Planning & Zoning Commission - public_hearing

Thank you. you

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is now 7 p.m. Welcome to tonight's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of Tuesday, September 8, 2026. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the public may participate in the public hearing. All participants will be able to speak when called upon. At this time, I would like to explain the procedures to be followed during the meeting. The Commission has both a consent agenda and an agenda for consideration of individual items. Items listed on the consent agenda are considered to be routine and non-contested. Item number one, citizen comments, provides the opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission on items that are listed on the consent agenda. Each speaker will be limited to three minutes and the Secretary will let you know when one minute is left. For all PLATs and plans conditionally approved or disapproved by the Commission, the applicant was provided a written statement of the conditions for the conditional approval or the reasons for disapproval. These conditions and reasons are not arbitrary. They're directly related to the requirements of Local Government Code Chapter 212 and include citations to the law that is the basis for the conditional approval or disapproval. For individual consideration items, I will call the applicant or his or her representative to present the case. The applicant will have up to five minutes to present the case, which includes all persons representing the application. Then those wishing to speak in favor and those wishing to speak in opposition will have up to five minutes each to present his or her comments. The applicant will have five minutes to answer questions or provide rebuttal if there is opposition. If there is a group with the same opinion, it is requested that a smaller number of speakers provide remarks on behalf of the group. Prior to speaking, please give your name and city of residence. Remember to speak directly into the microphone as this hearing is recorded for the public record. Any handouts you wish to present should be given to the staff, Gina at the end here of our dais. You're also welcome to submit a letter in writing or by email if you prefer not to speak. Applicants are not required to speak, excuse me, applicants are not required to stay for the entire duration of the meeting and may leave once their item has been heard. The next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission will be Monday, October 5th, 2026. So we'll proceed to the agenda items now. And the first agenda item is citizen comments on items listed on the consent agenda. Claudia, has anyone signed up to speak on items on the consent agenda?

No, there's no one signed up to speak for the consent agenda. Please proceed.

Thank you very much. The next items are on the consent agenda. Secretary Myrick, will you please read the consent agenda into the record?

Yes. For approval, we have approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of Monday, August 3rd, 2026 and Monday, August 17th, 2026.

Thank you all. Accept a motion.

So moved.

And a second, please.

Second.

Thank you. Please vote. Thank you very much. Consent agenda for approval passes. Secretary Myrick, if you'll read the disapproval.

For disapproval, we have item number 202578PL. Health Zone Addition Replat, located at 419 and 427 Maxwell Avenue. The next one is 2026193PL Mustang Crossing Bus Park, 3rd Revision Replat, located at 4995 Rochelle Road.

Thank you. All accept a motion?

So moved.

Thank you, Terry. Second?

Second.

Thank you, Josh. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. And the motion for disapproval of the consent agenda items carries eight to zero. All right, we'll move on to the individual agenda items now. The very first item on our agenda, individual items, is zoning case 20265-195-ZZ at 526 and 600 North MacArthur Boulevard. Is the applicant present? Yes, sir. Are you Mr. Blanco? Would you like to offer any remarks tonight? Okay. Thank you very much. Does anyone have any interest in speaking in favor of this case? Mr. Widener?

Jim Widener, 900 Turtle Lakes Boulevard, Irving, Texas, 75060. I'm not in favor of it or... against it. All we need to do, and by the way, I represent Luke Ramsey, who couldn't be here tonight because of illness. We're not for or against it. All we want to do is make sure that the remainder of the property, which is adjacent to this, this will not affect its use. Its current use will stay as it is with no infractions of the site plan. That's all we want.

I'm assured that that is.

I'm sorry, what?

We are assured that that is correct. Nothing will change.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

And to clear up what you're talking about, Jim, you're talking about the car wash next door, correct?

I'm talking about the car wash.

Okay.

It's platted as a single unit, the car wash with this property, and they are removing this property from the existing site plan.

Okay. As the chair said, that's what we were told. It should not have any effect on the property. That's correct. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the item? Anyone in opposition to this case? Okay, seeing none, I'll return the case to the, excuse me, I'll close the item to the floor and return it to the Commission for discussion or a motion.

Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion for zoning case 2026195ZC526 and 600 North MacArthur Boulevard before the City Council with a vote of approval.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Oh, I know. Could somebody reach over and hit his abstain button? Thank you very much. Thank you. Motion carries 7-1 with one abstention. So, Mr. Blanco, your case is passed. It will be presented to the City Council on September 24th for final consideration, so you'll want to be present at the City Council meeting in case they have any questions for you. Thank you all very much. Moving on to zoning case 2026-220-ZC at 502 North O'Connor Road. Is the applicant present? Okay. Yes, ma'am. If you would come down and give your name and city of residence. And were you at the work session? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So you heard our questions at the work session? Yes, ma'am.

I did. I am the applicant. I live in 3928 Innsbruck Drive. And the house in front of me is 4924 Montego Bay, as you all know, it has been burned down. So I was hoping to get it.

Wrong case.

Sorry. Is it Montego Bay?

Thank you.

World number six.

Sorry.

Thank you all. I appreciate the assist. Yeah, I appreciate the assist on that. Is the applicant present, Mr. O'Day? Okay, there you are, sir. Do you have any questions? Mr. O'Day, would you like to come down and offer any remarks regarding your case? All right, thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in favor of the jack-in-the-box tonight? All right, seeing none, anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this case? All right, seeing none, I'll close the item to the floor and return it to the Commission for any further discussion or a motion.

If there's no further discussion amongst the commissioners, I'd like to move zoning case 2026-220-ZC to City Council for approval. Second.

Thank you all very much. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. And Mr. O'Day, the motion passes 8-0. Your case will be... presented to City Council at their next hearing on September 24th. So we encourage you to be there in case City Council has any questions. But you've taken an important step forward. So thanks very much for investing in the jack-in-the-box. We have next on the agenda, zoning case 2026-230-CUP. This case has been withdrawn by the applicant. If there is anyone here who would still like to speak to that case, you are welcome to do so. Is there anyone here for that case? Okay, no. Anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this case? Okay, very fine, thank you. So this case again has been withdrawn and there'll be no further consideration of it. We are moving on to the next case, 2026-237-CC, 4924 Montego Bay Drive. So ma'am, if you'd like to come up and now give your name and address for the record, please.

Yeah, my name is Lucy Salahatim. I live in 3928 Innsbruck Drive. Irving, Texas 75038, 4924 Montego Bay is in front of my house. It get burned down. So I thought I have two girls, two son. One of my son is down syndrome. So after I died, I thought like my two girls were living in a big house and my two boys will live near each other in a duplex or whatever. I just wrote the word duplex. I don't know if there is other word to put, but I want them to live near each other and doing each other company while having their own privacy.

Thank you. Anyone who would like to speak in favor of this item? Anyone who'd like to speak in opposition to this item? Okay, we have three people signed up to speak, and I can take you in order or however order you all prefer, but the way they signed up is Christopher Nami in opposition. He's signed up to speak, so we'll get to him. Mr. Ami?

Good evening. Christopher Namy, 4821 Cortina Drive, 75038 Irving, Texas. We are speaking, or I'm here to speak in opposition of this multifamily proposition for this location in a neighborhood that is 100% single family to bring in a multifamily home. I know that the applicant just stated that she intends for this to be for her own family but I will also say that the home that was on this plot before was a rental home and not rented by her family. It was rented by another family. So I have concerns that that would be the case for this. I'm also very concerned with the amount of vehicles that a multifamily would bring to this location. Innisbrook Drive in this neighborhood is a gateway to Longwood, to Cortina Drive, and to Innisbrook South, not to mention the rest of Innisbrook Drive. The location is at a corner. that must be traversed in order to reach all of the other homes that I just mentioned on the streets. We currently have an issue with vehicles being parked on both sides of the road at this corner. The fact that this corner accesses probably about 35 to 40 homes, that people have no other opportunity or no other avenue to get to their homes. Having cars parked on both sides creates a bit of a bottleneck. It creates a bit of a traffic hazard. And quite frankly, I'm afraid that it might create an issue for emergency vehicles trying to access the other homes. But more than anything else, the fact that this is a multifamily proposition and a single-family home development neighborhood is a very big concern, and we just do not want that in our neighborhood. So thank you for listening.

Thank you, Mr. Nami. The next person who signed up to speak is Mr. Jim Edwards, Edmonds.

GOOD EVENING.

MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN... NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD.

JAMES EDMONDS, IRVING, TEXAS, 4829 CORTINA DRIVE. We've resided there for 37 years, and it's a beautiful neighborhood, all single family. Any duplexes that would be going in is going to devaluate all the homes. And at least that's what we believe. There is no significant advantage for a duplex to go in there. And as mentioned before, It's a pivotal entrance to other homes, and there's a lot of cars and congestion that would be in the way. And so we want to protest vehemently that this not happen. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Edmonds. Third person who signed up to speak is James Curran.

My name is James Curran from 3904 Innisbrook Drive in the same subdivision. And I do agree and concur with both the speakers that came before me about this property being specifically because it's on the corner. And certain times of the week we have cars and sometimes a lot of vehicles parked on both sides of the street. And they block the stop signs. It's already happening. We do not want to exasperate the situation further, causing untold problems for other residents. Because it's a peaceful neighborhood, we like to keep it that way. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Curran. Mr. Davis, do you still want to speak? You'll come down and give your name and city of residence, please, for the record.

Edward Davis, 4920 Longwood Court, city of Irving. It's a delight to be here, and I enjoyed being in the working session with you guys and understanding what the staff recommendation was there. So it seems like this is a little bit redundant for us to go back over these issues, because as it was presented, it kind of laid out the issues. But let me go over a few things. I don't believe the lot specified there is large enough for the proposed two-story duplex, 2,800 square feet, two three-bedroom, 2.5 bath, two-car garage units on this house. We have very few other two stories. In fact, we don't even have any two stories, I think, but one. The others are a story and a half, so they don't complete the cover over the entire unit. And so this is not part of the construct of this great neighborhood. How many of you know where Broadmoor Hills is? You've driven through there? If you were there, you needed to be there. If not, you were lost. It's a wonderful neighborhood. In fact, just not too many years ago, on one of the pieces of property that's now been developed, we had a guy that still had cows on that property. And so it was the best-kept secret for a number of years, but that has dramatically changed with the Dominion thing. There's no other duplex in the Broadmoor Hills neighborhood. This is a single-family residential neighborhood. It's been rated that way from the beginning, always been that way, and it should stay that way. The proposed duplex is a two-story, and we have very few two-story homes. I believe that this would be the only one that would be in the area. A two-story unit of any kind would greatly infringe on the privacy of the bordering home's as it would peer over into their backyards, which I think both have swimming pools. Whether they swim naked or not, but who knows? It also appears to have a zero-lot line for its construction, which is totally unacceptable in this neighborhood. Some of the homes are close enough in the Dominion neighborhood. Limited driveway size and access will create issues on both sides of Montego Bay and Innisbrook causing excessive street parking. We already have an issue with street parking in our neighborhood and we're constantly working on it through our neighborhood association. Limited driveway size at this duplex will also create issues on both Montego Bay and Innisbrook causing excess street parking. The proposed duplex has two garages that will directly face Innisbrook. All the garages in this neighborhood, either you go up the driveway, turn to the back, or they are designed at a 90-degree angle, so none of our garages face the street. So this would be inconsistent with the architectural and cultural design of our neighborhood. Broadmoor Hills neighborhood homes have increased in value solely because of its wonderful location, single entrance access. It's close to many schools. DFW Airport is our neighbor. Our awesome highway system that connects right from where we live, 161, 635 Beltline, Valley View, 114 and 35E. Go anywhere from this neighborhood in the Metroplex. It's a great place to live. In fact, the recent building that they're talking about is zero lot line homes on some of the best land left in Irving has made our quiet, peaceful neighborhood more susceptible to traffic issues, crime, noise, and overcrowding. I've noticed the first homeless people that have discovered our neighborhood in the last year. If a zoning change occurs in this neighborhood, it becomes much easier for future zoning changes to be put forward and accepted. I've been around the city a long time. Once something comes in, it's hard to take it back. Leaving the neighborhood with less and less opportunities for single-family home ownership each time. We already have a new project that's in the Broadmoor Hills neighborhood of some townhomes that are being built. We contested that for a number of years because of its proximity to a church and other areas and drainage issues on that lot. But it made it through this last time. Since the owner has several of the properties in the neighborhood with at least two vacant at this time, it would seem that the need to build a new duplex of a two-story standard on that lot is not viable as a primary reason that she states to move her two sons into the duplex. I'm sympathetic, but I'm not aligned. Finally, let me close with this. A zoning change in Broadmoor Hills from R7.5 to R3.5, allowing a duplex to be constructed with not... will not, no matter what the scenario we run, will not add value to our neighborhood. We have apartments and townhomes close in proximity, and as I understand soon to have, the additional townhomes is built on the last remaining vacant land in the Broadmoor Hills Estates neighborhood. The Broadmoor Hills Neighborhood Association, and I would ask all those of my neighborhood to stand with me that are opposed to this, We are opposed to proposed zoning change that has been submitted. We've submitted a petition with somewhere around 90 to 100 signatures. We adamantly oppose this rezoning. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Davis. That concludes the number of people we had signed up and that we're aware to speak. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition after hearing these other speakers? Anything different to add? Okay, seeing none, I'm going to not pronounce your name correctly, Ms. Surreptum. Since you have had a number of people speak in opposition to your case, do you have anything that you'd like to add supporting your case? No. Thank you very much. I'll close the item to the floor and return it to the Commission for a discussion or a motion.

Madam Chairman, when I went out and visited your neighborhood the first time I've been out there, I was kind of taken aback by that corner that this property is on. traffic was bad cars were parked on both sides just like y'all said it was and it was difficult getting around but it's a beautiful neighborhood and i noticed that i didn't see any other duplexes in that whole neighborhood either so i i gotta say uh i like to see the neighborhood kept the way it is and i just couldn't support this i'm sorry i'll agree with uh

Commissioner Terry because at the end of the day your neighborhood is good it's not consistent with the neighborhood the lot is really too small to put in adequate parking and everything else for it and you know I look at things and it's conflicting because I believe people should be able to build what they want on their property to a certain degree but it also should be built responsibly, and it should fit the area, and it should not, you know, I look at it from 10 years from now. What could it be 10 years from now in your neighborhood? And potentially, like you said, it was a rental property before. It could be a rental property again, but it just don't really fit your neighborhood, so I can't support it.

If none of the fellow commissioners have any other comments, I'd like to make a motion for zoning case 2026237ZC4924, Montego Bay Drive, be forwarded to City Council recommendation of denial. I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. Please vote. And the motion for denial passes eight to zero. This is not the last stop. You have the opportunity to present your case to city council on September 24th. They'll make the final recommendation. So you're welcome to go back and I would encourage you to go to that meeting so you can present your case as well. All right. Thank you all very much. yet and you all don't have to stay for the rest of the meeting since you came for this particular case. If you all be quiet on the way out, we still have to continue the public meeting. Alright, moving on to Zoning case 20264-245-ZC at 324 North Nursery Road. Mr. Fisher, would you like to come down and talk to us about the case, please?

Chair, commissioners, my name is Maxwell Fisher with ZoneDev 2502...

Folks, folks, Broadmoor Estates folks, if you could please take your conversation out to the parking lot. There goes Abby. Thank you, Abby.

How do I advance the line?

Sorry, Mr. Fisher. We want to be sure we get to hear.

Yeah, I was looking for a clicker to advance the slides. Oh, keyboard.

Got it.

All right. Thank you. Would you like this one?

Hang on just a quick second. Let's let that back slide.

Oh, does this one not work? Oh, OK. Yeah.

Then they've got to get them right. Okay, I think it's quiet. Why don't you start again if you don't mind, sir.

Chair, commissioners, my name is Maxwell Fisher with ZoneDev, 2502 Grandview Drive, Richardson, Texas, 75080, representing RBE Nursery LLC.

Well, I'll have a clicker that's... Maxwell, the keyboard's better. Okay. All right.

So this is a historically commercial, heavy commercial industrial property. It's seven and a half acres. It has a 24,000 square foot warehouse building built in 1972. It also has a storage yard that's historically been used as such. It's been zoned ML20 light industrial. for several years. The future land use map calls for a manufacturing warehouse. So we're not talking about land use so much tonight. We have been actively trying to release this building since 2024 and had some challenges. We do have interest now in some different users and why we're here tonight. As staff probably mentioned in the work session, the site is predominantly surrounded by heavy industrial user Owens Corning, and then there's also other commercial and various industrial uses around it. There is some residential across Maltby to the east. As mentioned, this property is actually, it's intended user, likely user will be less intense from a relative standpoint compared to the industrial users around it. It would likely have a contractor type use that provides a service. etc there'd be minimal truck traffic there would be an accessory storage yard there is an existing chain link fence along nursery that we would replace with a solid fence to provide some additional screening I also note that the the actual street elevation is a little lower so if you're standing or driving on nursery and you're looking towards the site and so with the solid fence your viewpoint would actually EXTEND UP TO WHERE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE ANY ITEMS THAT ARE SCREENED OR MOST ITEMS THAT ARE SCREENED IN THE SITE. SO WE THINK THAT'S GOING TO HELP SUBSTANTIALLY. NOT TO MENTION THERE'S SOME TREES THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED THAT WE PLAN ON REPLACING THAT WERE ORIGINALLY ON THE APPROVED SP2 OR THE ORIGINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN. With that, and then along Maltby, there's a substantial hedge of trees there. It's a mixture of deciduous and evergreen material. There's also the mother of all screening walls back there. It looks like a, I mean, it's concrete blocks like I've never seen before. BACK THERE PROVIDES A SCREEN. SO WE THINK THAT'S AN ADEQUATE SCREEN. THERE IS A CONTINGENCY THAT IN THE EVENT THAT THE TREE LINE BEGINS TO DIE, WE WOULD PLANT SOME EVERGREEN PLANT MATERIAL AND TREES AND SHRUBS ALONG THAT TO CONTINUE THAT SCREENING FROM THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST. THE AREA IN YELLOW IS A TRANSMISSION EASEMENT. WE CAN'T PLANT ANY TREES IN THAT AREA, THAT JUST SHOWS YOU. WE ALSO CAN'T PLANT OR replace the fence in that area, we would keep the chain link up at least in that area in yellow because the franchisee, the utility provider, wouldn't let us put a structure in there. Here's some pictures of the site. It shows you some of the trees along the buffer that we plan on improving, cleaning up, and then adding some trees. And then there's the chain link fence that shows the left and right side of the building or north and south. We replaced that with a solid screen. This is Maltby Road screening. It's a mixture. A couple of photos there that show it's a screening wall with landscape material. And there's also some shrubs that are evergreen in nature, patinas along that frontage. So we'd ask you to support this request. We think that approving the amendment will trigger reinvestment and bring a business back to the property. Of course, we'll also improve the aesthetics with the added trees, solid fencing, and Maltby screening. This will bring additional tax dollars to the city and aligns with the comp plan, and staff is in support. I'll also mention that one of our users that I didn't mention, one of our users is potentially heavy equipment They bring heavy equipment in, and then they provide the service of delivering it to its end site. And so some of that equipment, it may only be 7 to 10 feet tall when it sits on the ground, but some of it's actually put on flatbed trailers and just kept and stored. And so that's where we need the additional height of roughly 13 feet. So we think that with the screening that's proposed, it would be much better than what's there today and meet the spirit and intent of the City of Irving ordinances. So I'll stop there and be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Fisher. If you'll just hold, we'll see if there's anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the case.

Thank you.

Anyone who'd like to speak in opposition to the case? Seeing none, I'll close the item to the floor and return it to the Commission for discussion or questions if you have them, Mr. Fisher, or a motion.

Mr. Maxwell, are you all going to have any lay-down storage there as far as possibly shingles, pallets? et cetera, stuff that's on the ground, that's built up to a certain height.

Yeah, no. Well, I can't say we would never have anything like that, but the users that we've been talking to are not in that nature of all. They wouldn't be storing material and scraps or something like from a scrap material yard. That's not the type of user that the few users we've been talking to, they don't do that at all. So no, that's not the intended use.

I can understand the height on equipment. You know, if you've got air conditioners like we talked about in the work session, big chiller unit, yeah, it's going to stick up. I really don't have any issues with the movement of height, and I don't think that even if it's movable, does that even create an issue with the height of the fence.

We can't regulate how long something stays. So if it's being stored, it's being stored for an hour or a year.

I understand that, but I'm talking about like a piece of equipment. It doesn't follow like a crane does not follow the one foot below the fence line.

It does.

It does?

It does. We've had equipment dealers in storage where we've had to go through and vary the fact that those are taller.

Yeah. I can support what you're doing. I mean, I'm glad the building's finally got, you know, interest in it. It's been sitting there for a long time. And I know it got tore up during the tornado and everything else.

Yeah, I think that's the intent of the standard is we don't, you know, it's to protect the city from scrap yards. It just piles stuff up everywhere and it sticks over the fence. And then this is more the nature of it. heavy machinery, you know, trucks and things that would have machinery on the back of a flatbed. And so it's very much different nature.

Let me ask staff a question. Jocelyn, how would we word this? I could support the truck or the heavy equipment or the item on a truck, but I don't want us to be in a situation where we're allowing lay-down products to set long periods of time six feet over an existing fence. I can't do that. So how would that be worried?

And we talked about this, Lenny. Go ahead.

Yeah, if I could speak to that. I mean, I wouldn't want, what we don't want to do is limit the current zoning rights in the property that we have. As long as we, we don't want to keep a business there that potentially could lease the property, we would be okay with, as long as it's not totally prohibited, we'd be okay with maybe some certain height limitations for certain types of material, if that's what you're getting at.

Well, our certain heights, correct me if I'm wrong, is one feet under the fence. So if you've got an eight-foot fence, it would be seven foot. That's what we do across the board. But you're asking for an additional six feet, and if we don't word it correctly, then we could potentially be allowing... stacks of shingles for instance to be six feet above the ground and you're legal and the people in malby would have to be looking at that or that's a fair point so so that that's what i'm trying to figure out the wording are you okay with that yeah no now that i know that i better understand yeah i understand what you're trying to do and i can understand that but the wording is what i want to make sure we're getting correct as far as no lay down product, any, any products that are going to be put on the ground or anything like that.

Yeah.

Any loose materials will stay one foot under the fence and heavy equipment or equipment on trucks. Cause you can't control a chiller or whatever. I mean, any equipment on trucks for as that goes, you know, it's, it's, you know, movable and move back around. Right.

So if we, Because I know when we originally talked about this, you specifically had on your site plan the chillers on the trailers. Yeah, I mean. That was a little too specific.

Yeah, that's too specific because that user is, I mean, if I had to guess, it's the most likely one, but it's not guaranteed. And if they could go out, we need to be able to reuse it.

We could say any piece of equipment on a trailer.

Yeah.

Well, or you could say construction vehicles or construction equipment, but any loose materials or construction materials shall not exceed the height of the fence.

Yeah, one foot under the height of the fence. Yeah, I don't know why that would be an issue. That's code anyway, I believe. Yes, that is code.

We're allowing for the trees to screen the equipment itself, but the concern is we don't get into shingle mountain and that type of thing. Yes, no.

Fair enough. Okay. Okay.

So, Ricky, when you do your motion, try to tie that as tight as you can, and then we'll carry that to council. Okay.

See if we have other questions. What's the condition of that cement wall along Maltby Road? You said it was the mother of all walls, so it's been there for a while and it's in good shape?

Yes, I would describe it as sturdy, very sturdy fence, like something you would use in a war. I hadn't seen anything like that in a while. It's mostly screened with the vegetation in the front, and it's a fairly thick hedge of wooded material.

Yeah, my only concern is at some point when that, hedge reaches end of life or parts of that hedge reach end of life that they'll be looking at that wall and if the wall is deteriorating then that's you know until new plant material gets in and matures you know I want that wall to be in good shape through the life of the

Understood. We're willing to replace that plant material any event it dies. Right now, it's so established that if we tried to remove some of it, we're going to clean it up a bit, but if we started to remove it, it would undermine the screening that's there that's matured.

Understood. Any other questions from the commission?

One of the questions or comments we brought up in the workshop, the I think it's each in part with the tall trees. Well, you got about three or four or five months if that's just sticks when the leaves fall.

Yeah, well, there is the course of the masonry wall that provides a certain level of screening. And then those sticks are actually quite a bit of wooded material along there. And there's also some fatinas as well that are also evergreen. So there's a mixture of evergreen. But the height, I'm concerned about a lot of them are really tall, which works perfect for you. Yeah. But. Yeah, based on where the storage area is and how far the storage areas is from where Maltby is, the vantage point, if you were from the street looking up towards the screening device and also the wooden material of the plant material that would remain, you're going to have a pretty substantial screen. We don't even know that you would even be able to see if you parked a semi-truck trailer back there, if you'd be able to see from Maltby, even in the wintertime. It would be questionable.

I have one question for you. Would you be willing to, based upon this, go back in the back where Maulby is, clean it up, and then plant new trees to fill in the voids that are there? Evergreens, I think that's what they're wanting, is the evergreens.

Well, yeah, so the idea – I mean, if there's a – it's pretty – there aren't a lot of voids, and so I don't know that there's a lot of voids. I mean, I drove back there, put the zoning sign up, and took pictures.

Well, a lot of it is just – some of it's just shrubs and just – vines and everything else that grows up in between them i'm talking about fill it in a little bit more i'm not asking you to take it all out i'm just saying are you willing to go in and fill it in be a good neighbor and just sort of that way people don't have to necessarily look at it put something in there it's going to grow up and sort of mature out like an evergreen i mean our and we plan on doing that if the if the tree line dies you know our budget's pretty tight on this with some additional some additional um

I'd say surprises as we try to release this property. If there's an area devoid of tree, we could plant an evergreen tree or trees in those locations if there's an opportunity there where there's a vacant, you know, area devoid of a tree. Sure. Okay.

Questions? Any other questions? Okay. Accept a motion. Thank you, Mr. Fisher. Thank you.

There's no further questions amongst the commissioners. I'm going to try to see if we can get this right here. Zoning case 2026-245-ZC. Move it to city council for approval with two conditions. One condition is they can have heavy equipment and trailers. with no ground storage of any sort that goes over the required one foot under the height of the fence line. And for them to second consideration is to plant evergreens to fill in the voids for the neighbors on Maltby as needed along the rear fence line.

Second.

I think that's a fair motion. I want to be sure that ground storage, does that mean that that excludes a flatbed that would have some sort of equipment on top?

My intent is not for flatbed. My intent is for any kind of loose materials, building materials. I got you. any item that's going to be put on the ground and stacked on top of each other as far as going over the height of the fence. Not items that are on trailers, not items that are over the height as far as heavy equipment.

So we could have heavy equipment that could either set directly on the ground or on a trailer. Correct. It's not like pieces of material that get stacked up.

You're not, for instance, if you leased it to an air conditioner company, you don't got air conditioners stacked up 14 feet in the air on top of each other. You can stack two. They stay one foot under the fence line. Yeah, if they're on the ground as far as equipment and stuff like that. You can have different heights of equipment. That's fine. If the equipment's on the back of a trailer, that's fine. Or if the equipment's on the ground, that would be okay.

I think that's fair.

I just don't want any loose building materials like trusses, shingles, pallets, et cetera, being able to be stacked up 14 feet along that back of insulin. Thank you. Am I good on that? Yes, that's good. Okay.

We had a motion from Mr. Lightfoot and Commissioner Pritchard second. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Congratulations, the motion carries. We really appreciate your investment. We hope it goes well for you. I know it's been a long haul, and we appreciate the investment that you've made. Thank you all. Don't forget to go to City Council meeting, which will be September 24th, and they'll make the final decision on the case. You're welcome. Thank you, gentlemen. We have now reached the end of our individual cases, and we have an ordinance amendment 2026-194-UDC on rooming houses and related uses. No one has signed up to speak, but I see a few other attendees tonight. Would either of you all like to speak in favor of the item? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this ordinance amendment? Then I will close the item to the floor and return to the commission for discussion or a motion.

No further discussion among the commissioners. I'd like to move ordinance amendment number 2026-194-UDC to city council for approval. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Please vote. The ordinance passes eight to zero Thank you all very much and our meeting is adjourned at 746 We'll see you all at the October 5th meeting