Sep 02, 2025 Planning and Zoning

AND HERE'S THE REPL.

SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO TABLE THE ITEM TO THE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF MR. BRUNO? THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

IS THE APPLICANT AWARE THAT IF WE POSTPONE THIS CASE TO THE 15TH WE CANNOT AFTER THAT POSTPONE IT AGAIN? WE WILL, WE WOULD HAVE TO ACT ON THE 15TH.

UH, YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

WE DID EMAIL SOME OF THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO HIM.

ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NOBODY.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE IF THEY WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT OR IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

NOBODY.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONER BRUNO, I MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE ITEM ONE TO OUR SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025 MEETING.

COMMISSIONER BENDER SECOND THE MOTION.

I'M SORRY.

YEAH.

UM, CAN WE JUST CALL THAT A MOTION TO TABLE? YES.

DO WE NEED TO PUT A DATE ON IT? MOTION TO TABLE.

MOTION TO TABLE.

THAT'S WHAT, UNTIL SEPTEMBER 15TH.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, R-C-C-G-H-G-E EDITION BLOCK A LOT.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE.

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT MEETING.

ITEM TWO,

[2. (CST) Public Hearing – Preliminary Replat: RCCG-HGE Addition, Block A, Lot 1R – Religious facility on one lot on 11.9 acres located on the south side of Parker Road, 955 feet east of Los Rios Boulevard. Zoned Agricultural. Project #PR2025-014. Applicant: Redeemed Christian Church of God Heavens Glorious Embassy Inc. (Administrative consideration)]

ONE RA RELIGIOUS FACILITY ON ONE LOT ON 11.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PARKER ROAD.

955 FEET EAST OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD.

ZONED AGRICULTURAL.

THE APPLICANT IS REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD HEAVEN'S GLORIOUS EMBASSY INCORPORATED.

THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DURATION.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS MOLLY COEL.

INTERIM LEAD PLANNER.

[00:05:03]

THE PURPOSE OF THE PRELIMINARY REPL IS TO DEDICATE AND ABANDON EASEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED RELIGIOUS FACILITIES BUILDING EXPANSION.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL, THEREFORE A UH, PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED AS IT IS CONSIDERED A RESIDENTIAL REPL.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS AS REQUIRED BY ENGINEERING PLANS.

I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

OR NON FOR NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. EXCUSE ME.

COMMISSION TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOBODY.

ALRIGHT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO HAVE ANYBODY REGISTERED ON THIS ITEM? THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

ALRIGHT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION.

MR. BRONSKI.

I MOVE.

WE APPROVE THIS AGENDA ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

SECOND.

ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE.

EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES EIGHT TO ZERO.

ITEM NUMBER THREE

[3. (CST) Discussion and Action: Reinstatement of Approval Request – Revised Site Plan: Rowlett Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, Block 1, Lots 1 & 2 – Request to reinstate approval of a revised site plan for a sewage treatment plant on two lots on 26.6 acres located at the northeast corner of 14th Street and Los Rios Boulevard. Zoned Agricultural with Specific Use Permit No. 4 for Sewage Treatment Plant. Project #RSP2022-067. Applicant: North Texas Municipal Water District. (Legislative consideration)]

ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS RESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

RESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, DISCUSSION AND ACTION.

REINSTATEMENT OF APPROVAL REQUEST FOR A REVISED SITE PLAN AT RORAL CREEK REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BLOCK ONE, LOTS, ONE AND TWO.

REQUEST A REINSTATE APPROVAL OF A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT ON TWO LOTS ON 26.6 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 14TH STREET AND LOS RIOS BOULEVARD, ZONED AGRICULTURAL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER FOUR FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT.

THE APPLICANT IS THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ORIGINALLY APPROVED THIS REVISED SITE PLAN ON JUNE 19TH, 2023 AS NO CONSTRUCTION HAS COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS.

THE PLAN EXPIRED ON JUNE 19TH, 2025.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE REINSTATEMENT OF THIS REVISED SITE PLAN AND HAS PROVIDED A LETTER SAYING THAT ADDITIONAL TIME IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE BID EVALUATION PROCESS AND AWARD THE PROJECT TO A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.

ONCE THE BID IS REWAR AWARDED, CONSTRUCTION WILL THEN BEGIN SECTION 3.7 HUNDRED OF ARTICLE THREE.

OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE STATES THAT 60 DAYS PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWING THE LAPSE OF AN APPROVAL OF, OF A REVISED SITE PLAN, THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PETITION THE COMMISSION TO EXTEND OR REINSTATE THE APPROVAL.

THE OWNER IS REQUESTING THAT THE EXPIRATION PERIOD FOR THE REVISED SITE PLAN BE REINSTATED FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO GRANT SUCH A REQUEST, THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THE REASONS FOR THE LAPSE, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ABILITY, UH, TO COMPLY WITH ANY CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH NEWLY ADOPTED ZONING REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE PLAN.

NO CONDITIONS, UM, NO REGULATION CHANGES ARE APPLICABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON EXISTING REGULATIONS AND SINCE THE SITE PLAN HAS EXPIRED.

SO STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REINSTATEMENT REQUEST AS SUBMITTED AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

COMMISSION ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER LALEY? HONESTLY, LIKE I HAVE A QUESTION.

UH, SO IF WE, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF WE APPROVE, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE, UM, EXTENSION NOW AND SOMETHING HAPPENED BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, LIKE NOW AND 27, LIKE ANY REGULATION, ANY CONDITION, WILL THAT AFFECT THE SITE PLAN OR IS IT GONNA BE LIKE APPROVED FOR ANOTHER LIKE 27 EVEN REGARDLESS OF ANY CHANGES? THAT IS CORRECT.

EVEN IF REGULATIONS CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND THE REINSTATEMENT FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS, THOSE NEW REGULATIONS WILL NOT IMPACT THE APPROVAL OF THIS REVISED SITE PLAN.

COMMISSIONER ALI.

UH, JUST ONE YOU UH, STATEMENT AS NO CONSTRUCTION COMMENCE WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS, IS THERE A MINIMUM THRESHOLD OF CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NEEDED TO KEEP THE SITE PLAN ACTIVE OR WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE RANGE? ESSENTIALLY THE ISSUANCE OF LIKE AN ENGINEER OF THE ENGINEERING PERMIT TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION TO COMMENCE.

PERMIT IS ISSUED, I DIG A HOLE.

I OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, PUTTING IN UTILITIES AND BEING READY TO GO VERTICAL WOULD BE A GOOD THRESHOLD, BUT, SO IF I JUST

[00:10:01]

DOES THAT, DOES THAT CLASSIFY AS CONSTRUCTION, LIKE GRADING AND THINGS LIKE THAT? RIGHT? NO, I, A GRADING PERMIT WOULD NOT MIKE, MR. BELL? YEAH, THE, WHAT HAPPENS IS THE, UM, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND BILLING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENTS NEED AN APPROVED PLAN ON FILE TO ISSUE THAT PERMIT.

SINCE THIS HAS BEEN EXPIRED, THEY, THE APPLICANT CANNOT PULL THE PERMITS ON THIS PROJECT.

UM, IF THIS IS REINSTATED, THEY COULD PULL THOSE PERMITS AND THEN THE PROJECT IS GOOD FOR THE LIFE OF THOSE PERMITS.

ESSENTIALLY THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DEADLINE.

THANK YOU MR. BELL.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER OLLIE.

COMMISSIONER BRUNO? UH, YES, THANK YOU.

UM, AS I POINTED OUT IN OUR PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING ON PAGE ONE OF THE SITE PLAN, 14TH STREET IS MISLABELED AS LOS RIOS BOULEVARD.

WHAT IS THE TECHNICALLY CORRECT WAY OF UH, REQUIRING THAT THAT LITTLE TECHNICAL CORRECTION? WE COULD ADD A STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL.

HOWEVER, UH, WITH THAT BEING A SCRIBNER'S AIR WE COULD JUST COORDINATE WITH THE APPLICANT AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS CORRECTED PRIOR TO THE PLAN BEING STAMPED.

SO WE DON'T NEED TO INCLUDE THAT IN A MOTION, PARTICULARLY IT'S THE COMMISSION'S DECISION, BUT, UH, STAFF DOESN'T BELIEVE SO CORRECT UP TO THE COMMISSION? CORRECT.

ALRIGHT, NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.

I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER ALI? UH, QUESTION THE APPLICANT? FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.

IF THE APPLICANT, IF YOU COULD COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

I'M MARK SIMON, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING FOR NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT.

SO 5 0 1 EAST BROWN STREET, WILEY, TEXAS 7 5 0 9 8.

THANK YOU MR. RILEY.

JUST CONTEXT, UM, THE BID EVALUATION PROCESS IS CITED AS THE BLOCKER FOR THIS IS, IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE? IS THERE PRIOR REGULATION OR, YOU KNOW, FUNDING OR WHAT, WHAT'S THE BLOCKER BID EVALUATION SEEMS TO BE NOT QUITE A BLOCKER.

YEAH, SO THIS IS AN INTERESTING PROJECT.

UM, UH, WE BID THIS PROJECT IN 2023 OR ACTUALLY IN 2024.

UM, IT CAME IN AROUND $300 MILLION.

AND THE PRICE IS NOT GONNA CHANGE SUBSTANTIALLY, BUT ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THE PROJECT WHEN WE SAT DOWN WITH THE CONTRACTOR WAS THAT, UM, WE HAVE TO KEEP THE PLANT OPERATIONAL AT ALL TIMES.

THIS DOES TREAT 50% OF THE FLOW FOR PLANO AND ROUGHLY 25 TO 30% OF THE FLOW FROM, FROM RICHARDSON.

SO WHEN WE TALK TO THEM, THEY'RE LIKE, THERE'S JUST TOO MANY, UH, SEQUENCING ISSUES FOR US TO BID THIS PROJECT AT A LOWER PRICE.

WE WOULD RATHER DO IT IN SMALL PIECES.

SO, UH, WE CHANGED OUR, UH, UM, CONTRACTING APPROACH AND WE RE-INSTITUTED, UH, BIDDING EVALUATION USING A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK PROCESS, WHICH ALLOWS US TO PUT TOGETHER INDIVIDUAL BID PACKAGES UNDER A LARGER PROJECT.

SO HE'LL BID OUT THE PACKAGES AS HE HAS AVAILABLE ACCESS TO, UH, PARTS OF THE PLANT.

THE OTHER BIG COMPONENT OF THIS IS, UH, WE HAVE TO CHANGE SOME OF THE ENCORE POWER FEEDS THAT COME INTO THE PLANT DUE TO AN INCREASED LOAD OF, UM, ELECTRICITY FOR THE BLOWERS.

SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU WORK WITH ENCORE, YOU SORT OF PUT IN THE REQUEST TO THEM AND THEY KIND OF EVALUATE ON THEIR END, UH, WHAT THE TIMING WILL BE WHEN THEY CAN COME AND MAKE THE UPGRADES.

AND SINCE WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF THAT SCHEDULE, UH, WE WANT TO, YOU KNOW, THE CONTRACTOR TO KIND OF COORDINATE THAT FOR US AS OPPOSED TO US ASSUMING A SPECIFIC DATE.

AND THEN, AND THEN PUT IN LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ON THAT DATE THAT THEY CAN'T CONTROL.

THAT'S FAIR.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, DISCUSSION IN ACTION.

ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

APPRECIATE IT.

ALRIGHT, COMMISSION COMMISSIONER LEY, UH, AND MOVE.

WE APPROVE UH, THE REINSTATEMENT REQUEST AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF COMMISSIONER RUNOFF SECOND THE MOTION.

ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES EIGHT TO ZERO.

NEXT ITEM

[4. (CST) Discussion and Action – Call for Public Hearing: Request to call a public hearing to initiate rezoning of a 0.2 acre lot located on the east side of Municipal Avenue, 80 feet north of 12th Street, from Light Industrial-1 to Single-Family Residence-6. Located within the Expressway Corridor Overlay District. Project #CPH2025-008. Applicant: Thies Raymond Herman & Janet Lynn. (Legislative consideration)]

A REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO INITIATE REZONING OF A 0.2 ACRE LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MUNICIPAL AVENUE.

80 FEET NORTH OF 12TH STREET FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE

[00:15:01]

SIX LOCATED WITHIN THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT.

THE APPLICANTS ARE MR. HERMAN AND MRS. LYNN.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING IS TO START THE PROCESS FOR A CITY INITIATED REZONING REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1,202 MUNICIPAL AVENUE.

THIS REQUEST, UH, IS ON THE BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO ASKED STAFF TO BEGIN, UH, THE CITY INITIATED REZONING REQUEST AND CALL, CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

THE, UM, PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED LI ONE.

IT WAS REZONED TO LI ONE AS PART OF A LARGER REZONING OF THIS BLOCK.

THE BLOCK WAS BLANKET REZONED TO LI ONE IN THE 1970S IN 20 15, 12 0 3.

UH, 12TH STREET WAS REZONED FROM LI ONE TO SF SIX, AND THEN SOON AFTER IN 20 16, 12 0 1 12TH STREET WAS REZONED FROM LI ONE TO SF SIX VIA A CITY INITIATED REZONING REQUEST.

UM, THE PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TONIGHT HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN USED, UM, AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 1202 MUNICIPAL AVENUE IS REQUESTING THAT THE CITY INITIATE A REZONING OF OF THEIR PROPERTY FROM LI ONE TO SF SIX.

AND CURRENTLY CITY STAFF HAS THE CAPACITY TO CON TO CONDUCT THIS REZONING REQUEST, BUT REQUEST THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER COVER THE ASSOCIATED COST OF POSTING THE ZONING SIGNS ON THEIR PROPERTY, UM, AS PART OF THE PROCESS 28 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THE PROCESS FOR THIS BEGINS WITH A CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING BY THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL ALLOWS THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH BEGINNING TO PROCESS THE, UH, REZONING REQUEST.

AND, UM, THE SUPPORT OR LACK OF SUPPORT BY THE COMMISSION IS NOT CONVEYED OR IMPLIED BY CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO INITIATE THIS REZONING REQUEST, THIS IS JUST A NECESSARY STEP IN STARTING THE ZONING REQUEST.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PURPOSE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER INSTALLED A SIGNAGE REQUIRED WITH THE ZONING PETITION.

I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.

JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION.

IS THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, AGREEABLE TO THAT ONE CONDITION? I TALKED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ON FRIDAY AND, UH, EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS WITH THE ZONING REQUEST.

UH, HE UNDERSTOOD THE INFORMATION.

SO THEY DIDN'T OBJECT TO THAT.

CAN, SORRY, MICHELLE, CAN I SAY THAT THEY AGREE TO THE STIPULATION OR NOT? IS THAT I THINK THAT'S OKAY.

THEY CAN ALWAYS COME UP INCORRECTLY.

THEY SEEM THEY SEEMED COOL WITH IT.

OR OKAY WITH IT.

SORRY.

I'M SORRY, , THAT'S ALL.

IT'S A TECHNICAL TERM I REALIZE.

UH, COMMISSIONER LEY.

UH, SO YOU'RE LIKE, SO NOW IT IS USED AS RESIDENTIAL LOTS, RIGHT? THERE IS A HOUSE IN, UH, ON THE LOT.

YES.

SO WHY ARE THEY, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF IT'S EXISTING HOUSE AND IF THEY WANNA DEMOLISH AND BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE, WILL THAT BE AGAINST, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE ZONING? YES.

THE ALLI ZONING DOES NOT ALLOW FOR TYPICALLY TRADITIONALLY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

AND SO THERE WOULD BE POTENTIAL ISSUES LIKE IF, UM, THE PROPERTY WERE TO BE DESTROYED BY AN ACT OF GOD OR A WEATHER EVENT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IN ORDER TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT.

SORRY, COMMISSIONER BROSKY , OR, SORRY, MAYBE I MISSED THERE SOME.

THERE ARE SOME LEGAL NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS TO REBUILD THE HOME, BUT THEY HAVE EXPIRATION PERIODS, OTHER STRINGS ATTACHED.

SO IT'S POSSIBLE THEY COULD REBUILD THE HOME UNDER I ONE.

BUT, UM, THE APPLICANT BELIEVES AND STAFF AGREES THAT SINGLE FAMILY SIX MAKES MORE SENSE GIVEN, UM, EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY AROUND THEM.

AND IT WAS, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED.

IT WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL BEFORE THE 1970S REZONING TO I ONE.

COMMISSIONER ALI? COMMISSIONER ALI, UM, I KNOW IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT AM I RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT'S THE PROPERTY OWNERS? RIGHT.

INITIATED REZONING IN 20 15, 20 16, WHY WASN'T THIS RESIDENTIAL PULLED INTO THAT CITY INITIATED IN 20 15, 20 16? SURE.

UM, SO THEY, THEY NODDED WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS COOL.

UM, JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THE CITY

[00:20:01]

SO THE PROPERTY IN THE FAR EAST CORNER SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION TO REZONE THEIR PROPERTY DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

UM, IT WAS EXPRESSED BY STAT THAT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING CHANGE AND P AND Z ASKED, WELL, THEY'RE IN SUPPORT.

I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO REZONE THAT WHEN IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE FOR THE ENTIRE BLOCK FACE FACING 12TH STREET TO BE THE SAME ZONING.

AND SO THE CITY INITIATED IT ON THEIR BEHALF AND THAT LED TO THE 2016 CASE WHERE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WAS APPROVED.

SO IT WAS 2015 WAS INITIATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH LED TO THE CITY NEIGHBORING THE, UH, REZONING THE NEIGHBOR.

BUT THIS ONE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DISCUSSION.

UM, I THINK MOSTLY BECAUSE THAT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT RESPOND TO THE ZONING CASE IN 2015.

COMMISSIONER.

JUST A QUESTION IS, DOES THIS HOUSE ACTUALLY FRONT ON MUNICIPAL? YES, IT DOES.

YES IT DOES.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, DISCUSSION AND ACTION.

SO THAT MIGHT BE A REASON WHY IT WAS LEFT OUT BACK THEN TOO, SO, OKAY.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKI, I MOVE, WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE AS DISCUSSED BY STAFF SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION, UH, PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED MR. FELDER.

WHOOPS.

LET'S TRY THAT ONE MORE TIME.

I'LL SECOND.

THERE YOU GO.

ALL RIGHT, .

ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

UM, JUST LET ME, LET ME, I SAY WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS REGISTERED ON THIS ITEM, DID WE? WE DID NOT.

OKAY, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE.

ALRIGHT, PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES EIGHT TO ZERO.

ALRIGHT, ITEM FIVE,

[5. (DW) Discussion and Action – Call for Public Hearing: Request to call a public hearing to amend Planned Development-189-Retail/General Office on 108.0 acres located on the southeast corner of Park Boulevard and Preston Road. Zoned Planned Development189-Retail/General Office with Specific Use Permits No. 229 for Private Club, No. 445 for Day Care Center, No. 601 for Public Storage/Mini-warehouse, and No. 649 for Private Club. Project #CPH2025-009. Applicant: Trevor D. Armstong. (Legislative consideration)]

CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1 8 9 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE ON 108 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARK BOULEVARD AND PRESTON ROAD ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1 8 9 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMITS NUMBER 2 29 FOR PRIVATE CLUB NUMBER 4 45 FOR DAYCARE CENTER NUMBER 6 0 1 FOR PUBLIC STORAGE SLASH MINI WAREHOUSE AND NUMBER 6 49 FOR PRIVATE CLUB.

THE APPLICANT IS TREVOR D ARMSTRONG.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, DESTINY WOODS PLANNING WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

UM, THE GRAPHIC ON THE SCREEN SHOWS THE AREA OF REQUEST AND THIS APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY, UM, ON ONE SPECIFIC LOT WITHIN PD 180 9.

UM, THE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY IS NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THIS DISTRICT, SO THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO AMEND THE STIPULATIONS IN ORDER TO BUILD THEIR REQUEST.

UM, SO WHERE A PD IS DIVIDED AMONG MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS, ALL OWNERS MUST AUTHORIZE THE SUBMISSION OF, UH, PETITIONS TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO THAT DISTRICT.

AND IT'S REQUESTED THAT THE COMMISSION CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING SINCE CONSENT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

UM, SO FOR A CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING, THE PROCESS BEGINS WITH A CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING BY THIS COMMISSION.

UM, AND THEN THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD AND SUBMIT THE ZONING PETITION.

AND, UM, THE, THIS COMMISSION'S SUPPORT OR LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THE ZONING REQUEST IS NOT IMPLIED BY CALLING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

UM, I HAVE ONE TECHNICAL QUESTION FOR YOU.

I KNOW WE NORMALLY NOTIFY EVERYBODY WITHIN A CERTAIN RADIUS OF THE CASE IN THIS CASE FOR THE PD.

DO WE NOTIFY ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT PD AS WELL OR SINCE WE'RE BASICALLY DOING IT ON THEIR BEHALF OR, OR IF THEY'RE OUTSIDE THE RADIUS, DO THEY NOT GET A NOTICE? THEY'LL STILL BE NOTICED.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

SO ALL THE OTHER OWNERS IN THE PD WILL BE NOTICED REGARDLESS OF DISTANCE? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY, GREAT.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKI.

UH, JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION ABOUT, UM, THE OTHER PROPERTY, UM, HOLDERS WITHIN THIS, YOU MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO GET THE CONSENT OF ALL OF THEM.

ARE ANY OF THEM IN OPPOSITION TO THIS? I'M NOT SURE.

AS CITY, THE CITY DID NOT CONTACT THE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT THE APPLICANT DID MENTION THAT THEY CONTACTED SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO GET A HOLD WITH ALL OF THEM.

UM, SO THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IF THEY ARE HERE.

[00:25:01]

UM, PIGGYBACKING OFF OF THE LAST TWO, UH, SO WE ISSUE A CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

THERE ARE A HUNDRED PLUS, UH, STAKEHOLDERS WITH THIS.

WHAT IS THE CITY'S ROADMAP TO MAKE SURE, UM, WE HAVE APPROPRIATE NOTICE TO THOSE STAKEHOLDERS? SO, UM, FOR EVERY ZONING CASE, A NOTICE WILL BE SENT OUT FOR, UM, 200 FEET OUTSIDE OR, UM, OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE ENTIRE ZONING DISTRICT, AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL 500 FEET OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA.

UM, SO THAT MEANS THAT WITHIN THE ZONING BOUNDARY, THEY'RE WITHIN THAT 200 FEET.

UM, SO THEY'LL BE NOTICED, NOTICED ELECTRONICALLY, DOOR HANGERS SENT A, HOW INTENT ARE WE GETTING? THEY'RE SENT SOMETHING IN THE MAIL AND IT, UM, GIVES THEM A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS.

IT GIVES THEM, UM, LOCATION OF WHERE THE PROPOSAL IS HAPPENING AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE COMMENT OR RESPONSE, UM, WITH THEIR SUPPORT OPPOSITION OR NEUTRALITY.

THERE'S ALSO A SIGN REQUIREMENT HAS TO BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY.

UH, WE, AND WE ARE NOT BEHOLDING TO ANY MEASURE OF RESPONSE AS LONG AS WE HAVE GOOD FATE IN COMMUNICATING THIS.

THE, THE ZONING CASE GOES AHEAD AS CALLED.

WE DON'T NEED LIKE 10% OF RESPONDENTS TO MAKE THIS CASE VIABLE OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

THAT'S CORRECT.

UM, THAT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW MANY, UM, RESPONSES WE RECEIVE BACK.

UM, YOU MENTIONED ON THE NOTICE YOU SAID IN ADDITION 500 FEET OUTSIDE OF THE, OF THE, OF THE, OF 180 9.

SO IT WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY TO THE EAST WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ALONG OHIO.

YES.

WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT NOTICE? THEY, UM, THEY MIGHT BE, I I THINK THEY'RE WITHIN THAT 500 FOOT DISTANCE.

YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD BE.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

UM, I JUST WONDER IF THIS WILL FALL INTO THE NEW LAWS CATEGORY, LIKE THE, WHETHER IT'S A ZONING CHANGE OR NOT.

YES.

SO THE SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 UPDATES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WE JUST MADE WILL DO AFFECT THIS PROPERTY.

HOWEVER, IT'S OUR UNDER UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WOULD NEED A PLAN DEVELOPMENT EITHER WAY BASED ON THE HEIGHTS THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE REQUESTING.

SO IF IT'S NOT A ZONING CHANGE, MAYBE THEY DON'T REQUIRE NOTICES, IT'LL BE A ZONING CHANGE EITHER WAY UNDER THE CURRENT BE A ZONING CHANGE ON THE CURRENT LAW OR THE NEW LAW, IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE ZONING CHANGE.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER LOLLY.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE KNOW THAT SOME OF THE OWNERS ARE, YOU KNOW, LIKE NOT IN UH, FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSITION.

THEY'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THEIR, UM, NOTICE THAT IS SENT OUT.

I MEAN, WILL IT, WILL IT AFFECT, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE ZONING REQUESTS THERE ARE THE OWNERS, LIKE JUST IN GENERAL? THERE ARE, THERE ARE, THE 20% RULE APPLIES TO THE PROPERTY ITSELF THAT'S BEING REZONED.

SO IF, IF 20% OR MORE OF THE LAND, IT'S BY LAND.

SO 20% OR MORE OF THE LAND SUBMITS A RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION, IT TRIGGERS THE SUPER MAJORITY VOTE AT CITY COUNCIL.

OH, SO YOU'RE LIKE, OH, OH, OKAY.

THANKS.

WAIT, SO MAKE SURE IT TRIGGER SUPER MAJORITY JUST STATE COUNCIL OR HERE TOO.

JUST AT COUNCIL.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKI, IS THAT 20% OF THE LANDHOLDERS OR OF ANYBODY WITHIN THAT, COULD THAT BE UH, NON-RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE SUBMITTING AS WELL? YEAH, 20% OF PROPERTY OWNERS.

PROPERTY OWNERS, WELL 20% OF THE NOTICE GOES TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEIR EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF LAND.

ALL THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS MUST ADD UP TO 20% OR MORE OF THE LAND AREA, EITHER INSIDE THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING REZONED OR WITHIN 200 FEET SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO BE, TO BE REZONED.

SO IF I WERE SOMEBODY OPERATING A BUSINESS IN HERE AND I SUBMITTED A NEGATIVE RESPONSE, HOW WOULD THAT BE CALCULATED? WHERE WOULD THAT THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS WHAT'S CALCULATED IN THE 20% OPPOSITION.

SO IF IT'S A BUSINESS OWNER, WE WILL STILL PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE P AND Z AND THE COUNCIL, BUT IT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS THE 20%.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE.

UNLESS THEY OWN THE LAND THEY SIT ON.

YES, CORRECT.

IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

COMMISSIONER LEY, UH, IF NO FURTHER DISCUSSIONS, I'M OKAY TO MAKE A MOTION.

WE HAVE AN APPLICANT HERE.

LET'S SEE IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF NOT SEEING ANY? ALRIGHT, WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, I THINK, UM, I HAVE ONE.

SO THE APPLICANT,

[00:30:04]

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

TREVOR ARMSTRONG 1 1 1 CARTI DRIVE TROPHY CLUB, TEXAS.

UM, SO I THINK ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, I DON'T REMEMBER WHO, UM, HAVE Y'ALL REACHED OUT TO THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN, IN THE PD AND HAVE, HOW SUCCESSFUL HAVE YOU BEEN GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THEM? WE HAVE, SO WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING IN MAY.

WE MAILED AND EMAILED, UM, OUR INVITATIONS TO THAT MEETING TO OVER A HUNDRED ADDRESSES.

WE HAD ABOUT 20 PEOPLE SHOW UP TO THE MEETING.

WHAT WE LEARNED THOUGH WITH THE PD IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE OWNERS IN THE RETAIL CENTER ARE OUTTA STATE CORPORATIONS.

SO THE ACTUAL BUSINESSES THEMSELVES ARE HARDER TO GET AHOLD OF.

WE HAVE TO DO A LOT MORE GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT TO GET IN FRONT OF THEM AT THE DOOR.

BUT OTHERWISE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY NEGATIVE, UH, RESPONSES FROM THE INVITATIONS THAT WE SENT.

OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALRIGHT, COMMISSION.

MR. BRONSKI, I MOVE, WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSES AS DISCUSSED IN, UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF COMMISSIONER ALI SECOND.

ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES.

EIGHT TO ZERO.

ALRIGHT, HENRY, ANY OTHER BUSINESS WE HAVE BEFORE THE COMMISSION TONIGHT? NO, SIR.