[CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL] [00:00:03] >> IT'S 6:00. CALL TO ORDER THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE BEDFORD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR TODAY, THURSDAY, MAY 22ND, 2025. FIRST OF ALL, WE'LL HAVE OUR ROLL CALL. >> ROGER GALLENSTEIN, PRESENT? >> DOROTHY CRAWFORD, PRESENT. >> KATE BARLOW, PRESENT. >> TOM JACOBSEN, PRESENT. >> BRUCE EMERY, CHAIRMAN, PRESENT. >> APRIL WHEELER, PRESENT. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. WELCOME. PLEASE STAND FOR THE INVOCATION AND REMAIN STANDING AS WE DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. OUR HOLY FATHER LOOK OVER US THIS EVENING AS WE MAKE DECISIONS TO THE BETTERMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY, GUIDE US IN YOUR WISDOM AND YOUR CARING FOR THE CITIZENS OF BEDFORD. GOING INTO THE MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND, PLEASE WATCH OVER OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AND OUR MILITARY ACROSS THE WORLD, THOUGH THEY HAVE SERVED AND ARE CURRENTLY SERVING. FOR THIS, WE ASK YOUR BLESSINGS, AMEN. >> >> GREETINGS EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE. THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS EVENING. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 27TH, [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] APRIL 10TH, AND MAY 8TH. REMEMBERING THAT MAY 8TH WAS OUR WORKSHOP AND WE DON'T HAVE TEXTS TO APPROVE, BUT THAT WAS THE MINUTES OF OUR WORKSHOP MEETING. ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO ANY OR ALL OF THESE MINUTES AS YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ALL 3 MINUTES. >> I MOVE. WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 27TH, 2025, APRIL 10TH, 2025, AND MAY 8TH, 2025. >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE HAND. MINUTES ARE APPROVED. TONIGHT, WE HAVE A SERIES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS. [2. Conduct a public hearing and consider approval of a final plat of Lots 5R-1 and 5R-2 Block 1 Wal Mart Addition being a replat of Lot 5 Block 1 within the Wal-Mart Addition. The 1.51 acre site is south of Cheek Sparger Road and east of Woodpark Lane. (PLAT-24-4) ] FIRST CASE IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 5R1, 5R2, BLOCK 1 WALMART EDITION, BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 5 BLOCK 1 WITHIN THE WALMART EDITION. THE 1.51 ACRE SITE IS SOUTH OF CHEEKS PARK AND EAST OF WOOD PARK LANE. THIS IS CASE PLAT 24-4 REPORT FROM STAFF, ENRIQUE. >> GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. >> MR. CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER, IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE COMMISSION, WE'RE GOING TO COMBINE THE PRESENTATION FOR THE PLAT AND THE SITE PLAN. IF YOU NOTICE THIS ITEM IS THE PLAT. LAST ONE ON YOUR AGENDA IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY. IF IT'S OKAY, WE'RE JUST GOING TO COMBINE THOSE. AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION, END OF THE DELIBERATIONS, WE'LL JUST NEED TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS. >> COMMISSIONER CLARIFY WE'LL MOVE ITEM 6 UP TO BE INCLUDED WITH ITEM 2. ENRIQUE. >> COMBINE, THE SITE PLAN WOULD BE REVIEW AND CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A SITE PLAN FOR LOT 5R1 BLOCK 1 OF THE WALMART EDITION, BEING A 0.694 ACRE SITE OR ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF CHEEK-SPARGER ROAD AND WEST OF STATE HIGHWAY 121, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3,700 CHEEK-SPARGER ROAD. THE SITE IN QUESTION WOULD BE THIS ONE HIGHLIGHTED BY THE RED SQUARE SHAPE, POLYGON WITH THE RED STAR. FROM THE PLAT, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WOULD BE THAT 3,700 IN THE WHITE BOX. HOWEVER, THIS ONE FOCUSES SOLELY ON THE WESTERN PORTION WITH THE STAR. THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAT WOULD BE TO TURN ONE PROPERTY INTO TWO. IN THAT SECOND PARCEL OF THIS ONE TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SITE PLAN. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE SITE PLAN IS IT'S A APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF A 2,571 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT. THE PROPERTIES IN THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND MASTER HIGHWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, AND THE PROPERTIES CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND A REPLOT OF THE PROPERTY WILL PRECEDE THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE. [00:05:02] WE'RE COMBINING THE TWO, IT'S IN CONJUNCTION. I'M SURE WE'RE A LITTLE FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY AS WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. HOWEVER, THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE SOUTH OF CHEEK-SPARGER IS A LITTLE BIT SOUTH OF THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT WE TALKED ABOUT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. IT'S IN THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, BUT ALSO WITHIN THE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY JUST THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE 121 AND 183 FREEWAYS. THE MASTER HIGHWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY HAS SOME EXTRA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT GO WITH IT, AND ANY PROPERTY, ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIRES A SITE PLAN APPROVAL, WHICH IS WHY IT'S BEFORE US HERE TODAY. THE SITE PLAN LAID OUT LAYS THE RESTAURANT HERE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S COMPLIANT WITH PARKING COUNTS FOR THE RESTAURANT, BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE, WE'RE REQUIRING 18 PARKING SPACES. HOWEVER, THEY'RE PRESENTING 21 WITH HANDICAP SPACE AS WELL. THE DRIVE THROUGH REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTIES IN THE HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT IS THAT THEY'RE BEHIND THE RESTAURANT, AND SO THAT ACHIEVES IT WITH THE PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING, THE RESTAURANT, WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. TYING BACK TO THE PLAT APPLICATION, DISCUSSING A LITTLE BIT OF THAT, IS THAT RIGHT NOW THERE'S CURRENTLY NO ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. IF WE GO BACK TO THE PICTURE, THERE'S NO ACCESS ONTO THE PROPERTY. THE RE-PLAT WOULD GRANT A MUTUAL ACCESS FROM THE WALMART ENTRANCE AND WOULD ALSO SEE THE ALLOW FOR A DRIVE APPROACH ONTO CHEEK-SPARGER ROAD. THIS WOULD BE A SIGNALIZED DRIVE APPROACH WITH THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH. WE HAVE OUR CITY ENGINEER HERE FOR TRAFFIC QUESTIONS WHEN THAT TIME COMES, BUT WE HAVE THAT. ADDITIONALLY, WITH THAT, WE'VE RECEIVED A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH REGULATIONS IN 5.4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS WELL AS REGULATIONS IN THE MASTER HIGHWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY. WE'VE MET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING LOT, LANDSCAPING, AS WELL AS OVERALL LANDSCAPING ON THE PROPERTY, AND THE 30 FOOT BUFFER ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FACING CHEEK-SPARGER ROAD. IN ADDITION, HERE ARE THE BUILDING ELEVATION. THE TOP PORTION WOULD BE THE NORTH ELEVATION. THIS WOULD BE THE SITE OR THE PART OF THE BUILDING THAT FACES CHEEK-SPARGER ROAD. THE DRIVE THROUGH ELEVATION, WHICH IS THE EASTERN PART OF THE BUILDING IS THIS LOWER BOTTOM PICTURE. THEN THE TOP PICTURE WOULD BE THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WOULD BE WHERE THE DRIVE THROUGH ORDER LANE WOULD FACE. THE EAST ELEVATION WOULD BE WHAT'S FACING THE OTHER ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS ON THE CHEEK-SPARGER, THE OTHER SHOPPING CENTER IT'S AROUND THE CORNER. SITE PHOTOS, SO THAT TOP LEFT PHOTO WOULD BE STANDING FROM THE BACK OF WHERE WALMART IS FACING TOWARDS CHEEK-SPARGER. THE TOP RIGHT PHOTO WOULD BE FACING FROM THE WALMART ACCESS, FACING TOWARDS 121. THE BOTTOM LEFT PICTURE WOULD BE STAYING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BASE, LOOKING UP. THEN THE LOWER RIGHT PICTURE WOULD BE STAYING AT THE BACK, LOOKING TOWARDS THE SHOPPING CENTER THAT'S ADJACENT TO THAT. THOSE ARE FUN PICTURES TO TAKE. PART OF THE PLAT WOULD ALSO DEDICATE A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK EASEMENT, WHICH IF YOU SEE FROM THE PICTURE PEOPLE HAVE MADE THEIR OWN LITTLE WALKING PATH. WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT AND THAT'S TAKING CARE OF AT THE PLAT. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. THE USE OF THE DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT IS A USE ALLOWED BY RIGHT BOTH IN THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND MASTER HIGHWAY CORRIDOR ZONING DISTRICTS. AGAIN, PROPERTIES WITHIN THE MASTER HIGHWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY REQUIRE A SITE PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL AFTER A RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING AND ZONING, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. THE SITE PLAN MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 5.4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, IN ADDITION WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS MET OF THE PLAT. IT'S ALL I GOT. >> COMMISSIONERS, JUST BEFORE WE GO INTO PUBLIC HEARING, BECAUSE WE'RE COMBINING TWO ITEMS. THE PLAT APPLICATION FOR THE RE-DRAWING OF LOT 5 BLOCK 1, IS OBVIOUSLY A SEPARATE CONSIDERATION TO THE DETAILS WITHIN THE SITE PLAN. WE'RE GOING TO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO DO THE REPLAT OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN WE WILL DISCUSS SEPARATELY THE SPECIFICS OF THE SITE PLAN, THE USE, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR BEFORE WE GO INTO PUBLIC HEARING WHICH THING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS CLARITY TO BE CENTERED UPON ONLY THE SUBJECT OF REPLATING LOT 5 BLOCK 1. 06:10, I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. [00:10:07] ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ABOUT THE RE-PLAT OF LOT 5 BLOCK 1. OUR CASE PLAT 24-4, IS WELCOME TO COME TO THE PODIUM. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PLAY THE JEOPARDY MUSIC. BUT IT'S RUNNING THROUGH EVERYBODY'S HEAD NOW. NO. I DO HAVE TO OBLIGATE TO LET IT CLICK A MINUTE HERE, SO WE'LL BE DONE IN JUST A SECOND. 06:11. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE RE-PLAT OF LOT 5 BLOCK 1. COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE RE-PLAT. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVED THAT WE APPROVE PLAT APPLICATION 24-4, LOTS 5R1 AND 5R2 AS PRESENTED TO US. >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. RE-PLAT SESSION HAS BEEN APPROVED. ENRIQUE. SEE. WE NOW TALK ABOUT SITE PLAN CASE SITE 24-2. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. >> I MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE OF ANSWERS. >> I'LL START WITH THE MINOR QUESTION FIRST. IN THE LANDSCAPING THING, AND I'M SURE COMMISSIONER GALLENSTEIN IS GOING TO HELP ME WITH THIS. IN THEIR PROPOSAL, THEY SPECIFICALLY LISTED SOME PLANTS. THE HOLLY AND THE MONTERREY OAK. DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE ANYTHING IN ORDINANCE? I KNOW WE DID THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN. WE'VE GOT SUBDIVISION PLAN. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT HELPS US HERE WITH WHAT PLANTS THEY CAN USE OR WHAT PLANTS WE DON'T WANT THEM TO USE? I COULDN'T FIND A SPECIFIC SPOT THERE. >> CURRENTLY, WE DO NOT HAVE A PREFERRED PLANTING LIST IN THE ORDINANCE. IN THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, WE DO HAVE PROHIBITED TREES, BUT THE TREES THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING HERE DO DON'T FALL WITHIN THAT CATEGORY. >> THEY'RE NOT DELINEATED AN EXCEPTION IN ANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE? >> CORRECT. >> I JUST WANT SINCE THEY WERE SPECIFIC. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I CAN ADD A LITTLE ON THIS, AND I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO ONE HERE FROM THE COMPANY. >> APPLICANT IS HERE. >> I'M SORRY. I CAN'T SEE THAT GENTLEMAN THERE. WELL, FIRST, IF YOU WANT TO STEP UP TO THE MICROPHONE, SO YOU. >> I'LL COME. >> LET ME FIRST SAY, IT'S NICE TO SEE SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN JUST A LIVE OKRA SAMARDI REDOK. YOU DID THIS MONTERREY OAK, WHICH GETS A BLUE CAST TO IT. QUESTION ON THE HOLLIES. DID YOU PUT THOSE IN FOR A SOLID SCREEN, OR ARE THEY MORE DECORATIVE, THE ONES THAT ARE ALONG THE ROAD? >> ALONG THE ROAD, WE DO HAVE TO SCREEN, SOME A LITTLE BIT THERE. >> YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A SOLID SCREEN THEN? >> THAT PLAYS INTO IT. THAT'S PART OF IT. >> BECAUSE I WAS CURIOUS WHY YOU CHOSE 30 FEET OFF THE CENTER. THAT'S NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THAT SIZE HOLLIE THAT DENSE SCREEN. >> THERE'LL ALSO BE SOME SHRUBS THAT'LL BE PLANTED IN THERE AS WELL TO GET MORE OF LIKE A TRUE BLOCK, IF YOU WILL. >> IS THAT WHERE THE ABELIAS ARE GOING TO GO? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT TYPE OF ABELIA? >> NOT HERE SITTING ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER HERE ON BEHALF. >> YOU ARE NOT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. >> I KNOW JUST ENOUGH TO BE DANGEROUS. >> THEN, AS FAR AS THE LANTANA, WHY? I REALIZE YOU'RE THE ENGINEER, NOT THE LANDSCAPE, BUT I LIKE PURPLE LANTANA, BUT HERE IT'S GOING TO BE THAT'S A ZONE 8 OR 9 PLANT. WE'RE ZONE 8, BUT WE GET WINTER SOMETIMES, AS WE ALL KNOW THAT GO INTO A ZONE 7, EVEN TOUCHES ZONE 6 BECAUSE IT GETS A LITTLE FREAKY HERE ONCE IN A WHILE. I THINK YOU WOULD BE BETTER OFF SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO REPLACE THOSE. YOU COULD GO WITH THE TEXAS LANTANA, WHICH IS HEARTY ALL YEAR LONG VERSUS THOSE COULD TURN INTO AN ANNUAL. THAT WOULD BE MY COMMENT. THEN IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SHRUBS IN BETWEEN, I DIDN'T SEE THOSE ON THE DIAGRAM. [00:15:01] >> THEY'RE GOING TO BE UP CLOSER JUST RIGHT BEHIND WHERE THE PARKING IS. I THINK ON THIS PARTICULAR EXHIBIT, SINCE WE HAD TURNED, THEY MIGHT BE TURNED OFF. WE HAVE ONE WITH THEM THERE, AND THE NUMBER AND THE QUANTITIES THEY'RE ACCOUNTED FOR OVER THERE. TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE PERSPECTIVE TOO ON THIS SITE. YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PHOTOS THAT HE GAVE. THIS SITE SITS WELL ABOVE THE ROADWAY OVER THERE. ANYTHING THAT WE DO UP THERE, WE'RE TRYING TO SHOVE IT SOMEWHAT BACK CLOSER TO THE PARKING LOT, SO YOU ACTUALLY GET A TRUE SCREENING BECAUSE IF WE HAD PLACED IT FURTHER AWAY AND DOWN, THEN IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE IF IT'S DOWN THE HILL AND YOUR WAY UP HERE. >> THAT MAKE SENSE. >> TOPOGRAPHY WAS PART OF WHAT WENT INTO THE CONSIDERATION WITH SOME OF THESE AS WELL, JUST BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A DECENT AMOUNT OF FALL THAT'S COMING DOWN THERE AND SITE. >> I HAVE SOME INPUT TO YOU. I JUST LOST MY LANTANAS, AND I JUST REPLACED THEM WITH THE TEXAS ONES, HAD A BAD WINTER. BUT MORE THAN THAT, THANK YOU FOR THE MONTERREY OAK. IT'S A GOOD TREE. IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT TREE FOR THIS. IT'S THE AVERAGE CROWN DIMENSION. YOU DREW IT A LITTLE SMALL. IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN WHAT YOU SHOW ON YOUR PLAN. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE MORE CLOSER TO 25. >> BY THE WAY, I THINK THE THING SAID THREE, BUT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE FOUR OF THEM. THERE'S ONE YOU SNUCK ON THE BACK CORNER, WHICH IS LIKE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [LAUGHTER] I HAVE CONCERNS. I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE ROOT BARRIER, AND THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO PROTECT YOUR CONCRETE. I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE OAK THAT IS JUST NORTH OF THE ENTRANCE OFF OF THE WALMART DRIVE, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A PARKING LOT AND YOU'VE GOT A SIDEWALK, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S ABOUT SIX, MAYBE SEVEN FEET OF DIRT. >> PROBABLY ABOUT RIGHT, YES. >> THAT TREE NEEDS BOTH MOISTURE AND AIR. THEN THE ONE THAT'S REALLY CLOSE TO THE BUILDING, I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT COULD EASILY GET BIG ENOUGH THAT IT MIGHT START ACTUALLY BLOCKING THE FRONT FACADE. ALSO, THAT AREA IS VERY SMALL FOR A TREE THAT BIG. JUST INPUT. HOPEFULLY, YOU HAVE A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WHO COULD SAY, NO, SHE WAS CRAZY. IT'S FINE. HAVE YOU SET THOSE TWO TREES UP TO FAIL? I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT IT. BUT BESIDES FROM THAT, I LIKED YOUR DESIGN. >> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ON THAT, SEE. TYPICALLY, WITH THE ONES THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE BUILDING, WE'LL USUALLY WORK WITH WHOEVER THE OWNER IN THIS CASE, POPEYES, ON ENSURING THEY UNDERSTAND THE MAINTENANCE INVOLVED WITH KEEPING THOSE TRIMMED APPROPRIATELY AND MAKING SURE THAT. AS FAR AS IMPACTING THE BUILDING, I KNOW THAT THOUGH, WELL, THAT'S SOMETHING WE DO SPECIFICALLY MAKE SURE WE TAKE CARE OF AS FAR AS SPACE. I SAID I WOULD DEFER TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, BUT I WILL DEFINITELY TAKE THAT FEEDBACK BACK TO HIM. >> YOU ACTUALLY HAVE EXCESS PARKING SPACES. YOU COULD LOSE A COUPLE OF PARKING SPACES AND GIVE THOSE TWO A BETTER CHANCE. SOME TO THINK. DID I SAY THAT OUT LOUD? [LAUGHTER] >> THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK. >> I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION THAT'S MAYBE A LITTLE MORE GERMANE TO YOUR EXPERTISE. [LAUGHTER] I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE DUMPSTER. COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE DECISION TREE ON PUTTING IT THERE? >> AS I'D MENTIONED BEFORE, THERE'S A GOOD AMOUNT OF FALL AND TOPOGRAPHIES, WHERE IT SLOPES OFF A GOOD BIT. WE ALSO ARE FAIRLY CONSTRAINED, JUST GIVEN THE FRONT-TO-BACK DISTANCE ON THE SITE, AS WELL AS PUTTING THE DRIVE-THROUGH AROUND THE BACK SIDE. THEN, ONCE YOU START ADDING IN THE FIRE LANE REQUIRED DISTANCE FOR PARKING SPACES AND START BACKING EVERYTHING IN, YOU RUN OUT OF SPACE PRETTY QUICKLY. THAT WAS THE LEAST DISRUPTIVE TO THE FLOW OF THE SITE, AND STILL GIVES A LITTLE BIT OF ROUTINE, GENERALLY EASY ACCESS. WE TRY TO KEEP IT TOWARDS THE REAR FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, JUST TO GENERALLY BE BACK OUT OF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT'S THERE. THEN, TWO, IT MAKES IT A LITTLE EASIER TO ACCESS FOR EMPLOYEES WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH. >> WELL, WHAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WITH IT BEING RIGHT THERE BY THE ONE ENTRANCE AND ALSO THE CONFIGURATION OF YOUR TWO DRIVE-THROUGH LANES? IF THERE'S A TRUCK THERE BACKING UP TO THE DUMPSTER? YOU JUST BLOCK BOTH OF YOUR DRIVE-THROUGH LANES. >> I'D SAY I THINK THERE'S A DECENT AMOUNT OF SPACE WHERE THEY COULD GO AROUND IF THEY NEEDED TO. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT I THINK MOST OF THE TIME THE RESTAURANTS [00:20:03] THEMSELVES ARE PRETTY GOOD ABOUT COORDINATING AND ORGANIZING WITH BASICALLY ALL OF THEIR SERVICES LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THEY'LL ALSO HAVE TO HAVE TRUCKS THAT COME IN AND DELIVER ALL OF THE FOOD AND THE OTHER STUFF LIKE THAT. THEY GENERALLY TRY TO SCHEDULE THAT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL VENDORS TO DO THAT OUTSIDE OF WORKING HOURS, SO THAT IT'S NOT AN ISSUE WITH CUSTOMERS. >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE REGULARLY REVIEW ON SITE PLANS IS WHERE THE DUMPSTER IS IN THE PROPER SCREENING. >> SURE. UNDERSTOOD. >> IT JUST SEEMED LIKE INTERESTING PLACE TO PUT THAT. >> UNDERSTOOD. >> COMMISSIONERS? >> CAN WE MOVE ON TO OTHER STUFF BESIDES LANDSCAPING? >> I'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT DUMPSTERS, SO WE'RE TALK [OVERLAPPING] COMMISSIONER. >> I'M SORRY. >> I'VE GOT A QUESTION MUCH MORE HIGH LEVEL THAN TROUBLE. MIC ON FIRST. LET ME BACK UP. FIRST OF ALL, HAVING DRIVEN THROUGH THIS PART OF BEDFORD FOR QUITE SOME TIME, I NOTE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE NEW TRAFFIC LIGHT, THERE WILL LITERALLY BE FOUR TRAFFIC LIGHTS WITHIN HALF A MILE, STARTING WITH HERITAGE PARKWAY, THE HEB ENTRANCE, THE RED RIVER ENTRANCE, AND THEN THE TRAFFIC LIGHT FOR 121. KNOWING THAT TEXTO, COLLEYVILLE, AND THE OTHER ENTITIES DON'T SEEM TO WORK TOGETHER VERY WELL, NUMBER 1. NUMBER 2, HAVING VISITED THE LAST HEB. NOW, THIS IS NOT WITH RESPECT TO YOU. I'LL GET TO YOUR POINT IN A MINUTE. >> SURE. >> SIX MONTHS INTO THE OPENING OF THAT HEB, AND IN ALLIANCE, THEY HAD TO HAVE A POLICE FORCE TO ENFORCE PARKING AND TO ENFORCE THE ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO SIMPLY GET INTO THE PROPERTY. MY QUESTION THAT RELATES TO THIS PROPERTY, I GUESS MIGHT BE ABOUT TIMING. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE TIMING IS WHEN YOU MIGHT EXPECT THIS TO BE DEVELOPED? BECAUSE THAT I EXPECT THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM. >> TO ANSWER THE TIMING QUESTION RELATIVE TO THE HEB ACROSS THE STREET, I WOULD ENVISION THIS IS GOING TO GO MUCH SOONER AND BE IN PLACE BEFORE THE HEB IS THERE, JUST DUE TO SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE WORK THAT'S BEING INVOLVED. BUT NO, THE DEVELOPER, ONCE WE GET THIS APPROVED AND MOVE THROUGH, THEY'RE PLANNING ON MOVING RIGHT INTO CONSTRUCTION AND GETTING THINGS GOING, AS FAR AS TRAFFIC CONCERNS, THE LIGHT ITSELF WAS NOT REQUIRED AS PART OF OUR DEVELOPMENT. HAVING TO ADD THAT ADDITIONAL ENTRANCE. WE HAD ACTUALLY HAD IT A LITTLE CLOSER AND OFFSET, BUT WORKING WITH STAFF AND KNOWING THAT THE HEB WAS GOING IN, THAT'S WHERE WE WERE ASKED TO LINE UP OUR ENTRANCE WITH THEIRS, SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE ONE CONSISTENT CROSSING AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL THERE. AS FAR AS IT RELATES TO OUR SITE, I SAID, WE WERE MORE REACTIVE AND TYING INTO THE PROPOSED WORK THAT WAS COMING WITH HEB. AS FAR AS THE NEED, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, HOW MANY CARS WOULD BE COMING IN, ALL OF THAT WORK WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE HEB ENGINEERS. THOSE CONVERSATIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD WITH THEM. ALL THAT TO SAY, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE NUMBERS THAT WERE PROJECTED THERE AS IT RELATES TO THOSE, BUT JUST ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, I LIVE UP IN ROANOKE, AND I'VE BEEN AROUND THAT AREA FOR A WHILE, SO WE EXPECT IT TO BE BUSY OVER THERE, BUT THAT'S ALSO PART OF WHY THIS IS A GOOD SITE FOR THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS AND THOSE THINGS KNOWING THAT THOSE OTHER THINGS ARE GOING IN. IT HELPS GIVE THEM SOME GOOD VISION FOR EVERYBODY AND EVERYONE ELSE PASSING THROUGH THERE. LIKE I SAID, I KNOW THAT'S NOT REALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION, BUT HOPEFULLY IT EXPLAIN WHY, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFICS TO IT, BUT FOR THOSE REASONS. >> WELL, I HATED TO TIE YOU INTO WHAT IS BASICALLY AN HEB PROBLEM. [LAUGHTER] BUT I JUST SEE THIS AS BEING A BIG PROBLEM. WE HAVE THE REQUIREMENT TO APPROVE THIS BECAUSE IT'S BY RIGHT, AND THE PLAN MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. BUT I'LL SIMPLY SAY THAT FOR MY OWN PURPOSES, [00:25:01] THIS LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK VERY WELL. THAT'S NOT YOUR FAULT. >> UNDERSTOOD. >> THANK YOU, SIR. WE HAVE A RESIDENT EXPERT TO HELP US WITH THIS AS WELL. >> GO FOR IT. >> AS PART OF THE GROCERY STORE DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE STREET, WE DID HAVE THE ENGINEERS THERE DO A FULL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ON THE CORRIDOR. THE A BUT ONE OF THE INTERSECTIONS, AND THAT WAS THE NEW LIGHT COMING SOUTHBOUND OUT OF THE GROCERY STORE WAS FOUND IN THAT ANALYSIS TO HAVE STILL ACCEPTABLE LEVELS WHEN COMPARED TO BACKGROUND TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. THOSE, AS YOU SAID, COMPARED TO THE GROCERY STORE, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT EXPECTED TO HAVE A LARGER IMPACT ON IT. THIS WOULD BE THE CENTER OF THREE SIGNALS CONTROLLED BY THE CITY OF BEDFORD. WE CAN DO A FAIRLY EASY JOB OF WELL, NOT EASY, BUT, EASIER TO COORDINATE WITHIN OURSELVES, WITH OURSELVES OF THOSE THREE SIGNALS, AND THOSE SO SHOULD ACT ACCORDINGLY THAT WE HAVE BEEN WARNED AND WHAT MANY OF US HAVE SEEN WITH THE GROCERY STORE AND ALLIANCE IS YOU'VE GOT SEVERAL MONTHS OF JUST PANDEMONIUM. LIVING JUST NORTH OF THAT, OTHER THAN YOUR OCCASIONAL, EVERYONE RUNS TO THE GROCERY STORE WEEK BEFORE THANKSGIVING, BEFORE EASTER, THOSE KINDS OF EVENTS. MOST OF THE STREET TRAFFIC THERE HAS RETURNED TO NORMAL. >> JUST AS A COURTESY TO OUR COMMISSIONERS TO REMIND THEM YOUR POSITION WITH THE CITY. >> MY NAME IS JOSH SCHWEITZER. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND CURRENTLY ACTING CITY ENGINEER. >> THANK YOU. WELCOME. >> MR. SCHWEITZER, I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS. YOU MET WITH YOUR COUNTERPART FROM ULS AND ALSO FROM TEXTO ON THIS? ALSO, HEB WAS INVOLVED? >> CORRECT. >> COLLEYVILLE WAS NOT, CORRECT? >> I'VE HAD SO MANY MEETINGS WITH THOSE GROUPS. WHICH ONE WAS THIS? THEY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN. COLLEYVILLE HERITAGE, THE LIGHT AT HERITAGE, THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC LIGHT THAT BOTH DEVELOPMENTS WOULD SHARE AND THAT TO THE EAST AT RIO GRANDE, ARE ALL GOING TO BE CONTROLLED BY BEDFORD? >> BEDFORD. BUT YOU HAVE THAT SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE INGRESS AND EGRESS OFF OF THE WEST PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE HEB. YOU'VE GOT THAT VERY NARROW BRIDGE. COLLEYVILLE HAS BEEN KNOWN NOT TO BE. I DON'T WANT TO SAY. THE MOST AGGRESSIVE IN GETTING THINGS DONE. I SEE THAT AS THINGS TYING UP THERE, AND THEN YOU ADD IN. LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. I WAS THINKING THAT, AND MAYBE I MISREAD THE DOCUMENT. I WAS THINKING THE PRIMARY INGRESS TO THIS RESTAURANT WOULD BE THE JOINT ROAD THEY WOULD SHARE WITH THE BACK END OF WALMART, CORRECT? THE EXIT WOULD BE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PUT A LIGHT, AND IT'S GOING TO ALSO GO ACROSS TO HEB. BUT I SEE EXITS THERE, BOTH TO THE LEFT AND TO THE RIGHT AND ACROSS. BUT I ALSO SEE AN ENTRANCE AS FAR AS THE ARROWS ARE CONCERNED TO THE LEFT. IS THAT ALSO GOING TO BE AN ENTRANCE THERE? >> YES. ON THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION? >> YES. >> THERE WOULD BE EXPECTED TO BE SOME AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC COMING IN THERE, EITHER LEFT TURNING IN FROM WESTBOUND CHEEK SPARGER OR COMING THROUGH SOUTHBOUND, IT COULD. >> I'M NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER IN THE RIGHT WAY, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER IN ANY WAY, BUT I'VE BEEN STUCK IN NOT ONLY MYSELF, MY WIFE, WE LIVE OFF THE CHEEK SPARGER, SO I DRIVE THIS EVERY DAY, DRIVE INTO THE MEETING TONIGHT. IF YOU'RE COMING ACROSS FROM MID CITIES, YOU CAN GET STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF 157. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE EVER HAD THAT EXPERIENCE. WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE THE TIMING OF THE LIGHTS IS VERY POOR. I KNOW THAT HEB AND I BELIEVE IT'S 90 DAYS, THEY'D LIKE TO LEAVE THE TIMING OF THE LIGHTS ALONE, IS THAT CORRECT? WAIT TILL THEY GET A, I'LL SAY A NORMAL FLOW, NOT THE OPENING DAY. IS THAT A CORRECT TIME LIMIT? >> WHETHER IT WAS 90 DAYS OR A LITTLE BIT LONGER, I BELIEVE THE DOCUMENTS HAVE ALWAYS SAID WHEN TRAFFIC STABILIZED BECAUSE IT COULD BE 45, IT COULD BE 120. >> WHO'S MAKING THAT CALL? >> IT'LL BE OBSERVATIONS. >> BY? >> ENTITIES. WHEN WE SEE THAT THERE'S A PEAK THAT DIES OFF, AND THERE'S NO LONGER THE NEED TO HAVE A FULL TRAFFIC LANE [00:30:03] DEDICATED TO ENTERING THE GROCERY STORE AND EXITING, LIKE LIKE THEY HAD IN ALLIANCE? WHEN MOST OF THE TRAFFIC IS THEN CONFINED TO THEIR SITE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND STUDY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, TIMING-WISE. MOST OF OUR MOST OF THE CITY'S 27, THIS WILL BE THE 28TH SIGNAL IN THE CITY OF BEDFORD. THEY ACTUALLY RUN IN A FREE MODE, WHERE THEY'RE VISUALLY DETECTED WITH THE CAMERAS THAT ARE AT EACH INTERSECTION. THE TRAFFIC IS DETECTED, AND THEY ARE PROGRAMMED ON A FIRST ONE GETS THEIR BASIS. IT WORKS FAIRLY WELL FOR ALL TRAFFIC PATTERNS, WHETHER LOW OR HIGH TRAFFIC. THE TIMING PLANS AND THOSE THINGS ARE MORE, I WON'T SAY QUITE ANTIQUATED, BUT AN OLDER WAY OF PROGRAMMING BEFORE WE HAD RELIABLE DETECTION SYSTEMS. WITH MODERN TECHNOLOGY, THE SIGNALS CAN COMMUNICATE TO EACH OTHER AND PUT IN CALLS. THE SIGNALS WILL BE ABLE TO ANTICIPATE WHEN TRAFFIC'S COMING TO THEM. >> ONCE WE GET TO NORMAL LEVELS FOR THE STORE, YOU EXPECT US TO FLOW PRETTY WELL. >> AS MUCH AS COULD BE EXPECTED WITH A TWO-LANE ROAD TO THE WEST OF IT. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE BACKUP WHEN YOU HAVE A LARGE NUMBER, A LARGE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GOING FROM MULTIPLE LANES DOWN TO ONE LANE IN ANY DIRECTION. THERE'S ALWAYS POTENTIAL FOR BACKUP IN THOSE SITUATIONS. '>> HAVE YOUR COUNTERPARTS AT COLLEYVILLE ADVISED YOU OF WHAT THEIR PLAN IS FOR THE ROAD, OR IS IT STILL IN THE PLANNING STAGE? >> HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN NET COG, COLLEYVILLE, US, AND OURSELVES. THERE ARE VARIOUS THINGS IN THE WORKS THERE, MOST OF IT IS REPAVING AND SELECTED LEFT TURN LANES FOR SOME OF THE CONNECTING ROADS, BUT THERE IS NO PLAN ANYTIME IN THE FUTURE TO EXPAND IT TO MORE LANES. THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS OF HOW TO HANDLE TRAFFIC AT SOME OF THE KEY INTERSECTIONS FURTHER WEST. MARTIN AND CENTRAL. >> THERE'S GOING TO BE A LIGHT AT MARTIN AND CHEEK SPARGER, CORRECT? >> THAT IS ONE THING THAT I'VE HEARD DISCUSSED. >> YES. I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT. WELL, IT'S UP TO COLLEYVILLE TO DO THIS. >> YES. RECALL THAT WEST OF HERITAGE, ALL OF THE ROAD OF CHEEK SPARGER IS, ALONG TO CO-MAINTAINED BY COLLEYVILLE, YES. >> ARE YOU SAYING THAT I'LL SAY WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TOLD OR WHAT YOU'VE LEARNED IS THAT THERE'LL ONLY BE THREE LANES WHERE YOU'RE NEAR AN INTERSECTION? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE HEARING IS THE CURRENT PLAN? >> IN GENERAL, YES. IT'S EITHER SELECT OR STRATEGIC OR WHATEVER THE WORD IS, IT WOULDN'T BE A CONTINUOUS THIRD LANE. >> COGS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT? BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW? >> YES. THEY ARE NOW PARTICIPATING IN THE PROJECT AND WOULD HAVE SOME IMPACT OR SAY, INPUT, LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY, INPUT OR INFLUENCE TO THE PROJECT OVERALL, BUT NOT ONE THAT I'VE HEARD OF WHAT THEIR WISHES ARE. >> BECAUSE THEY'RE PUTTING MONEY INTO THE PROJECT? >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. WE, AS THE BOARD, ARE GLAD THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO DO THE TRAFFIC STUDIES AND DO THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS. BUT APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE THIS EVENING BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE PUT THE WORD OUT THAT TRAFFIC WAS A CONSIDERATION. >> UNDERSTAND. >> FLAT WAS LAID OUT. THE DETAILS WITHOUT HOW IT LEVERAGES OUR OTHER PROJECT. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE, SITE 24-2 FOR STAFF? >> WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. >> WES, LET ME JUST ASK YOU. WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT WE WILL HAVE THE LIGHT IN PRIOR TO THIS LIGHT THAT'S GOING TO GO, I'LL SAY MID-HEB [LAUGHTER] OR THE EXIT DRIVE FROM THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT. THAT WILL BE IN BEFORE THE HEB IS COMPLETE. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >> JOE, I HATE TO CALL YOU BACK UP HERE. I DON'T KNOW THE TIME FRAME. DEALING WITH THE TWO CITIES, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A COMPLICATION. I'M NOT SURE THAT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED, BUT IF IT WAS ALL WITHIN BEDFORD, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE CONSIDERATION. [00:35:02] >> THIS NEW LIGHT IS NOT ALL IN BEDFORD, EVEN THOUGH IT'S AT THE PART OF THE ROAD THAT IS BEDFORD? >> WELL, THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT IS NOT ALL WITHIN BEDFORD. BOTH US AND BEDFORD ARE SHARING IN THIS ENDEAVOR. BUT THE SIGNAL, I BELIEVE, IS ALL BUT AS US IS QUARTERBACKING OR HANDLING THE MAIN PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. >> LET ME JUMP IN. WHAT JOE IS SAYING IS THAT US IS TAKING THE LEAD ON THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF HEB. THEY'RE DOING ALL THE INSPECTIONS, INCLUDING BOTH PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS AND WHATNOT. THE HEB DOES HAVE AN APPLICATION INTO THE CITY FOR THE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE WHOLLY WITHIN BEDFORD. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE KNOW AN EXACT TIMING AS TO WHEN THAT WILL ALL TAKE PLACE. OBVIOUSLY, HEB WILL NOT OPEN UNTIL THE LIGHT IS THERE, I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY. BUT HOW THAT AFFECTS THIS DEVELOPMENT? I DON'T KNOW TODAY. >> WELL, I WOULD THINK IT WOULD. >> WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING IS I DON'T KNOW THE TIMING. YOU'RE ASKING WHICH IS GOING TO COME FIRST. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN'T PUT A CONDITION ON THE SITE PLAN THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT THAT THE SIGNALIZATION BE THERE BECAUSE THE SITE THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS NOT THE ONE DRIVING THE SIGNALIZATION NEED. >> IN OTHER WORDS, BASICALLY, POPEYES WOULD GO IN WITHOUT A [OVERLAPPING] >> IT'S VERY POSSIBLE. THE PHYSICAL CONCRETE WORK WOULD RESEMBLE MORE OF A WIDE DRIVEWAY AT THAT POINT BEFORE THE SIGNAL IS IN. >> WOULDN'T IT BE TOUGH IF THAT WAS THE CASE BEFORE A LIGHT TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN ONTO CHEEK SPARGER? >> IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. THERE'S A MEDIUM THERE. YES, IT WOULD BE TOUGH. [LAUGHTER] >> WELL, IT'S THE PRACTICALITY. I SAID, I JUST LIVE UP THE STREET FROM BAR, AND I DRIVE THAT EVERY DAY. PEOPLE ARE ANTICIPATING THE HEB, BUT THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT TWIST TO IT. WES, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. I'M SORRY TO OPEN IT UP, BUT IT STILL LEAVES A PARCEL OF PROPERTY, DOES THAT END UP LANDLOCKED? IT BELONGS TO WALMART, CORRECT? >> NO, THAT PROPERTY ACTUALLY [OVERLAPPING] >> WOODED PART. >> OH, THE WOODED PART DOES BELONG TO WALMART. NOW, AS A PART OF THE REPLAT THAT YOU JUST APPROVED, THERE'S ANOTHER LOT THERE THAT THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO DEVELOP AS WELL. BUT THIS DRIVEWAY IS THE ONLY DRIVEWAY THEY WOULD HAVE, IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE THERE. WELL, IF YOU GO TO THE SLIDE SHOWS THE DRIVEWAY. THAT DRIVEWAY THAT'S GOING IN ON CHEEK SPARGER IS WHOLLY ON THE UNDEVELOPED LOT AT THIS RUN TIME. THAT WILL BE THEIR ACCESS. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> APOLOGIES TO THE APPLICANT THAT REPRESENTING THE CIVIL ENGINEER PART TO GO THROUGH THE TRAFFIC STUDY. BUT THANK YOU. >> NOT A PROBLEM. >> COMMISSIONERS? THIS IS CASE IS SITE 24-2. SITE PLAN FOR 5R1 BLOCK 1. LOOKING FOR A MOTION. >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE SITE PLAN FOR 5R1 3,700 CHEEK SPARGER ROADS SITE 24-2. >> I'LL SECOND. >> I'D LIKE TO AMEND THAT MOTION AND WE GO IN WITH A DIFFERENT TYPE OF LANTANA THAT IS HARDY HERE RATHER THAN THE PURPLE LANTANA, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY WITH THAT. >> I WILL SAY NO. >> PASSING THAT WORD ALONG TO THE DEVELOPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR WITH THE AMENDED. PASS UNANIMOUSLY. SITE 24-2. IT'S BEEN APPROVED. THANK YOU, SIR FOR ATTENDING. >> YEAH. THANK YOU GUYS. >> OUR NEXT ITEM NOW, WHICH IS ITEM 3 ON OUR AGENDA IS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING. [3. Conduct a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a rezoning of the property described as HARWOOD OAKS PLAZA Block 1 Lot 1 from Light Commercial to Light Commercial / Specific Use Permit – Kennels (breeding, training or boarding). The property is generally located north of Harwood Road, to the east of Martin Drive, and commonly known as 3225 Harwood Road Suite B. (SUP-25-4) ] CAN CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. REGARDING REZONING OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS HARWOOD OAKS PLAZA BLOCK 1, LOT 1 FROM LIGHT COMMERCIAL TO LIGHT COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC USE PERMIT KENNELS, BREEDING, TRADING OR BOARDING. PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HARWOOD ROAD TO THE EAST OF MARTIN DRIVE, AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 225 HARWOOD ROAD SUITE B. THIS IS CASE SUP 25-4. STAFF ENRIQUE. ENLIGHTENS. >> HELLO. NICE TO SEE AGAIN. IT'S BEEN A WHILE. THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A KENNEL USE. IN REALITY, THE USE IS JUST CONTEXT BEFOREHAND. [00:40:01] IT'S A DOG TRAINING FACILITY, BUT THE USE FALLS UNDER DOG KENNEL FACILITY. I'VE GOT THAT OUT OF THE WAY. THE LOCATION IS NORTH OF HARWOOD ROAD, JUST A LITTLE BIT EAST OF MARTIN DRIVE IN THE LITTLE SHOPPING CENTER RIGHT THERE. BACKGROUND ON THE APPLICATION, AS I JUST SAID EARLIER. IT'S FOR A DOG TRAINING FACILITY, BUT THE USE ENTAILS WITHIN THAT FALLS AND CLASSIFIES IT AS A KENNEL USE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED IN 1985, AND IT'S A SINGLE STRIP COMMERCIAL CENTER WITH SEVEN SUITES. THEY'RE ALL DIVIDED INDIVIDUALLY. WE'LL SEE ON THE SITE PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A DOG TRAINING FACILITY, AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY 1,100 SQUARE FEET IN THE SHOPPING CENTER WOULD BE SUITE B. BASED ON THE USE AND WHAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES WITHIN THE FACILITY, THE USE BEST FITS UNDER A KENNEL BREEDING, TRAINING, AND BOARDING LAND USE, WHICH REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION WOULD BE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 09:00 AM-6:00 PM WITH THREE EMPLOYEES. APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE WOULD BE ONE EMPLOYEE, TWO MORE EMPLOYEES BY THE END OF THE YEAR OF THEIR EMPLOYEES. ALL BUSINESS RELATED ACTIVITIES WOULD BE PROPOSED INSIDE, I THINK THAT'S THE DOOR. ALL BUSINESS RELATED ACTIVITIES ARE PROPOSED FOR THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE. NO EXTERIOR CHANGES ARE PROPOSED AND THERE'S NO EXTERIOR KENNEL RUNS OR ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE LOCATION. EVERYTHING WILL BE CONTAINED INSIDE THE LOCATION. DIVING A LITTLE BIT INTO THE APPLICANT'S OPERATIONS. COMPONENT WOULD ALSO BE AN OFFSITE TRAINING, SO THEY WOULD BE MOBILE, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THEY'RE DOING AT THE FACILITY ITSELF. THE ZONING MAP SHOWS IT TO BE LIGHT COMMERCIAL. IT'S NOT IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET IS IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, BUT THIS IS NOT. WE HAVE R15, WHICH IS THE SCHOOL JUST NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE, WHICH IS A WAYS AWAY. THE ONLY THING BACK THERE WOULD BE THE, I GUESS, PRACTICE FIELDS AND TRACK FIELD. TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY, WOULD BE A AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP, TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY, WOULD BE A RESTAURANT, I BELIEVE PIZZA HUT. THEN ACROSS THE STREET WOULD BE MIX OF SHOPPING CENTER, RETAIL ACROSS THE STREET FROM HARWOOD. SITE PHOTOS, THE TOP LEFT PHOTO WITH THE STAR WOULD BE SUITE B, WHERE THE LOCATION WOULD BE AT. TOP RIGHT PHOTO WOULD BE THE RESTAURANT IS PIZZA HUT. BOTTOM LEFT PHOTO WOULD BE THE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP, AND THEN THE BLAST PHOTO WOULD BE STANDING AT THE SIDEWALK FACING THE DEVELOPMENT ACROSS STREET. THAT SHOPPING CENTER. SITE PLAN. THIS WOULD BE IN SUITE B. AGAIN, WE HAVE SEVEN SUITES WITHIN THAT LOCATION. ELEVEN ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED TO PRESENT UNTIL NOW AND WHEN WE DID THE STAFF REPORT. WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO RESPONSES, ZERO INQUIRIES REGARDING THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE MAILED OUT INTO THE SIGN THAT WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY. STAFF FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS. THE USE IS BEST CLASSIFIED AS A KENNEL BREEDING TRAINING OR BOARDING FACILITY. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AND NO EXTERIOR CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. THE USE FALLS WITHIN THE SUBURBAN STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ON REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION, POSSIBLE CONDITIONS SUCH AS NO OVERNIGHT BOARDING OR LIMITED HOURS OF OPERATION CAN BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THE CONDITIONS WOULD ADDRESS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS. THAT'S OUR REPORT. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. FORGET THE [OVERLAPPING] >> COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF BEFORE WE OPEN OUR PUBLIC HEARING? >> ENRIQUE, THE SUITE TO THE LOOKING AT THE BUILDING TO THE RIGHT IS VACANT? >> YES. >> THAT IS BLACK SIGN? >> THE BANNER YEAH. I BELIEVE THAT ONE IS VACANT. I'M NOT 100% CERTAIN, BUT JUDGING BY THE BY THE FOUR LEASE BANNER. >> YOU WOULDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING FROM THAT BECAUSE THERE'S NO ONE IN THERE TO BASICALLY SAY. >> THE NOTIFICATIONS WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY TO THE PARCEL NOT TO INDIVIDUAL. >> NOT TO THE INDIVIDUAL. >> YEAH. NOT TO THE INDIVIDUAL. >> THERE WAS A SIGN POSTED. >> YES. THERE'S A SIGN POSTED RIGHT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF IT. THIS BOTTOM PICTURE MY BACKS TO THE SIGN. THE SIGN IS ABOUT AS STRAIGHT AS YOU CAN GET ON THE STREET. >> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. >> THE APPLICANT IS HERE. >> ALL RIGHT COMMISSIONERS, AT 6:44, I'LL CALL TO ORDER THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN SUP APPLICATION AT 3225 HARWOOD ROAD CASE, SUP 25-4. ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. ANYBODY? [00:45:18] >> YES, I'M HERE, SIR. >> DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? >> YES. >> YOU COUNT AS ANYBODY. >> I'LL GO AHEAD. >> YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, SIR. >> MY NAME IS COLIN MCCASKILL. ADDRESS OF WHERE I LIVE OR WHERE THE LOCATION IS. >> YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> I LIVE IN DALLAS, TEXAS, 3234 HIGH LARK ROAD. I'M THE OWNER OF THE DOG WIZARD, A PROFESSIONAL DOG TRAINING COMPANY THAT PROUDLY SERVES FAMILIES THROUGHOUT NORTHEAST TARRANT COUNTY. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU ALL TONIGHT AND SHARE MORE ABOUT OUR REQUESTS FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AT 3225 HARWOOD ROAD. WE ARE SEEKING APPROVAL TO OPERATE A DOG TRAINING FACILITY IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE THAT ALIGNS WELL WITH THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES AND THE NEEDS OF BEDFORD'S GROWING POPULATION OF PET OWNERS. LET ME START BY BRIEFLY TELLING YOU ABOUT OUR BUSINESS. THE DOG WIZARD HAS BEEN OPERATING ON A MOBILE ONLY BASIS IN THE AREA SINCE SEPTEMBER OF 2024. WE TOOK OVER THE LEASE OF 3225 HARWOOD ROAD SUITE B ON MARCH 1ST OF THIS YEAR. WE ARE PART OF A NATIONAL FRANCHISE KNOWN FOR ITS HIGH TRAINING STANDARDS AND LIFELONG SUPPORT PROGRAMS. AT THIS NEW BEDFORD LOCATION, WE INTEND TO OFFER PRIVATE LESSONS, SMALL GROUP CLASSES, AND DAY TRAINING SESSIONS, ALL BY APPOINTMENT ONLY. THIS IS NOT A RETAIL OR DROP IN DAYCARE FACILITY. IT'S A CONTROLLED LOW TRAFFIC OPERATION DESIGNED FOR PERSONALIZED SERVICE. LOCATION IS ATTRACTIVE TO US BECAUSE OF ITS CENTRAL ACCESS, LOCATION WITHIN OUR TERRITORY, AMPLE PARKING, AND OPPORTUNITY TO BRING NEW LIFE TO A VACANT SPACE. WE BELIEVE IT FITS WELL WITH THE CURRENT TENANT MIX AND SUPPORTS THE CITY'S GOALS OF FILLING UNDER UTILIZED COMMERCIAL SITES WITH RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY ORIENTED BUSINESSES. AS FAR AS OUR DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS, OUR BUSINESS HOURS WILL TYPICALLY RUN FROM 9:00-6:00 PM. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, WITH ALL CLIENTS SCHEDULED IN ADVANCE. WE WILL ALSO OPERATE ON SATURDAY ON APPOINTMENT ONLY BASIS. WE PLAN TO OPERATE WITH 1-2 STAFF MEMBERS ON SITE AND NO MORE THAN SIX CLIENTS AT ONE TIME. WE EXPECT NO MORE THAN 6-8 CLIENTS PER DAY SPREAD OUT IN TIME SLOTS TO AVOID CONGESTION. THE HIGHEST VOLUME OF CLIENTS WILL BE DURING GROUP CLASS SESSIONS, WHERE WE WILL LIMIT THE NUMBER OF DOGS TO SIX IN A CLASS AT ONE TIME. THE TRAINING SPACE IS INDOORS AND CLEANED NIGHTLY WITH SAFETY AND HYGIENE PROTOCOLS IN PLACE. THE BOARDING SERVICES PROPOSED TO BE OFFERED WILL BE SPECIFIC TO DOGS ENROLLED IN OUR BOARD AND TRAINING PROGRAMS. WE CURRENTLY HAVE TWO KENNELS IN THE SPACE THAT COULD BE UTILIZED WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING UP TO TWO MORE. THE MOST NUMBER OF DOGS THAT WE WOULD BOARD AT A SINGLE TIME IS FOUR. WE'VE TAKEN CAREFUL STEPS TO ENSURE OUR BUSINESS WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING TENANTS OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE INTEND TO CONSTRUCT A FULL SOUND WALL THAT SEPARATES THE TRAINING AREA FROM THE DESIGNATED KENNEL AREA. THIS WALL WILL RUN ACROSS THE INTERIOR OF THE SPACE TO ACT AS A PRIMARY SOUND BARRIER. WE ALSO INTEND TO INSTALL ACOUSTIC SOUND DAMPENING PANELS THROUGHOUT THE KENNEL AREA WALLS TO ABSORB NOISE AND MINIMIZE ANY POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE WITH SURROUNDING BUSINESSES. WE ARE QUIET, CLEAN, AND APPOINTMENT BASED, WHICH MINIMIZES NOISE, TRAFFIC AND ANY OTHER POTENTIAL DISRUPTIONS. [NOISE] OUR MISSION IS NOT ONLY TO HELP THE DOGS BECOME WELL MANNERED FAMILY COMPANIONS, BUT ALSO TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNITY. WE PLAN TO HOST EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, PARTNER WITH LOCAL SHELTERS FOR OUTREACH EVENTS, AND BE A POSITIVE PRESENCE IN THE AREA FOR YEARS TO COME. IN CLOSING, I BELIEVE THIS LOCATION IS A GREAT FIT FOR OUR BUSINESS, AND OUR BUSINESS IS A GREAT FIT FOR THE CITY OF BEDFORD. WE ARE READY TO INVEST IN THE COMMUNITY, FILL A VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE AND PROVIDE A VALUED SERVICE TO RESIDENTS. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF OUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU. YOU DID GREAT. >> THANK YOU. >> TAKE A BREATH. >> I'M GLAD YOU CLARIFIED BECAUSE SOMEWHERE IN THE END OF DOCUMENTATION THAT SAID YOU HAD 610 CUSTOMERS. >> YEAH, I REALIZED THAT WAS A TYPO. ENRIQUE HAD CALLED ME TO LET ME KNOW. YEAH, THAT WAS A TYPO. >> A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS IS AT THAT RIGHT? >> THAT WOULD BE NICE. >> WE'VE CONSIDERED SEVERAL, KENNELS AND BOARDING FACILITIES IN BEDFORD OVER THE YEARS IN FRONT OF THIS GROUP, AND THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OUTDOOR BOARDING IS A FLAG COMMISSIONERS THAT, WORKS REAL WELL WITH HOW THE ORDINANCE AND HOW OUR CLASSIFICATION WORKS. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. YOU SAID THERE'S NO BOARDING, AND THEN YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT TWO KENNELS MAYBE FOUR FOR BOARDING. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER? >> YES, MA'AM. CURRENTLY, WE DO NOT OFFER BOARDING SERVICES, BUT SOMETHING THAT WE DO OFFER CURRENTLY IS BOARD AND TRAIN SERVICES. RIGHT NOW, OUR TRAINER IS TAKING THOSE DOGS HOME TO HER HOUSE TO BOARD WHENEVER WE HAVE A BOARD AND TRAIN CLIENT. BUT WE WOULD PROPOSE TO BE ABLE TO BOARD THOSE DOGS AT THE TRAINING FACILITY. [00:50:09] >> WE WOULDN'T BE OPENING IT TO PUBLIC BOARDING. IT WOULD JUST BE DOGS THAT WE HAVE ENROLLED IN OUR PROGRAMS THAT ARE IN BOARDING PROGRAMS. >> AND WOULD THERE BE STAFF OVERNIGHT THERE WITH THEM IF THEY WERE DOING THAT? >> NOT OVERNIGHT, BUT WE HAVE EARLY MORNING AND LATE NIGHT THERE. >> THIS IS CRAIG TRAINING THEN? >> YES, SIR. >> COMMISSIONER. >> THIS IS JUST A COMMENT. HAVING HAD A DIFFICULT DOG IN MY PAST, WE VISITED SITES IN ARLINGTON AND SOUTH LAKE. WE HAD TO TRAVEL FAR AFIELD. PERSONALLY, I THINK THIS WOULD BE A WELCOME ADDITION TO BEDFORD TO HAVE SUCH A FACILITY HERE. I'M NOT AWARE OF OTHERS, BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE DOGS THAT NEED OBEDIENCE TRAINING. SO I'M FOR THIS TYPE OF SITUATION. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. >> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. >> YES MA'AM. GO AHEAD. >> AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS DIFFICULT DOGS AND HAS USED TRAINING IN THE PAST, WHEN WE WENT TO TRAINING FACILITIES, THERE WAS ALWAYS A POTTY BREAK AREA OUT FRONT OR A TREE-LINED AREA. >> YES, MA'AM. >> I DON'T SEE THAT HERE. I'M WONDERING HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK. YES, MA'AM. RIGHT BEHIND THE BUILDING IN BETWEEN WHERE THE FIELD START FOR THE SCHOOL, THERE IS A WOODED TREE AREA, AND THAT IS WHERE WE'VE BEEN TAKING THE DOGS TO WALK. I BELIEVE IT'S AN EASEMENT IN BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE EDGE OF THE BACK PARKING LOT. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> 6:51. I'LL CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING. DID WE OPEN IT? >> WE HAD SUCH. >> WE DID. >> 6:51. WE'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? WE ACCEPT A MOTION ON SUP-25-4, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR KENNELS AT 3225 HARWOOD ROAD SUITE B. >> I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER SUP-25-4 AT 3225 HARWOOD ROAD SUITE B. >> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> FOLLOWING ROGER'S AMENDMENT TO THE LAST ISSUE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTED FOR AN AMENDMENT THAT THIS APPROVAL BE CONTINGENT UPON THE PROVISION OF NO OVERNIGHT BOARDING, JUST TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. >> OF GENERAL DOGS, NOT CLIENTS. >> DOGS. YES. >> IS THAT A PROHIBITIVE RESTRICTION BASED ON WHAT YOU TOLD US? >> AS LONG AS WE'RE ABLE TO BOARD FINE DOGS, IT WOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED. >> FINE DOGS. >> WE'RE NOW VOTING ON IT. >> I'M SORRY, JENNIFER. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. AND THEN I'VE GOT A QUESTION ABOUT ENFORCEMENT. ANY CONDITION THAT WE WANT TO PUT ON AN SUP, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT CAN BE ENFORCED. SO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS THAT THEY CAN'T OPEN IT UP TO GENERAL BOARDING, THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE PETS THAT WERE BEING TRAINED AT THE FACILITY THAT COULD STAY OVERNIGHT. >> MY QUESTION WOULD BE ENFORCEMENT. IF THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS MODEL, AND IT'S NOT OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THEN HOW DOES THAT CONDITION BE ENFORCED THEN? >> MS. COMMISIONER, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU WANT TO FORCE THEM TO NOT EVER GROW THEIR BUSINESS INTO A BOARDING FACILITY. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT? >> THAT'S WHAT IS IN HIS BUSINESS PLAN, AND I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT AND PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. >> AS TO ENFORCEABILITY. >> SURE. NO, I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY. HERE'S WHAT I'LL DO. IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION, WE'LL GO FORWARD WITH THAT CONDITION, AND THEN BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL, WE'LL FINALIZE ANY WORDING, KNOWING THAT'S YOUR WILL, DOES THAT WORK? >> THAT'S FINE. OR IF YOU WANT TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION AND THEN DO A SECOND MOTION TO CLARIFY WHAT THAT CONDITION IS, [00:55:05] SO OVERNIGHT BOARDING FOR GENERAL PUBLIC TYPE ANIMALS. THAT MAKES SENSE. >> ACTUALLY, STRUCTURALLY, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION FIRST, AND THEN THE MOTION AS AMENDED, CORRECT? >> YES. >> NO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT STATING THAT THIS SUP HAVE THE CONDITION, THAT THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC OVERNIGHT BOARDING OF NON-CLIENT ANIMALS. WOULD THAT BE YOUR INTENT, COMMISSIONER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? AMENDMENT PASSES 5-2. NOW WE HAVE AN APPROVED AMENDMENT TO A SECONDED MOTION TO APPROVE CASE SUP-25-4 WITH THE APPROVED AMENDMENT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE. FIX. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THE AMENDED MOTION FOR THE SUP-25-4 IS APPROVED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THERE BE NO OVERNIGHT BOARDING OF NON-CLIENT ANIMALS. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, STAFF. >> THANK YOU. >> EXCELLENT. APPRECIATE YOU. WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING AGAIN. OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND [4. Conduct a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a rezoning of the property described as ALLEN, ALEXANDER SURVEY Abstract 11 Tract 2C01 from R-15,000 Single-Family Residential to R-7,500 Single-Family Residential. The property is generally located north of Spring Garden Drive, to the east of Brown Trail, and commonly known as 3300 Brown Trail. (ZC-25-2)] CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING REZONING OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS ALAN ALEXANDER SURVEY, ABSTRACT 11 TRACT 2C01 FROM R-15,000 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-7,500 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF SPRING GARDEN DRIVE TO THE EAST OF BROWN TRAIL, AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3,300 BROWN TRAIL. THIS IS CASE ZC-25-2 REPORT FROM STAFF. >> HELLO AGAIN. THIS PROPERTY FALLS NORTH OF HARWOOD ROAD, EAST OF BROWN TRAIL, A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT. IT USED TO SERVE AS A CITY PUMP STATION UP TIL, I WANT TO SAY ABOUT,15 YEARS AGO. AND SO IT'S REMAINED VACANT FOR THE LAST DECADE OR SO. IT'S CURRENTLY A 20,621-SQUARE-FOOT UNDEVELOPED VACANT LOT, ACCORDING TO COUNTY TAX RECORDS. AGAIN, IT PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS A CITY PUMP STATION AND HAS BEEN VACANT SINCE THEN. IT WAS SOLD BY THE CITY APPROXIMATELY EARLY 2010, HAS NOW CHANGED OWNERSHIP, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE IN PERSON FOR THAT FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION. UNIQUE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY IS THAT THERE'S AN ACTIVE STORM SIREN ON THE NORTHEAST PART OF THE PROPERTY. SO WHILST IT IS NO LONGER THE CITY'S, THERE'S STILL AN ACTIVE EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY FOR THAT EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THAT STORM SIREN, AND THAT FOLLOWED THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT WILL FOLLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS R-15,000, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 15,000-SQUARE-FOOT LOT, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE TO R-7,500, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 7,500-SQUARE-FEET. THERE'S ADEQUATE SERVICES TO THE PROPERTY, WATER, SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES. THEY'RE ALL THERE. ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT CAUSE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON EXISTING SERVICES. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN R-15,000 AND R-7,500 LOTS ARE MINOR FOR THE EXCEPTION OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH. OBVIOUSLY, WITH A LARGER LOT, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A WIDER LOT WIDTH. BUT THE PERMITTED USES FOR BOTH ARE IDENTICAL IN THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS. PROPERTY SETBACKS, FRONT, REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS ARE THE SAME IN BOTH CLASSIFICATIONS. MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR BOTH ARE THE SAME. MINIMUM DWELLING OR FLOOR AREA FOR A HOUSE CONSTRUCTED THERE WOULD BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. AGAIN, YOU GET A LARGER LOT, YOU GET A LARGER HOUSE. THIS GOES, YOU INCREASE. BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, THE TWO USES PRESENT IDENTICAL THE TWO CLASSIFICATIONS PROVIDE IDENTICAL USES, ESSENTIALLY. THE ZONING MAP, HERE'S A LITTLE COLOR TO DISTINGUISH THIS PROPERTY AMONGST ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES TO IT. [01:00:02] NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST WOULD ALL BE R-7,500, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. ACROSS THE STREET, WE DO HAVE R-9,000, AND I BELIEVE IT'S A CHURCH USE ACROSS THE STREET. BUT ESSENTIALLY, THIS PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY R-7,500, AND ACROSS THE STREET WOULD BE R-9, A LITTLE BIT PAST THAT WOULD BE R-15 AGAIN. BUT IN ESSENCE, THIS PROPERTY IS THE OUTLIER IN THIS DEVELOPMENT IN THIS BLOCK. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IDENTIFIES THIS PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THAT AS SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. CLASSIFICATIONS OR CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES, 1-2 STORIES. AGAIN, MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURES WOULD FALL BACK TO ZONING REGULATIONS, 35 FEET OR TWO-AND-A-HALF STORIES AS LONG AS IT FALLS WITHIN THAT. AND HERE'S SITE PHOTOS. SO THIS IS LOOKING DIRECTLY AT THE PROPERTY ON THE TOP LEFT CORNER. THE TOP RIGHT CORNER WOULD BE THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THAT TO THE SOUTH. THE PHOTO ON THE BOTTOM LEFT WOULD BE ANOTHER PROPERTY, AND ACROSS THE STREET WOULD BE THE CHURCH. I COULDN'T GET ANY CLOSER [OVERLAPPING] >> WITH A COMMUNITY CENTER TODAY. >> THERE YOU GO. WITH THIS, 22 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED, WE PLACED A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY AND TO DATE, WE'VE GOTTEN NO RESPONSES OR ANY NOTIFICATION IN OPPOSITION SUPPORT. WE'VE GOTTEN NOTHING SINCE THEN. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT WITH EXISTING ACCESS TO THE STORM SIREN ON THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE WOULD HAVE TO INCORPORATE THE ACCESS EASEMENT TO THAT STORM SIREN. ANY DEVELOPMENT LATER ON YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A PLAT APPLICATION WHICH WOULD BE PROCESSED LATER, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER PERMIT, WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, SO THIS IS SIMPLY LOOKING AT THE LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY. EVERY OTHER PERMIT COMES AFTER THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE LATER REVIEW. THAT'S WHAT WE GOT. >> FIRST QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION GIVEN YOUR MULTI-COLORED ZONING MAP. TO CLARIFY, THE REASON THAT IT'S AN OUTLIER AND ISN'T PLATTED WITH THE REST OF THAT SUBDIVISION IS BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THIS WAS CITY PROPERTY? >> AS FAR BACK BECAUSE I CAN SEE THIS WAS THIS HAS BEEN CITY PROPERTY. >> SO WHEN AND IF THIS CONTINUES FORWARD AND THE ZONING IS CHANGED, AND THERE BECOMES A REPLAT, DOES IT BECOME PART OF THAT SUBDIVISION OR IS A STANDALONE PARCEL ON ITS OWN IN THE COLORING, WHICH I'M ASSUMING IT JUST THAT OTHER SUBDIVISION JUST WRAPS AROUND THIS, BUT IT'S THERE? >> SURE, THE COLORING ON THE MAP JUST REPRESENTS ZONING. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SUBDIVISION. IF THIS IS APPROVED AND THEY REPLAT THE PROPERTY, THEN IT WOULD BE A STANDALONE SUBDIVISION. >> ONLY WAS ASKING THAT BECAUSE IN THE NUMBERING OF THE PURPLE, IT PACIFIC LEAVES OUT 3205 AND 3207, WHICH BE TWO MORE LOTS, THE SIZE THAT'S IN THE DISCUSSED PROPERTY. >> 3205 IS AN R-9 ZONING, AND THEN 3207 IS R-9 AND/OR R15. I DON'T WANT TO GET THE COLORING ON THE MAP MAKING IT MORE CONFUSING. IT'S PURELY JUST ZONING DESIGNATIONS. THAT HAS NOTHING TO SUBDIVISION. >> STANDALONE PARCEL? >> ABSOLUTELY. JUST WANT TO BE WE FULLY UNDERSTOOD. >> WE CHANGED THE COLOR BECAUSE ON THE ZONING MAP, THE RESIDENTIAL ARE YELLOW SO IT WOULDN'T STAND OUT. >> THIS IS A STANDALONE PROPERTY. >> YES, CORRECT. >> JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. THANK YOU, ENRIQUE. COMMISSIONS ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR ENRIQUE BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC HEARING? >> I HEAR OF YOUR SECOND WEDNESDAY AT 1:00 PM. >> I DON'T KNOW THE SCHEDULE, BUT I DO BELIEVE IN CONVERSATION THAT'S STILL ACTIVE, SO COULD BE. >> THANK YOU, ENRIQUE. 704. I OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF CASE ZC-25-2. REZONING OF R-75 TO R-7,500. WELCOME, SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? >> YES, SIR. HELLO, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS LOUIS PEREZ. I'M WITH THE DESIGN FIRM, AND NOVA DESIGN GROUP, WE ARE CONSULTANTS AND THE DESIGNERS OF THE PROJECT. WE'RE BASED IN DALLAS, TEXAS, 1111 WEST MOCKINGBIRD LANE, SUITE 470. [01:05:03] NOT SO FAR FROM HERE, ABOUT 20 MINUTES. THANK YOU FOR RECEIVING US AND AGING US TO PROPOSE OUR REZONING. ENRIQUE VERY WELL, GAVE HIM HIS PRESENTATION, WE CONSIDERED IT A GOOD REZONING BECAUSE WE'RE JUST ACCOMMODATING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND US. EVERYTHING AROUND US IS ALREADY R-75. WE REALLY LIKED THE PARCEL WHEN WE SAW IT RIGHT OFF OF BROWN TRAIL. WE THOUGHT IT WAS A CHURCH IN FRONT OF US. WE'LL DEFINITELY HAVE SOME SERENITY IN FRONT OF US, BUT NOW THAT WE KNOW IT'S A COMMUNITY CENTER, SAME THING. WE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT. WE THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD MORE THAN ANYTHING, AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> COMMISSIONERS. >> YOU'RE THE DESIGN FIRM. I READ WHAT YOU SAID, BUT DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN MIND, OR DO YOU HAVE CLIENTS, OR YOU'RE LOOKING TO BUILD THESE TWO HOUSES AS SPECS? TRYING TO GET A LITTLE IDEA OF WHAT YOUR PLANS ARE. >> TYPICALLY, WE DON'T REALLY DESIGN SPEC HOMES A LOT. A LOT OF OUR DESIGNS ARE UNIQUE, GIVEN THAT US AS A DESIGN FIRM, OUR MISSION IS NOT TO COPY AND PASTE EVERY HOME, LIKE EVERY OTHER BUILDER. THANKFULLY, PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS ALSO THE BUILDER, WHICH IS HERE WITH US TODAY. HE'S VERY ACCOMMODATING TO THAT MISSION STATEMENT. WE LIKE TO DESIGN A STRUCTURE TO BECOME A HOME. I THINK THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE WHENEVER EACH STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED UNIQUELY FOR EVERY CITY THAT WE COME INTO OR EVERY PARCEL THAT WE ACQUIRE. >> WHY I'M SAYING IS YOU WOULD HAVE SOMEONE COME IN, YOU WOULD BUILD TWO CUSTOM HOMES BASED ON WHATEVER THE CLIENT WANTED TO BUILD THERE, IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? >> NO, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT PRE-SELLING THE LOTS. ALL IN ALL, WE'RE STILL DEVELOPERS, SO WE ARE GOING TO BE BUILDING THOSE HOMES. BUT OUR DESIGN STANDARDS ARE PRETTY HIGH. THEY WOULDN'T LOOK LIKE YOUR TYPICAL DEVELOPER HOMES. WE TRY TO STAND OUT. >> THE REASON I ASKED THAT, WESTERNERS WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. WE HAD, I THINK THEY WERE TWO RELATIVES, IT'S BEEN A WHILE. MAYBE THEY WERE BROTHERS, THEY WERE COUSINS. IT WAS A SIMILAR SITUATION, IT'S BEEN BACK A WHILE, AND THE LOT WAS SUBDIVIDED. I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS R15, AND WE WENT TO 7,500. IT SAT THERE WITH THE FORMS FOR A WHILE AND JUST ASSUMED THEY'D JUST BE TYPICAL HOMES THAT WENT IN. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE TRYING TO OUTDO EACH OTHER, BUT THEY STAND OUT, I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD SAY, NOT IN A GOOD WAY. I KNOW SOME OF US HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE WE WERE VERY MUCH SURPRISED AND NOT IN A GOOD WAY. I'LL JUST PUT IT THAT WAY. I THINK IF YOU SAW THESE TWO HOMES, AND THEY COULDN'T GET ANY MORE ON THAT LOT THAN WHAT THEY DID. WHY THEY CHOSE THOSE PARTICULAR LOTS PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THE PRICE. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT SOME OF US ARE A LITTLE TAKEN ABACK. >> GOT IT. NO. WE TAKE A LOT OF PRIDE IN OUR DESIGNS. WE TRY TO MERGE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE ALSO STANDING OUT. BUT REALLY WE LIKE TO STAND OUT WITH OUR CRAFT. THAT'S OUR MISSION STATEMENT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> SORRY, WE'RE HERE. PONYING SOMEWHAT ON THAT, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING VERY HARD AT DEFINING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND BUILDINGS AND HOUSING THAT FITS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE CAN'T TELL YOU WE DON'T HAVE BUILDING STANDARDS SPECIFICALLY. BUT ALL OF THOSE ARE 7,500 HOMES THAT ARE SURROUNDING THIS. MAJORITY OF THOSE ARE SINGLE-STOREY HOMES. COMMISSIONER WAS ALLUDING TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE CONCERNED AS A SINGULAR DEVELOPMENT OF TWO LOTS, THAT WHAT'S BUILT THERE ISN'T SO DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE SURROUNDING TEXTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MIGHT NOT BE SOMETHING WE WERE LOOKING FOR. >> YES, SIR. GO AHEAD. >> WE HAVE SOME REMEDIES TO GET TO THERE, BUT THAT'S REALLY WHAT OUR CONCERN IS THAT WHATEVER IS BUILT ON THESE TWO LOTS THAT BE NOW BECOME R7,500 LOOK MORE SIMILAR TO WHAT'S ALREADY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OF ALL THOSE HOUSES, AND NOT SOMETHING DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT. HELP US WITH THAT. [01:10:01] >> YES, SIR. LIKE I SAID, I'M THANKFUL THAT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS THE BUILDER, WHICH IS THE DESIGNER. WE REALLY LIKE LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE WE START DESIGNING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. OUR DESIGNER IS SUPPOSED TO ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD MORE THAN ANYTHING. IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. HONESTLY, I FEEL LIKE IF I WAS TO BUY A HOME THAT'S OSTENTATIOUS AND DOESN'T MIX IN WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD, I WILL FEEL AWKWARD LIVING IN THAT HOME AND NOT BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR. LIKE I SAID, WE DESIGN A STRUCTURE THAT BECOMES A HOME. PART OF BEING IN A HOME, PART OF DEVELOPING A HOME, A STRUCTURE BECOMING A HOME, IS ALSO BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR. TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, TRUST ME, PART OF OUR MISSION STATEMENT IN OUR BELIEF IS MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO FIT INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE DFW, YOU BUILD A LOT IN INFO LOTS. WE ALWAYS LOOK AT A NEIGHBORHOOD FIRST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN FIT IN. EVEN JUST MARKET ANALYSIS AND LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS, IT JUST MAKES MORE SENSE TO DO THAT. >> I THINK A GOOD WORD WAS OSTENTATIOUS OR SIZE FOR THE LOT. THESE TWO THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, IF THEY WOULD HAVE GONE ON AN ACRE LOT, THEY WOULD HAVE LOOKED, BUT WE WERE JUST SURPRISED. >> TAKEN ABACK. I GET IT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. >> WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. YOU'VE BEEN PATIENT WITH US THIS EVENING. THANK YOU, SIR. >> WELL. >> PLEASE, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. NOW THAT WE'VE SEEN A PICTURE OF YOUR HOUSE. >> YOU HAVE. DALE CUTHBERTSON. I DO LIVE AT 3206 BROWN TRAIL, WHICH IS NEXT DOOR TO THIS PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY, CAN WE PUT THE PICTURE BACK UP? THERE WE GO. THE FRONT OF THE PICTURE HERE ON THIS FIRST ONE IS FENCED. THIS WAS CITY PROPERTY FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT TO ENRIQUE IN THAT PROBABLY 2005, SOMEWHERE IN THERE. THIS MAY BE. MY WIFE'S CONCERN WAS THAT THE STORM SIREN REMAINED, THE TORNADO SIREN REMAINED BECAUSE SHE FELT LIKE WE MIGHT NOT HEAR IT IF WE WERE LISTENING TO THE ONE FROM THE BOYS RANCH. THAT WAS ONE OF OUR CONCERNS. ONE OF MY OTHER CONCERNS IS WE WOULD REALLY LIKE IT TO BE A SINGLE-FAMILY, AND ONE-STOREY HOME IS IN THERE. LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE I GOT HERE. ON THE FRONT, THERE'S RED TOPS, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN FAIRLY RECENTLY BECAUSE I'VE HAD FOUR HUGE HOLES FROM ATMOS, WHO HAS BEEN REPLACING THE GAS LINES, WHICH HAS BEEN QUITE AN EXPERIENCE, TO SAY THE LEAST, AND GETTING OUT ONTO BROWN TRAIL AS IT IS TO BACK OUT ONTO BROWN TRAIL CAN BE A LOT OF FUN FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ADDRESS IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU HAVE IT AS 3300. I'M AT 3206, AND THE HOUSE BESIDE ME IS AT 3204, AND THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS BETWEEN THOSE, AND I PREFER NOT TO HAVE TO CHANGE MY ADDRESS IF I DON'T HAVE TO. THE RED TOPS THAT ARE IN THE FRONT, CODE ENFORCEMENT NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE TRIMMED BACK BECAUSE TRYING TO BACK OUT AND SEEING AROUND THOSE BUSHES, WHICH RIGHT NOW ARE PRETTY BIG. THE DEVELOPER PROBABLY HE'S MANAGED TO GET THE GRASS CUT, BUT THEY DID NOT DO ANY TRIMMING AT THOSE BUSHES. JOHN WHO OWNED THE PROPERTY BEFORE, WHO SOLD IT TO HIM, I THINK, ALWAYS KEPT THOSE UP WITH HIS PEOPLE THAT TOOK CARE OF THAT. THEN OBVIOUSLY, I THINK I SAW THAT YOU HAD THE UTILITIES WON'T BE AN ISSUE FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THAT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS AS WELL. BUT I DO HAVE SOME NEW GAS LINES FROM ATMOS BESIDES SOME HOLES THAT ARE VERY, VERY BIG AND DEEP EIGHT, [01:15:02] 10-FOOT HOLES BY ABOUT 12 FEET. ANYWAY, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, FOR LETTING ME HAVE A FEW MINUTES TO EXPLAIN SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO BE GOING ON WITH THE CHANGE OF THIS PROPERTY FROM AN R15 TO AN R7,500 OR WHATEVER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND COMING TO SEE US. DON'T FORGET YOUR STICK OVER HERE. >> THANK YOU ENRIQUE. >> THANK YOU FOR NOT USING IT ON US. [LAUGHTER] ANYONE ELSE CARE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM WHILE OUR PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN? IT'S 7:15, I CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, ANY THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ENRIQUE. THE SIREN IS STAYING? >> YES. WITH THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY, THERE'S AN EASEMENT DEDICATED TO ACCESS TO THAT. THERE'S NOT A SITE PLAN ATTACHED TO THIS, BUT IN DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT, THAT HAS BEEN IN CONSIDERATION. >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS CORRECT FOR THIS GENTLEMAN'S SAKE. >> ENRIQUE, SINCE YOU'RE THERE, I'M ASSUMING, BUT WE AS A COMMISSION HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT COMPATIBLE BUILDING OF NEW BUILDINGS IN THESE FILL IN SPOTS ACROSS OUR CITY IN MANY PLACES. ADMINISTRATIVELY, DO WE HAVE SOME OPTIONS BESIDES JUST PURELY REZONING TO R7,500 THAT COULD HELP US IN THE FUTURE ADDRESS WHAT AND HOW SOMETHING GETS BUILT ON THIS LOT? >> IF I CAN TAKE A STAB AT THAT ANSWER FOR YOU. AS A COUPLE OF YOU POINTED OUT, THERE'S A CONCERN, I THINK REGARDING DESIGN STANDARDS, SCALE OF THE BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT ON THE HOUSES THAT ARE GOING TO BE BUILT ON THE PROPOSED LOTS. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A LOT COVERAGE, WE HAVE SETBACKS, WE HAVE THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WOULD ENSURE COMPATIBILITY. WHAT THE APPLICANTS SET UP HERE IS THAT THEY WANT TO FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT, THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT YOU CAN DO TONIGHT THAT CAN ENFORCE THAT. THERE'S ALSO NOTHING TO SAY THAT THE APPLICANT COULD GET THE ZONING AND TOMORROW SELL THE PROPERTY. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THEIR INTENTION BY ANY STRETCH, BUT THEY COULD DO THAT. THE NEXT PERSON MAY WANT TO BUILD SIMILAR HOUSES THAT MR. GALLENSTEIN WAS REFERRING TO. THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU COULD REALLY ENSURE THAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ADOPT THIS AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT'S ADVERTISED FOR TONIGHT. YOU WOULD NEED TO ESSENTIALLY AND YOU COULD UNLESS AND JENNIFER, IF I SAY SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE, PLEASE CORRECT ME. BUT I THINK YOU COULD ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO AMEND THEIR APPLICATION, AND WE COULD GO BACK AND RE-ADVERTISE AND DO THIS AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT WAY YOU COULD ATTACH SOME DESIGN STANDARDS TO THAT APPLICATION THAT WAY. BUT A PLAN DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD GET, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. >> THAT WOULD INVOLVE TABLING THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WITH A REQUEST. >> IT WOULD NOT TABLE, THE APPLICANT COULD ASK FOR IT TO BE TABLED, AND WE COULD WAIT THEY COULD THEN AMEND THEIR APPLICATION. THE APPLICATION WOULD DIE, ESSENTIALLY. >> IT ESSENTIALLY BE A WITHDRAWAL. BECAUSE YOU'D BE BRINGING IT BACK AS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. YOU'RE NOT BRINGING IT BACK AS A REZONING, YOU'RE BRINGING IT BACK AS A [INAUDIBLE] >> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD TO WORD RIGHT. >> TO GET THE PROTECTIONS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, THAT WOULD BE YOUR ONLY OPTION. >> COMMISSIONER'S THOUGHTS. >> I LIKE THAT IDEA. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WHO WERE ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME EXPECTED TO GET WHAT WE GOT. THAT'S TRUE. I THINK THAT'S FAIR. I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANTS AND I'M NOT SAYING THESE APPLICANTS PLAN TO DO THAT, BUT I THINK SOME OF US THOUGHT WE WERE HOOD WAY TO SOMEONE, I GUESS IT'S A WAY OF SAYING IT. >> FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE ALL SEEN SEVERAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH SITE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS FOR THE NEW SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE BEING BUILT IN THE CITY AT THE CURRENT TIME. WHAT WE'VE SEEN THERE IS $400,000 HOUSES THAT ARE 2.5 STORIES AND MEET THE 35-FOOT, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY BIG STRUCTURES. WE ENVISION SOME OF THOSE NECESSARILY BEING ON THESE LOTS. THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRETTY NOTICEABLE AND WE'VE ALL LOOKED AT WHAT ARE [01:20:02] THE HOUSES IN THE NEW SUBDIVISION IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE ALONG HARWOOD OR WHEREVER THEY ARE. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO REALLY DISCUSS AS TO PARTICULARLY INSIDE OF ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE'RE DOING THE FACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INFILL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF BEDFORD. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS AN INCREASED LOT SIZE SO THAT THEY COULD BUILD TWO 2.5-STOREY HOUSES? >> DECREASED. >> DECREASE. >> THEY'RE CUTTING A LOT IN HALF. >> THEY CAN BUILD TWO HOUSES INSTEAD OF ONE. >> I'M SORRY. >> THEY CAN BUILD TWO HOUSES INSTEAD OF ONE. >> DOESN'T THAT MEAN THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD SMALLER HOUSES? >> THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT. [LAUGHTER] >> I DON'T HAVE THE HISTORY. >> NO, AND THAT'S WHY I SAID, SOME OF US HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION FOR A WHILE. THAT PARTICULAR ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THERE'S PROBABLY OTHERS. BUT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, I BELIEVE THEY WERE RELATIVES, AND THEY CAME IN WITH A SIMILAR APPLICATION. I'M NOT SAYING THESE GENTLEMEN ARE DOING THE SAME THING, BUT IT WAS TO TAKE I BELIEVE IT WAS R15 AND TAKE IT DOWN TO R75, AND WE EXPECTED HOUSES THAT WERE PROPORTIONAL TO THAT LOT SIZE. WELL, IF YOU DRIVE BY TODAY, I CAN ASSURE YOU YOU'LL SAY, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS PROPORTIONAL. SOME OF US WERE SHOCKED, AND PERSONALLY, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN. I'M NOT SAYING THESE GENTLEMEN PLAN TO DO THAT, I'M JUST SAYING. >> IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, WE WILL NOT REVIEW PLATS FOR THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT ZONING. >> YOU WILL REVIEW PLAT, BUT PLAT WILL NOT INCLUDE BUILDING PLANS FOR THE STRUCTURES. YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY OTHER SAY IN WHAT THE HOMES LOOK LIKE OR THE SCALE OR SQUARE FOOTAGE OR ANYTHING TO THAT NATURE OTHER THAN WHAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALREADY REQUIRES. >> WHO WOULD? WOULD ANYBODY? >> THEY'RE ALL STAFF APPROVAL, AND IT WOULD BE IF IT MEETS OUR ORDINANCE, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY SAID, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THAT SCALE, THEN STAFF WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE IT. >> WE HAVE A MINIMUM DWELLING FLOOR AREA, BUT NOT MAXIMUM. >> THIS IS A UNIQUE THING, BUT HERE AGAIN, I REITERATE, DO NOT TAKE A LOT OF EXTRA TIME, BUT BECAUSE WE NOW WILL BE OVER THE FUTURE, WE'LL BE LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL LOTS BEING REDEVELOPED. NOT TO SEGUE, BUT PART OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR WORKSHOP THE OTHER DAY ABOUT THOSE SITUATIONS. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SEE ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND THIS IS THE FIRST THING THAT'S COME ACROSS TO US THAT FITS INTO THAT. THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON DIFFERENT REGULATIONS THAT DON'T CURRENTLY EXIST. >> MY QUESTION, IF THEY DO DECIDE TO WITHDRAW, WILL THIS BE AN EXTRA FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE DEVELOPER? WILL THEY BE ABLE TO USE WHATEVER APPLICATION FEES, OR HOW WILL THAT WORK? >> TYPICALLY, THERE WOULD BE A NEW APPLICATION FEE. WE CAN TRY TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER ON WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND TO MAKE SURE IT'S ON A FINANCIAL BURDEN. >> I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT IF WE DO THIS IN THE FUTURE. >> MR. DICKSON, ANY THOUGHTS? ANYONE ELSE? WHILE WE'RE PONDERING, THEN IT WOULD BE ALL RIGHT, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD COME FORTH AND LET US CHAT WITH YOU A MINUTE. >> YES, SIR. >> GIVEN AT THIS PARTICULAR STAGE IN THE REZONING CASE, WE DON'T SEE A PLAT AND IF IT CONTINUES IN THIS AREA WE'VE DISCUSSED, WE WON'T EVER SEE BUILDING ELEVATIONS OR DESIGNS OR ANYTHING ANYWAY THROUGH THE PROCESS GOING THIS DIRECTION. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO RESTRUCTURE THIS APPLICATION AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD HAVE THE NECESSITY OF PROVIDING SOME OF THOSE DETAILS AS WHAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT ON THESE LOTS? WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO THAT? >> WHAT WE FACED WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENTS BEFORE HAS BEEN THAT WE'VE DONE THEM BEFORE. BUT FOR TWO PROPERTIES, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WILL BE FEASIBLE BECAUSE THERE IS ADDED REQUIREMENTS WHENEVER IT COMES TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT. NOW, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BEDFORD, BUT IN PREVIOUS CASE SCENARIOS, THEY'VE REQUIRED US TO DO A DRAINAGE ANALYSIS, TREE SURVEY, ETC, SO I DON'T KNOW IF. >> TO THAT, AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, I CAN TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THAT. >> THANK YOU. >> OUR PLAN DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT HAVE A MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT AS MOST CITIES DO, [01:25:04] SO THAT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE HERE. THERE WOULD BE SOME ADDITIONAL STUDIES. BUT IN THIS CASE, TAKING ON IT'S REQUIRED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF A LOT. IN THIS CASE, THOSE WOULDN'T APPLY HERE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO A TREE SURVEY, THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. IN THIS CASE, YOU'D ALSO HAVE TO DO A SITE PLAN, WHICH I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY PROVIDED A LAYOUT TO ENRIQUE. IF YOU WERE GOOD WITH THAT SITE PLAN, WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. THE ONLY THING THAT WE WOULD ASK TO ADDRESS THE P&ZS COMMISSION WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE EITHER BUILDING ELEVATIONS OF WHAT YOU PLAN TO BUILD THERE OR SOME FAIRLY STRICT DESIGN STANDARDS THAT YOU COULD BUILD WITHIN TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT ONCE WE MAKE THAT APPLICATION, OR ONCE WE DECIDE WHAT WE'RE GOING TOWARD, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AND WORK THROUGH THAT. >> BECAUSE TO TOUCH ON THE TREE SURVEY, AND THAT'S ALWAYS AN EXTRA COST, THAT IT'S QUITE SUBSTANTIAL SOMETIMES. WE'VE GOTTEN QUOTES SOMETIMES FOR LOTS THIS SMALL WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHERE IT'S 2,000 OR $3,000. IT DEFINITELY DOES, IT WASN'T IN OUR BUDGET TO BEGIN WITH. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, BUT GIVEN THAT, LIKE I SAID, OUR HISTORY IS ALWAYS WANTING TO MESH WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALSO QUITE FRANKLY AND QUITE REALISTICALLY, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD DESIGNING A HOME HERE THAT'S OSTENTATIOUS IF WE WANT TO SELL THE HOME. WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO BUILD A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME. IF IT WAS A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME, WE WILL HAVE TO GO TWO STORIES. WE'RE LOOKING TO BUILD A NICE FOUR BEDROOM HOME FOR A STARTER FAMILY THAT'S GOING TO HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE AND IT IS GOING TO HAVE NICE AESTHETIC FEATURES IN THE EXTERIOR. I KNOW THAT DOESN'T, LIKE STAFF HERE HAS TALKED, IT'S NOT LEGALLY BINDING, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE FACED THOSE ISSUES BEFORE. BUT ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO SELL THE PROPERTY WHENEVER WE ZONE IT. WE'RE LOOKING TO DEVELOP IT, AND WE'RE LOOKING TO DEVELOP ACCORDING TO WHAT BEDFORD WOULD WANT. BECAUSE A CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHIC MOVES INTO BEDFORD, AND THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF HOME, AND THAT'S THE HOME THAT WE WANT TO GIVE THEM. >> WHAT YEAR ARE THE HOMES AROUND IT? WHAT YEAR? >> IT'S AROUND 1975, IT WAS BORN. THERE SANDLED HOMES. >> WE'RE GOING TO MARCH 1970 DESIGN? >> I THINK DESIGN. >> ELEVATION WOULD BE THE ELEVATION, I THINK WOULD BE THE GOOD THING. >> THEY'RE ALMOST ALL SINGLE STORY. >> MINE IS A 402. >> I WANT PERMISSION TO ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS. >> GOOD, COME ON. >> MR. CULBERSON, WOULD YOU COME UP FOR JUST A SECOND? WE CAN HEAR YOU? I HEAR. >> MR. CHAIR, I HAVE TO INTERJECT. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, SO I DON'T WANT TO START A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH. >> I GOT IT. EXCUSE ME, SIR. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR. YOU BASICALLY ARE SAYING YOU ARE NOT THINKING POSITIVELY ON THE WHAT WE ASKED YOU TO DO. >> WE WANT TO AVOID IT GOING DOWN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ROUTE, JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE'S ADDED REQUIREMENTS. NOW, WE'RE NOT SAYING WE WANT TO GET AWAY WITH THIS TO BUILD NOT AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING HOME. WE DEFINITELY WANT TO BUILD A BEAUTIFUL HOME THAT MATCHES WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THERE IS ADDED STEPS TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT. NOW WE'VE ALREADY DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE WITH THIS. WE'VE ALREADY SPENT ON OUR CREATING A SITE PLAN, ETC. WE WOULD WANT TO TRY TO AVOID IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. >> THANK YOU, SIR. THOUGHTS, ANYBODY? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE ZC 25-2, REZONING OF ABSTRACT TRACT 2C 0, 15,000 TO R-7,500 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. [01:30:05] THAT 3300 BROWN TRAIL. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CZ 252 FOR THE ABSTRACT 11, 2001 ZONING CHANGE. >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND TO APPROVE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THANK YOU, FOLKS. IT IS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH US ASKING QUESTIONS AND ALLOWING US TO EXPLAIN SOME OF OUR CONCERNS. > YES, SIR. THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. WE PROMISE WE'LL DRIVE BY HERE AND GIVE BY HOMES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU, MR. CULBERSON. WE ONE MORE ITEM. [5. Conduct a public hearing and consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Appendix B of the City of Bedford Code of Ordinances, specifically Section 1.2 entitled “Definitions”, Section 3.1 entitled “Schedule of Permitted Uses”, Section 3.2.C entitled "Permitted Uses” and adding a new section 5.16 entitled "Short-Term Rentals”. ] CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, APPENDIX B, THE CITY OF BEDFORD CODE OF ORDINANCES. SPECIFICALLY, SECTION 1.2 ENTITLED DEFINITIONS, SECTION 3.1 ENTITLED SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED USES, SECTION 3.2 C, ENTITLED PERMITTED USES AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 6.16 ENTITLED SHORT TERM RENTALS. STAFF WES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION MEMBERS. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKSTORY ON THIS IS, AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, THE CITY ADOPTED A SHORT TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION INSPECTION PROGRAM BACK IN 2021. WE'VE IMPLEMENTED THAT WE'VE REGISTERED DEPENDING ON WHAT TIME OF THE YEAR YOU ASK. WE'VE GOT ABOUT 35-40 ACTIVE SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGISTERED PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. IN DOING SOME RECENT CHANGES TO THAT ORDINANCE, AS WE'VE GOTTEN INTO IT, WE'VE REALIZED THERE'S SOME IMPROVEMENTS WE NEED TO MAKE ON THAT ORDINANCE. ONE SUBJECT THAT CAME UP WAS TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTING THE NUMBER OF SHORT TERM RENTALS WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE. TO DO THAT, WE COULDN'T JUST PUT IT IN THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE, WHICH ISN'T IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SO YOU ALL NEVER SAW THAT. BUT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAD TO BUILD IN A PROCESS TO GIVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. IT TURNED INTO A ZONING ISSUE, SO IT FELL IN YOUR LAPSE TONIGHT. JUST REAL QUICK CHANGES. FOR THOSE THAT WERE ON THE COMMISSION WHEN WE ADOPTED THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE BACK IN 2021, YOU'LL REMEMBER OR YOU MAY NOT. BUT YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THAT WE AMENDED THE LAND USE DEFINITION FOR SINGLE ONE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TO INCLUDE SHORT TERM RENTALS. I'M GOING TO GO OUT OF ORDER OF MY BULLETS HERE, SO FORGIVE ME. BUT ONE THING THAT THIS REVISION IS DOING IS REMOVING SHORT TERM RENTALS FROM THOSE DEFINITIONS AND CREATING ITS OWN SHORT TERM RENTAL DEFINITION WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT DOES MIMIC THAT OF THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. IT'S ALSO ADDING A SHORT TERM RENTAL USE IN THE LAND USE CHART. YOU-ALL KNOW YOU'VE SEEN MY SLIDES WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ZONING AND LAND USE CHARTS, THERE'S A CHART IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WHAT SECTION 3.1 AMENDMENT IS DOING IS ADDING A SHORT TERM RENTAL LINE ON THAT LAND USE CHART. THEN LASTLY, AND THIS IS THE BIGGER PART OF THE CHANGE THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IN CHAPTER 5, WE'RE CREATING A 5.16 THAT IS ESSENTIALLY ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO SHORT TERM RENTALS. THAT PRIMARY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD IS BEING THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE A SHORT TERM RENTAL WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF ANOTHER SHORT TERM RENTAL. ONE THING THAT I THINK IS ADDED A LITTLE CONFUSION, AND THIS IS JUST TERMINOLOGY, BUT WE'RE USING THE TERMINOLOGY DENSITY. USUALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT DENSITY, YOU-ALL ARE USED TO LOOKING AT DENSITY IN AN AREA FORMAT, A SQUARE FOOTAGE FORMAT, BUT THIS IS USING DENSITY IN A DISTANCE FORMAT. DON'T GET TOO HUNG UP ON THAT WORD. BUT ESSENTIALLY THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT YOU CANNOT PERMIT A SHORT TERM RENTAL TO BE WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF ANOTHER SHORT TERM RENTAL, AND WE'VE DEFINED HOW YOU MEASURE THAT DISTANCE. WE'VE ALSO ADDED IN A PROVISION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. IF SOMEONE PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION AS TO WHY THEY NEED IT WITHIN 1,000 FEET, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, WE'VE GIVEN THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK FOR THAT. THAT GOES BEFORE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, [01:35:01] WHICH IS A STANDARD APPLICATION THAT THEY WOULD REVIEW. THEN LAST THING WE DID IN CHAPTER 5 WAS ADD IN A NON CONFORMING USES CLAUSES. SINCE WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THIS REGISTRATION PROCESS AND WE HAVE PERMITTED, LEGALLY EXISTING SHORT TERM RENTALS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, IF THIS PROVISION DOES CREATE A NON CONFORMING SITUATION WHERE THERE IS ALREADY ONE THAT IS CLOSER THAN 1,000 FEET, IT GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO STAY EXISTING UNTIL THEY FALL OUT OF THAT NON CONFORMING SECTION. WITH THAT, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE THEY ARE AMENDMENTS TO OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. WE DID NOTICE IN THE NEWSPAPER AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. THIS IS THE NOTICE FOR TONIGHT, AND THEN WE'LL DO ANOTHER NOTICE FOR OR WE'VE ALREADY DONE IN THE NOTICE FOR JUNE 24TH IS WHEN THIS WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL. >> WES. I UNDERSTAND THE EXCEPTION IF THEY'RE ALREADY EXISTING, BUT WHY CREATE AN EXCEPTION TO TAKE TO THE BOARD OF PLANNING ADJUSTMENTS. YOU HAVE A SHORT TERM RENTAL AND THEN YOU BUY A HOUSE NEXT TO EACH OTHER AND TURN IT INTO A SHORT TERM RENTAL. WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE THAT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, BUT THEN WE PUT IN AN EXCEPTION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. >> AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CAUSE A HARDSHIP, AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO REQUIRE THAT THE OPERATORS OF THOSE OR THE OWNERS OF THOSE SHORT TERM RENTALS PROVE TO US WHAT THEIR HARDSHIP IS THAT THEY HAVE? THEY CAN'T FOLLOW THE RULE. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A GUARANTEE. IT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY. >> I REALIZE THAT, THEY HAVE TO GO BUT WHY EVEN DO THAT? I UNDERSTAND IF IT'S EXISTING. >> BECAUSE WE CAN'T JUST SAY NO TO IT. WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK FOR IT. >> BRIAN WAS INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> FAIR ENOUGH. >> IT'S A LEGAL THING. >> PART OF THAT WOULD BE AMONGST THE 45 WE CURRENTLY HAVE, IF THERE'S ONE IN AN AREA CLOSE TO EXISTING ONE THAT'S REGISTERED. THEN THEY COME AND REGISTER AND YOU GO, THERE'S ONE RIGHT OVER HERE. THOSE ARE THE CASES INTO SHORT TERM THAT YOU'RE GOING TO RUN INTO. >> IF THEY'RE ALREADY EXISTING PERMITTED, AND THEY'VE DONE EVERYTHING THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, THEN THOSE ARE CONSIDERED NON CONFORMING, AND THEY CAN STAY AS LONG AS THEY FOLLOW WITHIN THAT PROVISION 3 OF NONCONFORMING LIST. >> FOR NEW PEOPLE, NEW OWNERS. >> NEW OWNERS COULD NOT WITHOUT APPLYING FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. >> GOT IT. >> IT IS 7:31. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> 7:37. >> 7:37. >> 7:37 [LAUGHTER]. OTHER PART OF THE SEVEN. THANK YOU. IT'S NOW AT 7:38. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM. ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> GO AHEAD. >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGES. I CAN'T FIND IT. IN THE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE SHORT TERM RENTALS? >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE HAND. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, APPENDIX B HAS BEEN APPROVED. NOW WE HAVE UPDATE. [UPDATE ON PLANNING PROJECTS] >> THANK YOU. LET ME GET TO THE RIGHT ONE HERE JUST A SECOND. THIS WILL BE VERY QUICK. YOU'LL NOTICE IN YOUR PACKET, WE DO THE UPDATE AS NORMAL. THE LAST PAGE OF THAT ARE THE ONLY TWO CHANGES THAT WE HAVE FROM THE LAST UPDATE WE PROVIDE YOU, THE TATTOO PARLOR THAT YOU RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF. COUNCIL APPROVED AT THEIR APRIL MEETING. THEN THE HV PLAT THAT YOU APPROVED AT YOUR APRIL 22ND MEETING WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EULESS, AND COPIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE OWNER FOR RECORDING. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. >> THANK YOU, WES. >> THANK YOU. >> APPRECIATE IT. COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE MORE MOTION. I MOVE WE ADJOURN. >> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR THEN. THANK YOU, FOLKS. [01:40:02] GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY. EVERYBODY, BE SAFE. ENJOY YOUR MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND. >> YOU TOO. HAVE [INAUDIBLE]. >> YES [LAUGHTER]. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.