Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

I see that like now it says own air. Welcome to this meeting of the entire Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. These meetings are open to the public, and we're always happy to have members of the public here to see the business of the city. The first order of business is a roll call. Yes, sir. Carlene, present. Clint Childs present. Philip Humber. Kristina Davis present. Michael Carmichael present. Roy Martinez present. David Hudson present. We have a quorum for this meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. Any item approved today will be heard by the City Council. Excuse me. At its regular meeting on Wednesday, April 22nd, commencing at 9 a.m. If you received a notice for this meeting, you have also received a notice for the City Council meeting. If any item is denied, the applicant has ten calendar days to file a written appeal with the planning department. The appeal will then be acted upon by the City Council. If you're here to speak for or against an item, please state your name and address for the record, comments should be limited to five minutes, five minutes or less, although extensions of time may be granted by the chair upon request. At the conclusion of this meeting, we will have a workshop to schedule next month's meeting and that workshop will be held in the Tyler Development Center across the street at 423 West Ferguson in the large conference room. And like all of our meetings, it's open to the public. The next order of business is minutes from our last meeting, commissioners had an opportunity to review those. Any changes? Corrections, deletions? Is there a motion?

Mr. Chair? I would move that we approve the minutes from our last meeting. Second motion has been made and seconded to approve those minutes. Any discussion? If not all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. The first item on our agenda is a zoning item. P d 20 6-001 14 C z l, P232636 Royal road, Sheila. Good afternoon commissioners everyone present. I'm Sheila Henderson with the planning department. This is a zoning request zone. A request for a zoning change from agricultural ag agricultural district to per planned unit residential district with the final site plan of a property that's located west of the northwest intersection of Rome's Quarter Road and Roy Road. The applicant is requesting the zone change to develop 24 detached single family homes on the six acres there that are highlighted. And the request is consistent with the Tyler Tomorrow Future land use map. I think it has. The site plan proposes a 24 family detached homes with a density of approximately five units per

acre. All lots proposed to be accessed by a public street and are at least 6000ft in area. While the proposed lots are consistent with R1B size lots that are at least 6000ft, the site plan proposes setbacks of 20ft in the front, 15ft in the rear and six feet on the side yard. The proposed setbacks and buildable areas on the lots suggest that the development pattern suggests the development pattern, more consistent with the higher density zoning, such as R1 d setbacks consistent with R1 A or R1 b with 25ft front and rear, would provide a more appropriate and gradual transition from the surrounding low density agricultural properties. Additional land, I think, may be necessary to accommodate a development layout that meets standards and achieves an appropriate pattern. A six foot fence would fence. Privacy fence is proposed along the perimeter of the property. The site plan also includes a 25 acre shaded common space. However, the common space that you see there, I think in the cul de sac up there. That usable open space is not appropriately integrated nor sufficient to compensate for the reduced yards for each unit. The proposed maximum building height of 42ft is consistent with the Unified Development

Code. Dimensional standards for single family residential districts. This property also has sole access to Roy Road, so when this property is developed, the developer will be required to make necessary upgrades to the frontage of Roy Road. Also, there's a project to widen Roy Road from Paluxy Drive to Rose quarter road is on the Half-cent project list, currently ranked in tier three. As of Thursday, April 2nd. Of the 11 notices mailed, two notices were returned, one in favor and one in opposition to the request, with a total protest calculation of 3.07%. Staff has performed a technical review of the request and finds that it is inconsistent with the approval criteria, and staff recommends denial of the zone change. Thank you. Any questions for city staff? If they're not, the person's here who'd like to speak speak on this item, I. I need for you to come to the microphone, if that's possible. I'm probably loud enough. Please, please, please identify yourself and then I'm sorry, Dennis Jackson. Okay, Mr. Jackson, I'm to the right of this property, and I was wondering if I had said it was on the wrong track. When was that? When will they start

that project? It's that's on the agenda, which I, I, I can't respond to because that's a separate from planning and zoning the way. Something has gone rather than something places. It's just so much traffic and the road is in really bad shape. Thank you sir, any questions for this gentleman? If not, are there others here who would like to speak on this item? For or against? If not, the staff recommendation is to deny. Is there a commissioner who'd like to make a motion? Mr. chairman, I move we deny. PB 20 6-001. Second motion has been made and seconded to deny this item. Any discussion. If not all those in favor, say aye in favor of the motion to deny say hi. I any opposition to the motion if not this item is is denied. Next. Have this agenda items PD 26 002 Oak Industrial Park. Is that right? Yes sir. That's right. Good afternoon commissioners. We have a zone change from C1C2 PR to PCD. The property is located. Property is located west of the northwest intersection of Oak Hill Boulevard and Elkton Trail. I'm sorry. Go back. Some of the

adjacent property or the adjacent properties. The property to the north is zoned RMF Multifamily Residential District and is developed with residential. Uses. The adjacent property to the west is zoned C two and our general commercial district, and is developed with office and warehouse. Uses. The adjacent property to the east are zoned C one light commercial district and are developed with office uses and are partly undeveloped. The adjacent property to the south is zoned R1 Single Family Residential district and is developed with single family homes. The applicant is proposing an office and warehouse park with RPO offices on the south end and warehouses on the north end. The site plan proposes nine office office buildings, each being 5000ft in area, in addition to eight warehouses, with six being 5140ft each and two at 10,150ft each. Parking and landscape will be provided per UDC requirements. As of Thursday, April the 2nd, 2026. Of the 20 notices mailed, two notices were returned in opposition to the request and none were returned in favor. Opposition's concerns like tree preservation, light pollution and an increase in truck traffic. The staff recommends approval. Thanks. Any questions

for city staff? If not, Mr. Ogle? Chairman, commissioners, my name is Skip Ogle Ogle construction. My office is 305 South Broadway. Just very quickly for the commissioners sake, this property, owned by Will Melton, was proposed for rezoning 2 or 3 years ago, I think Kyle, and was approved for planned development for single family. Very small lot, single family. The market conditions are such that he's transitioning at this point to to to the proposed plan that you see now, the proposed plan. Again, just to reiterate Hunter from Planning Department, the front part would be professional office. With landscaping around that with with worked out with the city and then office warehouse that you see on the back. There's an existing office warehouse development just down the street on Upton Trail that's also owned by the same developer. We've talked to both of those in opposition, and I'm really glad that one of them is here. I got to meet one Mr. Gardiner, who also lives in the neighborhood across the street. Let him visit here in a second. And we also talked to another letter of opposition that's more directly across from the office warehouse that's existing today. Her concerns, and if I can just reiterate that, and I committed to her that I would repeat this to you in the public hearing, her concerns were essentially lighting so that it doesn't interfere with the neighborhood. Of course, tree Preservations and Mr. Melton, the the owner, has committed to save trees wherever possible. And then also her concern since she lived in Florida and some other

states besides Texas was. Office vacancy, and I advised that homeowner that one, the architect that's actually developed the site plan for us is excited about moving into one of these buildings up front. So we've got some lease options already negotiating, and we're excited about filling those up. The office warehouse on the back has been very successful, just right up the street from this same property and contiguous to this property to the west, is, I believe it's 100% occupied at this point. So very successful development, very, very positive comments about the neighborhood from the neighborhood, about this particular owner. So we're excited to move forward, hopefully with your approval on on this rezoning. Chairman, there. Any questions, commissioners? Any questions for Mr. Logan? Is there going to be any phases to this or is it all a single phase. No, it's it's his money. So it's in phases Commissioner. So it'll be the first that first part first, the smaller office first. And of course, those that are leased and and purchased, then those will be built immediately. But the development will have to have the roadway parking way in that first phase built out to, to finish out the rest of those buildings. I hope that answers your question. Yes. Any other questions for Mr. So regarding the concerns regarding the concerns from the neighbors about light pollution and the trees and everything, I know this is just a preliminary site plan, but obviously the buffer yard requirements are going to be met or y'all, is it going to be along the Elkton Trail? Is that where the majority of the. The trees, I guess will remain, or is it kind of spread throughout or. Yeah. Commissioner. And what I've, what I've advised the homeowners is that. And, and

Mr. Melton, I think has reached out to both of them too. As of this morning, we're committed to saving the trees that we can possibly save. This is this this property is going to require a lot of grading, a lot of terrain difference just to make it buildable. So we're we are going to lose some trees, of course, as we as we go through this. But on the perimeter, we're trees we can save. Then we'll commit to saving those trees. And. And Mr. Middleton's already on record of saying that to the homeowners this morning. Light mitigation. I'm sorry, Commissioner. Also, I know there's city ordinances relating to the lighting and impact of nearby properties, especially across the street to the neighborhood. So we'll certainly be respectful of that. And in, in construction and building of, of, of any lighting. The exterior lighting, as you can tell, will be even more buffered because there are buildings toward the front side of that. And then any internal parking lighting would actually be inside that area. So even further away from that neighborhood. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you for your time and presence. Any other questions from Mr. Ogle? If not, I believe Nancy Garrett is here to speak on this item. In this case, not on this case. Okay. I've got a I've got an electronic screen up here. It's it's very frequent. Are there others here who would like to speak on this? Yes, sir. Hi there y'all. My name is Jesse Garner. I'm at six 6 or 3 361. Laith's Park. I'm across. Well, I guess you can see it right there, which is great. Sorry, I'm a little nervous. I've never done this before. It's such a formal setting. You know,

nobody nobody's going to buy. It's great. You know, I have some similar concerns as we we're we're relatively recent to this neighborhood. We've been we lived out in, in Flint for quite a while and have recently moved into Tyler and have really enjoyed being close to things. It's nice not driving 20 minutes into town. So we're grateful for that. And in this neighborhood, we've really been enjoying it. You know, I know that property owners have a right to sell their property. So I know a valid reason for denial is not we don't want something across the street from our backyard. The main concerns I have are similar to what the other homeowner has said, just. There are a lot of really beautiful trees in this, in this area right here, and a number of backyards are looking directly onto that. And so obviously the more trees we can save, the more beauty we can save for our city and for ourselves. In addition, it's hard to see on these drawings, but the elevation rises across the road. So this entire office development is raised a decent amount above the backyards that are on the other side of Elkton Trail, which makes it even more important to us, at least, that we try to keep as much as possible of the south facing tree cover, since a lot of office people are just going to be able to kind of as they're coming in and out, you're going to be able to see into backyards, things like that, which is not the most exciting. Yeah. Beyond that, the light pollution is definitely a concern as well. On the corner of Elkton and Oak Hills, there's a memory care unit and it's like a shining beacon at night. I don't know what they when, when they were building with the light requirements were like at that time, but it definitely would be. We're concerned that it's going to look like that. Again, I don't know if it's similar requirements or not, but the amount of light coming in at

night in the windows is pretty significant just from that part down there. And so adding something on the other side is definitely a little concerning to us. So y'all, y'all can see what I have written here, but just wanted to be able to come in person and reiterate it. And thank you all for your work and service. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you for your time and present. Any questions for this gentleman. If not, again, thank you for your time. The presence. Are there others who are here to speak on this, on this item? If not, Hunter Calvert, would you just kind of review the lighting requirements in a situation like this that to address the concern of the neighbors? Sure. So parking lot lighting needs to be it needs to be shielded. The the actual light needs to be shielded. So, so that should prevent a lot of the, the direct light. I'm not sure about the other other establishments in the area and kind of what's going on there, but per the code, there needs to be shielding of the light source. There is there are requirements that, you know, mitigating any light trespass on some adjoining properties. So there are standard standards in the code right now that address parking lot lighting. And so the applicant will be or developer will be required to comply with those like skip said that a lot of those. Lights are going to be integrated into the development. I'm not sure if they're going to be around the perimeter. If they are, it's going to be harder to maybe meet some of

those requirements, but they still will have to do that. In terms of trees, the developer, if they save existing trees, they do get credit for those. So there's somewhat of an incentive to maintain some of the existing trees if they can. And if not, there are minimum landscaping requirements. And some of those are that certain percentage of the trees have to be placed at the the front of the property. So that would be along Elkton Trail. And so there are requirements in the code right now that require, again, that a lot of the required trees to be on the front of the property. And, and again, if they can save trees, they, they are incentivized to do that by the code. So hopefully that answers some of those. And if subsequent to this development going in, if there are issues with lighting or trees, who should the neighbors address those concerns to? Yeah. If there is any notice, if anybody notices any issues or concerns with the the lighting, they can contact the city Code enforcement Department to, to investigate whether they are within compliance or not. But I, you know, as when we review the plans, we, we do ask for or we do require that they. You know, meet those requirements, at least on the plans. If there are any issues, it could be something that was installed incorrectly or, or needs to be addressed later. But if if not, you know, if there is an issue,

then. But city code enforcement can investigate that. And, and Mr. Garner suggested that the existing light issues that he's had were possibly there because the the code requirements are different now than they were then. Is that a possibility? No, I don't believe so. They have not changed. So he could hear recently. So get them to go and check that out. Sure. I mean, I can I can definitely follow up myself to, to look into that, but yeah, the, the standards haven't changed in a while. So there could be a something to look at there. Any other questions for city staff? Are there other persons here, here who'd like to speak on this item? Staff recommendation is to approve as is or Commissioner would like to make a motion. Mr. chairman, I move to approve PD 20 6-W02. Second motion has been made and seconded to approve this item is any discussion. If not all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck to the. Good luck to the neighbors in the applicant as well. Next, that item is approved. Next is Z 26 2002 cash limited. Anna. Good afternoon, commissioners and everybody present today. This is a request for a zone change from RPO to C one. It is

located along West Broadway. As you can see, the adjacent properties to the north are zoned R1 A and are adjacent properties to the south and west are zoned RMF, and adjacent properties to the east are C one. The adjacent properties to the north are currently developed with townhomes and a cemetery, as well as undeveloped. To the east or to the south and to the west are developed with undeveloped properties. Multifamily and to the east it is commercial. Future land use would be consistent with innovation. Mixed uses. The property is currently owned or currently reserved. Sorry, the applicant is requesting the zoning change to allow additional office spaces. The property is currently zoned RPO, which limits the amount or the maximum number of three physicians to office there. With the allowance of C one, they would be given four or more. However, it would also pertain to giving a broader range of commercial uses, which is not ideal since there is residential neighborhoods nearby, as well as the cemetery and the property is constrained by transmission lines along Broadway or Grande, which would push further development to the north, which. Closer to the residential p c, d would be a good option for this property as it would limit to RPO standards and medical offices allowing for more physicians. In addition to RPA, RPO uses. This would achieve the applicant's stated goal with while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area. A

site narrative limited to RPO standards would allow the flexibility to not have to revise the site plan and develop the the property under the same parameters as they exist now. Of the nine notices, no notices were returned in favor, in favor or in opposition to the request. Staff has performed a review and finds that it is inconsistent with the approval criteria. Staff recommends denial of the zone change to C one, but does recommend a zone change to P, C, D, subject to a site narrative limited to RPO standards and uses, along with the expanded physician capacity. Thank you. Any questions for city staff? If not, Kendra Miller, is that. Yes? Yes, sir. Could you come to the microphone? I'm going to go first. Okay, good. If you just state your name and address. My name is Nancy Garrett. I'm a homeowner on one of the three cul de sacs. It's adjacent to this property that we're looking at. I have two questions, really. One, could you explain to me what I'm assuming there is a statutory requirement for notification. We didn't hear anything until we got the notification from this committee about two weeks ago. And then following that a week later, we got a like a note, a little brochure from the company from the Eye Institute. So I was just wondering what and that seems like a very short, very narrow window. Are you do we know what that actually requirements are? The law requires us you to send

notices 14 days prior to the meeting. So that's the standard then. The only other question I have is the the reason for requesting the zoning change kind of answer, but I'm not sure if I still entirely understand. I thought it might have something to do with the fact that these this other area is not going to be involved in direct patient care. It's like a research center or something like that. And I didn't know. I was wondering if that was the reason, but it sounds like you're recommending that it remain at the current in the current zoning. So we we are not aware of what type of office use will be coming in. The applicant is is stating that they are wanting the request for additional office uses C one would allow for more for that which is not. So I'm just address that question. Okay, so the current zoning is RPO restricts an office building to three or fewer physicians or dentists or, you know, practitioners. The the requested zoning will allow for four or more professionals to, to be in the building. So with it being a larger office building that's there now, either they currently have or they plan to have more than more than three. For medical professionals providing services in the building. So that's, that's what generated the, the need for the zoning changes because the current zoning limits it to three. But they want four more. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions for

this letter? Thank you for your time and presence. Miss Miller. Miss. Good afternoon. My name is Kendra Miller. I live at 5126 Chadbourn. My mother and father are actually the owners of the property. This is their second home. They commonly come up to Tyler, visit me, stay with, stay in their home. So I'm speaking on behalf of my family. We are newer residents to this community, and we've quickly come to appreciate the neighborhood's quiet, close knit feel. And several of our homes are just 8 to 10ft from that existing fence at the back of the property. I experience its impact personally every day, especially when walking my dog around the neighborhood. From what I've observed so far, our community has had very few issues with the current use and I would love to see that continue. My family understands and supports the proposed medical expansion, but because the requested light commercial zoning allows for wider ranges of uses, we are asking for reasonable protections to ensure the area remains compatible with our homes. Specifically, we are requesting that the property be limited to medical and related office uses through a deed restriction or similar mechanism, which I think that you're addressing with your recommendation. We would also like to see a minimum of a eight foot masonry screening wall that is visually appealing, such as brick or stone enhanced landscaping along the shared boundary to minimize noise lighting controls to prevent spillover speed control mechanisms for the parking lot and the dumpsters not be stored or kept near the fence. The fence line. Additionally, we think it's important that the property owner be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the wall and the buffer area. And one

thing I'd like to bring up, and speaking on behalf of Mrs. Albright, who is here in the room, she is a neighbor, one street over on Cumberland. She would also like to make sure that we are ensuring that our three streets in the villages of Stonelake remain no. Through traffic, and I believe that that's possible because we are private roads in our community, and I think we definitely tried to get City of Tyler to take them over at one point, and we were told they were a little too narrow. So basically these these things that have been outlined, these measures would allow the expansion to move forward while helping preserve the character and livability of our neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time and presence. Any questions for Miss Miller? All right. Actually, I live here. Sorry. One of the biggest concerns is the fact that there is a wood fence between that property and our neighborhood, and that wood fence is starting to go into disrepair. And so that's one of the reasons we're bringing up the masonry wall, is to give a little protection between our community and, and that particular commercial building. Additionally, the reason we're asking for parking or sorry, the parking lot speed control mechanisms is even though it is a business that is run during business hours, I have heard many times at night, loud squeals, tires, that sort of thing, and it appears that it's possibly being used as like a raceway or like something something with vehicles later at night. So my concern with the two of those is especially if somebody was to reach out in the middle of the night, hit the wood fence. Like I said, we have a sidewalk at about five feet between the last condo in the line and the and the fence. And so my concern would be that a vehicle

could easily go through that wall and into any of our homes that are right up against that property. So thank you for your time and presence. Are there others here who are here to speak on the Senate? Yes, sir. Are you the applicant? I am civil engineer on the project and. My name is Sam Ivy. I work at Brandon Corporation at 1321 South Broadway, and we're the civil engineers for this project. And like I was saying, I'm here on behalf of the the owner who is looking for a change to see one. And we are we're familiar, we do zoning changes quite a bit at Brandon and first outside looking in. This, in our opinion was ideal for C one because one of the main items on C one is with limited or no outdoor display or storage of merchandise. This isn't retail. This is a office that's obviously doing well because they're able to add some more units in there for some more doctors and staff. And as you can see in the picture, all they're doing right now is they're closing the parking to the west side, which was open just in case they had plans for future, which they don't, over to the west where it's wooded, that that terrain, it drops probably 15ft or so from the parking to that west line. So even if they wanted to do anything, which they don't, that would be really expensive. So that's, that's really deterring them from doing anything anyway. And so on this phase, which is phase two to the east of the current building, that open

area, all they're trying to do is close that up and put new offices. So in regards to. The buffer yard that y'all were speaking about, that was one thing that we knew about going into it, that we had discussed it with the owner and architect, which they did during phase one. They even they brought in a landscape architect and I went above and beyond with the landscaping requirements anyway. So they have a buffer yard around that side, the east side. You're talking about the north north side along the residential. Okay. Yes, sir. On the east side that's currently already zoned C one. And so we also believe that that was a good area just to keep keep moving west with C one. And so our, our, our, our thoughts were truly just that they were ideal for C one. They were good luck for C one. They're good use for C one. They're not out out front selling anything. They're just there to help the community. So you understand the staff's recommendation is to deny. Yes sir. I've been I've been talking with Ana for most of the week or two, discussing that in our options. And you know, we've been discussing that. And we we try to think that we work well with the city. So whatever we need to do moving forward, we just we agree that C one would be a good use for it. Yes, sir. Any questions for this gentleman. So b c d b something that you would agree to. Yes sir. The only thing is I didn't want to handicap them with the site plan. We're we're at work. It seems like six, seven times out of ten we're having to change that site plan. So I just didn't want them to handicap them in the future. But they have not discussed at all any other use than what they're doing right now, especially since they're adding on to the

building. It's not like they're separating anything, a different parcel or anything like that. So but yes, sir, we're open to whatever would help us in the city and our client. So. Yes, sir. Any other questions for this gentleman? Yeah, yeah. Yes, sir. I think that our concern is not so much. I think our concern is not so much about the current occupant. Current occupant has been the the lighting's great, the everything has been. From what I understand, in my two years of living there, it's it's nice. It works and it and it's it's good. My concern is ten years down the road, if this person still does. If does not own this property, we've redone it to AC1 versus the PRD, and that person decides to go ahead and extend the parking lot, even though it's being claimed that it's going to be closed off to the west of that property, also claimed that the elevation is 15ft below what it probably would need to be developed 15 years down the line. If they are not the owners, and they do decide to do A with AC1, an expansion, then that does go against what we were thinking and we were hoping and we were looking towards, which was to maintain it as a medical. Like I said, that's the owner. We're great with what the owner is talking about, with the caveats of putting up a masonry wall, giving us a little bit more privacy, maintaining the quiet. We have 30 homes in our community, maintaining that community. And so I think our concern is more not necessarily the here and right now, the next five years. Our concern is what happens when it gets sold. But thank you for those comments. Any questions for the

applicant or this lady? I have a question for Kyle. David. So, Kyle, if just from a timing mechanism on this, if if we were to deny what's proposed today, that would kick it back or, or is there a separate that we can request for the, for the PCB like a certain amount of time or something for the applicant to, I guess, reapply, for lack of a better term. Can we do that now? And you can make that part of your motion to. If that's the will is for this body to recommend to City Council staff's recommendation. Or recommend as the applicant has requested, although that does sound like they may be amenable to to what staff has recommended here. And so, no, I don't think that requires a delay. It's going to be a part of the. It can be part of this recommendation to approve it. There hasn't seen one, whereas a PCB with the items we mentioned, we can mention them again. For other options which can be tabled in it for, for, for more discussion or or ultimately denial. You know, personally, I'd like to I would like to see a site plan which has not been provided to us at this time. You haven't seen one? Well, I mean, so yeah, I mean, there can there can be it can be approved as a, with a site plan or as a narrative. It's other instances we, we have approved. There's at least one other example of a, of this

exact situation where it was approved as a narrative, just to allow that additional. It's not really even an additional use. It's an expansion of the existing use or of the intensity of that, which is to allow for more physicians. Everything else is still RPO or all the other standards are based off of that. And so it's but yeah, ultimately the it's the commission's decision to, to recommend for you guys can require a site plan if you'd like to or, or make any other kind of recommendation. And how, how extensive can, can the site plan be a privacy wall in the back, a restriction on driveways through the facility which. Which a wall would prevent. So the. Go back to the the layout. So currently the site has a required buffer yard. So it currently meets all the requirements that RPO against single family would have to. The, I guess the, the, the option that the. When this was developed, they, they selected the option that did not require a masonry wall, which means that there should be more more tree plantings than, than than the alternative. If it had a masonry wall, I think they mean fewer plantings along that that buffer yard. And so. In regards to the the cross connections, I think the the neighbor mentioned it correctly that with those being private streets, that they're not able

to connect to those. Anyways, if I understood your recommendation was to deny C one and recommend PCD, is that correct? Recommend PCD subject to RPO standards and the RPO uses. And then the only C one use I guess would be the. The medical office with four or more physicians. Mr. chairman, I would just add, I agree the Commission has the authority to act today. The only caution I would add is this was posted as AC1, and staff's recommendation is to deny. Of course, they can recommend something that's more restrictive, which there. What they're doing. But the problem is, if the public would have had no way of knowing that a planned project with the site plan is actually coming. So I would just raise that concern out there that if there's going to be a site plan, it's probably better to view it at this level before it goes to the council, just because it's a notice issue to the public. I always agree with my lawyer. They require that plan or or narrative. No it doesn't. It could be just a narrative. It could be a narrative. But but what I'm saying is there's not I mean, we've got a verbal narrative, right? So even at that, I would recommend a written narrative that you have and that can be shown up there. Do you mind if I speak? No, no. Go ahead. So in at work, you know, we're more than, like I was saying, more than happy to

work with PCB, but that was what I was trying to prevent, is to have a site plan on this, because we have worked with so many clients that that's what we had to work through. First was to redo the site plan because people's ideas change and stuff like that. So if that is the decision, then I would just ask if we could do it with narrative, which we're really happy to do it with. And that's, that's my mistake. I misspoke, I should have said narrative rather than site plan, but it's still the same notice issue. So that was my mistake. Can. We have someone else who'd like to speak? And if you come to the microphone to make sure we get all the input that's available, please come and identify your self. Thank you sir. Good afternoon everyone. I'm Arvind, I'm a physician and I'm one of the owners of the of a building that we are talking about. I wasn't planning to be here. So that's why we had someone representing us. But I had some time so I came by just wanted to provide some clarity on what the plan is. I mean, it's mostly going to be a research facility because the practices research wing has grown a lot in the last year. And so there are additional physicians that are coming. But the but the patient traffic is not going to be a lot because these are patients that research patients. Usually each one stays five, six hours to finish all the studies and everything. So it's

going to be a relatively quieter addition in a way. But there is a possibility of a surgical center that might be added on on the top. The the reason for asking for C one was because these patients are there for a longer time. Their attendance are there for a longer time, that if you wanted to put like a small coffee shop or something inside for the patients, then we would have to come back for another zone change. So this was just a way to get some flexibility on that design. We are certainly always open to work with our neighbors. I mean this kind of building, I don't see it being able to be used for any other purpose than a medical building. It's just and there is a lot of demand for retina services. So I don't see that another owner in the future would change it to. I'm not even sure what they would change it to. And we are always open to talk to our neighbors. I mean, we had put up like these lights for the parking lot in the back. We later realized they were a problem for the neighbors. We've had them turned off since the very beginning. We never even used those lights in the back because of the problem. Same thing with the fence. I mean, you're always welcome to come and talk to us. We can repair it, whatever we need to do. I mean, we are here to be good neighbors with whoever is there. So I just wanted to add a little bit of clarity to what, why we asked for the C one. We appreciate your comments. They're helpful to us. Any any

questions for this doctor. All right. Thank you. You know commissioners you know I'm just 111 person here. But it seems if we deny the C one can they come. How soon can they come back with the PCD? Kyle. Remember not the a delay because it would be in a different zone. Zoning request. Can appeal it to. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. If there's a denial of it, they can still appeal it to the count and then present us. Or I keep saying site plan a a narrative at the council if they wish to do so. If that. But again, the Commission has the the bill to make any recommendation you want this morning. I just caution on that, that some members of the public might not have expected a different zoning than what shall on here. So my question is, would it be more appropriate to table it with to consider moving to the PCD with the written narrative that or site plan, just to be clear as to what how you want to direct the the applicant on when they can work, when you work, when they should work on in the meantime. Yeah. Is that are you ready to make a motion? Mr. Martinez? I will for that, but I have a question on the PCD to help clarify the differences in the restrictions. That would be to what the doctors are saying is potentially putting in a coffee shop. Now, that has a

little wrinkle to that. Would that come back and be reaching the PCD restrictions? I think with that information that might that might warrant the. Reconsideration. What does it take to serve coffee? Can you just can you just have a pod and clients are well patients or. Well yeah. I mean, there's do they have to have a Starbucks? I don't want to create more than I just, I just curious on what other restrictions that might be the difference from, from what was initially requested, but it seems to fit better on a PCD. But I understand we need some information for the plan and the narrative, which. So yeah, I think that's the new information to know the details on whether that's intended for public establishment, for the public or for, for on site being ancillary. That that's my that's really my point is there, I don't think it's to to market come here for the coffee. It's they just happens to be there. And I think that's, I don't want that to be misconstrued as to the neighbors of a retail establishment, that'd be good for us to fully understand to know. Whether the recommended recommendation that we just provided would, would conflict with that plan. That's the first we've heard in the back that element. So I don't think in the moment you can decide that. So that's Mr. Chairman. That's where I would say I would actually agree to make a motion to table to consider the request as a PCB with the written narrative slash pan to come. I'll second that motion

has been made and seconded. Any any questions we've had? How many days are we proposing for 30 days, 30 days, 30 days? We've had a full and frank discussion here, but any questions about what the motion entails and the second? If not motion, has been made and seconded. Any all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We always look forward to. The good citizens of the city of Tyler working together in a cooperative way, and I know they will. Those are all items we have on our agenda. We'll go into our work session and we stand in recess. will result in a finding of such. He would then be required before before building, before construction to address those. Adverse effects. Correct. If the. If the if the plans do not comply with the the ordinance, then they won't be approved.

Let's. Let's clarify that question. When you say he would be responsible for preparing that. Are you talking about on the adjacent people's property or on his property? I don't know if repair is the right word. I think he would have to address and find a solution, at least my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong. Or maybe Darryl could come back up here, but he would have to address if if an adverse effect is the result of the engineering study, he has to address that and account for that when he is doing his his architecture plans and his final site plan. Is that correct for the specific site that he's developing? Yes. He will need to provide the calculations and the analysis to show that it meets the requirements, which I can't speak to exactly all those requirements, but if if it doesn't meet that and he he will have to revise the plans, revise the, the the, the, the design. And if he still can't make that work, you may have to revise the site plan to, to change that. And if, if the site plan needs to change, then it will come back to this process could come back to us or would it go to planning and zoning, planning and Zoning Commission basically start all over, start over. Okay, so I'm still trying to get clarification. Okay, maybe it's a question for Darren. Okay, I think so. So Brenda Cameron's back southwest, southeast corner is closest to the creek. If if Mr. Spencer's project. Impacts hers, the creek behind her house. Is it Mr. Spencer's job to fix that or is it part.

And that's where I'm going with your question. And we can have Darryl come up. Yeah. Ultimately, for any dirt displaced any as far as new improvements done on property, your responsibility is to then take care of the water that that dirt, that new dirt will displace. Many zoning items have been as far as it council's have approved in the past. Don't ever go anywhere because the cost is still too high. You do not. The requirement is not necessarily to address those properties as far as downstream or upstream. You just have to then bring in. What is your engineering plan to address what you are displacing with that project? If you were able to work out different deals and have your engineer work out with the adjacent property owners, you know that's always an option. But typically we don't see that. They just try to figure out how to work it with that property. Okay. All right. Go ahead. All right. So then expanding on that, Darryl's actually there. Yeah. Darryl's actually professional and Darryl did did did I get anything that's. Oh damn it. I think osmosis is working. It's like you went to A&M and got an engineering. So then. Okay, so expanding on that, if there's an adverse effect. Would he then be required to address that before engineering approves it? You're. I want to clarify also, are you asking your adverse impact on another property or correct downstream? Yeah, they would they would have to analyze their sufficient. I feel like you should sufficient capacity. They have to look on the big the entire picture. So if if so maybe the answering your question more directly than the city cannot would not approve

any adverse impact to adjoining properties based off the information that we we have. If there still is an issue after after that. Then that could be for a variety of reasons. But the. The actual drainage plans and calculations that we have received to issue the permit would have to be compliant with the regulations. Okay. I think what I think what he's kind of leaning towards is if this is approved, Mr. Spencer builds his project. After it's completed. Miss Cameron, floods. Is Mr. Spencer going to be responsible for the cost associated with repairs for Miss Cameron? Is it going to be the city whose responsibility? I think Stuart, I think that's kind of where you were going a little bit. Yeah. Yes and no. No. And and the fact that what's the approval process before before we get to that step. And then I think based on your question, I think that's a dispute between property owners not involved. It ultimately involves the city. It ultimately becomes a civil issue. And yeah, we're done that. Okay. Are you through? No. Okay. I do want to add this. It's just something to be aware of. And it has it doesn't have to do with this item. So for oh one, your ordinance relating to the bond ordinance is at 10:40 a.m. I will be asking if council if still delivering this item, if they don't mind, won't be at 1040. I'll hold off on the decision on this one and then move to oh one so that I don't lose my interest rates for the the my bonds. Okay. So just be aware that council is wondering why the mayor and I keep staring at each other.

You're right. We can't talk in less than three minutes. All right. So. Okay. Hypothetical then flip side. If this were denied today, what are the what is the applicant's option at that point? He has an approved site plan from five years ago. He has the approved zone change. But according to the existing sewer easement, he can't build his building on there as it is. And so he would then have to come back before P and Z again to move it off the sewer easement. And we're right back here. Square one. Right. Correct. If it's not approved today, the applicant will need to present and produce a a new site plan for consideration through the through the process, move the sewer line. That is an option. We I guess that is that has been offered where, you know. But the cost of moving the sewer line would be borne by the developer, not by the city. Okay. Keep going. I think that's all my questions. Anybody has any other I mean, I'm sympathetic towards the business owner, but I think that I'm more empathetic towards the residents. We already have the flooding issues. We know that it's flooding. They've already had to spend money, their own monies on the property. So I don't I mean, that's just my $0.02. So great. Okay, I'm going to step out on a limb here. And I don't normally make motions. As a matter of fact, in my six years as mayor, I've not made a motion, but I'll make a motion today. And regarding Z one, I make a motion to deny Z one second.

Got a motion by Warren, second by win. I would like to do a roll call vote on this Cassandra. And just so we vote on this correctly, if you're if you say I, you're voting against what's being proposed because it's a double negative. So I just want to make sure that people vote on the, the in the correct way. So. Cassandra. Council member. Haney. I was going to make a motion based on what we are legally allowed to, to hear today for consideration. And I fully sympathize with the drainage issues. I have drainage issues at my house, so I completely understand that perspective. But I don't think that's something we could take into consideration today. And if you want to entertain an amendment, my my proposal was going to be. So we don't have this back and forth between the applicant coming back multiple times was to amend this amended site plan. So we're comparing apples to apples where it's the original building size that he originally proposed. So 400ft less. So it gets it off of the sewer easement. And then the drainage issue is addressed afterwards, which is the from what I've heard today, the correct procedural timeline and procedural application, I don't know if we have a motion already, right. Yeah, we have a motion already. We have a motion in a second. So if it's time for a vote, well then the

current motion, I will say nay. Okay. Councilmember Hawkins, I Council Member Morris, I. Council member Nguyen. Aye. Council member. Curtis. I. Councilmember Nichols is absent today. Did you say I. Alright. Motion passes to deny Z one. We're going to take two minutes if anybody wishes to depart before we keep going. Unless you want to sit here and watch. Good government at work. The the Z one, the request for this amendment to the site plan has been denied. So he's. He is unable to go along, go with this project as presented. So in other words, you, you you all got what you wanted other than Mr. Spence. And I'll say this before we go on, William Spencer, you. You're a good man and and you do good work. And and we've used your services for the city of Tyler, and there's no way reflects anything negative between us and you or the services you provide. And just thank you for for working with these neighbors and for, for being patient and for having a smile on their face. So we appreciate you. Okay. Y'all can take off if you want. And while we're doing this, just kind of a little bit of logistics, this item should last. Maybe it depends on how much council wants to make it, but it should be only about 3 or 4 minutes.

And so council's good with us doing this. And then we'll do oh one immediately after Z two if this is done, if you all are good with that. So yeah, Lauren, if you and Steven are on up next, you want to get yourself kind of set up. No, you go ahead, knock this one out real quick. All right. All right. Two quick. This is zone change request from multi multifamily and single family attached and detached district from RMF to R1 d. This is located on the intersection of Wilson Street and North Ellis. The applicant plans to develop a single family home on the property is currently zoned multifamily. However, many of the properties around it are single family. Currently single family. This request, when the one is consistent with the future Land use guide, identifying the property and single family attached and detached medium to high density. As you see here is an infill development and this property. This zone change will allow the property to be developed as the current zoning is does not allow would not allow a structure on the property of the notices that were sent, then returned in favor or in opposition, and the Planning Commission recommends approval. Any questions for Kyle. So second got a motion by Hawkins seconded by Wendy. Further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries oh one. Hi. Mayor and council, I I'm here to introduce Steven Adams from with specialized public finance to go over the details of the sale and request action on the

approval of the ordinance for our water and sewer revenue bond refunding and improvement bonds for new series 2026. Thank you. Lauren. In case you're wondering why we want to move this up, the winning bidder on the bonds. Has orders for all the bonds, and the purchasers can cancel them up to the moment you signed the agreement. So we're waiting on you to do this. And they're very nervous about it, apparently. So we did take bids yesterday afternoon for this bonds. 70 million of the proceeds will be used for your projects, for your wastewater system. And then approximately 11 million of it's used for refunding. You have some bonds that were callable in 2015. We can refund some of them at a lower interest rate and save you about $300,000. Probably not enough that we do it on a standalone basis. But since we're already doing a bond issue, we have already paid for the rating and the official statement, those items. So we could throw the refunding in at a marginal cost. We did go through a rating process. Your AA rating was affirmed. We're very happy about that. We always have to disclose all the debt you have, not only now but coming in the future. And and they look at everything from the economy of the city to your local finances. And you have this high rating because you have good coverage and you have good cash, and you have a a well-managed city and a well-managed system. And they look at all those things. And so we're, we're happy to receive that, that rating. If you approve this today, we'll close on April the 22nd on or about probably on that date quickly. Exactly. On the

refunding. Okay. We saved about that. So we got we're very happy. We got seven bids and the winning bidder was Robert W Baird and Associates. The cover bid was Jeffrey's. You can see all the other bidders. A lot of them are well known firms. Just the difference between the winning bid and the cover bid was $400,000 in interest. So that's why we bid these things out. We do give a very efficient market, especially when you have a high credit rating. So we're really happy to get this number of bids. This is your debt service structure for the green is your current. The gray is this bond issue. And you can see that it still goes down over time. So as your system grows and needs more capacity, hopefully we can achieve whatever you need for your improvements through growth and a declining debt structure with, you know, some rate impact, but hopefully the least amount that we can manage. I know you can't see this, but on the far right, the coverage you have is about over 2.2 times. And so that that is why your credit rating is what it is. You take that coverage money and we usually use that for projects. We cover it right back into the system, and it's necessary to maintain your liquidity and your bond rating. Finally, for the second part of this is your refunding portion. You see, we refunded a little over 10 million of the bonds issued in 2015 as they hit their call date, which was this year, and we saved about $320,000 in interest. It's a little bit less than we showed you last month, because the short term interest rates were

a little higher. These bonds only go out the first ten years. So we took some of them out that just didn't save enough money. They had low coupon rates on them, but overall still a good savings about $37,000 a year. This is the sources and uses of funds. We did receive a premium because the coupon rates that the winning bidder had for this was higher than the interest rate on the bonds. If they want to, if they want us to pay them a higher interest rate, then the yields on the bonds, they have to pay us up front. And that's what that premium is. We and on the on the bottom half of that, you can see 70 million to the project fund, a little over 11 million to the refunding. And then cost of issuance. And then this is the process that we went through to get here. As you can see, if you approve this today, all the documents will then be approved by the Attorney General's office, and we would close on April the 22nd. Finally, our recommendation is that you award the 80,755,000 waterworks and sewer system revenue and Refunding and improvement bonds. Series 2026 to Robert W Baird and Company, Inc. mayor, I'd be glad to answer any questions, but we really happy with the bids. The market's really volatile, which is probably why we're getting our phones blown up, but very happy with all the bids we got for us. All right. Any questions for Steven or Lauren for this exciting that we're sending bids. Yeah, that was good. Any questions? All right. Move to approve oh one. I second got a motion by Carter, second by Marsh. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thanks, David. Good job, Mayor and Council, for letting us do that.

Thank you, mayor and council. Let's do that before the resolutions. You got it. We appreciate it. And Lauren, real quick, if you all need to get those things signed right now, feel free to slip