Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Dr.

Ignacio Nunez.

I serve as chair of the Planning Zoning Commission for the City of Arlington.

I hereby call this regularly noticed meeting of the City of Arlington's Planning and Zoning Commission regular session to order for April the 15th.

At this time, I'll ask our administrator to read the speaker guidelines and general decorum for tonight's meeting.

We ask that the citizens and other visitors in attendance assist in preserving the order and decorum of this meeting and to provide for attendance at and participation in the meeting without fear of intimidation, threats, or hostility.

Any person making personal, profane, hostile, slanderous, or threatening remarks who uses vulgar or obscene language, who engages in any other actions that disturb or are calculated to disturb the meeting, or who becomes disruptive while addressing the planning and zoning commissioners or while attending the planning and zoning meeting may be removed from the council chambers.

All speakers shall address the commissioners and not the audience or city staff and shall not call out individually named members of city staff or the public.

For speakers tonight, when your name is called, please come to the microphone at the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record.

The applicant will be asked to speak first and will be given 10 minutes to make a presentation.

Speakers in support or opposition of the item will be given five minutes each to make their statements.

If there are many speakers for an item, each speaker will be given three minutes to make their statements.

The applicant will then be given five minutes for any rebuttal.

If multiple speakers plan to provide the same or similar comments, those speakers may, if they so desire, designate one or more individuals to provide public comment on behalf of the group.

A bell will signal the end of each speaker's time.

A consideration of other speakers, please conclude your comments promptly when you hear the bell.

We ask that you address your comments to the planning and zoning commissioners.

Thank you very much.

Were there any changes or corrections that were needed seeing none to have a motion to approve?

I do by Commissioner Maddox.

I have a second by Commissioner Greer.

Cast your vote, please.

Motion passes 8 to nothing with one abstention.

Next on the agenda, we have three zoning cases this evening.

The first one is PD 14 17, addressed at 2002 wind terrace.

This is application for approval of a planned development for residential and medium density, RM12 for a cottage community with a development plan on approximately 2.035 acres.

This time I'll call on staff to present its report on zoning case PD 14-17.

Good evening, Commissioners for the record.

Principal plan Kevin Charles, Principal Planner, Planning and Development Services.

This afternoon, we're looking at PD 25-17 wind terrace.

This is a request for a cottage community.

The site is approximately two point, the site is approximately two acres in size, addressed at 2002 wind terrace.

The current zoning of the property is residential single family 7.2.

And the request is plan development for residential medium density RM12 for cottage community use with a development plan.

So this is an aerial photograph of the site in its current configuration, highlighted in yellow.

As you can see, all of the properties to the north, the west, and the south are all zone RS 7.2 and fully developed.

The property to the east is uh PD for RMF 22.

Uh the site is developed uh in a similar manner as Cottage Communities.

However, when this particular site went through our zoning process, uh we did not have our cottage community standards in place.

Therefore, it was processed under a PD for RM22, uh, which is uh multi multifamily zoning.

These are aerial photographs of the site uh which show a general uh transition from its original configuration to where it is now.

Uh the general area of the subject property was largely undeveloped until single family homes were constructed in the early 1950s to the north of the site.

By 1964, uh many new homes were built south of the site.

The church to the west was built in in the 1980s.

In 2022, as I mentioned before, PD 22-16 was approved for RMF 22 development for 12 cottage style units.

The aerial images provide an overview of how the area evolved from the 1950s to the present.

Since we have had our ordinance in place.

Starting in the upper left-hand corner and moving clockwise.

Also, to access the property in the rear in the rear to access 2002.

There you can see the car ports and the front of some of the units.

And then the final photograph there is the rear of the existing church that's located directly west of the subject site.

So here we see the subject site layout.

As you can see, the site has no public street frontage and will be accessed through an access easement.

The development proposes 13 one and two bedroom cottages.

The cottages shall range in size from 758 square foot one-bedroom unit to a two-bedroom unit that is approximately 1,500 square feet of floor area.

The UDC requires that cottage community developments with individually platted lots provide a minimum lot size of 2250 square feet.

The applicant is proposing eight lots of 2250 square feet, two lots of 2,000 square feet, and three lots of 2400 square feet.

The lots of 2,000 square feet represent a deviation from the requirements of the UDC and are called out.

Parking and landscaping.

Parking-wise, for cottage communities, units units that are 701 to 1,000 square feet require 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, and units that are more than a thousand square feet require two spaces per dwelling unit.

With that in mind, a total of 25 spaces is required for the site.

The applicant is providing 31 spaces.

Access is from private street and access easements.

However, they do provide the 15-foot landscape buffer that is that is required around the entire perimeter of the perimeter of the lot as well as the screening wall and one tree per 300 square feet that's required for the cottage community.

Also, the applicant has represented that the units shall be placed on individual lots per the UDC.

Developments with each unit on individually platted lots, require one parking spot as a garage or carport required on that lot.

No parking structures are proposed or proposed for this development.

Deviations.

Staff considerations.

Uh should the commission be inclined to approve the request.

Staff has the following considerations for improvement.

One, provide a mix of one-story and two-story homes with a maximum percentage established for two-story units.

Include parking dimensions on the face of the plans and identify the location of cluster mail boxes.

Provide a recycling plan in accordance with the multi-family recycling ordinance.

Indicate the location of these collection areas they have now so that could be struck.

Prohibit internal opaque privacy fencing to preserve the intended cottage community character and visual openness.

This is in reference to uh the centered green space or common area that is uh that is a primary uh accent, uh a primary accent feature for cottage community development.

Identify the location of masonry fencing walls on the plans, uh and the private access drive is currently in bad shape and will need to be rebuilt.

Uh, as I mentioned in the work session, the the access drive has been uh totally rebuilt from the right-of-way to the property line.

The applicant will be required to build the remainder of that should you guys recommend um approval of their project and city council concur.

The applicant is Tariq Khan with Foresight Group, and the owner is 180 degree architecture LLC.

Staff is available if there are any questions or comments in reference to this particular project.

Thank you, Mr.

Charles.

Are there any questions uh from the commissioners at this time?

Commissioner Greer.

Just curious if you're able to track down the the private yards for each unit.

Was that a requirement or you're not for any?

I didn't have a chance because when we left from upstairs, we ended up coming straight down now by no worries.

But if it is a deviation, we would just list it, I guess when the final PD comes through, that would be in there.

Okay.

Any other questions at this time?

Uh Commissioner Sumter.

One question just came to mind with the adjacent development of the east.

Did they already construct a masonry wall on the east property line?

They have a stockade wood fence that's brand new.

It's brand new.

That was yes, that was built on the west side of that of that project.

So the cottage community requirement requires masonry wall, so we'd have yes.

So just keep that in mind.

We have a new wood fence, and you're gonna put a masonry wall next to it.

So and generally speaking, the more intense use is responsible for if there's a buffer requirement, just to throw that out.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Finley.

Thank you.

So does that mean in between the wood wall and the masonry wall, there's gonna be dead space?

We as a staff, we would not allow that.

Either there would be a situation where they would build the masonry and remove the wooden one, and that masonry would be on the property line between the two.

We are we are strongly against having that dead space in between two adjacent fences.

It creates a future maintenance nightmare.

Yes.

So yes, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Any others.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Charles.

I'm going to open the uh public session.

The applicant will come forward first and present their uh case to the commission.

Who will be the speaker?

As a reminder for all speakers, when you come forward to the microphone, please state your name and only the city that you live in.

We do not need to publicly announce your address.

Understood.

Thank you so much.

Uh Richardson, Texas.

Uh and your name?

Tark Conn.

Thank you very much.

Uh good evening, everyone.

Thank you all for your time.

Uh, my name is Tark Cotton.

I am with Foresight Group.

We are the civil consultants assisting with this project here uh tonight.

Um, as you guys are apprised, so we are working at 2002 wind tears uh on behalf of this PD case.

So without further ado, I'll go ahead and get started here.

So going over some fast facts, um, a lot of which was just covered by Kevin here.

Uh we are working at 2002 wind terrace.

We are proposing 13 cottage homes, approximately 758 square feet.

Um, some of which may be 1500 square feet.

Uh we're still working out the ins and outs of uh the final configuration as you guys are apprised.

We are working on a zoning request to these cottage community with development plan and density for reference is 6.3, which is compatible with the surrounding uh residential character of the area.

Uh for your reference, um, here is our site plan.

As you guys can see, the configuration here is going to be centered around the central green space, which has a pavilion, playground, walking trail, and assorted green space, of course, with the cottages surrounding the development.

Fire lane, of course, surrounding the development around the perimeter.

So moving forward here to the current site conditions, of course, the current property is vacant and undeveloped.

And the development opportunity in front of us today is to develop the property, which would be unlikely given the characteristics and constraints of the site in its current configuration.

The cottage community, of course, provides a viable development path for this atypical piece of property.

We get to utilize some urban land, which would otherwise be unutilized given the 7.2 residential single-family zoning.

So, of course, as Kevin had previously mentioned, adjacent to the east, there is local precedence for a cottage community development.

Of course, with that passing in 20 uh 2022.

Our proposal is not too dissimilar, and of course, follows the cottage community guidelines as set forth in the UDC.

So one thing that this cottage community provides to the city of Arlington, of course, is addressing affordable housing.

Of course, it's an unfortunate reality of our times that housing is unaffordable.

This looks to provide an avenue for those who are able to call this residence home, of course, through attainable housing through the efficient use of these 758 square foot homes.

It provides a single family single-family feel, which is unique and different than a lot of the multifamily residential properties that are seen throughout the Metroplex.

And then, of course, again, just an efficient use of land here, supporting Arlington's goals of diverse housing.

So, some more fast facts for y'all.

Here we have some development specifications.

Of course, mentioning the parking, the landscape and buffering, among other things.

So here in this portion, as y'all can see, these are some of the elevations provided.

These are conceptual renderings from the architect about what these may look like.

I'd like to highlight the stone accents, the front porch, you know, these are relatively unique for this type of development.

Y'all can see here in Model B, these are again the same renderings, but you know, alternating color schemes, so it's not uh so monotone throughout the development.

Uh we are proposing that some of these may be two-story developments.

So that is something that the uh ownership group is amendable to and is uh cognizant of uh is that uh some of these may be two-story nature, and then again uh just different uh exterior materials as shown.

So I was able to look over the staff report prior to this meeting uh, and we are amendable to all the recommendations that the staff have set forth.

We are uh appropriately motivated to uh do what is necessary to make this as attractive as uh possible to the city here.

So uh some of those items that were mentioned in the staff report uh are relatively minor in nature.

Um parking dimensions, uh calling out cluster mailbox locations, uh the recycling plan and masonry masonry fencing as was previously mentioned.

These are uh again easy and straightforward technical accommodations uh which we don't see an issue being able to meet.

So and again, by going through the review process, uh we have modified the site from the original layout to ensure that we are relatively compliant with uh the standard set forth.

Uh I recognize the minor deviations that are being requested, but again, uh my hope is that you guys will find that these are again relatively minor in nature.

Um, this development in particular is the adjacent property relationship uh relative to some other projects that Foresight Group has worked on.

It is not necessarily common that there is uh uh shared partnership uh with adjacent property owners.

Uh one item I'd like to highlight is uh on the engineering front is the item of stormwater access.

Uh we are going to have to discharge to the west to South Collins Street, and it is um it is infinitely helpful to have uh adjacent partnership with the uh with the adjacent property, uh just having to coordinate with that property for stormwater considerations and mitigations.

So um if there's an opportunity for this piece of land to be developed, um I don't see why it wouldn't be better than than us.

Um and again, as you guys are all uh aware of, uh this project directly supports the Arlington comprehensive plan strategy through the valuing of neighborhoods, uh developing uh urban lands that is still compatible with surrounding uses, and of course, the mixed use residential vision.

Um, as Kevin had mentioned, this is only the second project of this type.

So I hope that you guys will share some enthusiasm for this type of development uh here in the city of Arlington.

So, with that all being said, um thank you all for your time and attention to this.

Um, if you guys have any questions at this time, um myself, I am available in addition to the property ownership to help address any questions that you guys may have.

So thank you.

Mr.

Cohn, thank you so much.

Commissioners, at this time, do you have questions?

Uh Commissioner Winkles.

So one of the staff questions or one of the commissioners' questions that we had upstairs was you don't outline on your building design how high up the masonry is gonna go.

Um we would typically want more than just 12 inches, which is what it appears as though it's a really small buffer around the edge.

Um, do you have a design that shows that?

Do you have a recommendation of what you're going to put in there?

Because your drawings did not clearly outline that.

Um we provided to the city of fence elevation detail uh previously as part of the Yeah, this isn't the fence.

So on your homes, on your cottages, each cottage has is made of um cementetia cyber board, and it has a rock border or a stone border around the edge.

How high up is that stone border gonna go?

Uh I am not clear on what the final architectural renderings will be.

Um if the city has a specific requirement or preference, uh, I'm sure the ownership would not have an issue in uh maintaining that standard.

Well, full disclosure for me, my first inclination is this is not the quality I would want built there.

Because to me, it looks like cargo housing, and I feel like it needs some architectural pizzazz to make it feel more like a home than a cargo house, which I'm not opposed to cargo houses.

Got a nephew that lives in one loves it, it's cute.

However, those accents that we're talking about by adding the stone siding to it and bringing that up, it elevates the look of the home and it creates it just creates a different design effect.

And I think that that would be something that we would ask you to clarify how much you're going to do.

Absolutely.

Uh understood on that issue.

Um on the architectural side, that sounds like something that we can absolutely go back to the drawing board and um find something more suitable for this development.

And the second question that I had is one of the major deviations in a cottage um setting is that they have a garage or car park we were told you would be prepared to address that.

Uh yes.

Um, as far as the car port is concerned, um, that seems like a relatively easy accommodation to make um just putting it in front of the parking area.

Um I think just based on the configuration of the lots as shown, it'd be difficult to have garages in this space, but um again, uh that's something that we can try to accommodate.

The project that's directly located adjacent to it has carport, uh common carport shared air spaces, and I think that that would be recommended by us if you are if we were to move forward, that would be a staff consideration we would recommend.

Understood.

Thanks.

Commissioner Blake.

I I don't recall.

Were you were you in the work session?

Uh upstairs?

No, I was not.

Oh that that explains it.

There were a lot of things that were said in in the workstations and and I'm not even prepared to go over all of them the where the trash is where the the um guest parking would be it it it to me just didn't seem like a fully baked plan.

And you know one of the things that was I think said in work session that maybe it'd be a good idea to go back to the drawing board on this and I just want to be very clear that I think it should go back to the drawing board because I don't see a fully baked plan for you coming here with a PD that says here's what we want and here's what we're going to provide to you.

I don't see all the little details where the mailboxes are going to be where the parking's going to be you know where the where we're going to have brick where we're gonna have you know part covered parking not covered parking and to me coming here without cover parking for a home is just shouldn't be done.

You know I I don't know any place in Arlington that has housing going up that does not have some sort of cover parking so that's a complete deviation of anything that I can recall seeing.

And anyway I I just think you're not there.

Additional remarks or questions Commissioner Maddox one of the questions that I had uh upstairs during the work sessions were do you feel like two trash bins one recycled and one uh regular trash is sufficient for once a week pickup for 13 units uh if these are these are intended to be uh full dumpster enclosures um if uh as I understand through the process and the review process we've had with the city that that is the requirements so we are committed to reaching whatever requirement is necessary for for this development the requirement from the city as I understand it is that they exist my question to you is do you feel like that's as sufficient we pick up for 13 units.

Uh if they are standard bins then uh no in uh my opinion that would not be sufficient so that would be something that we'd have to work on commissioner center uh got a few questions for you in your presentation you mentioned that the property owner to the west was either a partnership with you guys or in regards to site plan and access can you expand on that a little bit uh yes so the property ownership to the West who owns the church also owns this property um and so they'd be more willing than say other groups if they uh didn't have a vested interest to see through uh items such as stormwater mitigation um currently the site just flows it sheet flows to the site to the west and that would not be appropriate as this is fully developed so finding a solution uh with them uh would be beneficial to the to the development of the slot and so when you say access you're meaning drainage access to uh yes run not not vehicular access uh no okay um uh do you mind pulling your site plan uh in work session there was some discussion about the internal sidewalks of the open space and it appears like on the east and west side there's sidewalks abutting the the units for direct access into the cottages I would like to see that on all sides so you you know kind of get that feel of direct access from every cottage and maybe rethink the internal sidewalk as it's drawn today that'll open up the open space I don't want people walking out on the grass to get to a sidewalk so something to consider um you had mentioned you talked to the owner um developer on a mix of one and two story and can you give us a percentage of what y'all are talking about uh I cannot speak to that but the ownership is here to further clarify okay well I'll hold my question for him then um in regards to their internal fencing same kind of configuration with the sidewalks do you envision having little private yards with low iron fencing abutting the sidewalks then go into the common open space or just no fencing at all?

As we have it proposed there is supposed to be fencing here but part of staff uh considerations was the removal of these fencing uh so we'll just we would default to the to the staff here and remove the fencing for a more open field.

Yeah I think the staff consideration is prohibiting opaque fencing internal to that I personally would like I don't know what every everybody else's opinion is but I think it'd be nice to have some iron fencing there.

Um thumbs up on that one.

Lastly, I do think you know, garages, carports, carports it might make sense here.

If y'all can accommodate that, that'd be wonderful.

And then in regards to mailboxes, I know we're asking for those, but in reality, it's the postal service that directs them on where they go and how big they are and what they look like.

So I mean they have to accommodate it, so I don't think we can tell them what to do there.

And then lastly, in regards to comments made by Commissioner Winkles, you know.

I love cementitious fiber board.

I think the way it looks now, uh incorporating some other materials, you know, coming up with the percentage that you could live with in regards to adding more stone or brick, something to consider or think about.

Thank you.

Any other questions at this time?

I have a question.

Um are you aware of who Sue uh Phillips is.

Uh otherwise known unofficially as a mayor of East Arlington.

Uh have you ever heard of her before?

No, I have not.

Have you ever heard of East Arlington Renewal?

Uh no.

Sue Phillips is the president of East Arlington Renewal.

I mentioned this, and it's unfortunate that perhaps you weren't pointed in this direction.

But almost every single project that goes uh that's built in East Arlington sort of has this done by Sue, okay, a blessing.

I would highly recommend that you speak with her.

She's one of the more influential people in Arlington.

And I'm also going to recommend uh after we listen to uh any of the speakers that are in favor of this what you're hearing from us, and I'm just gonna spell it out for you.

You need to ask for continuance, you need to come back with a better fleshed out plan with some of the things that we've talked about tonight.

So because tonight, if you ask for an up and down vote, my prediction is it's gonna go down.

Okay.

So um with that, um and if we and if you do ask for a continuance, I highly recommend you visit with Sue Newton before you come back.

I mean Sue Phillips before you come back.

Uh because those neighborhoods in East Arlington tend to be somewhat uh disparate, spread out, but Sue's the glue that holds all that together.

Okay.

Um the only other question I had uh or comment I had when I saw your drawing and I saw in the bottom right hand corner of this, one of in one of the drawings.

Well, well, it depends it's turn-up center, but in one corner you've got two trash bins.

And I just thought to myself, you know, if I'm a if I'm a young couple with kids and I live diagonally all the way on the other side, and I've got to carry my trash all that distance to get to dump that.

Um, and I'm living in what is supposed to be a cottage.

Uh I would much rather have the the dump the the truck come by and pick it up, but without a garage, that's not gonna work because you can't have individual recycle bins and trash bins out on the street for uh for weeks on end.

Um that just bothers me a lot about the trash in this uh particular location.

With that, um there any other questions or comments by any of the commissioners?

Commissioner Sumter.

I'll say I want one question for staff from Mr.

Kevin Charles.

And on that, I know I asked this question in a work session on the dumpster enclosure.

That that is a requirement of the community cottage, right?

Yes, sir.

And the other the only other development that we've done that's community caught cottage had a dumpster, right?

I don't know.

I you'd be missing yes, yes.

Just hearing Chairman Nunya's kind of statements of you know, I think it and really this is Republic and whoever the refuse coordinator is.

I think it makes more sense for just your standard pickup like we all get at our homes, because yeah, I would not want to carry my trash to the dumpster every day if I have an opportunity to you know have it picked up by the truck.

Um, because I'm assuming they're gonna get bins like we all do, so they're not gonna be really using them, or they're gonna be rolling them over and then dumping them.

You know, it seems somewhat challenging in for us to have a zoning case, and we talk about trash a lot, and it seems somewhat silly in my opinion.

Um, is there a way for them not to have a dumpster enclosure and utilize standard pickup?

Uh, fortunately, I don't have an answer for you on that.

Um maybe uh a planning manager, uh planning director will.

Uh one other quick thing, uh, Mr.

Greer.

Uh there is not a requirement for privacy fencing for a cottage community.

There's a requirement for a a uh amount of square footage for each individual unit.

So they did they don't require it, but they were offering it, and we didn't want to pay for the good evening, Chair and Commission Gin Z Doppel, Director for Planning and Development Services.

So PD is the mechanism to have a deviation to that.

So through the PD we can do that, but before we do that, we do need to get republic services on board with that.

And if they are okay with that, then I think we can make that change through the PD.

Um I have in addition, uh, in support.

Hamza Ishmael.

Yes.

Did you want to speak, sir?

Yes, sir.

Please come forward.

And for the record, uh on the microphone, please state your name and the city that you are living in.

Uh my name is Hamza Ishmael.

I reside in Raleigh, Texas, and thank you so much for uh giving me the chance to speak.

Uh I'm the owner of the property as well as the owner of the church property next to it.

Uh I just want to start with a backstory if you guys give me the chance to speak.

True.

Uh the development next to my property, which is on one acre has 12 casitas or cottages.

Uh I personally know the owner of that property, and she was nice enough to uh invite me to the grand opening when they uh finish the construction.

So on that day, uh you remember the uh mayor give his speech, and he said, This project check all the boxes.

This is what the community needs.

From those like words, I kind of got the idea to develop those two acres that's sitting vacant for quite some time.

So uh I understand your concerns about it, and we will be working on it to address any concerns the city has and uh we'll do our best, and hopefully, you know, when we come back we can get better better results.

At the same time, like the property next door to me is way less accommodating for what we providing.

Like it's one acre, it has 12 units, while we have two acres, we almost like have 13.

And uh I'm sure it's not like the project that we or has the wow factor as we put it, but at the same time it's uh parcel, kind of unique situation because it's kind of sandwich four ways.

So uh as Tarek said, it's like doesn't have uh visibility from the street.

You just go to it and uh with an easement.

So uh this is one of the ideas that we come up with.

We try to add more units in there, but after consulting with the engineering, they told me let's have it airy and open and have sidewalks where people can, you know.

If you have kids, you can't you have your own play area where you can like enjoy a small walk and you know, have the small I mean it's now regarding the uh parking and all that stuff.

From my perspective, this is like minor things.

We can't adjust it right away, it's not a big deal.

And uh that's what I have.

I hope you guys can uh support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And let me let me reassure you.

Yes, sir.

I think everyone up here wants you to build this.

We really do, 100%.

Uh what we're trying to do is just make it a little bit better.

I understand, sir.

And that's really our motivation here because we want you to build this project.

Thank you.

It's a and uh you'll find you'll find Sue Phillips will do everything in her power to support you.

Yeah, I'll do that tomorrow.

Okay, I mean she will support you.

Yes, sir.

Uh so with that, are there any other questions?

All right, sir.

Now I'm going to open the floor for those in opposition, sir.

Thank you.

Uh I have a card from Wanda Everhart in opposition.

Would you please come?

Uh it says you're non-speaker, or did you change your mind?

Did you want to say anything or did you want to remain a non-speaker?

You do need to come up to the microphone.

My name is Wanda Everhard, and I'm uh I'm an owner right behind the development.

I don't mind the development.

I don't mind the land bin, I mean, it would raise the property value, but I do mind is when it's more than one level uh floor plan.

Um I like my backyard privacy, and having a two-level houses in the back doesn't appeal me.

I've been there 30 years, and I guess that uh our neighborhood is one of those because he's old.

I can build a house in the back area if I want to.

That's how big they are.

I want to preserve that.

The back road, I cannot imagine a trash truck going through there unless they're planning to make a bigger uh access to it.

The drainage, um my backyard floods when it rains.

So if they're not gonna do it well, drainage in the back, I'm shaking.

Um take a deep breath.

I'm not a speaker.

It's okay, take a new breath.

Is um I just don't see I I know the the other uh development in the entrance.

That's perfect.

Is is a I can see is very accommodating.

Um my biggest problem is having a uh a double, a two-level houses in the back.

It is it takes all my privacy away.

Thank you.

Anything anything else you want to say?

Okay, thank you.

I have another card in opposition, Linda Matthews.

Linda, please state your name and the city that you live in.

And thank you for bringing it up.

And would I be allowed to read what was written written here so I don't get sure right ahead.

You've got five, yeah, five minutes.

The primary concern for our neighborhood is the sheer density of this proposed cottage community.

The applicants requesting a shift from RS-7 to RM-12 in order to place 13 homes on just two acres.

This is roughly 6.5 units per acre, nearly double the density of the established family homes surrounding the property.

While the developer may call it cottages, the reality is high density footprint be inserted into a low density R1 residential environment.

It's a clear case of spot zoning that does not respect the existing neighborhood gradient.

When terrace is a quiet residential street, not a thoroughfare.

Adding 13 homes means adding a minimum of 26 additional vehicles, likely more making double trips a day.

Um intersection of Collins Street and Lovers Lane is already difficult to navigate.

Funneling this amount of traffic concentrated into a narrow residential street poses a safety risk not only to families who've lived here for decades, but the children who play in these yards.

We aren't just talking about water in the street without a massive infrastructure overhaul.

That excess runoff will flow directly into the backyards of homes on Glen Oaks, Lovers Lane, and Wind Terrace.

Our neighborhood drainage system is already at capacity.

We cannot support a development that risks flooding the private property of established residents.

We value our neighborhood's character.

It's why we chose to live and work in East Arlington.

We're not against development at all.

I think that's really nice.

Um, but we're against incompatible development.

A reasonable solution would be to maintain the RS 7 uh dot two integrity and limit the site to six or seven single family homes.

Humbly asked the commissioner to uphold the integrity of a current residential zoning and recommend denial of PD 25-17.

Let's keep the density of wind terrace and surrounding neighborhood streets consistent with the homes that define them.

And if I might just say I'm 73, I know a lot of the residents in that cottage next door, the 12th precious people, as it is when that truck comes to see them, because I'm really close to several of them.

The garbage truck, it takes up that whole road practically.

And it's very hard for them to maneuver.

They have to go up there where that entrance with this new facility would be, and really position themselves to drive down there and pick up their trash.

And it's already a pretty narrow place, and already the residents backing out of that really have to watch just from the visitors that come because it is like I said, it's a senior citizen place, and it's already when it rains, it's just saturated, and they had to build it kind of up, and even there you almost have to walk up just because it's so there's a lot of drains there, and it's just sits and soaks.

Well, this is even going to be more, but like I said, I'm just kind of speaking for all my friends at that community that are worried sick about the influx of all of this, because when they moved there a little over a year ago, they were told we want to buy this housing channel that bought this area that they live at.

Told them all we're gonna try to buy this and put 12 more units.

That's what they were expecting, not a two-story place.

They understand development, and I'm kind of speaking on their half as well, as just consider how kind of worried they are because that traffic flow is crazy already and dangerous, just to back out of their little cottages.

You know, that's all I wanted to say.

Thank you for letting me say.

And for your neighbors when you get back, some reassuring things that we can tell you.

First reassuring thing is that uh no construction and no building permit will be given until the engineering studies are done that show that water is going to be taken from that property and sent in a direction elsewhere.

They cannot send that water to the backyards of the neighbors.

They cannot increase the flow.

They can either leave the flow the same to your backyard or reduce it.

Uh and so I'm not an engineer, but they don't get a building permit until the city engineering staff approves the grading of that property.

So that's number first reassuring thing you can take back.

If this project gets passed uh down the road in the future, the other reassuring thing is they have to build a new road.

That road that that they have to access, it's got to be wide enough and strong enough to support trucks.

So that section of road belongs to this piece of property just to the south of that senior community, that little road that I drove through the other day that's not a very good road at all.

That has to be completely redone.

Okay, so that'll another piece of reassuring news that you can share with your your neighbors.

Uh so with that, the applicant now has uh five minutes to rebut or speak again if the applicant would like to come forward and make any final comments regarding uh this project.

Tariq.

Uh hello again.

Um understood on the multitude of uh concerns that have been brought forth.

Um, of course, these a lot of these matters can be resolved through engineering, which you know is of course why we're here today.

Um the premise of here and now uh we're looking to just understand if this zoning can be passed so we can continue to move forward with uh refining the the site plan.

Uh as previously mentioned the PD process is uh here so that you know certain stipulations can be put in place should uh anything be so concrete and necessary that needs to be added to the PD.

Um, of course, that can be resolved and incorporated later on in the process.

And that's not gonna happen.

The way this works in the city of Arlington, when you come to us asking for a PD, okay, then you better have all your ducks in a row.

We're not gonna approve we're not gonna say yes, and then hope that it works out later.

That's not gonna happen.

The city of Arlington does it differently.

Okay.

So what I recommend you ask us for tonight is for a continuance.

But you've got to ask.

If you ask for a vote, we will give you a vote.

I see.

Um, well, understanding the situation here in the room, um, I feel like that'll probably be an appropriate course of small action.

So they are requesting a continuance.

Very good.

Chairman Newness, uh, I would we only have uh one meeting in May, that's May 13th.

We already have six cases for the 29th, and we're starting to stack up some that have already been continued for the 13th.

I would suggest June 3rd as a meeting date.

Is June 3rd acceptable?

Uh that is acceptable, yes.

Very good.

So it'll be date certain.

And I'm sorry, Commissioner Greer.

Earlier you had a question and I didn't see.

Did you want to go ahead and ask that question?

Yeah, I was just gonna say when you do come back.

I would like to see, like in your your site plan if you decide to get rid of the dumpsters and you're just gonna do individual bins.

If you could show us where those bins would be located, if you're not gonna have garages, just so we know you know how that's gonna fit into your footprint.

I think that'd be helpful to have.

Understood.

Very good.

Any other comments?

Uh no, thank you all so much for your time.

All right, thank you.

With that, uh, I'm gonna close the uh public hearing.

Are there any other comments or um that the commissioners uh would like to make before we vote?

Mr.

Charles.

Uh I just wanted to address one of the concerns for uh one of the neighbors uh that they recognize that our requirements for a cottage community uh force them to have a 15-foot buffer from their property line with the fence, and what they're showing is uh a street that's essentially 24 feet wide.

I'm sorry, from the property line to to their building face.

Uh so that at least will help buffer the two-story homes instead of them being directly adjacent to the property line behind your house, you'll have 15 feet and then uh a roadway before you'll have the front of those homes.

So I just wanted to let you know about that, okay.

Okay.

That's it.

Any other comments, questions by the commissioners?

I have a motion uh by Commissioner Blake and a second by Commissioner Winkles.

Commissioner Blake, would you state your motion, please?

I can make a motion to continue case PD 14-17 2002 wind terrace until the July 3rd meeting.

June 3rd, yeah.

I'm sorry, June 3rd.

June 3rd.

Commissioner Winkles, is that your second?

Yes, sir.

Cast your vote.

Motion passes nine to nothing.

We'll see you guys back here later.

Thank you so much.

And we really want you to build it.

Okay.

Next case.

PD 25 21, 1013 North Mesquite Street.

This is an application for approval of a change in zoning from the entertainment district overlay, residential, single family 7.2, to a planned development for residential medium density 12 with a development plan on approximately 0.924 acres.

This time I'll call on staff to present its report on PD 25-21.

Good evening, Commissioners.

For the record, Kevin Charles, Principal Planner Planning and Development Services.

Residential single family 7.2.

Uh and the request is for planned development for the entertainment district overlay uh for residential medium density, RM12 uses with a development plan.

Here you see an aerial photograph of the site in its current configuration.

Uh the site is currently developed with a single family residential home on it and affiliated outbuildings.

Should the project be approved, all existing structures will be removed prior to the development of the site.

The exist the existing structure will have to uh be properly vetted through the landmark preservation committee as the original uh as the building was originally built in 1951.

These are photographs of the site and adjacent properties.

Uh the first photograph that you see in the upper left-hand corner and will go clockwise is the subject site in the existing home that is on the property.

The next photograph that you see is the existing single family residential property to the north.

Uh their neighbor to the north of the uh subject site.

The next photograph that you see is from Standish Drive, uh, which is on the back side or east side of the property.

The view is to the west, where we're looking at the front of the uh uh Arlington uh Mission Arlington uh office building or facility.

And the last photograph in the bottom left hand corner is a professional office space directly across North Musquete Street from the subject site, and the view is west.

Here's the layout of the site as it is currently proposed.

So the proposal here is for single family attached uses on approximately 0.92 acres.

The development plan proposes 10 units for townhouse development.

The single family attached town home product is going to have a density of approximately 10.8 units per acre.

It meets the density cap of RM12, which has a max density of 12 units per acre.

There will be four two-story structures located on the site.

The units will range from 176 square feet in size to 1,940 square feet in size.

And the primary point of access will be from North Mesquite Street.

These are the floor plans of the site.

As you can see, the floor plans of the site are all pretty uniform in design with living areas downstairs and all of the bedrooms upstairs being located upstairs.

The downstairs area does provide for a living area as well as a two-car garage for each individual unit.

The materials pallet for all of the units is consistent.

All the structures incorporate the use of manufactured stone veneer, metal canopies, pre-finished metal metal panels, and stucco.

Each structure shall include a covered or recessed entry, upgraded front and garage doors, balcony, and balconies.

Buildings one and two have recessed entries, including a porch area of approximately 35 square feet.

Building three does not provide a recess entry.

Instead, it has been designed with a covered through metal canopy entry feature.

Which fronts or north north mesquite street includes a wraparound porch for both units that are that is approximately 136 square feet on both units.

For the landscaping, the site is uh is unusual in that it's a very narrow but deep lot.

Uh there's only one uh unit that has street frontage that is building number four.

Uh this site, of course, is located in the entertainment district overlay.

Uh building four uh fronts directly onto North Musquete Street.

Uh as I stated, it's in the entertainment district in the EDO, which requires specific setback requirements based on street typology.

North Musquite Street is classified as a major arterial by a thoroughfare development plan, and the required setback is a minimum five feet and a maximum nine feet from the public right-of-way.

The site offers a five-foot setback alone North Musquete Street, and the development also calls out the required frontage throughway furnishing and edge zones per the UDC.

The applicant has shown those on the face of the plans.

However, the applicant has not specifically identified the furnishings that they will put in this area, and we're gonna we call that out as a deviation by staff.

For sites that include more than five units, the UDC requires a minimum of 200 square feet per unit, which will be 2,000 square feet in this case.

However, this area is located adjacent to the public right way of way along Mesquite.

Coordinations with other plans.

This is a regional activity center.

These areas provide the opportunity to create special places that include residential retail offices and entertainment.

Land use strategies encourage the development of multiple types of single-family housing.

There is an existing structure on the property, of course.

Uh as we mentioned before, the site uh the structure was built in 1951 due to when the structure was built and the fact that it is over 50 years old.

Uh there, of course, there will be a demolition demolition permit that is required.

However, that demolition permit will not be recruit approved until the project, the property has been vetted through the landmark preservation commission.

The structure is not on the historic resources survey.

Deviations.

The minimum lot size identified by the UDC for a town home is 2,900 square feet for this project.

The applicant proposed a range of lot sizes from 1,950 square feet to 3,296 square feet.

Driveway and front yard setback pavement.

The driveway length for front loading, front facing garages shall be no less than 20 feet in depth from the front property line.

In case of communities with private streets, the 20-foot distance shall be measured from the edge of the sidewalk furthest away from the street and parallel to the street.

Due to the design of this site, uh the applicant is proposing the front loading front front front facing garages that are accessed via a private access easement, uh, provide only nine feet of depth for the buildings.

Those buildings are buildings one, two, and three, is all three of those buildings will have to be served by a private access easement.

The garage location and percentage across the frontage.

For front loading uh front facing garages, they shall not constitute more than 60 percent of the total width of a dwelling.

However, in this particular situation and with this design, the front facing garages uh exceed 60 percent, making up approximately 80 percent of that uh front facing uh unit.

And anti-monotony standards for townhomes.

Variation in front elevations add character and interest to communities to avoid monotony, different floor plans and facade treatments should be used to give the residents their own identity.

Uh the applicant proposes a uniform design that incorporates the use of the same materials and design schemes on each unit.

Staff recommendations for improvement.

Should the commission be inclined to approve the request, staff has the following recommendations for improvement.

Specifically identify the furnishings that shall be incorporated into the roadside design adjacent to North Musquete Street.

Use color, material, detailing, and landscaping to differentiate the look of each building.

Staff does acknowledge that only four buildings are proposed.

However, uh the requirements of the UDC anti-monotony standards for townhouses must be addressed.

Consider a slope roof for building number four to make it more compatible with the existing neighborhood, and as you go through the uh area and see from the street, uh you have some uh continuity.

Remove the guest parking spaces from the rear of building number four.

Consider moving the entry drive to the north side of the property adjacent to the developed single family to the north where the existing drive approach currently exists, and preserve two pine the two pine trees located between the existing building face and the right-of-way line, if possible.

Uh, one of the other things that I also wanted to call out is that if you do decide to recommend approval, let's also uh uh consider restricting any type of parking in the uh public access easement that's back there serving those units.

Thank you, Mr.

Charles.

Okay, Mr.

Scepter has I'm sorry.

Uh the the applicant is architecture underground uh incorporated and the owner is Ms.

Wynn.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for Santa?

Yes, Mr.

Charles.

Um staff consideration number two.

Do you mind pointing out where those two trees are?

And while you're doing that, if we requested the entry drive to move, would it affect those trees?

Oh boy.

Good questions.

Okay, if you can see from the street view, and this is very difficult to tell.

Uh these these two trees here and here are currently located in the front yard setback of the existing structure.

I believe that this particular tree, if if we reorient the site, could potentially be preserved, maybe even in the open space.

This one I believe is so close to the back of the to the back of the sidewalk that is currently there that it could potentially be in that five-foot required setback.

I do know I've had the the uh honor of speaking with some residents, they they take their trees very seriously.

Uh they they feel like these trees add a significant amount of character to the area, and potentially if they use that north drive, then it may create a situation where it's easier for them to preserve those trees because they're not going in and grade and all the stuff on the opposite side, and you already have pavement on the other side.

It's a want for staff, not necessarily a be all and all, but if possible for North Mesquite's viewscape, uh I think it would it would go a long way.

Any other questions at this time?

Thank you, Mr.

Charles.

Thank you, sir.

At this time, I will open the public hearing and call for the first speaker.

The applicant will come forward first to speak, followed uh in addition to any uh speakers that are for, and then afterwards we'll follow the speakers in opposition.

I have a card here in support Jacob Scoggins.

Yes, sir.

That's you.

Uh please introduce yourself to the commission and tell us what city you're from.

Uh Jacob Scoggins, Arlington, Texas.

Thank you, sir.

You may proceed.

Well, um, my name is Jacob Scoggins with Architecture Underground.

We're the architect of the of the project, and really excited to present what we have.

I won't go through all the details that Kevin did such a good job doing.

Um, and I'll just try to maybe tell you what we were thinking when we did the design and maybe uh give you some ideas of our thought process as we went through.

What we try to do is create an inward looking site along that center spine.

And the idea being that we trade we create some kind of community within the community.

That's that was kind of our thought process.

In doing that, it also um sort of shielded the surrounding neighbors from any of the potential concerns with the slightly increased density, so any kind of vehicular traffic or noise are screened by both the buildings, but also a six-foot privacy fence that goes around the entire site.

Toward it, sort of in the background of the view you see here, that's the far east.

That's where we're having our detention pond, which is a about a 30-foot green buffer from uh our project to the surrounding neighbors.

So the whole back is intended to be somewhat inner looking to be a uh uh its own little community.

When it comes to mesquite street, we wanted to do almost the opposite of that.

Since we're in the entertainment district overlay, we wanted to activate the street, and so we we pulled those two buildings, uh, two units up to uh North Mesquite Street, and then we located our public amenity, which uh we did a pickleball uh court because it's pretty fastable right now, but also the owner's an advocate uh pickleball players.

So uh but we did a uh screen wall around that for uh protection and just the general aesthetics.

Uh we located the the entrance on the far sort of south side because we think most folks are gonna come from Randall Mill as they come into the development.

There's a lot of commercial development that's surrounding that, and so most of the traffic we believe comes from that direction.

Umothing to point out is the uh the center boulevard and the the public realm and surrounding areas uh gonna be really well landscaped.

Let me see if I can get this thing to go.

Am I pushing the right button, Kevin?

Not working.

There you go.

Is it work?

Okay.

Sorry.

So this is looking from the detention pond back towards mesquite street, so you can see the lush landscaping and the the uh canopies and the awnings that stick out.

The idea being that it's creating that inner community feel.

And this is from sort of further in the site looking back towards the detention pond.

Um, and you know, again, the landscaping, and you'll see our drive approaches that come into the uh into the um into the garages.

We have a sort of a smaller throat there, but uh as Kevin said, the intention is never to have uh parking in there.

The guy in the back is about to pull in his garage, he's not hanging out.

Uh but in the front here, we do have some guest parking for uh for folks that would need um some adjacent parking.

This is our site plan, it's kind of rotated.

Mesquite street is on the north side, uh, the south is on your left.

You'll see that we kind of come in and do uh uh S shape, and the idea being that we create a longer throat uh as you're coming in off of mesquite.

We think that's a better traffic scenario, uh, but also as you're turning in off of uh mesquite, it's just a prettier view looking at the uh at the public amenities.

And so that we have the part the the guest parking that's kind of at that T intersection, and then the inner uh looking courtyard area um boulevard street is kind of further down, and you see at the far end of this at the very back, that's our detention pond, uh, which we have we believe we have ample size.

A couple things to point out we have a five foot setback on either side, and we're actually about 10 feet off with all of our buildings.

Each of the buildings are two story in height.

Uh the owner met with some of the city council members.

Uh we initially had a three-story option that we were putting together, and some of the feedback was that that was too much uh to put on the site, so we went back to the drawing board, lowered it down to two story, and you'll see uh you'll see.

Well, you saw in a minute we we actually did add our pitched roofs, which is one of the comments that were mentioned previously.

So speaking to the trees, uh in order to address the stormwater concern, which was voiced on a previous submittal that the owner made.

We do have the detention pond at the far south, but in order to get enough volume, we're gonna have to kind of crank the back side of the site up, and so in doing that, it it sacrifices the trees further into the site.

Um, I can speak to uh one of the staff recommendations here in a minute with regards to the saving some of those trees because I think we can do that.

Um, but this is just reflecting what we'll have to remove.

This is the lush landscape package going back in because we're taking out um trees that are existing on the site.

Uh we're gonna be putting in quite a bit that's going back in.

It's a lot of low-level uh plant material on the inner uh boulevard that we have, but when we get kind of to the front end of the street, we have some more shade trees and uh decorative trees.

Um to speaks to one of the deviations, which is the lot size area.

Um we're doing two things.

We have to um because it's a contained community, we're gonna set up an HO, well, the owner's gonna set up an HOA.

And so, in doing that, we're creating X slots out of lot one and lot nine.

So if you were to average those back into the other units, we would be actually a thousand square feet over the the uh required area, but we're deducting that because those are those are sort of X lights for maintenance agreements.

Uh so before we made our presentation, I did watch several uh meetings here, and uh one of the first things we did is we did reach out to Republic and uh asked them, hey, here's our site plan, how do you want to service this?

And the first thing they said is I don't want to make the 90 into the site.

Evidently, there's some sites around Arlington where they have some similar conditions or long straight shots that are similar conditions, and um they have a small truck and a big truck, and they have to navigate those small trucks for those sites, and the biggest issue that they run into is if they go too far in, they get blocked in.

So they said I don't want to go further than what I'm showing there.

So the idea being when Republic turns in, we'll have our bins there with a single arm.

They didn't they didn't think that a um a single trash enclosure was the best option for this site.

So uh we have that there screen with some landscape with a little little low wall.

Uh the next uh uh circulation diagram is um for USPS, like kind of right there in that circle, we would have a pedestal for uh parcels and just general mail, and that kind of just shows how the the trucks would be able to circulate through there.

The third diagram is our fire access uh truck.

We meet all the requirements for um the fire apparatus coming in.

We've reviewed that during our pre-development meeting with uh with the fire marshal, and we believe we're compliant with that.

And then the last option there is um that's just general circulation for regular cars getting in and out of their garage.

Uh these are some of our uh floor plans, which you saw previously.

They range from about uh 1796 to 1940 square feet.

Each of them are about uh each of them have three beds, two baths, and uh all of the public areas are facing the inner uh road of the site.

So even though we're two-story, we'll be a little bit over the um, we'll be a little bit over the uh privacy fence, those are all the bedroom sides facing that way.

So you'll never have a party in the living room looking over the fence line.

Uh a couple more images there.

Uh and that's ready for any questions.

Thank you for that.

Any questions?

Mr.

Commissioner Mavdocks.

Thank you for bringing us this project.

Um jumps out at me as I look at your rendering is the location of your pickleball court.

Yep.

Uh if I'm in building four, I'm not so sure that I wouldn't have issues with that as far as noise and activity.

Was there any consideration given to somehow making that uh pickleball court more internal to the project?

We looked at several locations.

The one of the main reasons we put it there was because we are in the EDO, we wanted to activate that street frontage.

That was the primary reason.

The secondary reason we just think it would look prettier as you're entering into the site.

Um locating it further back would uh also bring noise further into the site was our concern.

So for the neighbors, that would be another kind of elevated concern for them.

So putting it by the street addressed some of those, but we did look at that, but we just thought this was the best location.

So it was thought that it was best just to have all of noise by building four.

On the street frontage, yeah, on the street frontage.

But I what I would highlight is that she is gonna put it, she has to put in place an HOA, so there could be uh noise restrictions and that sort of thing.

Yes, sir, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Finlay.

Thank you.

Um on the elevations that I see that we received with our packet and the elevation that you're showing here.

Is it gonna be flat rough or is it gonna be a pitched roof?

I appreciate I think there was a mix-up when we transmitted stuff.

Our latest revisions are what you see here.

So what we did is we we added the pitched roof um sort of preemptively in in I didn't know that comment was coming, but I'm glad we made the change.

So we have pitched roofs, and rather than the metal panels, which we felt were a little bit too modern for the area.

This is board and batten fiber cement siding.

These are our current elevations, so I'm sorry for that mix up.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Commissioner Winkles.

One of the suggestions is made.

Would you consider putting a balcony on building four?

Yeah.

Absolutely.

Upstairs to add some more element to that area to make it more.

Yeah.

And we have one of the flips on the back side, but happy to put one on the front.

I think that would be kind of a nice movie.

This looks nice.

And then I guess the next question would be in looking at this drawing.

If I understood you correctly, where the blue car is directly to the right of that is gonna be the dumpster.

It's not reflect on the screen.

Yeah, not an enclosure.

It'll have a small private, like a screening fence, but it has to, yeah, it has to have it has to have an enclosure.

Yeah, but that's where they wanted it, and they were pretty adamant because even with this site, they would send the small truck.

Okay, a small truck.

Okay.

Commissioner Greer.

You you said dumpster, but is it just a place to put bins, or is it a real it's just a bin enclosure?

That's where you'd roll your bins on trash day.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Okay.

So it's not a true dumpster.

No, I'm sorry, yeah, just bins.

And then I wanted to circle back to the pickleball court.

I kind of agree, it's just a an odd spot.

Do are we certain we even need a pickleball court there?

Like an amenity.

Could we leave that as like a more of a passive space and still you know, treat it nicely?

And you know, we can 100%.

We wanted something that would be used by the community, but also activate that street frontage.

It doesn't have to be pickleball, it can be we can go back to the drawing board on that.

Yeah, I I uh yeah, I just I feel like yeah, so close to so close to mesquite, all the traffic right there, and people drinking and playing pickleball and running out of the street to grab something.

It's uh that would likely be me to do that.

No, we can definitely do something different.

Okay, Commissioner Blake.

You know, a couple couple things.

One upstairs, I wouldn't find of it.

I'm getting better now.

Um, but you know, instead of a pickleball, and maybe this didn't go so far away from drinking, but you know, a gazebo type thing where your sitting area and you know, maybe a barbecue pit, something along those lines.

Um, but a place to to kind of congregate with with that would I think would be nice.

I'd like to see a little bit more open space someplace, and you know, one of the concerns I have about the trash bins, you know, unfortunately or unfortunately, we we don't have one trash bin, we have two.

So that means each one of these homes is gonna share or basically have two of their own, and that's gonna be in the garage.

Yeah, but once that's in the garage, now where am I gonna put my car?

So we're gonna end up with cars or bins out on those those things.

So we need to make sure that we're accounting for all that.

Um looking at these elevations and and the perspective you have.

I like I said, I like it better than did upstairs, and I think if you were able to do some of the things with um uh putting a balcony on that front and and some of the changes that you can get there.

I appreciate that.

Uh on the open, just to respond to the open space.

One of the one of the things that is um quite a bit of areas eaten up by the detention pond.

So we we kind of have a bunch of uh green space in the back side that is somewhat unusable because it's just a uh detention pond location, which I think is uh a concern some of the neighbors did voice was just storm run water runoff.

And we believe we'll have quite a bit of capacity in that pond by the time we're done to be a retaining wall situation.

So we have it, it's just not you know, you're not gonna play you know flag height back there.

Yeah.

Uh Commissioner Carter and then Commissioner Maddox.

The uh my main thing that I'm worried about is the the floor plan is very limiting on who can live there.

Uh there's you know it really the floor plan excludes you know probably 25% of the population that might want to rent there because of the you know, no bedroom downstairs, yeah, and all the bedrooms up.

Was there any flexibility that y'all could have been a little more creative and found um ways to get a bedroom downstairs that doesn't keep half of the populate uh a quarter of the population uh you know from being able to rent there um candidly no, we didn't look at an option with a floor with a bedroom on the ground floor.

Um we we definitely can do that.

I I'll say the reason we didn't because I have daughters, and so if I'm upstairs and my daughters are downstairs, that would that would not be something I'd be excited about, but we can definitely look at that for sure.

I I and I just don't see how the uh you know, if there's two bins for each uh unit, that's gonna be a lot of space in the driveway uh up near mesquite street of you know, basically for possibly up to two days of people keeping their trash bins, lots of lots of noise dragging them back and forth to their garage.

Um I just I just think the trash situation's got to get figured out in the more um I appeal, you know, a better looking way.

Um and I still don't see how a I know in your you said in the preliminary meeting that with the staff that the uh that the fire truck was you know they said it could work, but I still really don't see how something could uh get back there, especially with the the very limited driveway approaches for each garage.

And then you've got four guest parking spaces that are in front of the garages on building number four.

So if I if that's been corrected and I missed it, but I'd like to have an explanation on that.

We will if it was our preference, we would leave those for buildings for that front building to have like sort of private guest parking, but we wouldn't locate it as within the HOA documents is guest parking for everybody.

So it'd be restricted to those four or four or seven across the floor.

So two of those units up front would have extra parking that's reserved just for their units.

Yes, sir.

That's how we respond.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Maddox.

Yeah, kind of dovetailing on what uh Commissioner Carter was just saying.

Uh do you have what 10 units?

Yes, sir.

That's 20 bins.

Yeah.

Well, we've we're gonna put that right there at the front door.

Have we thought about how that's gonna the the uh how that's how we're gonna handle that?

That's like I said, that's 20 bins.

What I can say is we spoke to Republic about that.

I don't think that we discussed there being 20 bins though, so I can take that back to them and kind of think about it.

It's two bins per house household.

That's 20 bins on trash day.

Yeah, I can talk to them about that in further detail.

Um that was the first discussion we had was how we're gonna do this.

But they they are opposed to um a dumpster enclosure because they don't want to get stuck.

So I just have to work through that with them.

Well uh one thing to speak to, and I'm sorry, I don't it kind of relates to this a little bit.

Uh one of the comments that was made about saving trees, uh, I did look at that after seeing staff recommendations.

I believe we can mirror the entire site down the center line and pick up those two trees that were of concern.

The design would stay relatively the same, picking up obviously the comments for the pickleball court and all that, and then addressing any trash items, but I think that that would resolve all those concerns, keeping the design attack.

Any example any other questions?

Commissioner Carter.

I just I just think it's way too dense for the site and for the neighbors and for the uh the you know the plan in general.

I I just don't feasibly see how this could really work and be a desirable place for someone to live.

Um so it just I there's been a similar project that we've looked at a year or two ago on the same size of lot, and it just it just it just doesn't seem to really work and be desirable.

Do you know if the the owners of it are planning on uh including short-term rentals or marketing towards the short-term rental people, or you think it's gonna be uh you know, standard uh one year leases?

Yeah, the owner's here to speak to that.

Uh okay.

I don't know if she wants to come next or now or what I don't know how that works.

Um do we need to uh call the owner is the owner here?

Would you raise your hand?

She is yeah, would you please come forward?

Please state your name and the city that you live in.

And then uh if you would respond to Commissioner Carter's question.

Yes, good evening.

Uh my name is Neu and I'm from Arlington.

Okay.

And I'm the owner of this property.

And um, so uh in response to your question, I would just um this uh development is primarily gonna be for long-term rental, no for long-term resident use, but uh because of the location of where it is and just to um for for the investment purpose purposes, and I would like to just have it as the um uh with the flexibility of being long-term rental or short-term rental.

I would like to not have the restrict restriction of that being short-term rental, but um the purpose for it is for residential use and the way that is designed, it is for and um with the three-bedroom and two bath, it is for residential use and um like a smaller community as how I would like for it to be.

And it is in the district for short-term use.

I I wouldn't say I would be uh in favor of truly uh excluding that, but your your long-term tenants will be uh driven crazy with the short if some of them are short-term rentals, it's just the the fact of the way it works.

So you've got some good tenants that are staying there one, two, ten years at a time, and you've got next door coming and going every other weekend.

It will, you know, it's really to me, it's not a good mix.

So if you're that's why I was wondering if you're serious about going uh short-term rental, uh, I would do a whole other plan because you are in the district for it.

But I I think you'll I think you'll drive your good tenants out that want to stay.

I don't think you'll get anyone to stay too long if it's yeah uh short-term rentals next door.

Like I was uh saying the purpose of this um development is for long-term rental, and I'm a residence of Arlington and I'm planning to be here for a long time.

So that's my um uh that's my intention for this development.

But um with the flexibility of having it being a short-term rental, the marketability of it is better, or however that is going to be in the future, we don't know, but with the direction of Arlington is going, we want for for us to have the flexibility of having it um without the restriction, or if anything like that.

Um in concern to the neighbor, we have the church to the site and the com a commute commercial building too in front of us and also in the back of us too.

So um but I really think this is a really good area um with the um commute and with the central location of it.

I think there's a um uh there's gonna be a good group of people that want to live in in that area in the it's extremely dense and it's a radical change for the neighborhood.

I know the neighborhood isn't going through changes, but it's a very radical change to subject your neighbors around there to this type of uh development.

So I don't think it's a good plan for the highest and best use of the land.

Uh it's it's but um but it but I think there's something that could happen there which would be more suitable and not be so packed with you know cars and people so the idea of coming up with this uh uh development is from the vision of to coincide with the vision of Arlington, like to go around the city, you will see these um um development, and I see that how there's uh a demand for housing and also the um the establishment of a small community, and I think this could be a good fit for direction of Arlington is going right now too, and especially in the area as well, too.

So um, yeah, I I can speak to the architect more about it and see what we can do, but for right now I think um I would hope for the approval, and I really think that um I put a lot of heart into this, and uh we're gonna try to make it work.

Um and with the direction of um the city, of course.

Yeah, I think it's a good project, but just not at this location.

So I wish you the best on maybe investing, you know, on a more suitable piece of land, but and that's how I feel about it.

So thank you, and I wish you the best.

Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions?

No, sorry.

Um Mr.

Scoggins, you said that you might mirror the layout to save the trees.

What I was saying we could do that, it would it would keep the project intact because we what we would do is the center line of that road in the back is almost the center line of the property.

So if you can imagine just flipping it on its on its axis.

When we do that, that those tree I checked last night, those trees would be within that uh greens the future green space, which is the pickle park.

Do you mean move the two rear buildings to the front?

You just go left to right.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's a great idea.

And thank you for honestly.

But I read it last night.

I go, yeah, it's a great idea.

All right.

Any other comments of the application?

Uh questions of the applicant.

Don't go.

Please have a seat, but don't go anywhere.

Um are there any other speakers in favor that want to say anything?

If not, I'm gonna I have a card in opposition.

Uh William Middleton.

Please come forward, sir.

Please remember to state your name and city only, not your address.

Thank you for the opportunity.

My name is William Middleton.

I live in Arlington, Texas.

Um at this point in time, I'll state we are vocally against this project as it is currently shown.

And I want to be very clear.

We're not against developing this area.

We want it to be responsible, well thought out development that is an asset to the neighborhood as well as an asset to the owner that's developing it.

We don't think putting as many units on that property as you can stuff on it, is the way that you do optimal development.

We are concerned about a number of things.

First one is runoff control.

Yes, they have put in a retention pond.

Retention ponds not only retain, they have to gently get rid of the runoff they've collected.

Also, what's going to happen with that retention pond as far as long-term maintenance over time?

What's going to happen with that retention pond as far as what are they going to do with the water that it collects?

Immediately behind them is the Mission Arlington building.

What are you going to do with all that rainwater?

This entire area drains to the creek that is north and east of Thanish Street.

Where's the water gun?

The ditches that are along Thanish, Thanish is open drainage, flood now.

You're taking this entire property, covering the whole thing with concrete and houses, almost the whole thing.

And all that runoff's gotta go someplace.

We haven't seen where it goes.

Second thing, utilities loading, primarily water and sewer.

This whole area is single family with a few exceptions of a couple of small apartment complexes on Thanish, some brand new duplexes that they have taken two lots, platted them together as one property and put up some duplex put up some really nice duplexes that add to the neighborhood.

But there are other developments, and so they haven't added to the utility load.

The last time the utilities along Mesquite Street were increased was 28 years ago.

We see water pressures below 25 pounds as it is now.

And there's a single resident sitting on that property.

What's going to happen as far as utility loading if you add the equivalent of 16 toilets and 16 bathtubs and showers and kitchen sinks and dishwashers?

Water pressure ain't going to tolerate that well.

The last point I want to make is these properties being single story almost right on the property line, requesting a deviation and setback, looking into people's backyards.

You've got other single family residences around this that are going to have similar side line issues.

We don't think that this high density stuck smack in the middle of what is a single family with a few duplexes and a couple of small apartment complexes on the very fringe of this area, which is a Vondale place, is a great idea.

That we can support, because I know there are other neighbors that are going to send you written comments because they got the notices.

Let's do that together.

I think that's a reasonable request.

Let's put this on continuance if at all possible.

We also don't like the idea of this monotone look.

It looks like row houses.

Not interested.

Thank you very much.

We also don't we don't approve of the deviation from setback.

There's a reason that the city has set back where they have it.

We want you to stick to it.

Let's look at lower density.

Let's look at making the development something that looks great that will look great for 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 40 years from now.

One last comment.

This property's been here before.

I spoke with Miss Sudbury about it the last time.

And it's been in front of you guys before and didn't go forward.

It didn't go forward for a reason.

A lot of them are these.

Just because you can put that much on a piece of property doesn't mean you should.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Middleton.

Are there any questions?

Thank you.

Seeing no speakers in opposition, would the applicant please come forward again?

And you've got uh five minutes for rebuttal.

Yeah, but you the owner, Mr.

Moon.

You can come forward as well if you want.

Completely respect his opinion.

Uh so I want to be respectful of that.

That just to address a few things that I think we have or can address on the runoff.

We have a very large detention pond uh to to deal with that.

And as you know, with detention ponds, we're gonna collect the water and discharge it at the same rate that it is now.

So it'll effectively be a that um uh no change that it is today.

In fact, our detention pond is oversized uh as it currently sits, to be honest with you.

On the utilities, we've worked a little bit with the staff uh on some of that now.

We're not quite to that point of we're st we're still in the zoning change, but we do know that there's a potential for a uh uh a lift station on site to go back to that.

We need to get the inverts from the city.

Uh water pressure, we'll work with them on that for sure.

Uh, these aren't sprinkler buildings, so it's just normal um domestic pressure.

Um the monotone uh comment that hurts my heart a little bit as an architect, but um, but we're happy to change that if we need to.

If we we need to mix up the stone pallet or colors or add the balconies, we're happy to do that.

But um, we wanted to keep somewhat of a uh contemporary look since it's so is so close to the um to the uh sports venues and all that, kind of in that same same stone patterns.

And then on the setbacks, you know, we're requesting uh the RM12 underlay uh with with this with this request, and we're actually exceeding those setbacks.

We have five uh foot by requirement, and we're actually at 10 on most of uh on everything that we have on the east side.

We're actually 40 or 50 feet, so we exceed some of the requests that we have on that.

Um on the density, you know, we're we're again RM12, we're within that 12 per acre, so I think we're pretty consistent when it comes to that.

One thing I I would point out though, too, in response to the density is we're essentially one property off of Randall Mill, and I believe there's a road widening of Randall Mill coming down the pipeline, so that only gets closer to our property, and then most of the development immediately around us is commercial.

There's a church directly south of us, which was actually my mother-in-law's church when it was a four-square church, uh, but then there's a commercial uh properties to the west.

So I think we're in a unique location to where it makes a lot of sense for the density, um, but I respect other people's opinions on that.

Mr.

Wayne, any comments?

Yes, sir.

So I appreciate your concern from Mr.

William.

Um, I spoke with him on several occasions, and we have talked about it, and I and I would invite um the architect to come and talk to him about um the setback and every to address any of his concern.

And we talked about it before, but uh the most recent time we haven't had a chance to because of this last um meeting, but uh I have talked to him on several occasions and from the last meeting and in to prepare for this.

I have a I have a list of all of the um neighbor all around the area, but I don't only address the one on the list where we send the notice to.

I went all over um throughout an area and spoke to um a lot of neighbors around that area, and they all um are very excited about the project and they are all in support of that.

And I believe if uh Calvin can bring up the last record um to show you guys that I have probably about 20 or 22 signature of people um supporting the project that I'm um uh presented to them.

So um it seems like the area needs to change and people are very enthusiastic about it, and I hope that this um we could talk and explain more to him about our project and how our our plan about the drainage and um all the other architecture stuff that I'm not good about uh talk talking about, but um Jacob can definitely address it with him or talk to him whenever we come up with a plan about that.

Any thank you.

Any questions?

Commissioner Finley.

Thank you.

What I might suggest is that you call a neighborhood meeting and not talk to people one-on-one, and that way everyone is on the same page.

That way when you have issues regarding water pressure and uh electricity, you know, what the grid is for electrical and things like that, and and the designs that you're looking at, the retention ponds, and everybody would be on the same page.

You could all discuss, you know, what he would like to see, what the other neighbors would like to see.

If you're gonna be neighbors, be good neighbors and start out that way, because if you don't, it it will it will not be a good thing.

People will be complaining, and you really don't want that.

But I will say this, I don't think your project is ready for us to make a decision tonight.

I hear you saying design changes, um, you know, we've got an elevation with a pitched roof, but our plans show a flat roof, and yes, you say you know it could have the pitch.

It it it does have the pitched roof.

I just, you know, I I am very hesitant to vote on anything with act without actually seeing what the exact plans are, and you just don't have that tonight.

So that's the way I'm gonna look at it, and and I hope you'll take that very seriously.

Commissioner Weir.

And then oh yeah, and then Commissioner Blake.

Um I've been kind of quiet tonight, but I've got to uh I've got to echo what Commissioner Finley said.

Uh I don't think you're quite ready to be here uh with what we're hearing.

Uh and I would uh I'm I'm a I'm a bit bothered about the density.

I don't I think there's there's a bit too much there.

Uh so that's uh just to let you know where I'm at.

I I would have a hard time voting yes for it tonight.

Commissioner Blake.

I'm unfortunately gonna mirror the those comments.

I I actually think it's a really good project that actually my notes from upstairs specifically says needs work too dense.

Um, I think if you come back and do that work with the neighborhood, also recommend that you work with some of the the members uh that are up here.

They have good input.

I'm probably one of the ones that doesn't have a lot of good input, but I think I do.

Um but I highly recommend that you come to the commissioners and come to the staff and help get a a community meeting together and find out.

Uh like the other two commissioners, I I don't think that I would vote yes on it, and I I think y'all would do good to ask for continuance.

So I like your project.

I think it's very neat, it's very unique.

Um seems like you're you've had some a lot of thought into the design.

So I think it is a well thought out design.

Yeah, there's some suggestions that I think could make the project better.

But I don't think you should discount that it is a well thought out design.

Um architecture background like myself, I I can feel like I like this style.

Uh I like the way the architecture looks.

Um there's just challenges that you'll have to overcome.

I would be supportive of the project today.

I have a lot of conditions that I would have put on it.

But as you can hear some of the other commissioners, it might be in your best interest to ask for that continuance just so we can get the final product and your last hurrah for the well thought out plan.

Yep.

Um but you have my support.

I think it's great.

Density doesn't scare me.

This is in the entertainment district, that's where we want it.

Um it's a transitioning development, transitioning neighborhood.

So again, I'm supportive.

I appreciate that.

My comments, I am also very supportive of this project.

I think it's a great project.

Uh but I do agree with my other fellow commissioners.

There are some subtle little changes.

When a pay D occurs, and you give us pictures and it shows a flat roof, and now you show us today a new artist rendition with uh with with Archruf, and we hear you, but it sure helps us to vote yes when we have all that in front of us to begin with.

It's uh I can remember another commissioner before us used to say if it isn't here on our computer or print it out, it's not part of the plan.

And that's what you're hearing.

I would probably vote yes today because part of me uh part of me understands, and we talked about this upstairs and work session.

That office building, that's where I practice for my entire medical career.

I know that neighborhood.

I also know that that neighborhood is inside of the entertainment district.

I also know that if I were uh if I were a developer and I had the money and I were gonna build townhomes in that area, I would put them out for short-term rentals because it's going to make money.

That entertainment district is gonna do nothing but explode an activity, and it's just gonna continue that way for an extended period of time.

It doesn't scare me.

What is saddens me?

I have uh uh in it has to be said, it has to be acknowledged and recognized.

That neighborhood, the day the city council passed the entertainment district boundary, that neighborhood was doomed.

It's sad.

I wish it wasn't so, but that's exactly what's happening.

Even across the street on Collins, that enclave of single-family homes that used to be all owned by owners, they're out.

It's what 80% investor-owned those homes.

And that's what's happening up in that part of Arlington right off of Musquete and Center Street.

I wish it wasn't so, but it's the economic reality of what we have to deal with.

That's why I support this project.

It's a it's a transition, it's a difficult, but I like your project.

But please come back with the correct drawings, come back with the what really bothers me is how you're gonna handle the trash.

We'll go back to that coverage.

If you'll come if you'll come back with those uh problems and the other comments and the notes that you've taken, I think you'll get a positive vote.

Well, I don't mean to surprise you with the the renderings.

I think there's a mix-up in our in the system because we did upload those to the that could very well be the case, and and we've actually talked about that upstairs in the work session.

We've got a new federal law that passed, it had says that drawings have to be uh ADA compliant.

Uh whatever that means in terms of drawings, and it was explained to us upstairs, but we are in a transition, and uh part of what happened, I think is hit you uh in the same thing because now we're being told that all applicants are gonna have to submit ADA compliant drawings.

Yeah, what does that mean?

Uh so but I would recommend you ask for continuance.

No, we'll we'll definitely do that.

Okay, so you're okay with asking for continuance.

Did you it need to be a continuance?

It needs to be continued.

And I'll remind the commissioners that June 3rd would be the optimal date to come back.

Can you come back on June 3rd?

Yeah, absolutely.

Uh she's frowning.

I just want to make sure that you that we're not saying no, we're just saying please come back when it with a more finished product.

We need to do continuous if you ask for a vote up and down.

I can't, we can't get there's a chance you might lose, and if that happens, that's bad for you.

Yeah, because we want continuance.

All right.

All right, very good.

With that, is there a motion for continuance?

Uh I have a motion by Commissioner Blake and second by Commissioner Winkles.

Commissioner Blake, would you state your motion?

Oh, by the way, excuse me.

I have to officially close the public hearing.

Okay.

Please have a seat.

Um, Commissioner Blake.

Before I make the motion, I do want to point out I also like the design, and that's kind of the design that you see coming.

So just a side thought.

Uh, I'd like to make a motion to continue case PD 25-1, 1013 North Mesquite Street until uh the June 3rd meeting.

Commissioner Winkles, is that your motion?

Yes, sir.

Cast your vote.

Motion passes nine to nothing.

We will see you back here in the future.

And thank you for bringing your project to Arlington.

Finally, our last third case of the night.

PD 25-22, 1120 W Lane and 8380 Glendale Drive.

This is an application for approval of a change in zoning from community commercial to plan development for community commercial and residential medium density, RM12 with a development plan on approximately 29.850 acres at this time.

And again, it's Mr.

Kevin Charles.

Thank you, sir.

Oh Joy.

One second.

Please bear with us.

We got a security.

Yeah.

Of course.

Story of my life.

All right.

Good evening, Commissioners for the Record, Kevin Charles, Principal Planner, Planning and Development Services.

This we'll be viewing this evening Yarty, Loretta Day, also known as PD 25 22.

The site itself is 29, excuse me, 29 acres in size, addressed as 1120 Debbie Lane and 8380 Glenda Drive.

It is south of Debbie Lane and west of Glenday Drive.

The current zoning on the property is community commercial.

And the request is for a plan development for residential medium density RM12 and community commercial uses with a development plan.

Here you see an aerial photograph of the site highlighted in yellow.

As you can see, the site is partially developed with the day drill site and drill zone.

The day drill site will be going to City Council for final reading to establish a drilling zone and reduce the current SUP site area on the existing gas well site located at 8380 Glen Day Drive.

As you can see from the photograph, the property to the east across Glenday Drive is currently developed as the electrical substation for the area.

The property to the south across Ragland Road and to the west are both developed.

It's PD for single family residential and PD for commercial adjacency for RS5.

And the properties to the north is on for PD RMF 22 for the development and currently developed location of multifamily and community commercial.

These are photographs of the adjacent sites and the site itself.

Here you'll see the very next photograph going clockwise is the developed property to the east across Loretta Day Drive.

That's a photograph of the electric substation.

And then finally, uh this is uh the final photograph is a photograph of the site from Loretta Day Drive looking westward at the site.

As you can see, uh the development development plan includes 170 townhouse units on approximately 20 acres, and two commercial tracks within uh approximately 1.8 acres.

The proposed density yield is eight and a half dwelling units per acre compared to the allowable maximum density of 12 units per acre in the RM12 zoning district.

The proposed development will have access points, uh, one from Debbie Lane, which is a major arterial, one from uh Glen uh Loretta Day or Glen Day Drive, which is a two-lane local street, one from Black Sea Road, which is a two-lane local street that is currently uh serving the adjacent property to the west, the residential development to the west, and also Ragland Road, which is a major collector, providing connectivity across multiple levels of the roadway network.

Here you're we're gonna start to just discuss the elevations of the site and the layout.

This is an aerial view or aerial perspective of the site from Debbie Lane, looking in a southeasterly uh manner.

The proposed development consists of those 170 residential attached dwelling units and two retail pad sites.

The residential units are proposed to range from approximately 1430 square feet to uh 1,833 square feet of livable floor area.

The commercial portion of the lot will require the uh require future a future development plan approval.

Each residential unit will include a covered porch ranging from approximately 30 to 50 square feet in size and an attached two-car garage front loading and rear loading.

The residential component of the development will be comprised of 37 buildings, five building styles, which are organized into clusters of three, four, and six units.

All proposed residential structures are two stories in height.

Of the total 170 residential units, um, yes.

Street facing uh the street facing 150 lots shall provide a six-foot privacy uh privacy fence for each unit.

Here you just see a detail of the of the landscaping and buffering as I stated earlier.

All of the landscaping adjacent to the public right away is in compliance with the UDC.

They are providing the required setbacks in the plants, and they just provided a standard detail also to show you that they will be providing uh the required either 30% vegetative cover or at least six shrubs and one tree that's required for single family attached units and residential units uh per the UDC.

Okay, there we go.

Landscaping and buffering.

So as you see, the site had uh several trees on it, however, they were grouped into clusters.

Uh I highlighted this detail to show that the trees uh in the red area were where uh you had your your your uh protected tree species uh on the site.

Uh the UDC requires that all residential developments shall preserve a minimum of 35 of the existing total protected caliper inches on the site.

The site is dominated by non-protective species along the western property line, hackberry trees, and they have one single 32-inch live oak and many many cedar trees as uh you would expect.

The development is removing 219 caliper inches uh while preserving the 1,100 and uh excuse me, 1100, yeah, and 12 caliper inches and installing 258 caliper inches.

Please note uh those 1,12 caliper inches are not all protected species.

However, the combination of the two, uh the 258 caliper inches of newly planted trees, which would be protected trees, and the 1,100 uh and 12 existing mature trees give you a balance of 1,370 caliper inches total.

The combination of the existing mature trees to be planted uh with the existing um mature trees uh creates a balance of 1,150 uh positive points.

However, it does not address the 35% requirement.

Um within that, despite that, uh, the staff's opinion that the the preservation of the tree line along the western property line should be paramount in reference as a buffer between the existing residential development to the west and this site.

Uh that would preserve the the viewscape of those residents which currently live on that adjacent subdivision to the west.

Here you uh as we mentioned before, there is an SUP that is currently uh uh waiting, awaiting its first uh final um reading with city council.

Here we show the new uh or what would be the new uh boundaries for the site.

Here is the original SUP boundary uh that uh is in place.

Uh the new boundary is this boundary which would uh reduce that space and also reorient it and it's as well as change uh some of those zones.

Uh here you see the 200, 300, and 600 foot setback for protected uses.

Here, uh oh, excuse me.

Here, as I did before in our work session, this loop here identifies the 200 foot boundary from mechanical equipment.

It does touch uh a couple of the lots that are adjacent across the street.

However, it does not uh look like it's going to be touching any of the structures on that site.

That is that buffer where no protected uses can be located inside.

This circle here is going to represent the 300 square, uh, the 300 foot radius that would be set up by the new uh new SUP boundary and SUP drill site.

Uh there could be no uh protected uses located within that as well.

Uh by the way, a protected use is identified as a residence, a religious institution, a hospital building, a medical and dental office, a nursing home, a personal care facility, supervised living facility, public or private school, daycare and its playground, or a public park.

Here you see the deviations that are going through with uh with this proposal.

Uh the required minimum lot depth for uh townhouse development is 100 feet.

The applicant proposed a range of lot depths from 82 to 90 feet.

Uh the minimum lot size is 2900 square feet for townhouse development.

The applicant proposes a range of lot sizes from 1,749 square feet to over 4,000 square feet.

Uh garage location.

Front loading, front facing garages shall not constitute more than 60% of the total width of the dwelling.

The applicant proposes a front loading, front facing garage that can constitutes approximately 80% of the total facade width on each unit.

Uh, and the anti-monotony standards for town homes.

Uh variation in front elevations and character and interest to communities in order to avoid uh monotony.

Uh different floor plans and facade treatments should be utilized to give residences their own identity.

Uh it is staff's opinion that the design exhibits a significant degree of monotony throughout the site uh with the with the proposed elevations, as well as this being a uh a large development with over 100 units being proposed.

Coordination with other plans, uh the uh the site itself is located in an established residential.

The proposed development promotes the following uh value out neighborhood strategies, encourage the development of housing choices that meet the needs of current and emerging populations, including singles, couples, small and large families, etc.

Evaluate development proposals in context with the existing infrastructure, connectivity, and surrounding uses, ensure a balanced relationship between land use and development and the transportation system by requiring that developments be appropriate for the proposed location and identify and develop in field areas in ways that are compatible with their surroundings.

So considerations.

More so as a uh to explain what we were stating.

First of all, the first thing we wanted to address was the commercial track, uh the commercial track.

If if it's not intended to be part of the project site shown in the plans, uh its inclusion with the PD should be reconsidered.

Uh, if it must remain within the PD, then the final development plans demonstrating a unified design and signage scheme should be required.

And a development plan should be approved prior to any future development of the commercial tracks.

Uh, two, and I'm just leaving this up because we talk about more of these.

Um, expand the commercial tracks.

So the uh the original commercial track size actually, again, like we stated is 1.8 approximately.

Uh we feel that they should expand the emergency commercial track uh to the gas well to the site uh to the south side rather than placing a row of townhomes in between there for future commercial uses, as the current lot configuration limits the development potential for that particular site due to its size and uh and also it limits the ability for them to market the site.

Uh all common areas should be located within the designated X lot and maintained by uh property owners association or homeowners association.

Uh the three lots located adjacent and on the same side with the gas well site uh should be removed as they are not in a line with the overall community layout and are recommended to be as I stated removal.

Incorporate traffic calming measures.

We feel like this is a very important point as well.

As we have some very long straight streets within this uh sub uh in this proposed subdivision.

Um incorporate those measures alone in north, south oriented streets, such as traffic circles, chicanes, or lane narrowing to improve safety and resume and reduce vehicle speeds.

Introduce a PSAL along the long straight internal road to enhance pedestrian connectivity and break up the length of the block.

Each street termination or band should incorporate distinctive feature that creates a strong uh terminating vista and enhances the visual interest of the streetscape.

Addly, staff encourages the commission to inquire about the management of the HOA or POA for the site, and if there are any potential commitments in reference to the commercial tracks.

The other thing that we would say is that for a for a development of this size with this many units, uh, we think that the you know that the uh the monotony, the anti-monotony should really be looked at with this particular site.

We don't think that it's a bad product.

We just think that potentially there's too many, too much of the same product over and over and over again uh within uh within the development, okay?

Uh staff, the owner is Tyler Morrison.

The uh the applicant is Tyler Morrison, known as the Glenn Day.

Uh staff is available if there are any questions or comments in reference to this particular development plan.

Thank you, Mr.

Charles.

Questions at this time.

We talked about this project at length upstairs.

I see no questions at this time.

So we're gonna move on to the uh uh the public hearing, which I now open.

Thank you, Mr.

Charles.

And I'm gonna call for the first speaker, the applicant, I believe, Mr.

Dixon Holman.

You are the primary speaker.

Good to see you, sir.

Please state your name.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh Commissioners, I'm Dixon Holman.

I I live in Arlington.

And uh yeah, we've got uh I don't want to I'm I'm gonna do things a little unusual, kind of wing it, and that I don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time going through a slideshow for you.

You've seen two presentations from staff and uh that's gone through the staff report in fairly uh fairly good detail uh today.

So well if I can even get this thing to work, what am I what am I pointing at there?

Uh this this is our site plan.

I want you to see that first because I want to discuss some of the things too to come up about monotony first of all.

I'm gonna hit some of the points that you've shown interest in and that have been emphasized in the staff presentation.

Uh one thing I wanted to say about the neighborhoods.

We have we have attempted to reach out, but it was late in the game, and I'd spoken with Ms.

Finley uh a week or so ago uh about that, and part of that is because we were following the TOTAL case that you all uh had in front of you a while back.

Uh we we had been advised by uh uh some members of the council as well as uh as the staff that it was best to let that case be able to work its way through.

And we and we were able to do that, however, it delayed us significantly uh in coming forward that just went through uh the council process and and was approved at uh public hearing on the 7th of April.

And uh so we're here on the 15th because that was the way it worked.

Now we've had to get three extensions to keep our project alive, and and we can't just keep delaying.

We thought we were gonna be in front of P and C on March 4th, that didn't work out, and March 25th, that didn't work out.

Now we're here on April 15th, and and we can't continue down that track.

And I understand you've got to make decisions that you feel are necessary to make, but that's where we are.

Uh the monotony uh issue.

We do have four different building elevations.

We have 39 color schemes and four distinct floor plans.

So what you saw on that, we that that thing that was prepared for you that shows the green and white, green and white, green and white.

Uh that wasn't because somebody was an Article High fan, it was because that's uh uh we we thought rather than try to color up all of those all over that entire uh plan would be uh distracting.

And and so that's why that's why we didn't do that.

Uh but but they will not all look just alike.

Uh and we are as far as traffic calming uh devices, we're fine with that.

Uh we're fine with uh the enhancements at the at the portions of the street that terminate uh and being able to do things so that those are called out in a way that that they're they're pleasant to look at and they kind of provide a terminus.

The a PD allows for some variation.

Certainly you don't want to get too far off or you're completely out of the universe but but there is there is some room built in via the PD process.

So we want to make sure that that that's that we keep that in mind as we move through uh some of these issues and I want to I want to get through some of these and and then I'll and then we can go through uh slides uh but again you've seen uh some of those already is the tree preservation we we are not pro preserving 35% of protected tree species where those are located that that renders that entire portion of that property not only not developable for us but developable for commercial uses or anything else going forward and uh it's unfortunate that's where they're located all in that little that little area but that may be that once upon a time there was a house there you know long long ago uh this was all the old day farm the day family that owns this owned everything you see around it I've been involved in this is my fourth case uh over there the other three are all uh uh developed or underway uh the um uh issue the other thing with the trees that we that we are doing is we're preserving everything on the west side and yes those aren't all protected trees but we exceed the uh that that portion with 36.8 of all percent of all the trees on the site so we're we feel uh we feel like we we have worked toward that and staff acknowledges that in the staff report uh that that that's positive because I think we need to hit some of the things that we actually have done that that are positives.

We have we have significantly more green space uh than that we're required to have required to have uh about 34000 square feet and we've got about 224000 square feet we do have the trail system uh I know about the uh the issues that have come up about the units and and the Paseo so as to to break up the distance uh uh and then the three over by the pool the three by the pool are there for for a reason and the reason is it it it provides for in an inclusion uh into the neighborhood of the pool in that green area rather than just stick it out there and uh in the middle of a field and say there it is uh it it kind of ties those in so those will be premium units uh you know yeah they may be closer to the drill site but they're also close to the pool and uh and they're they're they kind of stand there alone and that's a you know that's something that we think is important uh we we really are not in a position to to voluntarily give those up now the the Paseo that's something that we could we believe we could agree to uh if necessary to to go ahead and and lose those two units to allow that distance to to be broken up with a pass through there that will allow uh for uh for folks to be able to to go uh back and forth between between the units uh between the buildings uh then then we get to the commercial and I'm trying to hit all these memory the commercial uh portion is in the PD but it doesn't have the specific site plan and development plan as part of it and there's a reason for that is because the market dictates what that will be.

Now we we're agreeable to two pad sites and then that that being part of the PD that that be the case we don't we don't uh envision a strip center of some sort we're targeting you know higher end types of I mean within within uh uh the the context of of the area that's already developed commercially we're looking at at folks like we don't have any of these signs so this isn't the deal but but the types like Chipotle uh like Starbucks those those are things that that we believe those those types are on on very much on the table for this location and have shown interest in the past and so that's what we see here.

Uh and so what we'd like to do is provide for it within you know some constraints that that you're comfortable with uh and that we can we can market and then move forward.

We we don't believe that expanding the commercial is the thing to do.

We don't believe that will make that any more marketable.

We don't believe that that it's gonna provide any other benefit there.

Uh it it just seems to sort of fit nicely when you when you draw it up in red.

Now finally, I'm gonna move to to the distance from from the well sites.

The drawing that you've seen presented today, uh I have been assured we have our engineer here, we have we have uh the Totel folks are also on the noise.

That's incorrect.

We've been measuring those distances since day one.

We've been working on this case for about eight months.

And we've known where those wells were gonna go.

We've closely coordinated with TOTAW.

We have we've measured those repeatedly.

The city's seen them repeatedly.

We found we found out at 1 30 this afternoon that what was going to be presented was gonna say you're encroaching into the zone.

And apparently that was done from some overlay that was laid from the total uh materials on top of our materials, but they're not scaled and lined up exactly, so it changed the line.

Because we never would have, oh gosh, by accident designed a development that had nearly 20 units uh that were encroaching.

That that has been that has been the number one question from the very very beginning because we knew we had to meet the distance requirements.

And uh, and so I mean I can you know stand there and say it's a he said she said sort of thing, I guess, but I can I'm telling you, we're right.

And uh so that what you saw was not correct.

And and so that that that's a fundamental question here, right?

Uh and so I wanted you to be aware of that as well.

I've got 30 seconds.

Yeah, Jason, I'm gonna give you some extra time, but uh I'm gonna uh interject something here.

When I saw the drawings today that staff reported and upstairs, I don't think there's any encroachment.

Not according to what I saw.

None of the houses are within the 300 foot circle, none of them.

So uh I just want us to take a step back, take a deep breath.

Oh, I'm fine.

Um I just want to make sure that we're not I don't think we're misinformed.

Maybe the line's wrong, but none of these homes on this drawing are encroaching on inside of the 300 foot.

So you're right, and that's our that's our position.

I just want to be on the record.

We agree with you.

All right, okay.

So uh beyond that, I again we've got a great presentation for you, but uh unfortunately I've used my time.

I may use some of it to illustrate uh in uh to answer questions or rebuttal.

Uh but but I've tried to cover much of what you've talked about today and much of what was covered in the staff presentation.

So with that, I'm I'm uh here to answer any questions or well I'll start off and then uh with with one question.

We all have questions, but I'll start off.

So talk to me about um irregardless of how whatever size commercial tell me why uh or give me your reasons for why you don't want to include the commercial section inside of the uh that you don't want a PD specifications spelled out.

For example, we could say today we don't want any gasoline stations.

That we're fine with, Doctor.

I mean, that is something I I should have added that.

Yeah, I mean we are we are willing to to have restrictions.

Uh there are many things.

In fact, I think we've already got a draft list, we just didn't propose it as as part of this.

Uh but we're willing to to be restricted on uses.

I mean, all we want is the kind of quality thing we've talked about that will go along with uh the McDonald's and the Popeyes and the additional retail across the street and the things that are already there and just add to to the overall benefit that's provided to the neighborhood.

We're we we don't want just an open-ended anything you want over there.

Respond to staff's recommendation about expanding the commercial.

Yeah, expanding the commercial is I mean it gives you more acreage, but it doesn't really it doesn't really change your your ability to to market that property.

It's gonna be actually with the two specific sites, uh it's hard path sites, it that's more palatable for those to be up against, and I'm talking about for the end user to be up against this this this townhome project and be right there rather than develop a center on the corner.

We've already got one right across the street, and then we've got one a block up uh back toward 360 on the other side of the street, and and it sets it up like that, like you you you know from the the commercial uh across the street from McDonald's is.

We've already got one right across the street, and then we've got one a block up back toward 360 on the other side of the street, and and it sets it up like that, like you you you know from the the commercial uh uh across the street from McDonald's is we you've got McDonald's, and then you've got the car wash that looks like a bank in South Lake, and then you've got then you've got the uh the Popeyes.

This will add like two more padsides, and and there's a certain tolerance level uh when you get into these neighborhood centers for what you can do and do well and ensure that the quality remains.

And so we feel like we can be more nimble with this two acres than you could be with five.

And more final question on my on my part, and then I'll turn it over to the rest of the commissioners.

Respond I asked you this question on uh one when we spoke earlier.

Respond to the thought.

Why not do RS5 single family homes here?

Yeah, the uh I think one of the things, and this is what I'd mentioned that that comes up oftentimes, it's it's discussed when developments are discussed.

Well, well, why do you want this density?

Why don't we just do why don't we just do single family?

I mean, that's great, and it'd fit there, and we could do this many houses, and we have all these reasons for it.

It has to come down, I've heard this word a couple of times, not economics.

And it comes down also to the model uh under which you develop the property.

The reason we can do the high quality, because our rents here are gonna be 2600 over 3,000 a month.

And the reason we can do that kind of quality is because it's based on revenue cash flow over time, and so you can put that money in up front.

Whereas for a single family uh development, and it's why we're gonna start.

The idea here is to start, and I'll say this just parenthetically the idea here is to start is for lease.

But Taylor Morrison builds single family homes for sale, they build townhomes for sale.

This is being built according to that.

That's why we have public streets.

That's why we're doing it that way.

If things were to change, they could this that's what this is single family neighborhood, town owned neighborhood.

And uh so to point out the difference on the the single family for sale, and and townhome for sale for for that matter, it's that that they're one and done.

So you have to the price has to be high enough to justify the the the quality.

So what you typically are going to get, you can't this market right here, and it's a great neighborhood, and it's a great part of town.

I was just over there on Saturday.

Uh, and uh and have been heavily involved with lots of people who who live in the area uh over a long time.

But the uh the thing that that it's not going to support because it's gonna it's gonna be odd is 785,000 townhomes that all of a sudden get plunked down on this acreage.

It's not it's it that's not the thing, and that's about what it would take to be able to create enough spread on the profit side to make this work, and it might be a little less than that, but it wouldn't be a lot, uh, to make this work from a profit standpoint to be able to build to the quality we're we're gonna build.

So uh I'm not saying these are 785,000 units, but they they would be if they were on the market, they'd they'd be in the fours.

So uh, you know, that's that's where they would be, and we're gonna build those, and they're gonna be high quality, and you may remember the yardie uh you already got me saying it.

Uh it's not yardy, it's yardly, by the way.

There's an L before the Y.

Uh the uh uh we they we came in with another project about a year and a half ago, and it was approved, and it's just now being completed.

It's completely different deal, multi-family base, uh, but it was high quality.

Uh and and it is very well done.

We've had folks out take a look at it.

Uh Ms.

Finley came out and took a look at it, and it's it's high quality.

Uh, and they're just finishing up, they're already 36% pre-leased and leased at this point.

And I mean, this is they're they're not even really on the market.

Uh so that's that's who these guys are, and this is going to be a higher level than that even is, and that one's great.

Uh so long answer to the to the question, but uh that's that's my response.

I'll start down here.

Who wants to go next?

Um you mentioned that you had different elevations uh the color scheme to make up the monotony.

Do you have that to present?

I don't have those with us tonight, but we actually calculated and went through all of them.

We we did the same thing on the on the Eden uh Mansfield Web.

We we it was wrote it in, I think, into the PD where it said that we would provide uh X number, and I can't remember what it was, 16 or so different color schemes, whatever it was.

I can't remember the number.

Well, so for this one it's three elevations with three different colors for each left for the front, and then two elevations, three colors for the right, and and there's some mix to that.

Would you mind coming forward?

Yeah, and I mean this these are Taylor Morrison folks, and I won't keep asking them for for info, but that one we agreed to do that as well.

Just so that you can put it on the record.

Tell us your name, the city, and then tell us what you just said.

I am Joseph with and I live in Great Vine.

Um so yeah, for this site we have planned uh for the front loaded townhomes, three different elevations, completely different styles with three colors per elevation.

For the rear loaded townhomes, there's two different elevations with three colors for each elevations.

So the front uh the rear loaded wouldn't have any matching at all.

There'd be a little bit of matching for the front loaded, but you wouldn't see the same color and elevation on the same street for any single town home.

Okay, thank you very much.

And we're also willing to do that with garages as well.

We we've discussed that because we know those can get monotonous when we got the front entry.

Okay.

Very good.

One more.

Yes.

Are you a so you your little three townhouses there by the pool?

That's non-negotiable.

You're not willing to remove there's I mean, but we I would just look at that as being a great amenity area to add.

I don't know.

I'm gonna use the old term part because you're like an open area, a covered area that maybe there was some outdoor seating and dining, fire pit, that kind for the community give them up.

Yeah, I'll let the comments.

We we can it's kind of an either or we can either remove the three townhomes there or remove the two, allowing the cross access.

We're not able to remove both and keep the project viable.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Maddox.

Getting back to what you just said about the elevations.

Uh I I don't see them here with the different colors.

Right.

So it's difficult for me to process uh what you're saying.

I I'm gonna be honest with you when I first saw this, the first thing that popped in my mind was Fort Riley, Kansas.

Yeah.

It looks like military housing to me.

I mean being perfectly honest with you.

I have issues with the monotone uh of this project.

Uh did you at any time look at uh further differentiate the different uh elevations?

Yeah, we we one thing we've looked at is is changing up some of the the garage doors, doing a few other things.

We're not significantly architecturally, but color can do a lot of things when you because not nobody's gonna be looking at it, you know, you know this, but I'm saying from the sky bird's eye view like the the illustration was.

And so when you're looking at these things, these homes up and down the street, uh, and they're not repeated in color, and and there is some variation between the buildings, they're not nearly as likely to appear monotonous as I will uh completely agree with you that that bird's eye view does uh because of the way it's uh portrayed.

Commissioner that may not answer everything, but that that's my that's we're they'll there'll be a lot more color than you've seen, and we're willing to write that in here, you know.

Yeah, I I understand what you're saying, but with what's presented here, I can't get my arms around it, is what I'm saying.

Right, and and but what we tried to do is present and what you've got in the in the staff report, and even what we present here.

I mean, we it it it could be voluminous to and and so again we're we're happy to have that written into the PD uh if it's not visually illustrated now.

Uh Mr.

Ollwans, first of all, I'd like to thank you for not wasting our time and actually listening upstairs.

Yeah.

And starting off with that.

Um it is very appreciative.

Um you got my vote.

I I had a lot of the screen concerns.

You you've addressed them in my opinion.

It's on record that we're gonna have some definition there.

You seem willing to you know break up some of the monotony of the streets and things like that.

And I think if you do that and go forward, you got my vote.

I appreciate it.

Any other questions, Commissioner Sumter, and then Commissioner Finlay.

Uh looking at this plan, um plan south, which I think is the west to preserve the non-protected trees to try to meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance.

Those lots are deeper, aren't they?

Yes.

Any thought?

And because I in my opinion, makes no sense to preserve non-protected trees.

Is there a way to make those lots consistent with the other front entry units we have on plan east and to the north to allow that central block to get wider and then introduce because it seems like you'll be okay with the Paseo concept, right?

The 20 units that you have that are rear entry.

Is there an opportunity to increase the width of that block to introduce more rear entry?

I'm uh get out of my league here and say and say there might be, but but then do we get the well, but you got rid of the trees, you know.

I mean, that's that's kind of where we've been when we've been working through the design.

Again, the trees and non-protected trees, in my opinion, make no sense to keep.

I would rather get more rear entry because it goes into comments about monotony, looking at the streetscape, all you'd see is driveways.

If you change it up, it's a little bit different look.

And if that can make it work, hey, you have a lot of unused space, especially like right next to the front entry that are just to the east of the rear entry.

There's a lot of unused open space there.

Yeah, in my opinion.

And staffs talked to us from the beginning about the need to buffer, and I think that's why they're there.

Uh while those why those trees are remaining, and this was designed this way, is the importance of buffering the neighborhood next door.

So it really comes down to what's more most important to the policymakers and you guys in the council, the policymakers.

My opinion, that's why I'm bringing it up.

Rear entry is more important to me than buffering with non-protected trees.

So I want to hear your thoughts on that.

Yeah, absolutely.

Uh this is something we talked about a lot.

It's we frankly we're kind of in agreement with you.

It's it's a little bit of a challenge if we push the uh units back.

We're only gaining like one or two more front uh rear entry, and so it it's it wasn't a significant benefit versus the comment of trying to keep a buffer, and so we went with the staff's comment of trying to keep that there.

So I'm hearing you could introduce more rear entry if those non-protected trees go away.

Yeah, but it would be only like one or two.

One or two rear rear entry?

Units.

Units, not buildings.

Yeah, because you'd be taking the unit wider by like I'm seeing you the the rear entry you have now compare that same scheme going all across plan east.

If you look at that, I can envision it in my head right now.

Are you talking including to the No, just the just the central block.

Uh with without the we'll call the bottom.

You're just talking about bringing it down so that those lots are not not as deep and widening the central block by the same amount so that you can then turn those into rear entry.

But we're still only talking about 20 feet um that you're increasing, so you're only adding one or two units to those as you're pushing the street down.

So he's not talking about adding adding more units, he's talking about making more units rear entry.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um well, there's a little bit of an element of trying to make best use with the site, and so we did look at other schemes for more rear entry, and it made a very inefficient site where you had rear entries uh with unusual turns around and whatnot, but uh as far as widening that specific block, I it I can't see that it would add as much value uh as the staff's comment towards keep protecting the streets.

In my opinion, I think it adds value to have a rear entry there.

And i I I know it can work as I can visualize it in my head.

I just feel that that's more important, especially if you I know you have different elevations, different color styles, but if you have more rear entry, it introduces something unique and different where we don't have a hundred and fifty front entry units.

Well, let me interject something along these lines.

So it's an interesting discussion.

But no one's asked the neighbors.

And I drove down that neighborhood along that back street.

Those trees are pretty tall.

Of course, that doesn't do you any good in the summer because it blocks the morning sun, but at the same time, it does uh provide somewhat of a significant sound barrier.

If I'm a neighbor and all of a sudden all those trees, and there's a lot of unprotected trees back there, if all of a sudden they're gone.

I don't know if I'm gonna be happy about that or I'm gonna be upset about that.

And that's uh I mean I agree with you a hundred percent.

I hate uh I hate trash trees.

I just like to see them all bulldozed.

I said that upstairs.

And and uh and and put put a different uh put a different barrier up there to separate that neighborhood like a masonry wall.

Uh that's what I would do.

But I I I see your concept.

You're you want to pull those south units, the ones on this.

I know we're gonna use north at the top and south the bottom.

You're talking about some getting rid of the trees, pushing that street and those houses backwards.

Which then moves the street down, which then opens up that middle block, and then that middle block, then you can make a lot of those units in their rear entry, right?

Rear entry with Pasios.

Exactly.

I mean, uh what what we might be able to get to at this point because we can't it's gonna be hard, and you know this better than anyone.

Oh, I don't sit here and redesign it on the fly here.

But I mean, we can agree to uh attempt to do more air entry, that's all I'm asking for.

Yeah, and we can attempt to add to to do that and see how it how it works.

I mean, if if we move forward, I mean we can't we don't want to come back and certainly can't we can't come back on June 3rd.

So I mean, you know, if you're you're you're asking for an up and down vote today.

Yeah.

Which means that we're gonna have to add a wording.

That says we we want more rear entry.

Okay.

I want to if you're amenable to that, I'm not gonna force you to if you say no, it's not gonna work, then I'm I still support the project.

I mean, it I think it makes it better, though.

It's something we certainly explore.

I mean, we we uh it's something we put it this way, and I don't want to mean it's not the uh that we had blinders on, but it's it's something we haven't considered because it's been emphasized to us that we needed that tree buffer.

Yeah.

And also then without that tree buffer, it's gonna it's gonna, we're gonna be farther in the hole on trees, and so do we get whip solved that way, you know, somehow or whatever.

But but I hear you, and I and I know what you're saying because of fewer garage doors.

Yeah, it just it just changes I could be wrong.

That's my opinion.

I like to hear everybody if everybody thinks trees are more important.

Hey, that's what we go with.

So Commissioner Finley.

Well, you just might as well sit back because this one's gonna be law.

Dixon, yes, thank you for bringing this project forward and I appreciate the invitation that I had to go to Yardley.

It's a great project.

It's it's really nice.

It is upscale, and I loved it.

I loved it.

Now the problem that I have with this proposal are several things.

Um you didn't have any diagrams of your elevations.

And so we just continued two cases on PDs because they didn't show us what we needed to see.

And in that case, I don't see how this is any different.

You you don't have your ducks in a row.

The 360 corridor study that is referenced in the in the letter that you all sent, uh specifies that you're in line with the 360 corridor study 4.2.

When I look at the 360 corridor study, and by the way, I served on that committee which did I?

Yes.

At 4.2 South 360 Debbie Lane, Northwest Corner, which I don't think that's where this is.

Am I wrong?

I I don't think so, but I don't know.

I haven't.

This is the South.

That's right.

But I want to read what they put in the letter.

In the northeast corner.

Yes.

They're saying that they are in line with the 360 corridor plan 4.2.

Now let me read you what 4.2 says.

Encourage commercial development that integrates walkable components, such as trails, plazas, and gathering spaces.

That's 4.2.

I think what you're looking at is uh probably 4.3 south uh the frontage road from Debbie Lane Southwest Corner.

Does that sound right?

Southwest corner.

Yes.

It says encourage mixed use development with a small office component and complementary retail goods and services.

I don't see anywhere in there that talks about townhouses.

So I'm not really sure where you've got your I didn't write that letter.

That was not a good idea.

I'm just talking about the corner.

I'm just saying this is what the 360 corridor study indicates.

And what they're saying is that the 360 corridor study indicates this is the proper zoning or this is the proper uh development for this area.

And what I'm saying is that's not what the 360 corridor study states.

So we got an issue there.

Um and regardless what the setback is where the wells are, just because that's what the setbacks are when they go to establish a permitted well, that doesn't mean that we have to allow you to build there because it's within it's it's outside that perimeter.

I mean, there's no there's no law or anything that says, yes, we have to allow you to build there because you are outside.

And by the way, did you bring your diagram that you say is not in compliance with what we see?

No, I didn't bring it because we didn't find out about it until this afternoon when we were already here, and we didn't that was nothing that we felt like through eight months of this discussion that that we had to demonstrate because it was actually it was the same one that Total showed two weeks ago.

So I don't have that.

I didn't write the 360 corridor study either, but there are lots of things in the 360 corridor study other than 4.2, 4.3, and 4.whatever.

Right.

And that referred that do refer to town homes.

And and so I mean but I didn't, but no, I didn't.

All right, I'm sorry, I have the floor now.

I know I I just said I'm sorry, I but I did not bring.

All right.

Well, I'm looking at the sector, okay, and the sector is four, okay?

That whole section, whether it's 4.2, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, it's the sector.

And so regardless of what point you were referring to where there's supposed to be town homes there, I'm not seeing it.

So in 4.4, it encourages commercial development on all four corners.

I am not seeing any townhome development in any sector of four on the South uh 360 corridor uh study.

So, and I'm sorry that you didn't bring the information.

I realize that you say, you know, you wouldn't think that you would need it, but you know, that is something that I would think would be pretty important to prove if if that was an issue, you know, if you were so intent on making sure that you were outside those parameters that that would be a real big point for you to show us.

I need to interrupt and ask a question because I'm confused.

The city says they're outside the 300-foot barrier, correct?

Yes.

So what's the issue?

The issue is just because they're outside the 300-foot barrier doesn't mean we have to allow them to build there.

So because it's with where it's located at I just want you to state your your your feelings so that there's I don't have any misunderstanding.

Do you object to homes being built this close to a gas well?

Yes, I do.

Okay.

So that's a fundamental.

I do not want to see homes built as close as they're wanting to build to the gas wells.

Understood.

Okay.

So let's see.

Permitted means we can't control it.

Okay.

Trees.

So what do you think you're going to have to pay for not meeting the 35 percent of the tree preservation?

I don't know.

I'll ask my client to come up and answer that question.

Kevin?

What maybe Kevin can tell us.

Do you happen to know what they're going to end up having to pay for not meeting the 35 percent tree preservation?

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Um, let's see.

And the council, you you stated that the council advised you to wait to schedule a meeting with the neighborhood.

No, can I clarify what I said?

Please.

Because I didn't say that.

What I what I said was we had been advised by the mayor and the council, some council members, as well as the staff, Ms.

Thhopel, who's well aware of those conversations and was part of those and part of that advice, not to begin to bring this case forward in a in a public way until that was done for fear of conflating the two in the minds of the public.

And then the Total case moved farther on in the calendar than had been originally anticipated.

And so we thought, and it moved another time or so, maybe two, and and so we begin to move with it.

So we didn't want to do anything that confused that situation.

I mean, the idea was not to try to bamboozle the neighborhood.

I mean, that's that's not what we want to do.

We think this is a positive thing, and obviously we want them to know, and we would agree right now that we'll make sure now that you know if if we're approved tonight uh uh and and or move this case forward that we're gonna we'll get with the neighborhood before the city council and have a meeting as you suggested uh and not go you know door to door.

I mean, you know, I've been part of both those kind of things in the past.

I think it's better to have everybody there because the message is one message, and then they can respond.

So you don't have ad hoc conversations about somebody who happens to like you know orange doors.

And so you know what do you think about that?

Well, we think about you and you're not ever discuss anything else.

All right.

So were you able to get information from Cynthia Cruz on who to contact the company?

Yeah, we've got and it's it's the same contacts.

We had two a couple of management companies.

What I what I'm trying to get is specific individuals that I can contact that can actually make those things happen, make the meetings happen.

So are you talking to HOAs or management companies?

Well, the management companies operate the HOAs, the ones that that we've been provided.

Yeah, I mean I'm just I'm I I am I'm sincere when I say that.

I'm not I'm not here to say that that we don't need to talk to the neighborhoods.

I mean I'm I'm here to tell you the truth, and I'm and that's what I'm doing.

So I'm not I'm not I'm not trying to skirt around the issue.

I'm just saying, as of standing here right now tonight, I am being honest with you saying we have not spoken with with those associations, but we will.

And I mean we we want to, and we'll I'll make that promise to you.

Uh because normally the HOA president is usually the person that's on record at the city, not the management company.

Yeah, but we don't have as far a all of these, all the records at the city are not are not current and up to date.

And we've been I I've done this on on other cases as well.

I mean, I'm I'm familiar with that.

And and so again, we we want to do that, and we want to make it we want to make it happen.

I mean, uh again, I I live in Arlington just like everybody else.

I don't want things you know happening that I don't have a chance to have input on.

Uh I mean everybody else, everybody here.

Right.

And uh and so again, I mean, you know, that's that's something that that we'll absolutely do.

It's something I believe we need to do.

And then and I'm a proponent of it, and on other uh ventures I've been involved in the last year, I bet I've had a total of uh probably 12 to 15 homeowners association meetings with different people in different places, and and I think they're very positive.

And in fact, lots of lots of times you find a lot more common ground than you do uh uh points of of disagreement.

Right.

Well, all I can say at this point is I I can't support this project tonight.

And part of the reason is the commercial portion of it that you don't want to include in the planned development at this time.

That's that's a that's a no-go for me.

Well, and we are c it just and I want to I wonder if we can get some clarification from the staff.

It is in the planned development, it is part of the PD, correct?

Because it keeps getting represented as if it's not part of this case.

The commercial is it will not have a detailed site plan.

And and so uh when the commercial uses come forward for that site, pursuant to whatever constraints, as I mentioned earlier, that we're willing to to certainly uh have be part of this, then it will actually be analyzed for what it is, what that development is, so it best meets the standards for that development.

It will have to, but it will be part of the PD.

It's not a it's not a separate piece that's that's outside of this.

It will be governed by the PD.

It just won't have the specific site plan uh that's been approved.

Okay, so Kevin, now I'm really confused.

So in in the staff report, you noted that if the commercial portion explain that to me then.

So just like Harmony Court.

When they went through with the process of Harmony Court, which we looked at most recently.

Yes.

They knew what they wanted to do.

They knew what they their design was for the RM12.

Yes.

So when they came in, they said, hey, we want to include this community commercial at the corner.

However, we don't know who what when where at this point in time.

Okay.

But we want it to be part of this PD.

We know what we want to do with this RM12.

Okay.

They went ahead and they said, hey, we're going to develop this RM12.

Well, staff has said is much like Harmony Court.

If they want to go through, they know exactly what they're trying to do right now with this RM12.

Okay, fine.

When they get ready to to develop that commercial portion, because they did not have a DT.

Yes.

Yeah, uh there you go.

Have a a brick and mortar or know who they were going to deal with, they need to come back.

Okay.

They need to come back and have a development plan approved for that commercial push.

Okay.

But it is part of the part of the PDS map.

It's part of the PD, but they're not including it in the development plan portion.

Okay.

Just the zoning portion.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

It's the problem with having planned developments and development.

Yes.

Because they mean different things.

All right.

Well, I think that is my part of the show here.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sumter.

That went on too long, I forgot my question.

Yeah.

Oh.

I'll have they'll have to come back to me.

So I'm sorry.

That's okay.

Any other questions of the applicant?

Commissioner Carter.

I I can't support it because of the the you know, this is basically 30 acres that were giving up its own community commercial, giving it up for other um huge possibilities that could come to the to the uh area.

Uh I think the market is oversaturated with rentals, and I think a lot of people in the area are screaming that were that they're just tired of all the rentals, and they want other things down there.

There is there's no variety.

I drove through the area some and it just that's all all you see down there now is is new apartments.

Yeah, some of them look pretty good, but there's a lot of them down there.

I I and it you mentioned economics.

Well, if you say the economics don't work for anything but this high of density, and well then maybe the market price on the it needs to come down some because it just doesn't fit for high density multi house multi-family housing.

Uh and so maybe the make it maybe the market price on the property is too high and needs to be sold at a rate where a developer could put in RS5, which would be really uh sustainable for the economy long term down there to have homeownership.

So now I just can't support any more uh apartments or multifamily in the area.

Commissioner Ware um I like this project.

Um I think it fits the area.

Um the the and you uh you have promised to look at uh do what Commissioner Sumter wanted with the trees take to see if you can uh rearrange a little bit to to work with that, correct?

Right, and as I understand it the the proposal laws on the west side make the lots less deep, and and that way it pulls that side of the street over, allows you to widen the center on where basically you do this with the center portion up there that would allow rear entry behind those units so they would have front facing uh like the Debbie Lane side.

Okay.

Um well to answer your question earlier, yes, I do see value in doing that.

Yes, okay.

Um I don't really have any other questions.

I'm not worried about those three units there next to the pool.

Um and uh as far as the commercial goes, that area I I agree with you on the on what would probably go in there.

Um I don't I don't see any point um grabbing more area there.

I don't think I don't think you're gonna gain enough.

You might gain enough to put another pad in there, but just it's just not uh I don't think it's worth uh trying to grab that area and hold it.

So I like this, I like the project.

I think we we need a variety of housing.

I would really prefer that it was for sale.

The units were for sale.

They're set up that way.

You've got the HOA that you're gonna set up, correct?

Correct, yes, yes, and uh I would hope that maybe we see some uh uh changes in uh in interest rates that would make that more uh more appealing to to sell the units because that's that's what we need is more of this type of housing that's livable as well as affordable.

So I'm uh tonight I could go for it.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Dixon, thank you.

Uh but you don't go anywhere just yet.

I have in support additional cards.

I'm gonna read them out loud.

Um Mr.

Patel.

Good.

And you're uh in support and a non-speaker.

Mitch Avery in support, non-speaker.

Sonny Patel, support, non-speaker.

Where are you, Sonny?

Okay, thank you.

Joseph uh post.

Thank you.

Nico Walden Drayton Foster.

Gabloy uh Via Lobos.

Thank you.

And um is there anyone else in in favor of the project that has not had an opportunity to speak?

Is there anyone here in opposition?

No.

Any final qu comments?

Um, Mr.

Dixon.

No, not as long as uh you know answered all your questions and and as far as we we will explore, can't commit the that rear this evening that they will be today.

We're having we are planning we will be tomorrow morning looking into that to see what we can do to make that happen.

Put that map back up of the uh of the of the project, please.

Uh yeah, that that's it exactly.

One of the things that I noticed when we did a revision to a uh uh uh development plan on that other project on Debbie, there was walkability from this neighbor from uh from this neighborhood to those restaurants or whatever it is you're gonna put up their Starbucks, whatever.

Is there any walkability from these townhomes to that commercial corner?

And in fact, there it there is a on the front, and as part of the integration of this project, when we talk about uh the when we come in for the detailed side plan, the thought has always been that integration again, this is just a representation, you know, up there of those two those two units, would be to tie it in up there so that it's not what people aren't walking into the backyards or the front doors of people who live in the in the town homes, but that it's right there with a sidewalk on Debbie and then a sidewalk that can they can add uh the conduit up there on uh believe that's Glenn Day, I gotta make sure I got my directions right.

So these people could theoretically walk to those restaurants and walk home.

And then there's a trail system, you know, on up the other side when you get up uh Webb Ferrell and and on up across the creek, the terminus is up there again.

The hope's always been to tie all of that eventually down and farther back to the West.

Okay.

Uh over time.

All right, thank you.

Any other comments or questions before I close the public session?

Mr.

Maddox?

I hear what you're saying.

The problem I'm experienced is I can't tell any of that because it's not in front of me.

Okay.

Very good.

I'm gonna close the public session.

Uh any other final comments or statements by the commissioners.

Commissioner Finley.

I just like to know, and please feel free, anybody that wants to answer, why we ask for two continuances tonight, because they had planned developments and they couldn't show us what the exact plans were and why everyone's jumping on board for this project just by word of mouth.

So let me respond.

First, they're asking for the vote.

They don't want a continuance.

That's what I heard.

So that's the first part of my answer.

The second part is this is a different company.

That last couple of these other smaller outfits that came here, they didn't have any reply or response to our request for making their projects look better, look better.

These people have what, 39 different color schemes?

They're telling us, and plus you've seen the other project.

So you know it's a high uh uh higher quality uh outfit or an outfit that can deliver on what they say they're going to do.

So from my perspective, do I need to see the actual uh artist renderings of what the different buildings are gonna look like?

No, I don't.

I also accept the applicant's answer.

Well, you know, it would have been really time consuming to do that and expensive to do that.

So that's that's my that's my reply to to your uh your question.

So is that the way we should look at every case from now on?

Is it depends on who the developer is that's presenting?

I think that all of us on this commission are um astute enough and um able to make judgments about uh when we're gonna vote yes and when we're gonna vote no, when we're gonna ask for continuance, when we're not.

I think that's a uh it's a matter of opinion.

So my opinion may be different than yours on one subject on one project.

We may be on the same page on another project.

I think we're gonna find ourselves on opposite sides on this project.

Because I think I have enough information.

But that's me.

And that's this case, it may not be the next case.

Um I'm gonna vote for this project.

I like it because it provides it's not the three, four-story multi-family.

Uh and if and uh you know it's interesting.

I took my wife down there to look at this piece of property, and she said, who in the world is going to want to invest and live in a home for 20, 30 years next to an electric station and a gas well.

Now that addresses the point you made.

I'm never gonna do that.

That is a terrible piece of property to build almost anything on because of the gas well and that electric station, because there's a lot of people out there that think, oh my god, I'm gonna get radiation from that electric station, or something bad's gonna happen to me.

There's no accounting for the amount of risks that people are willing to take to live, and these are townhomes, townhomes.

It's been my experience that not very many people live in a town.

I mean, excuse me.

It's a generalization.

The vast majority of people that live in townhomes don't stay there for 20, 30 years.

There are some that do, but most don't.

This is gonna be like most apartment complexes, a transient population, but it is a place for people to live.

I'm either going to vote no because uh I don't uh well let me I know what I'm gonna do.

I'm gonna vote yes, but I am torn.

I had to make this, I've made I made this statement often on city council when it came to gas wells.

Yeah, you know, uh there are reasons to be concerned and afraid, but at the same time, um we can't stop the state from building them, and I can't tell a landowner that they can sell their land.

It's zoned, what is uh community commercial.

My God, you can't build a nursing home there, you can't build a school, you can't build, there's a lot of things you can't build there because of the distances, but you can build homes.

Uh I'm conflicted.

Okay, so those are my comments.

Moving to the left.

Commissioner, uh, let's just go down the line, whoever wants to talk.

So I think it's a great project.

I think there are a lot of things about it that we might not have visually seen the details that we are looking for, but you did answer them, and when we present the motion to approve it, we're going to put those in play.

Um I think one of the key factors for us based on projects we've seen recently is that you agree you're not gonna put a gas station on that corner because that's one of the neighborhood concerns that we heard last week.

We didn't want a gas station.

And unfortunately, they're going to probably get a little gas station.

Not a little one, but a gas station.

Um I think that that you're answering our concerns, and that's really what gives us a little piece of mind.

And and Linda, to your defense, I do agree.

We did ask for continuances on the two prior projects, but I don't feel they're the caliber of this one.

They're not the developers, they're not the same, they're new, they're different.

Um, and I think that's something that we have to take into consideration is every case that comes before us is based on the data that we have, the information and knowledge that we have that's presented, and what we know about the people who are presenting them as well.

In addition to that, we have to vote on what's right for what we think the best use of that land is.

And it's too far off the highway to get a huge commercial project.

It's just not viable there.

But it is a viable place.

I'm a product of a townhome in Arlington.

My mother-in-law and father-in-law moved here from Colorado to a town home.

They bought the townhome and they owned it for about 18 years.

They owned it, but they leased it for a little while.

And so I think there's some advantages to that.

If I had expendable cash, I would love to have real estate to do that with, but I don't.

So I think there are some benefits to that.

So you're you're getting a yes from me.

Next.

I I feel like if if you feel like it's an inferior piece of land for you to live on, then I feel like it would be an inferior piece of land for a tenant to live on.

And so I would I just don't see how this is uh uh a viable piece of land for this many people to be living there so close to a gas site, and we and I and I see Miss Total out there.

I think your name is Leslie, and I we haven't heard from her yet.

So I'd like to know if she thinks it's a if it I know she's pro gas well sites, but why is Leslie here?

And let's maybe what can she fill us in on how the dangers of it?

Is it 300 feet?

Is it 600 feet?

Is what's the safe?

Is this okay?

Is it the will of the commissioners to reopen the public session to hear?

So it's just there's just too many uh variables in this piece of land that make it not viable and not a safe place for anyone to live, especially the most vulnerable population that will live there when it's new, yeah.

It won't the older the property gets, the more vulnerable the people will be to live there.

Twenty years time, it could be low-income housing, and they'll be playing in the seepage or whatever happens at a gas well site.

So I'm just not I just cannot see this happening there.

Any other comments on this side?

Comments over here?

Commissioner Blake.

You know, f first of all, I don't think that I would ever live in a neighborhood like this.

But one of the things that I have learned on this council is different people require different places to live, different businesses, things of that nature.

And the more I've seen people move into Viridian with a house that's that far apart, it amazes me.

I could never do that.

So I'm voting for it, but one of the reasons that I'm voting for this is I liked your attitude coming up and addressing things.

I feel that if I was on a tipping point because there's things I didn't like about this, you tipped me that other direction.

The reason I didn't vote for the other, would not have voted for the other cases is they didn't get me past that halfway point.

You did.

So thank you, and I look forward to having this project passed tonight.

Commissioner Ware.

I just uh just want to say a couple of more things.

Uh uh just like Commissioner Blake said, I appreciate the way you uh the way you came in and talked about this tonight.

You you didn't didn't uh try to blow us away with some pretty pictures you got right down to the facts, and uh and I like that a lot.

Um also just to say it is well if things don't if things go the way I want them to go on May 2nd, I'm gonna see you again, and I got all of these notes on yes, I'm going to see the neighbors.

Yes, we're gonna do all of these different looks, and that we're gonna put in the uh uh in this motion.

I hope if Mr.

Sumter's got a whole list of them.

Uh so that's ready.

Uh that's the reason I'm um I'm gonna vote yes for this.

With that, Commissioner Sumter, would you state your motion?

Yes, sir, and this is gonna be a long motion, so bear with me.

Uh move to approve PD 25-22 with an address of 1120 W Lane and 8380 Glenda Drive, an application for approval of a jump change in zoning from community commercial to planned development for community commercial and residential medium density with a development plan on approximately 29.850 acres with the following conditions that a development bank plan be required for the community commercial district in the future, that gas sales will be prohibited as a land use on the community commercial tract.

That all common areas should be located within designated X lots and maintained by the POA or HOA.

That the existing trees that are reflected, the non protected existing trees that are reflected on the West property line be removed and the site plan be altered to incorporate additional rear entry units within the middle block of the development.

That a pedestrian connectivity be provided to the commercial tract from the townhome tract.

And that a mixture of units and types and colors as presented by the developer and applicant be included in the application.

That ends my motion.

Oh I'm sorry.

Actually, I actually wrote that down.

In a community meeting be held with the applicant in the neighborhood.

No, that the negative on that not satisfying the 35% on the on the tree preservation is $13,800.

And I'll add that motion too.

Okay.

Very good.

And that they hold a community meeting before they get to council.

Yes, sir.

I said that.

Okay.

Can I get clarification on the pedestrian connection?

Uh just providing a sidewalk pedestrian connection from the townhome track to the commercial track.

Commercial track.

Okay, thank you.

Very good.

And Commissioner Blake.

I'm sorry.

Yes, sir.

I just wanted to have a point of clarification.

That I made a mistake is $13,140.

$13,100.

All right.

Commissioner Blake, is that your second?

I don't think I could repeat it, but yes, it is.

Very good.

Cast your vote.

Motion passes five to three.

With that, thank you for bringing your business to Arlington.

Uh and let me end with are we do we have any final uh reports from any commissions or any other organizations?

No, sir.

Uh does the staff have any announcements?

Uh Commissioner Carter, tell us about the signs, please.

I've got uh Arlington 150th signs.

Thank you.

I've got the uh in my car, I've got a box of Arlington 150th signs.

So if I'm parked in the city parking lot right here, so if y'all want to meet me out here, come on out and I'll be there and I can pass out the signs for your front yard or your business.

Thank you.

With that, I want to remind everyone that our next regular session meeting of planning the zoning commission will be Wednesday, April the 29th, 2026.

We are adjourned.