

>> NOBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:40.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS FROM SF7, SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT 7 TO CC CENTRAL COMMERCIAL FOR 113 NORTH DOBSON STREET.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY MICHAEL AND A SECOND BY TODD.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

[4.C.6988 E FM 917 (Case 23-091): Hold a public hearing and consider approval of an ordinance for a zoning change request from “A”, Agricultural to “C”, Commercial for a 2.8 acre portion of 6988 E FM 917. (Staff Presenter: JP Ducay, Senior Planner) ]

6988 EAST FM 917, CASE NUMBER 23-091, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE FOR ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS FROM A, AGRICULTURE TO C, COMMERCIAL FOR 2.8 ACRE PORTION OF 6988 EAST FM 917 AND AGAIN, THE PRESENTER THIS EVENING AS JP DECAY.

>> HERE ALL NIGHT.

THANK YOU MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

FOR THE RECORD, JP DECAY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRESENTING CASE 23-091.

IT'S A ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS.

THE APPLICANT IS SHAWN HILL AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 2.808 ACRES AND IS ADDRESSED AS 6988 EAST FM 917.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE A 2.8 ACRE PORTION OF 6988 EAST FM 917, FROM AGRICULTURAL TO COMMERCIAL.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN THAT THIS IS A LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY BACK HERE AND THE SUBJECT LOT IS THE ONE THAT IS OBVIOUSLY HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE AND THAT LOT IS SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL ZONING AND AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ZONE THAT ENTIRE SITE TO COMMERCIAL.

IF APPROVED, THIS REQUEST WOULD BRING THE SUBJECT SITE INTO ZONING CONSISTENCY AND IT WOULD CONFORM TO THE SURROUNDING AREA WHERE YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THE LAND IN THAT GENERAL SURROUNDING AREA THAT HAS BEEN REZONED OUTSIDE OF AGRICULTURAL, HAS BEEN ZONED TO COMMERCIAL.

THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS SUBMITTED A COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH THE DAC REVIEW PROCESS AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A SOUTHERN TIRE MARK AT THIS LOCATION.

THE PROPOSED AUTO REPAIR FACILITY WILL PROVIDE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES AND IT'S INTENDED TO SERVICE THE CUSTOMERS FROM THE ADJACENT PILOT FUEL CENTER.

THAT WAS RECENTLY APPROVED, I BELIEVE IN 2021 AND IT'S LOCATED DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF THIS SITE.

IT'S A LARGE PILOT FUEL CENTER.

THEN OVER HERE WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TEXAS BEST, AS WELL AS THE GAS STATION.

THE PROPOSED ZONING OF COMMERCIAL DOES ALLOW FOR THE USE OF AUTO REPAIR BY RIGHT.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS REGIONAL OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL, AND THE CURRENT ZONING ONCE AGAIN, IS AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL.

AS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS, THERE WAS NOTICES MAILED TO PROPERTIES WITHIN 300 FEET.

THERE WAS A SIGN POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AND THERE WAS A NOTICE PUBLISHED WITHIN THE NEWSPAPER.

STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO THIS REQUEST FROM THE SURROUNDING AREA OR FROM THE PUBLIC.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS FROM AGRICULTURAL TO COMMERCIAL FOR THIS 2.8 ACRE PORTION OF 6988 EAST FM 917, AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, AND SOME ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION IS THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING OF COMMERCIAL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IF APPROVED, WOULD BRING THIS ENTIRE LOT INTO ZONING CONSISTENCY, AS WE SAW, IT IS SPLIT BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS CURRENTLY.

THE SECOND CONSIDERATION WOULD BE THAT THE PROPOSED USE OF AUTO REPAIR DOES NOT NECESSARILY FURTHER THE VISION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

HOWEVER, IT WILL BE DIRECTLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AND EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT THIS PROPOSED ZONING AND PROPOSED NEW USE IS INTENDED TO SERVE AND YOU CAN SEE THAT BY THE AREA OF THOSE TWO EXISTING BUSINESSES.

[00:45:04]

OF COURSE, WHERE THE STAR IS LOCATED IS WHERE THIS PROPOSED REZONED AND FUTURE SITE PLAN WILL BE LOCATED.

IT'S A SOUTHERN TIRE MARK INTENDED TO SERVICE THOSE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.

THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, MYSELF AND THE APPLICANT ARE AVAILABLE.

>> LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 06:45 AND IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE, THEY DO HAVE TO SPEAKER CARDS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS OR IF YOU WANTED TO COME UP AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

>> MY NAME IS TRENT ROADS. I'M AT TILL WALLACE AND SOUTHERN TIRE MARK PILOT, 4025 HIGHWAY 35, COLUMBIA, MISSISSIPPI. [NOISE] EXCUSE ME.

I'LL BE REALLY BRIEF WITH THINGS BUT THE SOUTHERN TIRE MARK PILOT JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON IT, IS ACTUALLY A JOINT VENTURE THAT WAS STARTED BETWEEN PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS AND SOUTHERN TIRE MARK CORPORATE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY IS THE LARGEST TIRE DISTRIBUTOR WITHIN NORTH AMERICA, CANADA, AND THE UNITED STATES.

THEY FORM THIS PARTNERSHIP A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO TO SERVICE PILOT CUSTOMERS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY AND SO THEY STARTED WITH 35 ORIGINAL STORES AND NOW IT'S UP TO 50.

WE'D GET ANOTHER 27 UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND ANOTHER 50 TO COME THIS NEXT YEAR WITH A TOTAL OF ABOUT 250 OVERALL PROGRAM.

THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS A LITTLE UNIQUE RELATIVE TO THE OTHERS BECAUSE THIS ONE ACTUALLY HAS BEEN SELECTED AS THE NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER.

BEFORE NOW, MANAGERS AND STAFF HAVE BEEN SENT TO OTHER LOCATIONS TO TRAIN JUST PERIODICALLY WHEREVER THEY MIGHT BE.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S GOING TO BE A CENTRAL LOCATION WHERE MANAGERS AND THEN ALSO STAFF ARE ALL SENT TO TRAIN AT THIS ONE LOCATION BEFORE THEY ARE ACTUALLY DISTRIBUTED TO THEIR OWN LOCATIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY.

WE'RE HAPPY TO BE HERE AND THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING OUR PETITION.

>> THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 06:47 AND THAT'S COMMISSIONERS, IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING.

NOT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE OR NOT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT I MOVE THAT THIS COMMISSION APPROVES CASE NUMBER 2309.

1 I WILL SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY TODD AND A SECOND MY BILL.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

ITEM PASSES.

[4.D.3084 S Burleson Blvd (Case 23-254): Hold a public hearing and consider approval of an ordinance for a zoning change request from “SP”, Site Plan Ordinance D-091-08 and “A”, Agricultural to “PD”, Planned Development for a 3.016 acre site. (Staff Presenter: JP Ducay, Senior Planner)]

THE NEXT ITEM IS 3084 SOUTH BURLINGTON BOULEVARD, CASE NUMBER 23-254.

HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL AN ORDER MEANT FOR ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS FROM SP SITE PLAN COORDINATE D-91-08, AND A AGRICULTURE TO PD GLAND DEVELOPMENT FOR A 3.06 ACRES SITE.

STAFF PRESENTER.

SURPRISED. JP.

>> THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE RECORD, JP DECAY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRESENTING CASE 23-254.

THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.

THE APPLICANT IS NATHAN OLSON.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 3.016 ACRES AND IS ADDRESSED AS 3084 SOUTH BURLINGTON BOULEVARD.

THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SP OR SITE PLAN ZONING, AS WELL AS AGRICULTURAL.

IN 2008, THE SITE PLAN ZONING WAS APPROVED, WHICH WAS APPROVED ULTIMATELY TO ALLOW FOR AND MANUFACTURING AND ASSEMBLY BUSINESS AT THIS LOCATION.

THAT BUSINESS IS AMERICAN COMPLETION TOOLS, WHO IS STILL OPERATING AT THIS LOCATION TODAY.

HOWEVER, THE OWNER IS NOW PROPOSING TO EXPAND THE BUSINESS AND IS PROPOSING TO ACQUIRE SOME ADDITIONAL LAND THAT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AND ULTIMATELY REDEVELOP THE SITE AND EXPAND THE SITE TO SOME EXTENT.