Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the City of Farmers Branch Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. It is presently 7 p.m. Monday, August 10th, 2026. I'd like to begin by thanking the commissioners for their service. On our agenda first, item A, citizen comments. This agenda item provides an opportunity for citizens to address the Planning and Zoning Commission on any matter that is not posted on the agenda. Anyone wishing to address the commission should complete a citizen comments registration form and submit it to the chair prior to the start of the meeting. There is a three minute time limit for each citizen to speak within a reasonable limitation on speakers on any one topic or item within a maximum of 15 total minutes on the same topic item. Anyone wishing to speak shall be courteous and cordial. And I have received a number of citizen comments forms, but I believe they're all for an item on the agenda. So we will proceed. The Planning and Zoning Commission is not permitted to take action on any subject raised by a speaker during citizen comments. And when called, please approach the podium and state your name and address prior to beginning. on our regular agenda items. First, item B1, nomination and election of chair and vice chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission and take appropriate action. Commissioners will receive any nominations.

I would like to nominate Amber Raley as chairperson.

I'll second that nomination.

Okay. Any discussion on the item? I think let's do one at a time. That's an excellent question. But I appreciate that. That will make most sense.

And I believe we're voting, right?

Okay, great. Okay, with no further discussion on the item, we'll move to a vote. All those in favor? Thank you all. All right. And with that, we will move to the nomination of the vice chair.

I'll nominate Marcus.

Thank you. I'll second. Second. Any further discussion on the item? All right. With that, we'll move to a vote. All those in favor? All right. Well, thank you, thank you all. We'll proceed as we have been and appreciate the support and look forward to our next year ahead of us. Next up, item B2, consider approval of the July 27th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and take appropriate action.

Any comments on the meetings, errors, issues?

Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. All those in favor to approve. Oh, I should ask for action. Sorry, I'm jumping ahead.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Thank you.

I second that.

Thank you. Yeah, with no further discussion on that, and we'll move to a vote. All right. All those in favor to approve the minutes. All right. Thank you all. And then next on our agenda, item C1, conduct a public hearing and consider a request to amend plan development district number 18, that's PD 18, to remove the age restriction requirements in subdefinition. Sub-district B on approximately 6.1 acres described as Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block C and the RHD Medical Center 2 plat and commonly addressed as 1, 2, and 3 North Medical Parkway and take appropriate action. Thank you, Tara.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. My name is Tara Bradley, Planning Manager with the Planning Division and Community Service. And today's item is proposed zoning amendment for Medical Parkway. And this is requested by the Planning and Zoning Division. And this item has come before you all on June 22nd, and tabled to July 22nd, and then also tabled to dates for tonight. And this evening, I will make a brief presentation just to kind of give everybody background, a reminder of what we have had tabled prior to. So with this area, the background is 6.11 acres located at Medical Parkway. which encompasses three lots here. It's zone planned development district number 18, and with this development, planned development, it allowed for age restriction of a multifamily facility, and tonight the applicant is requesting to remove the age restriction required in sub-district B. And again, it's existed permitting age-restricted multifamily dwelling units, With that, the comprehensive plan does state that this area is designated as commercial, which does recommend large footprint commercial. And the proposed item is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, but it does follow the framework of their previous approved zoning district. And again, just to remind everyone that we had this item on the planning and zoning. which was on June 22nd, the table to June 27th, and today we are here to hear the item. And then with the public responses, we mailed out 94 letters, mailed to surrounding owners, and we posted a zoning notification sign on there, and we have received about 106 responses in opposition of this project. With that, this concludes the presentation, and I'm available for any questions and comments you may have, and the applicant is available as well, too.

Thank you. Commissioners, questions for staff?

I've got two questions, and these are both pertaining to the ordinance that was mentioned in the last meeting. That's 3556. I think that's originally associated with the plan development. The first question is, is this the appropriate point in the process to address some of the changes in density, or would that be more appropriately handled as part of a detailed site plan?

For density, right now it does say that there's a max of 306 units that could be proposed within this plan development. When we get into details as far as transportation, development facade and such, that would come down to the site plan. And if there's any modifications that are deviating from that PD, approved PD, then that will come down to the site plan that would move forward. So with tonight, yes it is. looking at removing the age restriction, which still will be in line with what the multifamily use is. It's just the age restriction would be removed to allow for them to have to that allow what we call conventional multifamily.

OK. And that leads into my second question, which is. Let's say that this gets approved tonight and gets passed or through council. Would it, based on the conceptual site plan that's presented and the numbers therein, would it be in violation of the ordinance and they would need to adjust? Or when the zoning is changed, is a change to that ordinance also made?

So I'm going to repeat back what I'm hearing, because I need to understand what you're asking. So with that, you're saying if they have a conceptual plan with the PD that they're proposing now, and they don't build within that concept plan?

Well, I believe the assertion is that the conceptual plan violates the ordinance as it is written in terms of density.

It would not be And it would not be in violation of what is existing today as far as because you have the maximum units of 306 within there. The conceptual plan is to allow for a concept. There may be deviations from it. If there is extravagant deviations from that plan, then they would need to, again, bring it back forward to planning and zoning in City Council for special exception uses as well, too, to allow for those items that deviate from the PD that is current.

So the ordinance would persist through the zoning change?

So within, it would persist in this. If they said, if they were to develop it just as it is right now, they would be able to still develop that multifamily unit as requested, but it would just remove the age restriction criteria.

Okay, I think that answers it, yeah.

Further questions?

Sure. Would you bring up the map that has the bright green that shows the PD18? So question about the, I'm trying to understand why the road that goes out is included in that. Is that?

It's part of, because it's a drainage easement that's over a piece of land. It's not roadway or anything like that. It's the drainage easement, but that's part of the property encompassed in.

So that's the section B, it's not A? I mean, because immediately below that is A, right? So that is only, that road is part of the section B's

So the drainage easement is part of section B and C of the original PD. Okay. Sub-district A would be the medical area.

So A doesn't include that road. That's B and C. It's B and C. Okay. Is there access to any trails from the site?

As it stands right now, and I would like to come back to that question on there just to confirm if there is. I know there is a community garden that is adjacent to this property.

Okay.

But as to call it out as a trail on our plan, I just want to confirm that.

So I wrote a note and I can't read my own writing here. Welcome back. I'll think of what it is. I literally can't read my own writing. I wrote it like two minutes ago and I can't read it. Thank you.

Further questions for staff? Just a clarification because it's always a question that comes up around the 20% rule. If we could just clarify that rule and might refer to legal as well to just ensure that we have that.

As far as the 20% rule goes under 211 of the local government code, Sorry, I was blanking there. It goes 20% have to put opposition in within the 200 feet to trigger the supermajority notice and included in that 20% is the property itself.

And just to clarify, 20% is 20% of the land area. Correct. In that. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you for that clarification, just in case that comes up. And I believe, as I understood from looking at the packet staff from the information received, we have not yet reached that 20 percent threshold.

We have not reached the 20 percent threshold. And I just will clarify to also that would affect the vote of city council.

Correct.

Correct.

Madam Chair, I do have a question for staff. Yep. Since I'm new, I was on this committee when this was originally passed back in 2019. But as I read through the packet, can you explain the ingress, egress, just where is the road and all those types of things? Is the access through Myra Lane or is the access through Medical Parkway? Or what is how do you how do the 300 residents get to the proposed apartment complex?

So within this and I Want to bring that back to the site plan because that will all be fleshed out To confirm because we also need to have our development review committee to review that as well but as it stands right now If it was proposed, it would be all on Medical Parkway. It would not be to MIRA.

And the MIRA access was for emergency vehicles only, is what I recall.

To understand previous site plan, yes.

Okay, thank you.

I've got one, I have one question. So when you have the, if you have the building all put up and then you've got MIRA lane and you've got the Medical Parkway coming through, At what point is there some exposure and, for lack of a better term, nuisance, if this project is completed and you've got X number of floors, what kind of exposure is there, either noise, light, or anything else, to the people who are in the first couple of blocks north of that?

So within development, general rule is that there should be zero light, at least one foot candle, but it's all gonna be focused down on your building. So it will not extend the boundary of the property. So usually that's the rule when reviewing a photometric plan to make sure that it's contained within the site as well too. So that would be, and that would be another component that is along with the site plan to be reviewed to make sure that they have certain shields on the lights that do not allow for light to bypass that boundary of that area. And it's also too, also a way that if you need to, residents can talk with the developer as well too to make sure that is taken care of as well too. Yeah, and there are ordinances within our zoning, excuse me, so code of ordinance that address the nuisance and the noise level. So there's certain noise levels that they would have to have and maintain as well too. And it would be just like as if anyone that was at their home too, if there's a nuisance going on or something to that effect, then you would... either call or ask your neighbor to please turn it down.

Further questions for staff?

One more. I understand there was a public hearing between our last meeting and this meeting with the developer and citizens. Is there anything that this commission needs to know that came out of that?

I would like to, I think, defer that to our developer as far as the outcome to kind of gauge that, to kind of provide that feedback.

Thank you.

Great.

Any further for staff?

I remembered. So this, there's a parking garage on this lot because there was a development that went bankrupt, correct?

I'll defer that to the applicant.

Okay. So I believe that's the case, and I just wanted to confirm that whatever that development was, did it meet all the PD18 requirements, the 55-plus and the senior living requirements? Yeah. So it was a development that met those requirements, but it went bankrupt?

It never came to fruition. I can say that, that it's not... It was not constructed.

Right. I think it's an important point. I mean, I just confirmed that. I believe that's what I believe it went bankrupt. But I'd just like to confirm that if you wouldn't mind.

And unfortunately, I'll let that applicant confirm that portion of it if need be.

Thank you. Anything else? All right, I do believe we have the applicant here. We likely have some questions for the applicant. Thank you so much. And if you wouldn't mind, just come forward and state your name and address for the record. Whoever is the applicant that would like to speak.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Jamal Varani. I am representing the applicant.

And your address for the record?

I live in Houston, but address is 5202 Ivy Stone Court, Sugar Land, Texas, 77479.

Thank you. And I believe we have some questions. Yep, we'll start.

First is just what is your plan, or do you all have plans?

Use the mic. Right into it. You have to be very close.

Do you have plans to develop the single-family portion of this PD at all, or just the multifamily portion?

We would... like to eventually get to that portion of the conversation but obviously the majority piece is the multifamily side of it so um that would depend on that um that would be kind of secondary okay and as this gets to council let's say it doesn't make it doesn't make it through and the 55 plus age restriction stays in place what is your plan for this property just to wait and sit on it for as long as i can and it's just going to stay at the parking garage and kind of looks how it looks right now okay

Further questions? Yeah, if you wanna.

Yeah, I attended the meeting, the public meeting the other day, and one of your team mentioned that you might have had a letter or two from lenders. Yes, sir. That talked about or that it wasn't financeable and that you were going to provide that. Have you provided that? Can we get copies of those letters?

We do have two letters from two different banks. And kind of going back to your question earlier, I think for for staff, which was the previous ownership did go bankrupt, which is why showing the current lenders that we're trying to work with. don't find it feasible to do 55 and up age-restricted multifamily development. So we do have the two letters, which were sent across, I believe, Ellie, who was in discussion with one of the city council members, should have sent it over today. If not, I can get over to you right now as soon as I get back to you.

Okay, yeah, it would be nice to see those letters.

Additional questions for our applicant?

I'LL CIRCLE BACK THE QUESTION I ASKED FOR STAFF. THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING IN BETWEEN OUR LAST MEETING AND THIS MEETING AND IT INCLUDED CITIZENS AND YOU, THE DEVELOPER, WAS THERE. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THIS BODY NEEDS TO KNOW THAT WAS A RESULT OF THAT MEETING?

Overall, I think from the last P&Z meeting to now, one of the changes which we even talked about at the last meeting, which was any traffic towards Myra Lane, we added the gate back there to make sure there's no traffic issues leading into the residential neighborhood portion. Speaking to the citizens of Farmer's Branch, we discussed the fact that You know, there'd be more property tax evaluation coming to the city to help funding school districts would be better off as well with more residents with students coming in. And so we spoke about the value of getting rid of the 55 and up age restriction in the sense that. We're not saying no seniors can't come in to a conventional or class a multi family development. It just opens up the doors to allow more working class residents families.

Especially you know individuals working the hospital next door to have a place to live Thank you, thank you further questions for our applicant One that I had This kind of occurred to me one of the tenants we talked about a lot in planning is that we plan to for the use, not for the user, right? In your estimation, could you tell me, do you believe that the use of the site as a non-age restricted differs from the 55 plus, and if so, how?

So overall, the use is still going to be multifamily. Really what it comes down to is who's staying there. So you're still going to have the same kind of density. You're still going to have residents coming in and going. Really, the only difference is going to be the quality of product that we actually build. Seeing that as if we get rid of the age restriction, we can build a better quality product when talking about conventional multifamily. with more amenities, the dog park, some better greenery in surrounding areas, just make a better quality product. So the actual use itself is still going to stay multifamily. It's just a matter of the age of who actually comes and stays.

Thank you. Sure. Additional questions for our applicant? Okay. I have one question.

When you say it's a better quality product, Why does age change that outlook?

Yeah, absolutely. Great question. So when you're talking about a 55 and up age restriction, one, you have a different kind of build on the interior of the units itself. And so when you're doing that, the gross rent that you charge and the occupancy that you end up getting with the demand that there is today, your revenue is going to end up being lower. And so having a lower revenue means we are capped in terms of kind of doing things backwards math with the lender, we're capped in terms of the capex that we can actually spend on the product. So our billed dollars that we have available to us are going to be lower because the revenue is not going to be as high. If we can do traditional, conventional, Class A multifamily, our gross revenue ends up being slightly higher because you have a higher demand for it, your units are more efficient, and so we can build a better quality product, seeing as to we are targeting a higher revenue, which, again, then tends to lead to higher property tax as well.

Additional questions.

Chair. Does your developer bill I mean, kind of tell us about the experience with multifamily. Is this a common thing? Have you done hundreds of them? Or is this a third one you're doing? Sure.

So the question was the kind of history of us. And yeah, we've developed Class A not only in multifamily, but we have done senior living as well. So we've done the traditional multifamily. We've done retail. We've done office, multifamily, self-storage. We've done all different types of commercial real estate products. And being Class A in Texas and in Illinois, we are developers across the U.S. now as well. So we do have the experience in building that high quality product. Yes, sir.

And a follow-up, on your multifamily specifically, does the developer build and sell, or do they build and hold and operate?

So out of all the ones we've ever built over the past 10 years, I've only sold one multifamily development, which was two years ago, and that was in Chicago.

So the intent with this property is to hold and operate?

Yes, sir. It is to hold and operate, yes, sir.

Thank you.

Further questions for our applicant? Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you all so much.

All right. With that, a note that we are continuing the public hearing from previous, so we will not have to reopen, but it's a continuation. And because we do have so many folks signed up to speak, we have a slight different change in process, just to try to help make this process go smoothly. We have... A couple of individuals that will be taking more than the three minutes, but not really because they have done is have a number of people that are yielding their time to that individual. So that in net, it comes out to be precisely the same. So what I'm going to do first is call a group of names. And then if you would, with this group, if you would just kindly, you know, start with one at a time. You can come to the podium. It's my understanding that you're in this stack, that you're yielding your time. But if you would, just state your name and address for the record. And please indicate clearly that you're yielding your time and to whom. And we will do that. And that will allow everyone to count all those people. We'll know the amount of time. We'll confirm that. And then we'll have the speaker for that group. come up and speak, and I think we'll repeat that process again for a second speaker, and then I have a large stack of individual speakers. All right, so hopefully we'll be clear on this process, and this should hopefully allow everything to go quite smoothly. So I am going to begin, again, these are people, as I understand it, are yielding their time, but I will ask you to come to the podium, name and address, and clearly state so. beginning first with Mary Beth Demijohn. Apologies on the names, y'all. I'm going to do my very best. You can go ahead, and we'll do one at a time, and then... Okay. I'm Mary Beth Demijohn, 3277 Bryncrest Drive, Farmers Branch, and I'm yielding my time to David Koch. Thank you very much. Next up, J.K. Babber. Baber, apologies, y'all.

I'm J.K. Baber, 3171 Breadcrust Circle, Informer's Branch, and I donate my time to David Koch.

Thank you. Up next, Norma Carlson. It might have been a little challenging. Apologies.

I'm Norma Carlson. I live at 122 38 Unis Street, Farmer's Branch, and I yield my time to David Koch.

Thank you. Up next, Joseph Yakimovic.

My name is Joseph Yakimovich.

I and my family lived at 12242 Brisbane Avenue for 48 years, and I defer my time to David.

Thank you very much. And up next, Mary Yakimovich.

I am Mary Yakimovich, 12242 Brisbane Avenue, Farmer's Branch, and I yield my time to David Koch.

Thank you very much. And as I understand it, that's three, four, six, nine, 15, 18. And then with Mr. David, you'll be up next. That will be 20 minutes. Okay. So just state your name and address for the record.

May I bring a drink?

Yes, please. Thank you for returning it. All right.

Should I get situated? Good evening, I'm David Koch and I yield my time to David Koch. At your address as well, thank you. Thank you. 3243 Burncrest Drive, and I appreciate all of your time, all of your effort. I know that it is precious for your time, so we tried to consolidate as much as we can and try to make this concise. So each of you received a binder that has information that will be directly related to what I say so that it's easier for you to understand why we're opposing this and why the request that you're getting is... confusing or misleading at the very least. So I would hope that you can follow along with me. I did a summary of the tabs that make it easier as well. But if you would, at the very beginning, our ask is very simple. That P&Z recommend denial of the zoning change application. recommend denial and there are many reasons for it and each of the tabs supports the reasons which is under the front right behind the ask and under tab 8 that we'll get to and I'll go to each one individually as we go through the tabs so if we Get a little bit of history. As you know, in 2019 and 20, the hospital, the neighbors, and the developer got together and worked through a lot of questions, similar issues that we have now, and came up with the plan that was age-restricted at 55 and up. The hospital was very much in favor of that because it helped their business model, and they wanted it, and they did not want it otherwise. So it was a labor of a lot of effort by the citizens, the hospital, and the developer, as well as planning and zoning in the city. Ultimately, we had ordinance 3556, which is based on the conceptual site plan, which is part of this packet. It's tab four, which is going to be very important to why I think that there's only one conclusion of what can be done, and that is recommending denial. SO THAT'S THE GENERAL HISTORY. A LITTLE HISTORY ABOUT THE DEVELOPER OR THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT, SIV INC., IS INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROJECT. AND FOR THEM TO SAY SOME OF THE THINGS THEY DID AT THE MEETING THEY HAD WITH US IS SOMEWHAT ASTOUNDING. was a general contractor on the project that went into bankruptcy. Now, I will add from my understanding of following that bankruptcy, the primary reason that the developer went into bankruptcy is that the primary person behind it, the Mr. Verani of the current developer, the person that was the lead guy, died unexpectedly, and there was nobody that could fill that void, and things just collapsed. So it wasn't a matter of that the project was not feasible, it's that the primary person, the real driving engine, died and there was no replacement. I won't tell you that's the only reason, but that was what I've understood from my investigation, was the driving force behind why it failed. Now, if we look at the zoning application, you heard it today that they're only asking to lift the age restriction. That is absolutely not true. Tab 1, they are asking, it's a stealth request for an increase in your density, an increase in your parking that does not meet the city standards, and a vast change in the density or in the unit mix of what was approved and was under the conceptual site plan and which is part of Ordinance 3556. So if you look at tab one, sieves, zoning application amendment, in no less than four places they tell you, all we're asking for is to lift the age restriction. That is absolutely untrue. You see in the very beginning, I think there's all highlighted in green and yellow at the very top, age restriction removal. Move down to the two or three lines loader. Remove the age restriction on multifamily. Move down to the second sentence in paragraph one. Solely with respect to permitted residential use in sub-district eight, or sub-district B. Go down to the bottom. The amendment is narrowly tailored. It only removes the age occupancy restriction and leaves all other sub-district B regulations, including the 306-unit cap, five-story, seven-story, 70-feet height in place. Over on the next page, midway down, talks about... just removing the restriction. So they're telling you in one breath, all we're looking to do is change it. But then, and let's go back, because it's important now, tab two is the ordinance, 3556. IF YOU TURN TO THE SECOND PAGE, IT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCES CONCEPT PLAN, THE CONCEPT SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED AS EXHIBIT C IN THE CONCEPT PLAN. IT SAYS SHALL CONTROL THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PORTIONS OF PROPERTY WITHIN SUBDISTRICT B AND C. SO THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT IS APPROVED BY THIS ORDINANCE IS WHAT IS CONTROLLING. AND ON THE NEXT PAGE, THE CONCEPT PLAN IS DISCUSSED AGAIN, SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT IS APPROVED AND ATTACHED TO THIS DOCUMENT. you continue on to the next page you got special exceptions and or actually you have a detailed site plan and then there's a reference to special exceptions and the next page minor modifications both of these provisions specifically exclude the ability to change the density on this property if you look at three 3B and 4B and 4C, it says you cannot increase, that it cannot be increased. So with this statute in place, this application cannot proceed as it's drafted. If you look at tab C, or tab three, this is the sub-district map that we're talking about, and what is highlighted in yellow is what is sub-district B, which you'll see comes all the way up to the highway, and it has an L shape which goes over to the footbridge. Sub-district C is a green section, and then sub-district A is a blue section. If you go over to tab four, this is a piece that came out of the SIV application, and that shows you the property that SIV owns highlighted in yellow, and the green property that is highlighted is owned by another party, but it is part of PD18, is part of the 306 cap, and where this gets highlighted, clear that what we have is an application to change the density on the yellow property, not on the entire property. If you now turn to tab five, this is a much clearer copy of the total section of sub-district B in the property. It shows kind of the BOTTOM PORTION OF IT IS WHAT IS OWNED BY THE APPLICANT, AND THE TOP PORTION, THE LONG, NARROW PIECE, IS OWNED BY THE OTHER PARTY. WHAT GETS REALLY IMPORTANT HERE IS YOU FLIP TO THE NEXT PAGE, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET GOOD, CLEAN PICTURES OUT OF WHAT'S ONLINE, BUT I DID. VERY DIFFICULT TO GET GOOD PICTURES. What I'm holding in my hand is a full-blown copy of the conceptual site plans that if you want to see it and be able to read it clearer, it's right here and I'll make it available. But the approved conceptual site plan, as you will see, has a building A and a building B. Building A is the property, is on the property owned by the applicant. Building B is on the property owned by the other party. If you look closely, it's hard to read, building A is limited to 239 units. Building B is 62 or 67 units. So the conceptual site plan, which as we noted in the statute, is what controls. So building B has the right to 60 plus units. Building A has a right to 200 plus units. It doesn't say Either one, or the first one, the fastest one to win the race, gets all 106 of these units. It clearly specifies one property owner gets 200 and some odd number, and one gets 60 some odd numbers. But it's not a race. And unfortunately, and it was somewhat, again, astounding at the town hall meeting, is when this was brought up, the applicant said, well, We got here first, and it's too bad that they haven't decided to apply or build on this property. I think everybody knows in Texas, you have property rights, and they are sacred. They are sacrosanct. And because you don't exercise your rights does not give your property owner next door the right to go usurp your rights. And that's exactly what they said they were doing, is we're going to go and... appropriate or misappropriate 51 of their 60-plus units. And so that's how they get to 301 units in this property. It's inconsistent with the conceptual estate plan. It's inconsistent with 3556, none of which has been asked to be changed or removed or amended or repealed. And so we are driven by and our actions have to be governed by 3556 and a conceptual site plan. So what we have now is if we let this happen, there is going to be a massive increase in density. 51 units, that's over 20% change to this building. But they haven't changed the footprint of this building one foot. They haven't gone up. They haven't added a floor. And so they're going to add 51 units in this same footprint, which means they're going to have a lot more density. They're going to have to shrink the size of every single unit so your quality, your demand, your appeal is going to be less because they've got to figure out how to make 51 more units go into this building. And oh, by the way, the parking, 51 units under our statute, they've got to have at least one and a half, if not two spaces per room or per unit. they're adding, they're proposing under theirs to only add 30 units. If you take the minimum, 1.5 times 51, they need at least 76 and a half additional parking spaces. They don't have it in that building, the parking garage, so where are we gonna get that? We're gonna get them to park in the hospital lots, they're gonna park along the street, they're gonna try to park along the highway when things are really bad, they're gonna park in the dirt. So we have another issue that is not part of the conceptual plan, and is in violation of 3556. If you also look closer at the conceptual plan, the unit mix is one bedroom and two bedroom units. If you look now at what the applicant is proposing, it is now, again, making another change to this process, which is not in our application, and that is they want to add studios. and one and two bedrooms. So now we can see where are they going to do. They're going to have more studios and fewer one bedrooms and two bedrooms. Is that the plan? But either way, they're still having to figure out how to fit 51 more units in the same footprint, none of which is consistent with the conceptual site plan or the ordinance. What you do see on tab 7 is the detailed site plan that was approved by P&Z and the council, which ultimately capped the units in this project at 250. That's a number that SIV, the developer, or the applicant, and the general contractor on the original project was fully aware of. throughout this project. You can't be a general contractor and not know the restrictions that are involved in a project. It is just physically and intellectually impossible to not know when you're building a project of that magnitude, to know that there are unit restrictions and age restrictions on the project. But again, in our town hall meeting, the answer we got, and I kid you not, and let me back up, Civ won the right to buy this property in the bankruptcy court. They got the right to do that because they agreed and they paid $9.45 million to buy this project. Now, to you guys, and to me, that's a heck of a lot of money. And if you're going to put that kind of money, you expect that these people are doing their due diligence. I pointed blank, asked them, did you do your due diligence to find out that this is age-restricted? And the answer was, no. My jaw kind of dropped. I can't believe that somebody would spend $10 million, or nearly $10 million, and not do their due diligence to say they didn't know, and which is the answer we got, that they didn't know that it was age-restricted. And now they need this lifted so they can make a project work. It is not the city's responsibility and it is not the neighbor's responsibility to bail them out of a bad decision. They made a bad decision. If they really didn't do their homework, then that's a huge bad decision that they need to live with. It's not a decision the city or the citizens should shoulder. If they bought the project knowing this, which I suspect they fully knew given their intimate familiarity with the project, then they bought it knowing that they could make it work or they took a big risk thinking that, hey, we'll make it work because we'll get the city to just create it to what we want. And you heard them today, just like when we were back at the town hall meeting, If it doesn't happen, what are you gonna do? And their answer again is somewhat cavalier or actually it's insulting. We'll just let it sit and it's gonna look like it does right now. Well, I got a little problem with that is they're property owners, they're neighbors and they've had this project for nine months and they haven't lifted a finger to make this property look any better. Look at tab seven. compare tab 7 to the pictures of the site property pictures that are in the application and they're in the the city presentation tab 7 is what this property looks like and it's looked like since they bought it you've got the safety fences on the ground it's been on the ground since day one they have not made lifted a finger to make this property any safer it is overgrown there are dead trees there's trash there's weeds there's debris everywhere this is not a good neighbor This is not somebody that you would want to have in your backyard like we have I would fully expect if they lived up to the Claim that they had in the town hall meeting is Collaboration is important. Well, they certainly haven't collaborated with the with us the other owner They haven't collaborated with the city when you leave the property like this and then they say right here to you it's going to look like that until whenever Is that the kind of person or company that the city really wants to deal with? I would say no. Do we need to deal with somebody who makes a bad decision that doesn't do their homework, that don't do their due diligence? Right now, I'd say no. And I suspect the city, if they haven't already started, will start, based on those answers, to code and force the heck out of them if it sits there empty. And they've got the ability to force them to do something because they can condemn the property if it continues to sit there. So to me, it's a threat. It should be considered an idle threat, but an offensive threat to all of us. You guys have the ability to tell them, we don't knuckle under because somebody just says, do it our way, because that's what it is. It's our way or the highway. As the neighbors, we don't want somebody like that as a neighbor. Are they going to manage a project any better once they get it built? Or is it going to be the same way? whatever we need to do to make it work, make it profitable. So does that mean they're gonna cut corners all the way around? I kinda think it does based on what we've seen so far. It's not much responsibility or projecting that they're a responsible company. And in fact, at the town hall meeting, questions were asked, what is your experience in class A? Because if you look at SIV's website, there is no Class A work on there. There's apartment complexes, and they are Class C, perhaps. I don't think they qualify as Class B, but maybe they do. But there is no Class A property on there in terms of residential or multifamily properties. Mr. Verani, who spoke just now and spoke at the meeting, said, well, I've got experience. And we said, can you prove it? Sure, I'll get you that information. Guess what? We don't have it. It's not here. I looked at every single company that he's a party to or related to in Texas. When his name shows up in a search with the Secretary of State through the appropriate different databases, not one of them shows up as being a class A project. So we have somebody that tells us, we've got this experience, but when you look at the hard evidence, it's not there. They do a lot of hospitality and hotel and student housing. commercial, but they don't do any class A apartments. And so they tell us one thing, but the reality is something different. And they tell us they'll prove they're right, but they haven't done it. So where do we start to say, guys, we don't find you credible. And if you're not credible now, how do we think you're going to be credible in the future? With that, I really appreciate your time. Thank you so much for letting us aggregate our time. And if you want to see it, I got it here. Thank you.

All right. Again, we have a speaker who I believe is yielding their time. So that will be Arturo Herrera.

Good evening. Art Herrera, 3268 Brinkridge Drive. And I will be yielding to Lucy Gore.

Thank you, and Lucy Gore.

Thank you. Lucy Gore, 12254 Brisbane Avenue. Thank you for allowing Arturo to yield me his time. I'm going to be reading so I don't forget all my points. I respectfully oppose removing the 55 plus age restriction from this development based on the claim that financing for age-restricted senior housing is unavailable. The developer, as you already know, purchased this property knowing it was approved and intended for a 55 multifamily community. If I was spending that kind of money, I would have known. So I assume that they did. The age restriction was not a surprise. It was part of the property's value proposition at the time they acquired it. More importantly, the facts do not support the argument that senior housing cannot be financed. The United States is experiencing one of the largest demographic shifts in history. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population age 65 and older grew nearly 39% between 2010 and 2020, reaching almost 56 million people. The Census also projects that by 2030, one in five Americans will be over age 65. By 2034, older adults are expected to outnumber children for the first time in U.S. history. That is not a shrinking market. It is a rapidly expanding one. The demand for senior housing isn't declining. The largest generation in American history is moving into retirement age, and North Texas, specifically Farmer's Branch, is one of the regions benefiting from that growth. Industry research also shows that same thing. The National Investment Center for Seniors Housing and Care reports that demand for senior housing continues to outpace new supply. Occupancy rates have been rising and the industry faces a significant shortage of senior housing units in the coming years. In fact, NIC, the National Investment Center, reports that future demand is expected to vastly exceed current development levels. If financing truly did not exist, we would not see the nation's largest housing finance institutions actively lending in this sector. Fannie Mae has financed more than $15 billion in seniors housing and openly markets financing programs for independent living and senior communities. Freddie Mac, likewise, offers dedicated seniors housing loan programs specifically for acquisition, development, and refinancing of senior housing properties. The issue before you is not whether senior housing is financeable. I think that's a word. The evidence shows that it is. The issue is whether the city should rewrite the rules after a developer voluntarily purchased the property with full knowledge of the 55 plus restriction. Changing the zoning because a developer now prefers a different product sets a troubling precedent. If approved, it signals that development commitments can simply be revisited whenever market conditions change or a different business model appears more profitable. Colin, Alden, Marcus, Amber, Patrick, he's not here, but you let him know. Scott, Brianna, I respectfully ask you to uphold the original vision for this property. Maintain the 55 plus restriction and hold the developer to the expectations that existed when they chose to purchase the site. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next up, we'll hear from Joe Dingman. Just please state your name and address for the record.

Good evening. I am Joe Dingman. I live at 13223 Glad Acres Drive in Farmer's Branch. I'm kind of wishing I would have yielded my time to David Koch because he made an excellent case. And I'm... very much supportive of his point of view. I'm opposed to any compromises on the existing zoning or density as to use, excuse me, use restrictions. We have kind of a sorted history here. The proposed regulations that you have in place were heavily negotiated several years ago. The neighbors compromised to allow what's going on. The project went sideways, more sorted history. bankruptcy, deaths, and so forth. Whenever bankruptcy happens, nothing good happens. Now we're being asked as the community to, in effect, further compromise so that somebody who came out off the streets, so to speak, can either make more money or make it work. Financial infeasibility is not the City of Farmers Branch's problem. That's the landowner's problem. So I very much hope that you'll deny this tonight and, in effect, force it to council to where it requires a supermajority vote. And we can all be rid of this. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, Yadra Sedra.

Hello, Yadira Serta, 3205 Damascus Way. So I'm back here again. Thank you so much for your time and giving us the opportunity to speak openly on this. I'm still opposed to removing the restriction. I come to you humbly as a mom. If I wasn't in the life, the stage of life that I am in, raising two young kids, electing to move to Farmer's Branch where we could have moved further north, prosper, new build. I maybe would not have been so interested in what's going on in my city, but I am, and I come to you humbly to think of the children in the neighborhood, the children who are gonna be walking to school, Myra is already a busy street. Right now they're saying they're not gonna open that access to drive-through for cars, but if they're able to remove this restriction, what's stopping them from making another application or another request that we might have to do? I grew up in Farmer's Branch. I love Farmer's Branch. I got married, moved away, and I got back here as fast as I could. I really like what we stand for. I like the city, all the amenities that we're able to offer, the parks, specifically the small town feel. And I really think if we add one more apartment that is not the 55 and up that the community already accepted before, that's really gonna change all the amenities that we're able to offer our kids. And I just humbly come to you, just think about if you were in a stage of life where you had young kids, or maybe nieces, nephews, grandkids. Think about them, think about their future, because I like where I live. We could've moved somewhere else, like I'm sure my neighbors could've too. I don't wanna move. So yeah, just really come to let you know that Think about the changes for the kids, the safety. I walk, I feel really safe walking with my kids. I see my neighbors in my walks. I walk with two kids, two under two, by myself, and I don't know if I would feel the same way. Again, just the safety. I think having such a high-density apartment is going to change the people, just the quality, right? Someone who's 55 and up is probably going to be more... They act differently, right? And another thing I want to mention is I was at the town hall with the developer. They said that they were going to give us the letters of the various lenders that they had. I looked at the agenda today. There were no attachments as of noon when I checked. There were no additional information. And just really do let them do their due diligence, or we should do our due diligence, because I just really humbly come as a mom. So thank you. Thank you.

And if you wouldn't mind to just not do the pause, just for sake of time, I know you want to support your friends, but I think it'll help us with time, if you don't mind. Fernando Gonzalez, thank you.

Hello. Fernando Gonzalez, 3205 Damascus Way. I think last time we were here, we made an excellent point about being compassionate or empathetic to renters, and y'all were right. They're not bad. Not all renters are bad. Not all apartments are bad. But statistics show that when you cluster people together, or also known as apartment or condos or what have you, the risk of crime, the crime rate going up is higher. Houston, Chicago, New York, Dallas, all have crime rates that have gone up while at the same time making apartments. The hospital would benefit from the 55 and up. I think David already addressed that. Last time we were here, I think they talked about one of the benefits would be a higher tax base also. BUT WITH THE DEMAND OF CITY SERVICES, WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A BENEFIT TO US OR LOWER TAXES OR IF TAXES WOULD STAY THE SAME OR THEY WOULD GO UP. ALSO, I WANT TO BE EMPATHETIC TO THE BUILDER. I WANT HIM, I WANT THEM TO MAKE I want something to be up there, but I don't want it to be at the risk of our safety or our comfort even. Like my wife said, she likes to walk around without issues. I like to be able to leave the house and feel like my family is safe. This, something needs to happen there, it does. I just don't think it needs to be more apartments in Farmers Branch. Farmers Branch has been really good to us so far. It was great to my wife, she grew up here, and I want it to be great for my kids. And I want you all to think about the next 10, 20, 30 years. So please do not remove the age restriction.

Thank you. Up next, Cheryl Arbett.

Thank you so much for being here and allowing us to speak on behalf of our residents. State your name and address. Cheryl Averitt, 3422 Ridge Oak Way, Farmer's Branch. I have lived where I live with my husband for 20 years in a house that he grew up in. I have watched our neighbors, seniors. I'm a senior. I'm 56, but I'm still going. I've watched our neighbors move that have been in their 70s and 80s, and I thought when they started this talk about a senior community, how nice that would be because we've always taken care of our neighbors, always, whether it's cookies or cupcakes or whatever, visiting them because most of their families have moved further away. So my husband and I have always been the neighbor caretaker, mowing yards, fixing things. So I thought how nice would that be to have a senior living area for our neighbors to move to so they don't have to move away from Farmer's Branch. They chose not to. They wanted to stay in our community because we love our community. We love our neighbors. We like watching the kids being Mimi and Papa to our neighbor's kids. I mean, it has been a great force that has been in our neighborhood. And to have a developer come in and changing things that were already set in place, but not being very honest about it, trying to go under the radar with things. That would be like me building a swimming pool in the backyard, but deciding that I want something three times the size after I've gotten permission to build it and impeding on my neighbor's property. That's what it would be like, in my opinion. I think it's sneaky. I think it's... Not good for our neighbors. We don't live on Myra, but we drive down Myra every day. We've had to look at that, you know, monstrosity of a parking garage for the last year and a half. And unfortunately, like he said, the man had passed away. So I'm hoping that you guys will not approve this. It will not go through and that we will continue to move forward. I hope that there will be inspections if they don't follow through. It doesn't sit there and look horrible. I got a notice about firewood on my patio in a winter day, you know, for having firewood out there. I would hope that everybody would follow through and continue the inspections. And, you know, if they choose to sit on it because we don't approve of them building this, you know, community living, I hope that inspections go through. That's one of our biggest things with our city is trying to keep things beautiful. And I think approving... you know, multi-living family is going to be terrible for our community.

Thank you. Up next, Sean Averitt.

Hello, I'm Sean Averitt. I live on 3422 Ridge Oak Way. I've been a resident there for 50 years. I'm concerned about the status of the apartments being built behind my behind Myra. Opening the apartments to family living will be a mistake for our neighbors and community. We already have issues with theft, drugs, and fast drivers. Our police officers are not going to be able to keep up. Going back to an all senior living community is very important for our neighbors and this community. Traffic is a huge issue on Myra already. Please reconsider these things for our neighbors' safety and well-being. The construction has already left our neighbors with torn up yards and trees being cut down. Do not allow entrance to Mara from these apartments. And the original plan for the senior living in the 55 and up needs to be put back in place. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Up next, Cheryl Howerton.

Good evening, my name is Cheryl Howerton. I live at 3657 Morning Star Circle. My fight for quality construction and building in this area began in 1977. That's how long I have lived in Farmer's Branch. I would like to see our community thrive. I do not agree with the lifting age of 55. I believe that having this senior living would create generational families, people who want to move out of their homes, want to stay in farmer's branch. Maybe a family member will move into their home. We're still getting new blood, but we still have seniors that are independent, and they still get to meet with their families. Also, I am concerned about the access to MIRA. As previously stated, what would keep that emergency route from being turned into an access? Just like we're trying to lift the 55, so there's no continuity. Again, I would like to see this age restriction remain, and if the garage has to stay a garage, that's great. Let's enforce the codes, and we can put in landscape until such time as that we have a developer that can work with the neighbors and the city for a better place to live. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next, William Glancy.

Commissioners, my name is William Glancy. I live at 3808 Wooded Creek Drive in Farmer's Branch. I probably know more about that property than I think of most anybody in the city. You know, I've been a commissioner. Councilman, I've been mayor a couple of times, and I've been on the hospital authority when we owned that land there, and I can stand here for two or three hours and tell you about all the problems this project would present from drainage to all kinds of things. But I'd like to talk to you about something else tonight. What's the difference between senior housing and unrestricted housing? Well, I live in Wooded Creek, and I live within a quarter mile of me is roughly 2,900 unrestricted apartments. And I have a little bit of experience with those apartments because I ride a tricycle up to Tom Thumb to shop because I'm a senior and I don't like to drive anymore and I have to. Well, when I go by all those entrances to those parking garages up there, there's a steady stream of people coming in and out of there. And I use Uber a lot. And those apartments, and a lot of these commercial apartments around here are commercial buildings people just happen to live in. These are Uber drivers and they do all the other food delivery systems. There's a steady stream of people coming in and out of those buildings over there. And a lot of them are driving very fast because time's money. Uber's very good because if you get on their app, they monitor that car and they know what the guy's doing, how fast he's driving, when he stops, all those things. But the delivery people do not do that. And it's very dangerous. Now, I think if you talk to our chief chief, you'd find that a very high percent of the cars we stop in this city are people that's delivery drivers. And if you would, I can't imagine why you would take the age restriction off, but if you do, and I know, I can't think a chance of a million that they're going to get this financed to do anything on there anyway. But you talk about, if it does do that, it needs a wall around. They do not need any access tomorrow whatsoever. You know, when I was mayor this last time, we just bought a $2.5 million fire truck that's probably going to be delivered in October to handle high-rise apartment buildings. And it won't be able to come down Myra Lane. I can guarantee you that. It's a massive piece of equipment. So it'll have to come from the service road. So there's no reason to do any of this kind of stuff. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Up next, Carol Roberts.

My name is Carol Roberts. I'm at 3243 Bryncrest Drive. One of the things that makes Farmer's Branch different from other cities, I'm originally from Houston, is anywhere in any neighborhood in Farmer's Branch, it's the community. It's not the restaurants. It's not the schools. It's that no matter what street you're on, you know your neighbors regardless of age, religion, or race. And that is invaluable. Priceless. I work at a hospital and part of my job in my medical office is dealing with Google and Waze and making sure they can get to our doctors. And with the emergency access on these apartments, Once that emergency access is on there, it's very hard to get off these navigation apps. These apps optimize a driver's time and list the shortest routes possible, and it will leave the neighborhood trapped because these drivers will be circling the neighborhood looking for that emergency access. And in addition, which I don't know if you're aware of, apartment complexes become de facto Amazon distribution points because there are so many deliveries at those apartments and they can use that apartment complex to feed into the city and neighboring neighborhoods. So that increases traffic. Also, the proximity to 635 substantially increases the criminal access and escape, ask any police department. Any criminal going in, whether it's a smash and grab or stealing a car, wants quick access and quick exit, and that's the freeway. I want to look into the future, and I'm sure y'all have all heard about it. Some are excited, some aren't. But what happens when the Mavericks move into Valley View? All those people that are going to ride the DART train, which is in Farmer's Branch, the closest access, are going to be using LBJ and Valley View to get to the DART station. Once again, increasing traffic and increasing congestion. And finally, the access road is shared jurisdiction. It's overseen by Dallas, but Farmers Branch also responds. I know this because we were almost hit at 635 in Marsh and had to wait.

Thank you. Up next, we'll have Mason Priest.

Mason Priest 3435 Rock Martin Drive. I'm here like many of my fellow neighbors here to oppose the rezoning of the project. It's been touched on by several people here with the bait and switch nature that the developer has showed. This is just the first concession that they're asking. Is it gonna stop here? Will there be more concessions? It's hard to know, but with this developer, it's hard to find them credible and trustworthy. Like many of the other neighbors have said, crime is a huge issue and I feel that a 300 unit apartment building without age restriction would continue to increase the crime in the area. My wife and I have a three month old son. We enjoy neighborhood walks, and truly I feel that that could be in jeopardy with the development. If the development age restriction was lifted, I yield the rest of my time.

Thank you. Up next, Evan Klarner.

Hi, Evan Klarner, 12220 Brisbane Avenue. I'm in opposition to lifting the age restriction on the development. I am a first time home owner and want to start by saying that I've lived in multiple apartments similar to the one being proposed. And one of the main reasons I purchased this home was to get away from some of the issues that come with generic apartments. My first concern is traffic. The area all around Medical Parkway already suffers from heavy congestion. Opening the development to a broader population would result in more traffic, more daily trips, more visitors, deliveries, and in the end, more strain on the surrounding infrastructure, regardless of the entrance and exits locations. Second is changing the unrestricted family housing opens the door to more crime. Just because this is a class A property doesn't mean it's free from public safety concerns. And third is the upkeep and quality of the property. The original plan is designed and marketed around a particular resident population. The expectations, amenities, and day-to-day environment can be very different from a conventional multifamily community. We've been told that this property will be well maintained, but how can we know that's truly the case? For me personally, of all the luxury apartments I've been in, nearly every one of them has fallen drastically short in keeping their property clean and infrastructure maintained. I think we've got a sense of how that's going already. And fourth is noise, making this a general multi-family housing property would again mean more cars coming and going on top of outdoor activity, nighttime activity. Those things can have a big impact on us that are just a few hundred feet away from the fence line. We have plenty of general multifamily housing options, both in and around Farmer's Branch. So this is not an ideal location for another one. So I encourage you to consider all these factors before coming to a decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Daniel Finger.

Daniel Binger, 3283 Brincrest. So I'll keep it real short today. I did write some notes so I can follow along. The recent legal development history with this project warrants additional transparency. The issue before us is not whether farmers branch should permit additional housing. The issue is whether the city should remove an existing senior living restriction from a planned development after a troubled development history, significant public infrastructure expenditures, and unresolved contractual legal issues. Without first Establishing that the resulting unrestricted multifamily development is appropriate for this site The prudent answer is no Please deny the requested zoning amendment and protect the integrity of farmers branch and the taxpayers Thank you

Thank you. Up next, Matt Gort.

Hello, my name is Matt Gore at 12254 Brisbane Avenue. I don't want to reiterate everything that's been said here, but here's my two cents. I have two objections. I object to lifting the 55 plus age restriction, and additionally, I object to the density increase. The developers are proposing a 28% density increase over what is allowed per Ordinance 3556. I'm also concerned about the public safety, so I requested police call for service records from the Farmers Branch Records Center for a handful of Class A apartment communities. The findings were all very similar, but here's just two. Crosby on Brickyard had 101 police calls for service in 2025, including burglaries of buildings and vehicles. The proposed development on Myra would be nearly 70 units larger. Aspen at Mercer Crossing had 274 police calls for service in 2025, including noise complaints, thefts, and threats. The proposed development on Myra would be roughly 40 units larger. There is a significant and measurable criminal activity at Class A apartments, and this large development would have direct access into our neighborhood. The type and size apartment proposed by the developers is unnecessary, incompatible, and inappropriate in our neighborhood. I respectfully ask you to, one, recommend denial of the request to lift the age restriction, and two, recommend denial of the request to increase the density. Please preserve the agreement that was made with this community just a few short years ago. Thank you. Thank you, thank you.

Up next, Shelly Sanchez.

Good evening, Shelly Sanchez, 12117 Brisbane Avenue. I appreciate so much listening. You've done that really well, and this has been a lot of listening tonight. I want to invite you right now to look with your eyes. David provided you with a binder, and in that binder it has a map. If you look on that map, you will not see any faces of any people. But if you look in this room, you will see faces of residents who give their time, their energy and effort to make Farmer's Branch a wonderful place for our community. And the things that you have heard from them come from a place of extensive research and a desire for the best decision to be made. And we trust you to do that. We ask you to deny removing this age restriction and stay to the original plan of allowing this property to be used for that purpose for a 55 plus senior living facility. There are other implications in addition to what has been mentioned already tonight. And with further investigation, we all would be able to understand long-term what this could mean for our neighborhood. None of us can fully understand that tonight. However, what we can understand is what's on the table today. And that is whether or not to deny or approve removing this age restriction. As residents, in the discussions that I've had with my neighbors, as much as we do not enjoy seeing a large parking garage in that property, We would much rather prefer to see that stalled project there with the code being followed than to have other decisions made and a project built that would negatively impact our neighborhood. The applicant is astute. And it's verbally stated that they have built other senior living developments. So I think they can find a way to make this work too. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Up next, David Grijava. I tried.

So close, so close. No worries. I get it all my life. David Grijalvo, 3246 Myra Lane. I'm not a great orator, and I hate following as she is so greatly spoken. But I was kind of confused on one of the first slides that kind of came out. It said that 94 notices were mailed out, but we received 106 in opposition. So I wasn't sure about those numbers and that not being 20% of the land. the land area. I'm not really sure, but I would hope that it shows how much of the citizens are against this. And Mr. Miller, you had asked previously about a walking trail, and there actually used to be a walking trail right where that condemned parking garage is now. And I've hated the sight of that, and we had a crane there for the longest, longest time, over two years. And, you know, every time I called code enforcement and things like that, they're like, oh, we can't get a hold of them. We don't know who owns it. It's going bankrupt. But now that they're sitting here in front of you, I hope that you hold them accountable for the way that they're treating the property. I was here originally and voted part. I live again. I'm on my road. So I voted for the senior living facility specifically because my mother is getting older and she lives out of town. And I was like, hey, this is a win win. You know, she gets older. She lives right down the block from me. I go visit her every single day kind of thing. And that's why I originally voted for it. And so thank you also, Mr. Eldon. I won't. try to pronounce her last name, I apologize, for asking about the quality of building due to age restriction. And I hope the rest of you members smelled through the smoke of their excuse on that. It is the gall of them to say that. And also the gall of them to say that they're just going to let it sit there and stay the way it is. if we don't approve this. I should think that that goes to their character and if they're speaking to council members like that and to the project that they will provide for us. I also wish I'd given my time to Mr. Koch, but I hope that the words that he presented to you, the points specifically that go to why we should not do this, we should deny their application not only for the density, but also for the age restriction. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Up next, Jessica Knowles.

Jessica Knowles, 123, sorry, 12322 Amsterdam Road. I would love to make a meeting that lasts all night long, just like last week, but I'm gonna make this one short. Time for us to go home. The only thing I could say, past all of the other educated people who've come before me, is that when someone comes to a compromise, two parties, each one gives a little, gets a little. We gave that this would be a multifamily project. What we were supposed to get in return is the 55 plus. If we decide tonight that we're not going to recommend to remove that, we keep our citizens with our side of the compromise. If we decide to recommend that this is removed, we take our way our citizens' rights. So with that, I want to thank you for all of your time. Have a great night.

Thank you. Thank you. Susie Brown.

Hello. Good evening.

Thank you for your time, guys, tonight. I know everyone's tired. I'll be quick. I am actually not a resident in that neighborhood. I live on the other side of town in Oak Brook. But I work at the garden with a lot of these lovely people. And I too have experienced some negative side effects from just the parking garage being there. I go to the garden multiple times a week. We've had issues at the garden with people who have been attracted to the area because of You know, I guess they find shelter there. And, you know, I'm of the opinion that the homeless people should be helped, but that's a whole other issue. So we've had issues at the garden. One example is a homeless man sleeping in a little tree house thing on the school grounds of the German school. OK, we often find clothes or oh, he also got shot by a neighbor because his dog lunged at him and he got shot on accident. So can you imagine what would come? I used to do delivery driving for Uber, roadie, Instacart, skip cart. So I have been to hundreds of apartment complexes and I've seen a lot of things. I can tell you that it would bring more problems for the lovely neighbors here. Yeah, so I vehemently am against removing the age restriction and the increase in density. So thank you. I hope you take all of us into consideration. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Caroline Binger.

Hi there. Caroline Binger, 3283 Bryncrest Drive, Farmer's Branch. I feel like so many of my neighbors have already spoken so many great arguments. I agree with them. I also wish I had given my time to David. He brought up some points that are very important. And I applaud my neighbors, everyone that came here tonight to speak. I know it's difficult to get up here, and we're passionate about this subject. And I do appreciate you hearing us out. I did want to speak and just say, like many others have said, you know, I'm not against apartments in general. But, I mean, I've been a renter. You know, I think 90% of us have probably... lived in an apartment at some point in our life. So I don't think it's the renters themselves. It's just the opportunistic type of people that are drawn to that type of opportunity. development. I know the use would be different. I know the developer said the use would be the same, and I don't have stats, but for senior living, I believe the traffic would be less and the potential crime could be less. Just the density in general would be less. I wanted to say that I also think that we could have done a better job, the city could have done a better job at sending out those letters. They weren't in Spanish, and a lot of the neighbors within the 200 feet are primarily Spanish speakers. So if it's possible, I think we should send the letters out again in Spanish because we're kind of ignoring a large percentage of the population within that 200 feet that speak primarily Spanish. And I also believe that, like Lucy Gore was saying, there is a big demand for 55-plus living. I've paid more attention since this project has come to my attention, and I see a lot of senior housing and 55-plus that look really nice, super nice. I don't think the quality should suffer because it's senior. And like the developer was saying, he thinks it would be just, I guess, make less money, and maybe that's true, but I think that we should give our seniors in Farmers Branch a really nice place to live if they so choose, and have parks and dog parks, and the garden would be there for them to go to, and... And so I don't believe the quality should suffer. And I also kind of take offense that they would leave the parking garage there. And I don't think they would because that's not good business. And for them to say that is just kind of an idle threat, like David was saying. I don't think that's a very professional thing to say. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Up next, Art Ortiz.

Hello, Art Ortiz, 12123 Brisbane Avenue. I live in Farmer's Ranch with my wife and two young boys, ages three and seven. We are the closest family with the youngest children that is closest to the proposed development. I understand people are frustrated by the unfinished parking garage. I get that. I see it every day when I walk my dogs and my kids. It's not pretty, but that is just a temporary problem. A permanent change in zoning is something our neighborhood will live for decades. When we brought our home in 2023, we had the understanding that this site would be a 55 and over community. That was part of our decision to invest here and raise our kids here. Like I said in the last meeting, we moved here specifically so that my kids could attend the German International School because my wife is from Germany, and that was important to us that they learn the German language. That was part of our decision to invest here and raise our kids here. We're not against development. We're saying that the originally planned senior living community is simply a better fit for this site. As parents of two young boys, our greatest responsibility is to think long-term about their safety and about the kind of neighborhood they'll grow up in. I'd rather see a temporary eyesore than accept a permanent project that changes the character of our neighborhood. Please don't trade the long-term stability of this neighborhood for a quick fix to an unfinished project. I respectfully ask that you deny this request and preserve the original vision for this site. And I am okay with, in their words, just sit on it. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. And I believe that concludes our list of speakers. I want to make sure I didn't leave anybody out. I've been known to do that, not intentionally. All right. I don't see anybody. I believe we went through, so I will turn to my commissioners. A reminder that this is a public hearing.

So I would move to close the public hearing.

Thank you.

Second.

Any further discussion on the item? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. All those in favor to close the public hearing.

Oh, you have an item. Sorry about that. Yes, so in the folder, I was just a little confused. So on...

Tab five. Can you speak in the mic?

Yeah, so tab five. I just want to make sure I understand what I'm looking at. It looks like what they're proposing, the application is for two different property owners. Am I looking at that correctly?

We can confer with staff or the applicant to check, but it's my understanding that the property has been subdivided and those different sections, as indicated, do have different owners presently.

Okay. And so my next question would be, both owners don't have to be present for the application? I mean, you know, for the application to be presented to us?

We can check with legal on that, but again, it's my understanding not... No? Okay.

Yeah, I mean, it's two different owners. The applicant's one, the second owner is completely separate, so they don't need to be here.

All right, and with that, we did have a motion and a second. We had further discussion on the item. Are we, do we have any other discussion on the item? Okay.

Well, we're gonna, I mean, we're gonna close the public hearing and then we can have discussion.

We can still have discussion afterwards. The motion would be if we needed to say something before we close the public hearing. Yeah, yeah. Nothing further? Okay, so all those in favor to close the public hearing? Okay, and with that, yes, to your point, we can open up for any discussion, comments amongst the commission itself.

I just would start with a very clear clarification on what we are voting on. I'm just gonna pick one example, density. It's been mentioned that we're trying to change the density. Would we be changing anything except the age restriction? Would anything else... be changed with this vote?

This is for me, correct? Okay. No, yeah, I mean, we're just considering the age restriction requirement. Like staff had said, any of the density requirements come into play at the detailed site plan.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question for staff. Have we, the City of Farmers Branch, received the letters from the two financial institutions that the developer referenced and the citizens referenced?

We have not. With this application, it is a land use proposal, so that's why that hasn't been a request of staff because we're looking at the zoning requirements.

Further discussion, questions?

The detailed site plan, when would that, would that come back to us? Or does that go straight to city council or is that a staff handled matter?

So within the process, how the steps would move forward is if this was approved as the request, when the applicant submits for a site plan review, DRC will review it, the Development Review Committee then we bring it back to Planning and Zoning, Planning and Zoning make a recommendation to City Council. Did I answer your question? You will see the site plan again, just because it is in the PD, it is described that way, of being part of that process.

Thank you for that clarification. Further questions for staff or discussion amongst?

Yeah, just a little discussion. Everyone seems to mention the 55 and plus. but it's actually 55 and plus restricted to independent senior living, which has a meaning, independent of 55 plus. And so I just wanted to kind of review what that might be. In the senior living world, there's active adult 55 plus, independent living, assisted living, and memory care. And when you look at the, so if you look at like adult, active adult 55 plus, these are people who want golf courses, amenity centers, types of things that this property would not be suitable for. So I don't think we're really trying to build an active adult 55 plus independent living People move there because they don't want to have any more maintenance in their homes. They want to have commercial kitchens. They don't want to have to cook anymore. They're still independent, but they have many more requirements than just a simple multifamily apartment. And then the next two, assisted living and memory care, you're really moving into more medical care. So it's like, as I look at this, what is in the code, on the one hand, it says independent living, and I read what the type of people what they're looking for in an independent living, senior living community. And I certainly don't see it, and it wasn't in this proposal, but it would be a question as to whether that site could realistically be built out to meet those requirements. But if it is in fact just really 55 plus, and that's it, then we get perilously close to, and Chair Raley mentioned this earlier, that we are bound We can regulate the use, but we cannot regulate the user. So you can decide if a grocery store goes in there, but you can't choose between Kroger and Walmart and Tom Thumb. We're not allowed to do that. You decide the use, you can't pick the user. So what we're saying here really is that we like this group of people because we think people who are over 55 are a better choice than the under 50. We seem to, like me, that we are very close to choosing the user, which we are not allowed to do. And so I just would put that out there and see if I could get any discussion.

Thank you. Any other comments, discussion? Commissioners?

I'll just at least acknowledge your argument. I see where you're going with that, but I think that you could make the argument that way for almost everything that we do in zoning because, I mean, we chose single family. We chose the user in that sense and, you know, had kind of historically excluded people of lower incomes via zoning. So in that sense, we have always chosen the user through zoning. But like I said, I wanted to acknowledge your point that there is a distinction to be made amongst all of those different types of senior living and multifamily versus senior independent living.

Thank you. Additional comments, questions? You had one?

Yeah, I just wanted to advise the commissioners about, you know, we've been hearing about the two financial letters. And again, staff and Tara had brought this up that they hadn't received it because it's not something that's really relevant to the land use and the zoning itself. So in making the consideration, we are considering, you know, the land use and not any kind of financial status.

Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. Additional?

Just one more clarification. So there are two owners? So this change to the PD would change the zoning for that second owner as well, correct? Or does it carve out just the area that's owned by the applicant?

It would remove the zoning within sub-district B.

So for both owners?

That would be removed. Right. For that part. For... Yes. Whereas the applicant just has proposed for just their portion of land. But it would amend the PD.

The applicant is requesting a change, PD 18. To amend the PD to remove... To amend the whole PD... which would include their land and somebody else's land.

Yes, because with the PD, because it's in sub-district B.

Right, so I just want to make sure that's correct. This is a vote, it's not carving out a new zoning for just this property, but it does include some property that another person or some, you know, somebody owns that we haven't heard from, I don't even know if they're aware of this pending change, and it would affect their property.

It would... So within Sub-District B, and just looking at the previous site plan, it showed In essence, if it's in sub-district B, then it removed that requirement for that. But the PD would encompass just their property. Enough of that.

I'm sorry, you're going to have to sit here.

So right now, the zoning changed at the PD. It amends the PD, but is basically set for their portion of property. But it does remove the restriction from B, from sub-district B. Margaret.

Everyone who had ownership in that would have been mailed a notice, and they would have had the opportunity to respond, correct?

Correct.

And were there any letters of support for the change, or is the only recommendation that we had from any respondents negative?

In opposite, only in the response, I recall just being opposed to this development. Okay. because we're referring to the letters, correct, that were provided in the opposite, the protest that was a provided part of the packet.

The question was, this is impacting the ownership of a separate within the PD. So what I'm getting at is all owners within the PD and within the surrounding, what is it, 200 feet, where mailed notice had the opportunity to respond and no letters in support were received, only letters in opposition.

I can recall only letters of opposition.

So I guess, yeah, I would like to clarify that as well, because typically when you draw the PD, you're notifying everybody outside of that. Well, that second owner is inside the PD. Correct. Were they in fact notified?

They were on the list, all the property adjacent property owners.

But you're changing PD 18.

But they were notified. That parcel land on the Dallas property tax record, they should receive the letter to whoever owned the property adjacent to that property.

Okay. Thank you.

Any further discussion, questions? Go ahead. Go ahead.

My only thought is that there have not been any one up here speaking in a positive way about this project. Just about everybody has said no. And you would think that if it were that good a project that there would be some yeses in there.

Thank you. Further discussion, comments, anything else?

I'll comment. I've been in various corporations that have done bankruptcy or fire sale purchases. So anyone who's been involved in that knows what that's about. We've heard some numbers thrown around. We've all purchased things on sale before, and sometimes it wasn't what we thought it was going to be, but the price looked good. And so whether it's $10 million or $10, I think it's human nature to want to go after the deal. So there's that. I think... You know, this developer hasn't done as good a job as I would expect, to my fellow commissioner's point. Normally a developer would bring some support. I haven't been on this case very long, but they send a person from Houston and there's no, even the fellow property owner right next door isn't speaking up. And so there's not a lot of traction from my standpoint, especially with all the opposition from the citizens, that would cause me to say, yes, we should support the developer. And I'm pro-development, and I voted for this multifamily in 2019 with the age restriction. So I actually came thinking I was going to agree, with removing the 55 restriction, but based on the presentation I've seen this evening and the fact that the developer hasn't really done a very good job, in my opinion, of convincing me that we need to remove that, I don't really see a reason to change a decision that was made six years ago because I'm just not convinced that's the thing to do. So that's where I stand. Thank you.

I'd like to kind of ask legal one more thing. When we tabled this, we tabled this specifically asking what was the difference between 55 and up and just general use. And I don't think we've heard anything that speaks to when the applicant made the presentation, the only thing was about finances. There was no discussion of the difference in the use between an age restriction and anything separate. So I don't want to get into the finances or anything, but I didn't hear anything speaking to what removing this age and how it changes, either from the applicant or anything. Am I missing something?

No, it's just part of your your own thought process. I was just, you know, generally speaking for in relation to that, we're really only focusing on the use, you could take in, you know, how however you feel about that. But that's fine.

Okay.

Further discussion questions? Are we ready to have a motion? We discussed out what we need to say. Okay, I will entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I make a recommendation to deny ordinance number 4003. Thank you.

I second it. Okay, we have a recommendation for denial and a second. Any further discussion on the item? Okay, all those in favor of recommending denial? All those opposed? And no abstentions. All right. So I believe we have a motion. It's carried. So we will recommend this to denial to City Council. And this will go to City Council on looking for a date.

Tuesday, August 18th.

Tuesday, August 18th. Thank you very much. And with that, thank you all for your time, energy, and comments. We will adjourn at 8.57 p.m. Thank you all.