Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the City of Farmers Branch Planning and Zoning Commission study session. It is presently 6:37 p.m. Monday, October 27th, 2025. I'd like to begin by thanking the commissioners for their service. on our agenda for the study session. First up, item A1, discuss regular agenda items, which takes us to item C1, consider approval of the October 13th, 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting minutes and take appropriate action. Commissioners, any errors, typos, omissions, points of discussion. All right, then that takes us to item D1. Conduct a public hearing and consider the request for a SUP for an indoor commercial amusement use, a baseball practice facility for a portion of approximately 1 acre property located at 13850 North Simmons Freeway and located within PD70 zoning district and take appropriate action. Thank you, Brian.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, commissioners. Um, Brian Campbell, planner with the planning department. Um, just let me know if you have any questions you'd like to discuss right now or we can save that for the public hearing. Uh, go ahead. Yes, sir. Park parking [clears throat] requirements. Did the parking requirements change at all? I mean, I I didn't read anything in here about 10 spaces for this particular space or 20 or 30,

right? So, it's a little bit of a tricky situation. So, Plan Development District number 70 doesn't have its own requirement for indoor commercial amusement. So, it defaults to the code of ordinances. I'm sorry, the CZO, which requires one space per 1,000 square ft of gross floor area. Now, the other two uses that are in that building are both warehousing and PD70 does have its own standard for that use, which is also one space per 10,000 square ft of gross floor area. if that helps. I just wanted to make [clears throat] sure because it seems like to me if he's going to have eight or 10 people in there, there's going to be there could be eight or 10 cars.

It could be. Um I would like the applicant address that. However, I will point out that their business model is more appointmentbased. So, we feel that the parking setup um will be adequate. That's fine. Okay. I did have a question on this one as well as the next one. Um, and I just did a quick review of our um, I35 corridor vision study and my read of it, but I would love the just to make sure is that this seems consistent with that as well. And I know we did subsume that to some degree into our 2045 comprehensive plan.

Yes, ma'am. But I wanted to pay special attention given that it is directly, you know, adjacent to that corridor. Um, sure. So, you can speak to it now or during the session, but just clarifying that we're also consistent with that document and the, you know, what we set forth in that vision. I can affirm that. Um, the kinds of uses we want to see in the corridor. So, yep. Thank you for that. Of course. Any further questions? All right. Thank you again, Brian. Thank you, commissioners.

All right. That takes us to item D2. Conduct a public hearing and consider the request for a zoning amendment for an industrial development on approximately 3.5 acres located at 12197 Denton Drive within PD32 zoning district and take appropriate action. Thank you, Brett. Thank you, Chairley and members of the PNZ. Happy to answer any questions. This is 12197 Denton Drive. It's a warehouse building. Uh may look familiar to some of you. We've seen this case within the last 2 years. It did come up for basically the same thing as what you're going to see tonight. It's basically just flipping the approved site plan. It's a mirror image. So, the truck bays were on the south side. Now, they're going to be on the north side. That's the primary change. Few other things. Um the building's getting a little bit shorter, so it will be uh probably less um intrusive just with the lower height. Uh but basically everything else is uh staying the same. The elevations will have changed slightly, but again with state law preeemptions, we're not regulating building exteriors in the way we were previously. So

great. Thank you. Questions? I'm going to ask the same question I asked to Brian and in your estimation just confirming that this would be in alignment also with our I35 corridor vision statement. Again, we're in that corridor and just affirming that I know again we subsume that under the 2045. Um but just given the attention to that as well.

Yeah, certainly we there's all kinds of plans floating around out there. So, it's good to keep tabs on things like the I35 plan so that it does not get uh you know forgotten about and just collecting dust on a shelf. But yes, I can affirm this uh does fit into the vision that we have for the corridor as the main artery through our city. And this is actually right on the city limit line. So technically it is right as you're coming into the city from point south. So we feel that this proposal is an improvement over what is there now which is gravel parking lot.

Indeed. Thank you for affirming that. Any other questions? All right. Seeing none, we'll move back to Thank you again. Thank you. Uh we'll move back to item A2. receive an update from the city attorney regarding items approved during the 89th state legislative session and special session. Thank you, Ashley.

You need this?

No. Is it Is it loaded up now? Bear with us just a moment. [cough]

I don't know.

[snorts]

Squeeze it. Sure. and then you can just Okay, perfect.

Okay, sorry about that. So, I'm going to be giving you all just a legislative update um on the recent bills that were passed. Um I'm going to spend more time kind of talking about the things that I think are more relevant to uh planning and zoning. Um the first thing is the competitive bidding threshold. Um this is not really uh relevant to you all but um one of the big changes is that um the threshold has been increased from 50,000 to 100,000. So that means that um in order to enter into a a contract with the city um you don't have to go out the city won't have to go out for a bid if it's less than $100,000. So that's going to be a pretty big change and that was effective as of September 1st. So this one is House Bill 24 is a big one and it does affect PNZ. Um and so I want to spend a little time talking about this and then happy to answer questions um later if anyone from the commission has any uh questions as it for this. So, House Bill 24 basically has revised how cities must notify property owners um and how they can handle um protests of zoning actions. Um there's a few changes that were made. One is that they have a new category called the proposed comprehensive zoning change. Additionally, the bill adjusted both notice obligations as well as voting thresholds based on the type of zoning change. So, let's unpack really quickly the proposed comprehensive zoning change aspect of this bill. Um, this change um a zoning action now to be considered a proposed comprehensive zoning change will need to meet one of the following requirements. Um, one, it

needs to allow more residential development than existing regulations um and apply uniformly across one or more zoning districts. Two, it has to adopt a new zoning code or zoning map. And then three, it would need to establish a zoning overlay district along a major roadway, highway, or transit corridor that allows increased residential development. And just to clarify because I um want to make sure it's clear that this is it has to just meet one of those three requirements. So as long as it meets at least one of those and it will be considered a proposed comprehensive zoning change. The other big change is the notice requirements. So for proposed comprehensive no zoning changes cities must provide only limited statutory notice. So mail notice to property owners and occupants. and that's only if the change would cause their current conforming use to become non-conforming. And then three, the newspaper and website notice um at least 15 days before the public hearing. The other thing I want to talk about is the protest procedures for non-comprehensive zoning changes. So, House Bill 24 has revised local government code 211.006 to establish now three protest scenarios. Um, in case you guys I'm sure you're aware, but before then it was there were two scenarios basically um, as it pertained to um, doing a protest. It had to be at least 20% of the area um, that was within that proposed zoning change and that was just the the default. Now there's three different scenarios. So one, you can have property owners of at least 20% of the area uh who pro who protest the proposed zoning change. In that case, you would require a supermajority vote. So 3/4 vote of the

body. Number two, you'd have property owners who of at least 20% of the area within two 200 ft of the reszoned area. And again, you'd require that supermajority vote. Number three, which is the I think the most interesting one, is that property owners of at least 60% of the adjoining area uh within 200 ft of the reszone area um can protest this change so long as the change allows more residential use um and does not add new commercial uh or industrial uses. And in that case, it wouldn't require supermajority. It would be a simple vote. Um, if you guys have questions about any of this, please feel free to to ask because I know it's kind of convoluted, but um, from a from a legal and and practical standpoint, it's just important that we understand that, um, scenarios one and two will continue to trigger that uh, 3/4 supermajority vote that it always has. However, scenario uh three, which is that 60% uh property owners uh situation, that would be a simple majority. All right. Um the biggest thing for for Farmer's Branch as far as implications of House Bill 24 is that staff will just need to identify at the outset whether a proposed zoning case qualifies as a comprehensive or a non-comprehensive change. So that's one big thing. The other thing is that for those non-comprehensive cases, the type of protests uh will determine the applicable voting threshold. And then finally for the residential owning only reasonings that will be subject to the higher 60% protest bar and uh but they

can be approved by a simple majority assuming that bar is met. Okay. And then moving on to home occupations. So, this bill basically has defined created a definition for no impact homebased businesses um and reduced the city's ability to regulate those no impact homebased businesses. Uh this the bill outlines uh what would be considered a no impact um homebased business. um they'd have to have a a certain amount of employees um that wouldn't exceed the city's occupancy limit. They wouldn't have they'd have to not have any noise issues that would affect the area. Um obviously they wouldn't they'd have to have not have an impact on traffic in the area. Um and so those would be the different um categories that would qualify a homebased business as no impact. um and then then result in the city not being able to regulate them in the same way. How

um how how does this differ from what the farmer's branch current regulations are for homebased businesses? Is this significantly different than what we currently do? So, I haven't had I I don't know what the the current uh ordinance is as it pertains to that, but I am I imagine that um it might affect it in some way if that ordinance did match what state law allowed. Um this basically um allows people who are, you know, have a home business that, you know, is pretty much all online to be able to operate that business. I'm assuming it's more about being able to register that home as your place of business. Um, but then not have to worry about those uh city regulations that would affect that that really don't don't play a role um for for those types of businesses. But yeah, I'm not sure as far as um the city um and what they currently um uh provide, but I can get back with you on that. And then House Bill 2844, this uh regulates food trucks. Essentially, it establishes a statewide uh mobile food vendor licensing under the um Department of State Health and Human Services and it preempts local regulation um that conflicts with state law. Um but cities can still enforce uh zoning requirements, location requirements, and fire cut restrictions. So, Senate Bill 1883 um is related to impact fees um and land use assumptions. Um this bill now creates a three-year freeze for impact fees or increasing impact fees. So, in other words, once that impact fee is has been adopted, uh the city would not be able to change it or increase it for

three years. Um there's uh some some nuances to this bill. Uh there's if if a fee needed to be increased or if council wanted to increase an impact fee, they'd have to have two third vote in order to um do that. Um an independent CPA audit is required before uh the city can adopt any impact fees. And then uh the public is required to have 60-day notice uh prior to um a hearing on those impact fees. Additionally, the city has to uh have an advisory committee. Uh that advisory committee would need to consist of at least 50% of people who represent the uh development or or building industries. So, Senate Bill 785 and Senate Bill 13441 governed uh manufactured housing and this is does not go into effect until September of next year. Um, but for this cities can no longer require an SUP for a new HUD code uh home uh that meets federal and state standards. Um, additionally, uh, they must designate at least one zoning classific class classification allowing HUD code homes by right and historic districts and deed uh, restrictions. Uh, those would not be affected by this bill. Um, so all right, uh, occupancy limits, Senate Bill 1567, this is really related to, it's called the frat house bill. Um it's related to cities that have a university uh within their territorial limits um and

addresses how uh that city can limit um occupancy for uh frat houses. A big thing that will affect the P&Z uh commission is the meeting notice requirements. So, Texas Open Meeting Act has been amended through House Bill 1522 and has revised that 72-hour posting requirement uh to now be three business days and that went into effect um September 1st. Uh House Bill 5238 is related to disruption of a meeting. Um, it's now a criminal offense to obstruct or interfere with a public meeting, including by electronic disturbance. Uh, in other words, uh, hacking of any sort of virtual component of the meeting. All right. Uh, House Bill 1950 is related to municipal court. Um it it essentially uh created a uh or consolidates the municipal court building security and technology funds into a single consolidated fund uh for cities with a population of less than 100,000. And then Senate Bill 541 is related to food regulation. Um it is related to cottage food production. um and it modifies that definition um to include um a nonprofit organization or an individual with an annual gross income of 150,000 or less from the sale of food. Um it also defines what a cottage food um production opera operation would include and kind of lays out the different foods that would fall into that category. Uh probably the most

interesting thing is that one of those products can contain is that uh products that contain CBD can be included in that category. Um it prohibits cities from requiring uh any type of license or permit uh related to cottage food production operation. Um as well Senate Bill 1008 uh basically limits city and public health uh district authority uh with regard to food service establishment. um it caps the amount that a city can charge vendors for permits or inspection fees. Essentially, those fees have to align with uh the fees that were are imposed by the state and can exceed that. And then Senate Bill 617 is pertaining to homeless re relocation. It requires a city to hold a public hearing before converting a property uh to house homeless individuals to another jurisdiction. And um there's some requirements as it pertains to that hearing such as it's got to be held 90 days before the city begins the conversion of the property. Um it's got to be held within one mile of the subject property and notice must be sent out uh via mail. Um let's see. House Bill 519 deals with honey deregulation. So uh it essentially establishes that honey and honeycomb are considered to be raw agricultural commodities. It prohibit prohibits cities from regulating their production. Um but it doesn't prevent that city from uh dealing with any sort of or responding to health or safety concerns. The city still would be able to do that. And then finally, House Bill 3611 deals with the regula regulation of signs in the right of way. It amends the uh transportation code, imposes a ci civil

penalty for placing commercial signs um on the right of way um and uh also provides an opportunity for uh a sign owner to recover um uh I'm sorry, for the city to recover from the sign owner. um it up up to uh $5,000 uh considering how many violations that sign order has incurred. Um that's pretty much it. Those are the [clears throat] the the big bills. Um oh no, I'm sorry. I forgot one more. [laughter] House Bill 5057 deals with the notice required for exclusive um solid waste franchise agre agreements. It basically requires cities to provide notice in a newspaper or on the website as it pertains to an exclusive contract with a privatelyowned solid waste management service provider. Um, and uh there's some uh elements outlined in the bill as to um what the U solid waste service provider um is allowed to uh provide as far as services are concerned. Um, but again, that's not really something that would be uh impacted by the commission. So, if you all have any questions, I'm here and I'll be sure to get back with you uh Mr. Miller about your your question.

Thank Thank you so much. Commissioners, questions. Um just maybe for my benefit if you would just go over that initial one you talked about with the proposed comp u comprehensive zoning change and because there you said there were three and any one of the three would trigger the need for that right? Um so um are you talking about the the protest uh requirements? It's no it's before you got into the protest discussion. Um because I understood that one because there was the two existing and the new with the city 60% of the adjacent properties within the 200. It was the one you talked about very first. Sure.

And so the problem for me is it wasn't also written down and my learning style is much better if I can read it and hear it at the same time. So I'm going to attempt to take much better notes this time.

No problem. So essentially the proposed comprehensive zoning change uh house bill 24 has added a new definition for that. Um so it now applies to a broader broader zoning actions by cities. So it'll include proposals that one allow more residential development than existing regulations and apply uniformly across one or more zoning districts. Two, that adopt a new citywide zoning code or zoning map. Or three, establish a zoning overlay district along a major roadway, highway, or transit corridor that permits increased residential development. And so it only need to meet one of those to be considered a um comprehensive zoning change.

Excellent. That's precisely what I needed were those three categories. Again, thank you. No problem. Anything else? All right. Thank you once again for your expertise. No problem. Much appreciate it. Sorry for the technical. [laughter] [gasps]

All right. And that takes us up to item A3. Discuss agenda items for future planning and zoning commission consideration. I know we had several last time, but commissioners, any items? All right. Well, seeing none, uh we will then uh end our study session. It is presently 7:06 p.m. Um commissioners, do you need a break before we go into our regular session? Anyone needing a break, speak now. Okay. Well, then with that, we will uh do we need to reset our tech? Okay. Well, with that then uh assuming that we are all okay, we will commence with our regular meeting. It is presently 7:07 p.m. on Monday, October 27th. Welcome to the city of Farmers Branch Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. We will begin this evening first by thanking the commissioners for their service and then with 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 citizens comments registration form and submit it to the chair prior to the start of the meeting. There's a threeinut time limit for each citizen to speak with a reasonable limitation on speakers on anyone topic or item with a maximum of 15 total minutes on the same topic item. Anyone wishing to speak shall be courteous and cordial. The planning and zoning commission is not permitted to take action on any subject raised by a speaker during citizen comments. When called, please approach the podium and state your name and address prior to beginning your comment. Please direct all comments to the commission and not to the audience. And this evening we had no one signed up for citizen comments. So we will move on

to our regular agenda items. Up first item C1, consider approval of the October 13, 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting minutes and take appropriate action. Commissioners, I move that we approve the the minutes as presented. Thank you. A second.

Second. Any further discussion on the item? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. All those in favor to approve the minutes as presented. All right. Thank you all. We'll now move to our public hearings. Item D1, conduct a public hearing and consider the request for a specific use permit for an indoor commercial amusement use baseball practice facility for a portion of approximately 1 acre property located at 13850 North Simmons Freeway and located within the plan development district number 70 zoning district and take appropriate action. Thank you, Brian.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, commissioners. All right. Well, thank you all very much. It is a privilege and a pleasure to be presenting before you this evening. I'm Brian Campbell, planner with the planning department here to present to you tonight on the specific use permit for 13850 North Stimons Freeway. So, this is the subject property. It is zoned plan development district number 70 and is located within the freeway subdist. And this is a specific use permit request for an indoor commercial amusement use. um more specifically an indoor baseball practice facility. So the applicant is Pendulum Swing Lab um which provides coaching and training on batting and pitching techniques related to baseball um on an appointment basis. Um so with that they are seeking approval of an SUP in order to set up shop in suite 100 of the existing building. Um with that the proposed hours of operations would be um 10:00 am to 10 pm Monday through Friday. Uh regarding parking requirements PD70 requires um actually PD70 defaults to the CEO when it comes to parking standards for indoor commercial amusement uses um which requires one space per 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. And so given um suite 100's square footage of 5100 square feet um they would be required to provide six parking spaces. PD70 does have its own requirement when it comes to warehousing uses uh which is the primary use for the two adjoining suites number 110 and number 120. Um with number 110 being occupied by Isuma Catering and 120 being occupied by WS

Construction. So PD70 requires one space per 10,00 square feet of gross floor area for warehousing uses. So given the combined square footage of these two suites being 8,000 square ft, each users required to provide four parking spaces each. So between the three uses, there are a total of 14 parking spaces um that are required. The subject property currently houses 23 parking spaces and given the applicant's in appointmentbased business model um staff feels that this parking situation will be adequate. [laughter] Regarding landscaping PD70 does require at least 5% of the subject property to be landscaped with the required front yard being dedicated to open space and that one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage um be planted. So in this situation um for trees would be required to be planted each along both Northst and Denton Drive. So in this scenario we actually have 15% of the property that's landscaped with 11 trees adjacent to North Stimmans Freeway and five along Denton Drive which exceeds this threshold. And the applicant does propose to maintain this landscaping. The applicant does propose to use the suite in its current form with any interior modifications. um being made necessary to suit their business operations as illustrated in the floor plan that was included within your agenda packet. So turning to the recommendations of the farmers branch 2045 plan. Uh the farmer's branch 2045 plan does designate the subject property and the surrounding area as regional commercial. Uh with this land use designation, the plan does recommend a series of single commercial uses for the property that are visible from regional thorough affairs and highways. And so given that um the

recommended land uses are limited to commercial office and services. And so given that this is a commercial indoor a indoor commercial amusement use compatible with this land use designation uh the proposal is consistent with the farmers branch 2045 plan and I would also point out um this use's potential to provide additional economic vitality and consumer activity in the area with the use. So on October 20th, we did mail um 620 notification letters to all surrounding property owners within 300 ft of the subject property as we now require in addition to both the Carolton Farmers Branch and Dallas Independent School Districts and a zoning sign was placed on the property the same day. As of this evening, we have not received any correspondence regarding the case. So this concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to take those. Um, we do have the applicant here with us tonight as well if you have any questions for them. Otherwise, I thank you for your time this evening. And Chair really, in anticipation of your question of when this will go to council, it'll be November 18th. Thank you all very much.

Thank you for that, Brian. Um, just one minor correction. I think I heard you say that the letters were mailed on the 20th, but I think it was 20 letters mailed on the 16th. Yes, that's correct. 20. The letter is mailed on October 16th. Yeah. Thank you for that. Just so it's correct on the record, of course. All right. Any questions for staff? All right. Do we have questions for the applicant? No questions for the applicant. Applicant, would you like to make any presentation? We don't have any questions at this time, but want to make sure

it's actually Okay, great. Well, with that, um, then I would move that we close the public hearing. Okay. And and just confirming, we had no one signed up to speak on this item and we have a movement to close the public hearing. [snorts] Second. Seconded. Any further discussion on the item? Seeing none, uh, all those who would, uh, vote, uh, favorably to close the public hearing. All right. So, now with that done, we'll hear action on the item. I'll make a motion to recommend approval as presented.

Uh, recommendation to approve, second and seconded. Any further discussion on the item? Seeing none, we'll move to vote. All those in favor to recommend approval. All right. And as stated, this will go to council on November 18th. Yes. Thank you kindly. Thank you, commissioners. All right. Uh, next up, item D2. Conduct a public hearing and consider the request for a zoning amendment for industrial development on approximately 3.5 acres located at 12197 Denton Drive within the plan de development district number 32 zoning district and take appropriate action. Thank you, Brett.

Thank you, Chairley and members of the PNZ. My name is Brett Mangum, lead planner with the planning department here at City Farmers Branch. It's a pleasure to present to you this evening. Uh this is case 25 ZA9, 12197 Denton Drive. This is proposal for a reszoning for a new warehouse and office development. On your screen in green, you can see the subject site. We're at approximately 3 and 1/2 acres. This property is situated on the southern boundary line uh just adjacent to the city of Dallas and it has double frontage uh with the lefthand side being the I35 stemmans frontage road and the back being Denton Drive and there are access points on both of those streets uh for circulation. Currently the property is zone PD uh plan development number 32 uh which was established back in 1982. Uh more recently, we have had a detailed site plan which was approved in June of 2024 for this site for a very similar type of development warehouse and office. Uh what you're looking at tonight is basically the same thing that was approved by PNZ and city council unanimously back in June 2024. The only major difference is the uh site plan. The building has flipped in a mirror image from north to south. So, previously we had five truck loading docks on the south uh side of the property. Now, they have been flipped away from that and they're on the north side which will face the existing uh trio of buildings you see on the top of the screen which is a separate property. Tonight's amendment does include uh a trio of different uh items. We'll have a detailed site plan component. In addition to that, we'll have a landscape plan as well as building elevations. So, the developer will be tied to developing as uh you're seeing on the screen without any deviations. If there are any

changes, just like we're doing tonight, it will prompt a second round of review, public hearing, and uh PNC and council approval. These just show some of the current conditions on the site. I'm sure many of you are familiar with this property. It's a very highly visible uh site as you come into the city on the uh 35 frontage road. Currently, uh there's really nothing much out there at all. No landscaping. It's basically just a gravel parking lot. Um hardtack parking lot. The dart line, uh lies across Denton Drive. Um that is actually a little bit unique because the the right of way for Denton Drive is within the city of Dallas, but the city of Farmers Branch does uh contain all of the actual land holdings. uh on the screen have included the building elevations. This would be specifically for the building that faces uh I35, so it will be the more visible of the two buildings. Uh just to point out, the warehouse building has the same architectural style uh and uh details. Uh it's just a little bit different in the height. Uh and it's going to have less windows because it's a warehouse, but very similar to what you'll see on both buildings. Uh again, the warehouse building will be the smaller of the buildings. I believe it's 35,000 ft² if I'm correct. Um total the total square footage for the two buildings is 53,000. It's a mix. Uh the front will be retail and office and then the back building will be a warehouse. Uh there's also parking, streetscape, and landscaping uh improvements included. Again, going back to the previous approval, there's no changes in the land use. So, the warehouse use, the office use, and the retail use are all allowed by right here at this site. Uh, we're not making any changes there. Just

basically flipping the uh location of the dock doors. And again, worth pointing out, there's no outdoor storage component. All the activity will take place inside of the buildings. So, this uh gives you a better idea of specifically what we're looking at. This is the landscape plan. Staff did an analysis of the application and what's being proposed here does seem to meet all of our standards for PD32. Uh it's not deficient in any manner. Uh specifically looking at the parking uh based on the square footages in PD32, it requires 57 parking spaces for the amount of square footage listed here and they are providing 76. So it complies there. As far as landscaping goes, that is going to be a 5% base requirement and then uh 24 street trees based on the lineal square footage for uh both streets. Uh they're exceeding those minimum requirements as well with 10% landscaping and then they're meeting the 24 street trees uh right on the on point. Looking at our long range plans, we do have the 2045 comprehensive plan that was adopted two years ago. And the you can see in on the bottom of the screen in red we've outlined the general vicinity of the site. So the comprehensive plan is again our 30,000 foot view and basically they're saying that this uh particular like vicinity of this neighborhood is designated as future commercial and industrial employment center. So a warehouse office would be perfectly in alignment with that designation. Uh other types of uses would be office research uh light industrial warehousing or logistics. So as you can see uh it's always good to have that uh consistency with the comprehensive plan. Uh our analysis overall is that this land use would be uh compatible with the surrounding uh developments at the present time.

Looking at the public notice, we followed the uh requirements in state law, sent out eight letters to owners within 300 foot on October 16th. Uh zoning notification sign was posted by city staff on the same day. And as of tonight's meeting, we have not received any uh correspondence either in support or in opposition to this particular request. So with that, that's the extent of my uh presentation. We do have the applicants team here if you have any questions for them. Um they can answer anything that I may have missed. But with that, I will turn it back over to you for further discussion.

Thank you. I am going to first ask this would if approved here go to or recommend for approval go to city council November 18th as well. I can confirm uh November 18th. Great. Thank you. And any other questions for staff? Thank you very much. Do we have questions for the applicant? Okay, applicant, we will have questions. If you don't mind, just come forward, state your name and address for the record.

Good evening and Kyle McCulla with Park McCulla Architects. I want to thank you. I want to start off by thanking the staff. Uh Sam, I thank you for all your time and Mr. Brett too uh to letting us uh move forward uh with the project. So, I'm here to answer your question here, sir. Uh, I noted in here in reading that the these lots weren't split up the first time. There's a there's a lot A and a lot B now. Yes, sir. Okay. Are you going to build them both at the same time or? Yes. Yes, sir. We are going to build them both at the same time. This is kind of off the wall, but No, it isn't, sir. Because

is there if 10 years down the road you decide to sell these buildings separately, they're on separate lots. Yes, correct. Is there provision or do you need to make provision for ingress and egress from one property to the other? Well, we have an over power line easement that's running through between the two of them. It's it's it's approximately 100 feet wide. That's the reason that there's that area that is being shown between building A and building B. Uh you're talking about an access easement correlation, a mutual access easement. I have the civil engineer here. He's he's going to

I I'm just thinking down the road if if for some reason you decide to sell the front of the back or this is this is our civil engineer, right? Yeah. I'll give you the the quick answers. We um when we get into engineering, we'll be required to have a cross access between the two lots just to address that item in case for whatever reason one party or another, we'd be committing, you know, here when this permit gets approved to dedicate access from you have mutual access one to another. I know the fire department will want that so they can come through and circulate the site and get out on either Denton or on the frontage road coming in. [snorts] All right, that's all I had. Thank you. Yes.

And David Bond with Spires Engineering. Thank you for that. Any further questions for our applicant? All right. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you again and thank you very much and good seeing you guys again. All right. A reminder uh that this is a public hearing. We have no one signed up to speak uh for the public hearing. Do we have any other comments, discussion? I would move that we close the public hearing. Thank you. Second.

Seconded. Any further discussion on the item? Seeing none, we'll move to that. All those in favor to close the public hearing. All right. And now we'll hear action on the item. With that, I'll make a motion to recommend approval as presented. All right, a recommendation for approval. Second and seconded. Any further discussion on the item. All right, with that, uh, all those, uh, vote to approve recommending, uh, approval. In favor? All right. And this will go to city council on November 18th. Thank you kindly. Thank you, commissioners.

All right. And with that, that ends our business for the evening. So, we will adjourn at 7:26 p.m. Thank you all.