[00:00:08]
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
CONSENT AGENDA.YEAH, I'M GONNA HAVE TO GET THAT CLOSER.
ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO REMOVE AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? I MOVE, WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED.
WE RUN TWO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL.
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR.
SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
[1. (DS) Public Hearing – Replat & Revised Site Plan: Willow Bend Polo Estates Phase B, Block B, Lot 2R – One Patio Home lot on 0.1 acre located on the east side of Shaddock Boulevard, 75 feet north of Turtle Creek Drive. Zoned Planned Development-423-Patio Home. Projects #R2024-014 and #RSP2024-011. Applicant: Amy Zemaitis. (Administrative consideration)]
PUBLIC HEARING, REPLAT AND REVISED SITE PLAN.WILLOW BEND POLO ESTATES, PHASE B, BLOCK B, LOT 2R1 PATIO HOME LOT ON 0.1 ACRE, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SHATTUCK BOULEVARD, 75FT NORTH OF TURTLE CREEK DRIVE.
ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 423 PATIO HOME PROJECTS R2024014 AND RSP 2024-011. PETITIONER IS AMY ZEMAITIS.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS DONNA SEPULVADO, LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THESE ITEMS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON ITEM ONE? THANK YOU. SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? WE HAVE ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER.
ACTUALLY, I'M ON THE NEXT ONE.
ITEM NUMBER TWO. YEAH, I'LL SEE NO SPEAKERS ON THIS.
I JUST WASN'T AWARE OF ANYONE ELSE.
THAT'S CORRECT. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE ERROR.
SO WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS? WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS, SIR.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION.
I MOVE WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER ONE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE.
PLEASE VOTE. RAISE YOUR HANDS.
[2. (DS) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2023-007 – Request to rezone 13.5 acres located at the northeast corner of Park Boulevard and Custer Road from Planned Development-225-SingleFamily Residence Attached to Planned Development-225-Retail. Tabled March 18, 2024. Project #ZC2023-007. Petitioner: Fairview Farm Land Company, LTD. (Request to withdraw from consideration)]
ITEM TWO, PLEASE.PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2023-007.
APPLICANT IS FAIRVIEW FARM LAND COMPANY LIMITED.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? I SEE MR. RATLIFF'S MIC'S ON AND THEN MR. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. BRONSKY. CAN YOU ELABORATE AT ALL AS TO ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT WE RECEIVED IN OUR PACKET? I WOULD DEFER TO WHAT THE APPLICANT STATED IN THEIR LETTER.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM?
[00:05:03]
THE APPLICANT HAS. OKAY.WE HAVE TWO REGISTERED SPEAKERS, ONE VIA ZOOM, AND THAT'S THE FIRST SPEAKER.
THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE AT THE MOMENT.
GOOD EVENING. NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
2312 BRISBANE LANE, PLANO, TEXAS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PERSON REQUESTING THIS HAS WITHDRAWN IT FOR CONSIDERATION.
I'VE GONE THROUGH THE PUBLIC COMMENT WEBSITE.
OVER 95% ARE AGAINST THIS DEVELOPMENT OR ARE NEUTRAL.
THERE ARE 29 OUT OF 592 WHO ARE IN FAVOR.
SO THIS IS A PRETTY UNANIMOUS REJECTION BY THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THIS IS PROPOSED.
I ALSO WENT AHEAD AND LOOKED AT THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE THAT'S AVAILABLE AT CUSTER AND PARK AND CUSTER AND 15TH STREET, AND THERE ARE OVER 35 EMPTY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES.
WE DO NOT NEED MORE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE IN THE AREA.
APPROVED THE WITHDRAWAL OF CONSIDERATION.
I ACTUALLY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IF I HAD TO SPEAK TONIGHT, BUT LET'S KILL THIS THING.
THANK YOU. AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS.
OKAY. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CONFINE DISCUSSIONS TO THE COMMISSION.
I MOVE, WE ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL OF ZONING CASE 2020 3-007, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 7 TO 0.
[Items 3A & 3B]
AND B, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.A PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2024009.
REQUEST TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 64 CENTRAL BUSINESS ONE.
TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL ON 137.3 ACRES.
PETITIONER IS LIBERTY MUTUAL PLANO, LLC.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
3B. ITEM THREE B, PUBLIC HEARING REVISED CONCEPT PLAN LEGACY WEST EDITION BLOCK C, LOT THREE R 177 MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON ONE LOT ON 4.3 ACRES.
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND COLUMBUS AVENUE.
PETITIONER'S LIBERTY MUTUAL PLANO, LLC.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING ITEM THREE A THANK YOU.
THE PARCEL OUTLINED IN GREEN IS WHERE THE MID-RISE UNITS ARE PROPOSED.
CAN I ASK YOU TO LEAN INTO THE MIC A LITTLE BIT OR MOVE IT CLOSER TO YOU? A REVISED CONCEPT PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THE ZONING CASE TO SHOW THE PROPOSED 177 MID-RISE UNITS AND THE ASSOCIATED PARKING GARAGE.
THE PD CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR 1000 UNITS, WHICH HAVE TO BE SET BACK 400FT FROM THE EXPRESSWAYS, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT 177 UNITS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE PARCEL OUTLINED IN ORANGE.
AT THE TOP, 400 UNITS OF THE 1000 UNITS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED AT FIVE STORIES, AND THE REMAINING MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AT A MINIMUM OF SEVEN STORIES.
TODAY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REMOVE THE PARCEL IN ORANGE AT THE TOP OF THE SCREEN AS A PERMITTED SITE, AND ALLOW FOR 177 ADDITIONAL UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT FIVE STORIES.
THE CAP OF 1000 UNITS WILL NOT BE CHANGING.
[00:10:06]
THE LOCATION IS 400FT AWAY FROM THE EXPRESSWAYS AND IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT.THE PD REQUIRES THE UNITS BE CONSTRUCTED AT SEVEN STORIES.
THE SEVEN STORY MINIMUM WAS ESTABLISHED TO REQUIRE STEEL AND CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION METHODS.
HOWEVER, BUILDING CODES HAVE SINCE CHANGED AND THE APPLICANT COULD MEET THE SEVEN STORY REQUIREMENT BY CONSTRUCTING A MULTI-STORY CONCRETE PODIUM WITH PARKING AT GROUND LEVEL. HOWEVER, GROUND LEVEL PARKING WOULD NOT FOSTER STREET ACTIVITY IN A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT INTENDED FOR A MIXED USE AREA.
THEREFORE, STAFF SUPPORTS THE HEIGHT REDUCTION WITH PD STIPULATIONS THAT REQUIRE A PERCENTAGE OF GROUND FLOOR UNITS TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR ENTRANCES WITH A STOOP OR PATIO.
THESE MITIGATION METHODS INCLUDE VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS, MERV 13 FILTERS, LIMITING BALCONIES AND INCLUDING A PARKING GARAGE BETWEEN THE UNITS AND THE EXPRESSWAY.
TO RECAP, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE BUILDING HEIGHT.
REMOVE THE ALLOWANCE FOR UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 400FT OF THE EXPRESSWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS NOT CHANGING THE MID-RISE ACREAGE, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS, THE MAXIMUM DENSITY, OR ANY OF THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. THIS REQUEST WAS REVIEWED AGAINST OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE RECEIVED FOUR RESPONSES IN SUPPORT.
AND THEN WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER, WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE IN SUPPORT.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM, MISTER RATLIFF.
THANK YOU. JUST BACK TO THE SCREEN WHERE YOU HAVE THE ORANGE SQUARE AND THE YELLOW SQUARE.
CAN YOU GET BACK TO THAT SCREEN FOR ME? THERE YOU GO. RIGHT THERE.
SO THIS CASE IS IN THE YELLOW SQUARE WITH SOME RESIDUAL PROPERTY LEFT OVER ADJACENT TO THE TOLLWAY.
SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY'RE STILL RESERVING THE RIGHT TO BUILD 423 UNITS MORE THAN SEVEN STORIES TALL IN THE ORANGE SQUARE? THEY ARE GETTING RID OF THE ORANGE SQUARE AS A PERMITTED USE FOR UNITS.
SO IF THIS WAS APPROVED, THEY COULD NOT BUILD ANY MORE UNITS AT THAT LOCATION.
OKAY, BUT THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ROOM WITHIN THE 400FT TO BUILD IN THE YELLOW SQUARE EITHER.
SORRY. THE SQUARE AT THE BOTTOM.
THE WESTERN HALF IS OUTSIDE OF THE 400FT.
YEAH. THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING THIS UNIT.
SO IF THEY BUILD 577 BUT THEY'RE PERMITTED FOR 1000, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE OTHER 423? OUT OF THE 1000, THIS IS THE REMAINING 177 UNITS THEY COULD BUILD.
GOT IT. OKAY. THAT WASN'T PICKING THAT UP IN THE REPORT.
THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM?
[00:15:04]
WE HAVE ON THREE A WE HAVE FOUR REGISTERED OPINIONS.SAME WITH THREE B AND WE HAVE APPLICANTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
AND I HAVE ONE SPEAKER THAT SAYS IN SUPPORT OF IS IS THAT.
TO SPEAK OR JUST RECOGNIZING..
MR. EVANS, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS? I'M WITH O'BRIEN ARCHITECTS AND ARCHITECTS.
OKAY. ARE YOU? DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK OR ARE YOU HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SO THANK YOU FOR STEPPING UP.
AND MR. BRONSKY HAS A QUESTION.
I NOTICED THAT THE POLLUTION MITIGATION MEASURES YOU WENT FROM A MERV 16 THAT'S CURRENT TO A MERV 13 FOR THE NEW ONES.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE? I HONESTLY, THAT'S OUT OF MY AREA OF EXPERTISE.
THAT'S MECHANICAL ENGINEERS QUESTION, UNFORTUNATELY.
SO CAN I ASK STAFF FOR? YES. ANY. CAN YOU DO YOU HAVE ANY CLARIFICATION AS TO THE RATIONALE FOR THE CHANGE OR.
POLLUTION FILTRATION REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE 13 IS STILL AN IMPROVEMENT FROM WHAT THEY COULD DO TODAY.
MR. OLLEY JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT.
SO WITH THE SIDE OF THE 2022 BUILDING MUCH CLOSER TO THE TOLLWAY, THE 16 WAS REQUIRED TO MITIGATE THE EHA.
WE DON'T HOLD THEM TO A HIGHER FILTRATION STANDARD.
THIS IS, AGAIN, NOT AN AREA THAT REQUIRED US TO PROVIDE MITIGATION PER THE EHA STANDARDS.
SO IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE FROM THE APPLICANT'S TEAM WHO CAN ADDRESS THAT, I'D INVITE THEM TO SPEAK.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE INFORMATION BEYOND THAT.
WELL, THEY'RE ALREADY SO MERV 13 IS ABOVE WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THIS LOCATION, SO THEY'RE ALREADY OKAY.
THANK YOU. THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION POINT.
ANYTHING ELSE, MR. CARY? YEAH, JUST A SIMPLE QUESTION.
IS THAT MEANT TO REPRESENT THE FINAL PRODUCT.
IS THAT WHAT THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE? DO WE KNOW? THAT IMAGE IS IS IN THERE BECAUSE OF A STIPULATION FOR THE BUILDING GARAGE.
THE HEIGHT. THAT IT NEEDS TO COMPLY WITH THAT EXHIBIT.
FROM A HEIGHT PERSPECTIVE, IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NOISE MITIGATION IS PROVIDED.
DO WE KNOW WHAT THE ULTIMATE PRODUCT WILL LOOK LIKE? IS THERE ANY INSIGHT INTO THAT YET? IT'S IT'S TOO EARLY TO GET INTO FINAL ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
AND IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS OR ANY QUESTIONS.
VERY WELL. I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM THREE, ZONING CASE 2024-009 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7 TO 0.
I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM THREE B AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
B CONDITIONED ON COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THREE A? YES. YEAH.
SO THE MOTION IS CONDITIONAL UPON COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ITEM THREE A.
CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
YES. HOW STAFF RECOMMENDED IT.
[00:20:04]
AND THAT ITEM ALSO CARRIES SEVEN ZERO.THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING.
[4. (PM) Discussion and Action: Call for Public Hearing – Request to call a public hearing to amend Planned Development-124-Neighborhood Office on 7.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Independence Parkway and Regal Road. Project #CPH2024-004. Applicant: Abbeygate Corporation. (Legislative consideration)]
ITEM FOUR. NONPUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION, CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 124, NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE ON 7.1 ACRES.
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY AND REGAL ROAD.
APPLICANT IS ABBEY GATE CORPORATION.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
I AM PARKER MCDOWELL, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING IS TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 124 NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE TO AMEND THE ALLOWED USES TO INCLUDE HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTER WITH THE INTENT TO DEVELOP THIS USE AT THE LOT LOCATED AT 1601 DORCHESTER DRIVE.
HOWEVER, PLANS TO DEVELOP THE SITE WERE ABANDONED PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING BEING SCHEDULED.
STAFF CONTINUED THE ZONING CASE FORWARD TO RESOLVE THE LOT COVERAGE ISSUES UNCOVERED DURING THE INITIAL REVIEW OF THOSE PLANS, WHICH WERE APPROVED, WHICH THE ZONING CASE WAS APPROVED IN JANUARY 8TH, 2024.
THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN ASKED TO INITIATE THE ZONING REQUEST WHEN MULTIPLE OWNERSHIPS ARE INVOLVED.
THE COMMISSION APPROVAL ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD AND SUBMIT THE ZONING PETITION, WHICH WILL FOLLOW THE NORMAL SCHEDULE AND PROCESSES FOR THE ZONING CASE, BUT DOES NOT IMPLY THE COMMISSION SUPPORT OR LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THE ZONING REQUEST CHANGE.
WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
124 NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM.
MR. OLLEY. JUST ONE LOGISTICAL CLARIFICATION.
WHO IS BRINGING THIS FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING? THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? IT'S THE APPLICANT. THEY HAVE REVISED THEIR DESIGN, AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM? OKAY. YEAH, BUT THEY'RE THE ONES INITIATING THIS.
WHO IS THE APPLICANT? IS IT THE PROPERTY? THE DEVELOPER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER OR IS IT THE CITY? IT'S THE THE OWNER OF LOT 1601 DORCHESTER DRIVE.
I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND WHY HE ABANDONED THE FIRST ATTEMPT TO GET THIS APPROVED.
NOW HE'S COMING BACK AND TRYING AGAIN.
WHY IS THAT? DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS.
NOW I READ SOMETHING IN THE PACKET ABOUT THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT IF IF IT'S A, IF YOU'RE AMENDING A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEY ALL HAVE TO SIGN ON TO THE APPLICATION, IS THAT CORRECT? OR CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE ELECTED FOR THAT.
CORRECT. THE PUBLIC HEARING REPLACES THE REQUIREMENT OF ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS BEING ON BOARD.
CORRECT. I'M TRYING TO I'M SORRY.
YEAH. YOU JUST HAVE TO GET RIGHT UP.
I CAN CLARIFY, THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES ALL PROPERTY OWNERS TO SIGN THE PETITION.
IS THIS A CASE WHERE SOME OWNERS HAVE OPPOSED THE IDEA, OR THEY JUST COULDN'T GET A HOLD OF SOME OF THEM? JUST COULDN'T GET A HOLD OF, MY UNDERSTANDING.
AND IN THE MEANTIME, THEY'VE GONE FROM THEIR ORIGINAL DESIGN TO NOW A DIFFERENT DESIGN.
AND THIS IS, AT LEAST FROM MY EXPERIENCE, NOT UNCOMMON, WHERE YOU HAVE MULTIPLE LOTS IN AN AREA THAT YOU HAVE ABSENTEE OWNERS AND PEOPLE THAT JUST THEY DON'T CARE.
[00:25:02]
SO OKAY.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND THIS ISN'T A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THERE ARE TWO APPLICANTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. OKAY.
WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING.
I MOVE, WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND PD 124-01 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 7 TO 0.
[COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST]
THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER, WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN, AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CURRENT AGENDA.THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.
AND WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, RIGHT? YES. MR. LISLE. IT'S ON.
GOOD. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
YOU MAY HAVE TO LEAN INTO IT, BUT I'LL DO MY BEST.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, I'M NOT ONE TO SHY AWAY FROM CONFLICT.
AND WHILE IT'S A LITTLE AWKWARD TO BE HERE ON THIS SIDE TONIGHT, I WANTED TO AT LEAST COME AND LOOK YOU ALL IN THE EYE AND TELL YOU THAT I ENJOYED SERVING WITH YOU, THAT I DISAGREE WITH MY REMOVAL FROM THIS COMMISSION.
I WANT TO GIVE YOU A FEW OF THE FACTS FROM MY SIDE THAT GO WITH MY REMOVAL.
I WAS TOLD THAT I COULD GET FIVE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL.
THE FIRST THING THE MAYOR DID WAS OPEN THE MEETING AND SAY, GO AHEAD, BILL, YOU GOT FIVE MINUTES.
TO WHICH I SAID, WHAT AM I TO SPEAK ON? I HAVE NO IDEA WHY I'M HERE.
AT THAT POINT, SHELBY WILLIAMS SPOKE UP AND SAID, DON'T YOU THINK HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO LISTEN TO OUR DELIBERATIONS BEFORE HE RESPONDS TO US? AT THAT POINT, THEY CLOSED THAT ITEM, WENT INTO ANOTHER ITEM THAT REALLY DEALT WITH SOME CONFLICT THAT WAS BETWEEN THEM, FROM FROM MY OBSERVATION.
THE THINGS THEY WANTED ME TO ADDRESS THERE ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE LIST OF THINGS THAT PAGE MIMS SENT ME WHEN I REACHED OUT TO HER AND SAID, HEY, JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION THAT I'VE BEEN REMOVED.
AND SO I'M GOING TO GO WITH THE LIST THAT PAGE SENT ME.
BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY RECORDING STAFF AND COUNCIL WITHOUT DISCLOSING IT TO THE PERSON BEING RECORDED.
THEY'RE PUBLIC AND YOU NEED TO GIVE THEM TO US.
BUT THEN THEY DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT I ACTUALLY RELEASED THEM TO THE PUBLIC.
IT'S LIKE THEIR PUBLIC, GIVE THEM TO US, BUT THEN DON'T RELEASE THEM TO ANYONE ELSE.
AND WE ALSO HAVE A FREEDOM OF PRESS HERE IN THE COUNTRY.
NUMBER TWO WAS DISRESPECTING STAFF JUST LIKE YOU SAW IN THE LAST MEETING.
SOMETIMES I GET MY TONE WRONG.
I CERTAINLY CAN'T THINK OF A TIME THAT I'VE BEEN DISRESPECTFUL TO STAFF.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE OF CITY RECORDS.
AGAIN, THEY'RE EITHER PUBLIC OR THEY'RE NOT PUBLIC.
I RELEASE THEM AFTER THE TEN DAY PERIOD FROM THE OPEN MEETINGS REQUEST.
AND SO I WAITED FOR THE TEN DAY PERIOD, AND THEN I RELEASED THEM.
TWENTY SECONDS. DEFAMATORY COMMENTS ABOUT THE CITY AND STAFF.
FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE IFA PROCESS.
FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE IFA PROCESS.
I'M BEING ACCUSED OF FAILING TO FOLLOW IT, AND THE ONLY THING I DID AFTER THE IFA PROCESS CAME OUT WAS ASK A FEW QUESTIONS OF CHRISTINA DAY ABOUT THE ABOUT THE HAVE YOU GRANTED ME A LITTLE MORE TIME? I DID, I JUST THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
[00:30:08]
WHICH ACTUALLY SPELLS OUT WHAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS.BECAUSE I ASKED THAT QUESTION AND LEGAL GAVE ME A RESPONSE, I WON'T.
BUT Y'ALL CAN GET THAT EMAIL FROM HER.
BUT ONE THING I THINK YOU GUYS NEED TO KNOW IS THAT THERE'S OTHER THINGS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, LIKE INTERPRETATIONS THAT GRANT Y'ALL THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR DEFINITIONS FROM STAFF. AND AS A BODY, I THINK YOU ALL NEED THE ABILITY TO GO TO STAFF AND ASK QUESTIONS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE TO HEAR THAT BY ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS, THEY'VE LISTED IT AS A REASON FOR MY REMOVAL.
ALL RIGHT, I COULD GO ON AND ON, BUT..
LASTLY, I WOULD JUST SAY I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS AS A BODY TO GET A LEGAL BRIEF FROM MICHELLE D'ANDREA ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE PARKING LOT THAT HAD 300 PARKING SPOTS, TOO MANY THAT WE ALL AGREED WAS NOT GOOD, WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AFTER MULTIPLE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.
THEY WITHDREW IT BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WASN'T GOING TO PASS.
AND SO I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR YOU GUYS TO UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE SOMETIMES WHEN YOU'RE SITTING IN THOSE CHAIRS, THE IDEA IS, OH, WELL, THEY CAN GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IT DOESN'T WORK.
IT'S NOT PRODUCTIVE A LOT OF THE TIMES.
SHALL I STOP, YOU WANT ME TO COME BACK NEXT WEEK? YEAH. 10 SECONDS..
JUST.. NO, I'LL JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
ALL RIGHT? THANK YOU, MR. LILES. GOOD TO SEE YOU.
FACTUAL. NOT NECESSARY, BUT IT'S UP TO YOU.
I THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT, THAT THE INFORMATION THAT PAIGE PROVIDED CAME FROM THE CITY SECRETARY'S NOTES FROM THE EVENING WHERE THE COUNCIL WAS PROPERLY AGENDIZED TO DISCUSS MR. LILES APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION.
AND ALSO, I WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT THE EMAIL ABOUT THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE, I'M HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU ALL IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT.
AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT MORE.
OKAY. NO OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 7:33.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.