[1. Call to Order.]
          [00:00:02]
          IT IS SEVEN O'CLOCK TODAY IS MONDAY, OCTOBER 9TH AND I HEREBY CALL THE DUNCANVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING IS HEREBY CALL TO ORDER. I'M NUMBER TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS. IS THERE ANYONE HERE DESIRING TO PROVIDE US WITH PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ANY ITEM NOT LISTED ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA. THING NONE OR HEARING NONE. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. MY FIRST LIKE TO WELCOME OUR NEW COMMISSIONERS BY WAY OF JUST JUST JUST REALLY BRIEFLY BY WAY OF HOUSEKEEPING COMMISSIONERS COLUMBUS AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER O'BRIEN LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THE DUNCANVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 
          SO WITH THAT ITEM UM WITH THAT. I'D LIKE TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE 
          [3. Approve minutes for the Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting on September 11, 2023.]
SEPTEMBER 11TH REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 
          THANK YOU MOVED THAT WE ACCEPT THE SEPTEMBER 11TH MINUTES AS PRINT IT, OKAY? ANY SECOND TO THAT SECOND. OKAY THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON FOR THAT SECOND, ALL THOSE COMMISSIONERS VOTING IN. OH ALL THOSE COMMISSIONERS VOTING IN FAVOR. IF YOU PLEASE. IF YOU NOTICE ON YOUR TO YOUR RIGHT HAND, THERE'S A YES AND NO VOTING BUTTON, IF YOU ABOUT YES, ALL THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR. HAVE A QUESTION. OH, YEAH, SURE. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY . PAUSE I DID NOT FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. YES MA'AM. UM IF YOU'RE NOT AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING IN ORDER TO APPROVE IT, BECAUSE I WASN'T THERE, SO APPROVING MINUTES THAT I WOULDN'T, UH, WITNESS TO MAKE SURE THOSE WITH THEIR VALID I CAN'T DO SURE. AND I DO BELIEVE IN THAT INSTANCE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ABSTAIN FROM ACTUALLY VOTING BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT A MEMBER OF THIS BODY OR OTHERWISE ABLE ABLE TO VOTE IN SO UH, I DO BELIEVE THAT IN VOTED, UM. SO OF STAINING FROM TODAY'S VOTE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION AT AT THE TIME OF THE SEPTEMBER 11TH. UM MEETING THANK YOU FOR THAT. COMMISSIONER O'BRIEN, OUR COMMISSIONERS O'BRIEN AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER. UH, COLUMBUS. UM ALL THOSE WHETHER YOU WERE PRESENT OR NOT, BUT A MEMBER OF THIS BODY ALL THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE SEPTEMBER 11TH 2023 MINUTES IF YOU WOULD DO SO WITH YOUR BOAT, WHICH ARE BIDEN VOTING IN AFFIRMATIVE, SO MOTION MOTION CARRIES, SO THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. I DON'T NUMBER THREE. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD EVENING, MR MOORE. THANK YOU FOR THE NEXT 
          [4. Consider a request (2023-26) for approval of a Replat by Brittain & Crawford, LLC, applicant, representing Jane Graner of Trinity United Methodist Church of Duncanville, owner, to replat from Trinity United Methodist Church, Block 1, Lot 1, ACS 4.282, to Trinity United Methodist Church Addition, Lot 1R and 2R, Block 1, more commonly known as 1302 South Clark Road, in the City of Duncanville, Dallas County, Texas.]
ITEM IS TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A REPLAY. IT BY BRITAIN AND CRAWFORD LLC APPLICANT REPRESENTING JANE CRANER, TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF DUNCANVILLE. OWNER TO REPLY IT FROM TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH BLOCK ONE LOT ONE. ACRES, FOUR POINT. 282 TO TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH EDITION. LOT ONE ARE AND TO OUR BLOCK ONE MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 13 02 SOUTH PARK ROAD IN THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE REQUEST IS TO REPLY. THE PETITION PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES CURRENTLY APPLIED AS LOT ONE BLOCK ONE TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AREA TO BE REPLIED AS APPROXIMATELY 4.282 ACRES. THE PURPOSE OF THOSE THREE PLATT IT'S THREE PART ONE LOT. INTO TWO LOTS. THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE FINAL PLAT OF THE REPLY IT SHOWING LOT ONE R BLOCK ONE TO BE SOME GREATER THAN THREE ACRES AND A LOT TO OUR, UH, BLOCK ONE TO BE LESS THAN ONE ACRE, WITH ACCESS TO GENTLE METAL MEADOW LANE. IT'S ALSO A, UH EASEMENT THAT WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY THIS REPLY IT AS SOON ON ON THE PLATTE. IMAGE ON THE LEFT IS AN AERIAL OF THIS OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. UH, 13. S F 13 BEING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY SURROUNDING GENTLE MEADOW LANE AND L. O R TO THE SOUTH. ALONG CLARK ROAD AND DANIEL DALE. WITH THE CITY LIMITS TO THE WEST. 17 MAILINGS WERE SENT OUT. WE HAD ONE REPLY IN FAVOR. TWO RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION STAFF IS IN, UH, SOUTH RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AS IS THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. THANK YOU, STEFAN. STANFORD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR WARREN. UM QUESTIONS. ARE 
          [00:05:04]
THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? YES, UM UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER. WHAT. 
          FROM A NEGATIVE STANDPOINT, MR WARREN. WHAT WAS. THE REASON FOR THE REPLIES THAT WERE NEGATIVE, SPECIFICALLY. SO THE REPLIES IN NEGATIVITY. WE'RE, UH. TO JUST INCREASE NOISE, PERHAPS INCREASED TRAFFIC ALONG MEADOW MEADOW GLEN PERHAPS, UH, BEING A PROPERTY THAT'S THAT'S NOT, UH, CURRENTLY DEVELOPED THAT WOULD HAVE EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TO MEADOW. UM. GENTLE MEADOW LANE. SO THAT'S THAT WAS THE IMPETUS OF THE AH! THE OPPOSITION THAT WE RECEIVED IN, UH, RESPONSE. OKAY, SO HAS THERE BEEN IN THE PAST. AND I REALIZED THERE IS A GAP BETWEEN WHERE THE CHURCH SPECIFICALLY NOW CONDUCTS THEIR ACTIVITIES. IT'S NOT THAT MUCH OF A GAP. HAVE THEY HAD IN THE PAST. IN YOUR OPINION, THE REASON FOR THE NEGATIVE REPLY. THEY COMPLAIN OF NORWAY'S. UM NO , I DON'T. I DON'T THINK THERE HAS BEEN, UH, I THINK I'VE TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE CHURCH HAS BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR. BUT THE RE PLOT WOULD WOULD BRING A NEW NEIGHBOR. POTENTIALLY IN THE FUTURE. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER OKAY, I SEE. I SEE COMMISSIONER O'BRIEN AND THEN AFTER COMMISSIONER BRIAN COMMISSIONER THOMPSON UM YOU SAID PERHAPS THEY WILL BRING A NEW NEIGHBOR. EXACTLY WHAT IS THAT? SO IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY 13 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S WHAT WOULD GO THERE. IF THE REPLY TO SUCCESSFUL AND THE SHAPE OF THE REPLY. IT WOULD BE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY. UM, RESIDENTIAL HOME. ON THAT. PROPERTY A LOT TO OUR. SO MR WARREN, LET LET ME SEE IF I CAN'T NOT ANYBODY NEEDS THIS. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE IF THIS REPLANTED SUCCESSFUL THEN THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR SOMEONE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE REAR OR OR WHERE? WHERE ARE WE WITH SUBDIVIDE? AND IN ESSENCE, THIS PIECE OF THIS PARCEL OF LAND CORRECT SUBDIVISION DIVIDED AND SOLD TO BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEPARATION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. OKAY BEFORE I GO TO COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER BRIAN DOES THAT. 
          ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL? GO AHEAD IF YOU DO UM, I JUST WAS WONDERING, HAD ANYBODY SERVED EIGHT. SURVEYED IT AND WENT OUT AND LOOKED AT ANY OF THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY ITSELF. SO AT THIS POINT, UH, IT WOULD JUST BE ESTABLISHING THE LEGAL LOT LINES, IT WOULD NOT BE TO THAT STAGE OF UH OF CONSIDERING CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT'S FUTURE SPECULATION. UH BUT WITH WITH GOOD REASON, BECAUSE AGAIN THE ZONING WARRANTS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UH, THE LOT LOOKS AND, UH FEELS AND IT. IT'S AH. WOULD WOULD TEND TO FIT. THE, UM . THE SMELL TEST OF BEING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME. COMMISSIONER. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THIS OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRIAN COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGHOUT THE CONVERSATION. I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLANT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. MR WARREN, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. UM. IF I WERE TO LOOK AT THE, UM THE PROPOSED PLATT THAT'S ON THE SCREEN BEFORE US. TODAY AMOUNT TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE THE CURRENT PROPOSED LOT LINE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS APPROVAL. WOULD THAT JUST BE JUST I MEAN SOUTH OF THE PROVIDED PARKING FOR THE CHURCH RIGHT NOW. IT WAS I JUST DREW ON MY OWN PAPER WOULD BE EAST SO IT WOULD IF YOU HAVE THE IMAGE ON THE ON THE LEFT. SHOWING THE YOU CAN. YOU CAN PRETTY MUCH SEE WHERE IT WOULD HAVE COME RIGHT DOWN ALONGSIDE THE PARKING LOT. IT WOULD. IT WOULD BE, UH, THAT WAS TO IT. UH, SO YEAH. HOW CLOSE TO IT. WOULD IT BE? UM I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT AH! DIMENSION FOR A TO 
          [00:10:04]
ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT EYEBALLING I'M CURIOUS BECAUSE WE'RE THE REQUEST BEFORE US TODAY IS TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEL OF LAND. AND WHILE UM I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT HOW AND DOES THIS AFFECT THE PARKING FOR THE PERMITTED USES. THEY'RE NOW UM, AND WHAT DOES THAT WHAT DOES THAT THEN? DO FROM A PARKING? UM PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE I CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT SOME OF THIS WILL TAKE SOME OF THE PARKING IF OR NONE OF IT. THAT'S THE SOURCE OF MY QUESTION. I THINK IT WILL TAKE ANY OF THE PARKING BUT YOU DON'T THINK IT WILL. BUT BASED ON THE SPECIFICS, WILL IT OR CAN YOU NOT ANSWER THAT? I HAD I DID NOT PREVIOUSLY MEASURE. I DIDN'T. UH TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT WILL NOT TAKE ANY OF THE PARKING YOU DIDN'T MEASURE BUT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IT WILL NOT CORRECT, OKAY? MY NEXT QUESTION IS AMOUNT TO UNDERSTAND THAT SHOULD THIS PLAN BE APPROVED? IT WOULD THEN FACILITATE FOR AN R 13 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. CORRECT. YES WHAT IS THE WITHIN THE EXISTING AREA BECAUSE THIS IS BACK TO MY SAME QUESTION. WHILE WE'RE LOOKING AT A PLAT REQUEST AS IT FACES WEST AS TODAY, THIS PROPERTY FACE FRONT WEST ONTO CLARK. BUT WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT THIS WILL FACILITATE AND EAST FACING OR NORTHEAST SPACING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. WOULD WOULD THEN CHANGED A LOT PATTERN WITHIN THIS CALLED THE SACK COMING DOWN, GENTLE MEADOW. SO NOW MY QUESTION BECOMES THAT IF THIS ESTABLISHES AN R 13, THEN FROM A LOT PERSPECTIVE AND THE COVERAGE OF WHAT'S ALLOWED WITH SETBACKS AND THE WHOLE NINE WHAT THEN? WOULD THAT DO TO THE LOT PATTERN WITHIN THIS EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD IN LIGHT OF THIS REQUEST? UH LOT. THE NEWLY CREATED LOT, UH, WOULD UH, COMPARATIVELY, WE AS YOU ANSWER ME. IT WAS. I DON'T SEE ANY DATA HERE. THAT SUGGESTS TO ME, YOU KNOW WHAT'S THE FRONTAGE? WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT SO WE CAN COMPARE IN TERMS OF EXISTING SO THE REAR OF THE LOT IS 112. 0.55 FT ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE LOT. IS UH, SOME 200 MAP WHERE WE CAN SEE THAT BECAUSE YOU JUST AUDIBLY SINGING AND I CAN'T AND I CAN'T REALLY DETERMINE WITHIN THIS WITHIN THIS. THIS MAP. THE DIMENSIONS ARE GIVEN ON THE ON THE ON THE PLANET. SO. THE FOR EXAMPLE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING IT'S THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION CALLS OUT THE UH, THE DEGREE MINUTES SECONDS OF DIRECTION AND THE DISTANCE. 
          SO AND THAT'S DENOTED. ON THE PLATTE. CORRECT, BUT IF YOU GO BACK TO THE NEXT MAP SO I CAN SEE IT GLOBALLY. WHAT? WHAT DOES THAT RACK AND STACK LOOK LIKE? BASED ON THE CHANGE THAT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE, JUST BASED ON YOUR STAFF WORK IF IT HAS BEEN DONE HERE. SO AGAIN, IT'S 112. UM FEET ALONG THE SOUTH. AND 200 FT TO THE EAST. TO THE WEST. TALKING. A LOT. TWO ARE OKAY. AND THEN TO THE WEST IS 222 FT AND THEN TO THE NORTH IS AH, SOME 61 FT. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE COLDEST SACK TO THE NORTHEAST. YEAH I'M HAVING TROUBLE FOLLOWING. I DON'T KNOW OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE Y'ALL. I MEAN, I'M I KNOW THAT I AM PERSONALLY HAVING TROUBLE FOLLOWING WHAT WOULD BE THE NEW LOT PATTERN AND DIMENSION. UM FOLLOWING THAT. I KNOW THAT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S ON THE PLATTE. BUT JUST COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, WHAT WOULD THEN BECOME THAT I KNOW YOU'RE SAYING SO MANY FEET TO THE NORTH, AND THEN YOU GO TO THE COLD. I'M JUST HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY. IS THERE. IS THERE ANY OTHER PLACE AS AS A SOURCE THAT WOULD HELP WITH HELP ME WITH THIS? I THINK THE PLOT IS CLEAR, OKAY? I THINK THERE ARE DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLANET THAT ARE VERY CLEAR. I THINK IT'S A CHALLENGE THE PLATT AND THE EVIDENCE ON THE PLATTE IS QUITE FRANKLY, UM. SURPRISING. THEIR NUMBERS ON THE PLATTE. THAT'S THAT CLEARLY SO THE DIMENSIONS, THE DISTANCE THE NODES. THEY'RE ALL SHOWN ON THE PLATTE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DISCONNECT CAN EVEN LIGHTEN ME. YEAH SURE, THERE AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE A DISCONNECT SO MUCH AS SO. ON ALL THE NUMBERED LOTS. IF YOU GO BACK TO YOUR OTHER TO WHAT YOU HAD UP IF YOU GO BACK TO THE OTHER THE REQUEST BEFORE US MR WARREN IS TO SUBDIVIDE THIS ONE LOT INTO TWO. 
          [00:15:07]
THIS ONE LOT IS GOING TO CREATE AND FACILITATING ARE 13 DEVELOPMENT. SO OF THAT, AS I LOOK TO THE RIGHT THAT FRONTAGE. YOU SEE HOW THEIR VARYING FRONTAGE IS, AS YOU GO AROUND THE COLDEST SOUND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. IS THERE ANY DATA THAT OVERLAYS THAT NOW WHEN WE FINISH SHOULD WE APPROVE THIS EXACTLY? MY FIRST QUESTION , WHICH WERE UNABLE TO ANSWER IS EXACTLY WHERE THAT LOT LINE COMES ON THIS IN TERMS OF THE PARKING THAT'S ONE THEN I WANTED TO LOOK AND SEE. OKAY. HOW MUCH FRONTAGE WITH THIS NEW HOUSE HAVE BECAUSE AT THE SOURCE OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS IS ABOUT ITS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING LOT LINES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF. SHOULD WE APPROVE THIS? WHAT DOES THE FURNITURE LOOK LIKE? WHAT DOES THE SIDE LOT LINE LOOK LIKE IN COMPARISON TO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S WITHIN THE CUL DE SAC, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT ESTABLISHES THE LOT PATTERN NOW. THE PLAN IS VERY CLEAR. I CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT ON THE BACKSIDE OF THIS PROPERTY. I LOOK LIKE I HAVE 122.5. 55 FT. I'M UNABLE TO JUST QUITE TAIL EXACTLY IN LOOKING AT THIS PLANT. WHERE'S THE FRONT OF HERE? WHAT WOULD BE THE FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY IN THIS CALLED A SET AND WHAT IS THE AND WHAT'S THE FRONT EDGE OF IT? I'M UNABLE TO TELL THAT SO IF THERE'S A DISCONNECT OUR OWN THAT IF IT'S UNCLEAR OUR ON THAT CONFUSION, BUT I'M LOOKING FOR SOME SIMPLICITY AND TRANSPARENCY. 
          QUITE HONESTLY, JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WOULD THE FRONTAGE THE SIDES AND ALL OF THESE LOT PATTERNS LOOK LIKE WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE, WHILE IT'S EASY ON ONE HAND TO SAY THAT WE'RE SUBDIVIDE HIDING. THE PROPERTY AS IT FACES CLARK. THE REALITY IS THAT WE'RE FACILITATING FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WILL THEN TURN INWARD TO THIS CALLED THE SEC AND ESTABLISH A NEW LOCK PATTERN. THAT'S ALL AND THAT'S IT. AND THE REASON I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM UM QUITE KEENLY, IS BECAUSE QUITE ORDINARILY. YOU SEE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND SCHOOL INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS BEING PLANTED IN OTHERWISE ZONE TO COEXIST IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. A LOT LIKE THIS. THIS IS WHERE THIS IS NOT A NOVEL OR UNIQUE SITUATION , BUT RARELY DO WE SEE WHERE SUCH AN INSTITUTIONAL YOUTH WANTS TO ANNOUNCE, SUBDIVIDE THE BACK PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT MAY OR MAY NOT. IMPACT PARKING AND THEN TURN INWARD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ONE UNDERSTAND THAT, SO THAT WAS A LONG WAY. UM, ANYTHING TO YOU? I'M NOT REALLY DISCONNECTED OR UNCLEAR, BUT JUST ASKING YOU TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE AND THE LOCK PATTERN. IS NOT REALLY BEING CHANGED WHERE THERE ARE THERE WILL BE ONE ADDITIONAL LOT. THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT. FRONTS GENTLE MEADOW LANE. AND. THERE'S SUFFICIENT SETBACK. SUFFICIENT. DISTANCE. AND ACCESS TO GENTLE MEADOW LANE. WHAT ABOUT LOCKED COVERAGE? LIKE TO MAKE THIS OUR 13 YOU GOT YOU GOT SET BACK. I KNOW THAT YOU ARE IN PUTTING IN SOME UTILITY EASEMENT BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T HAVE FACED THAT WAY. 
          WELL, BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THE EASEMENT GOING GOING FROM GENERAL MEADOW TO SERVICE LOT ONE ARE WOULD HAVE TO GO ACROSS LOT TO OUR NORMAL FACE THE OTHER WAY, RIGHT? YEAH, I KNOW THAT. 
          SO I GUESS MY QUESTION THEN IS WITH WITH THE EASEMENT THAT'S PROVIDED FOR WITH THE ARTHUR. 
          YOU KNOW, WITH THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET THAT ARE NEEDED WITH WITH THE REAR INSIDE YARDS. IS THERE ENOUGH LOT COVERAGE TO MAKE SUCH. A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CARD THERE? YES, OKAY. 
          THERE WAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. DR THOMAS COME ON. THANK YOU. SO, UM, THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE GENERATED A QUESTION FOR ME BEING THAT THE EASEMENT IS TAKING AND I CAN'T QUITE SEE THE NUMBERS, BUT THE EASEMENT SEEMS TO BE TAKING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE COLDEST SACK FRONT ON GREEN MEADOW LANE. THE FRONTAGE OF THE OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE IN THE COLD. THE SACK. 
          WILL THAT LEAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR THIS ONE TO HAVE A SIMILAR PATTERN OR SIMILAR LOOK. OR 
          [00:20:01]
BECAUSE OF NOW THE WIDTH OF THAT ENTRANCE, IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YES, SO YOU AND I'LL BE ABLE TO BUILD IN. NOR WOULD YOU WANT TO, UH DEVELOP. ON THE EASEMENT AT THAT LOCATION. YOU REALLY YOUR YOU'D BE LOOKING TO BUILD SEVERAL FEEDBACK. UM, INTO THE. MORE SOUTHERN PORTION OF LOT TO OUR MOM. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. 
          THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM DEVELOPING THE LOT OR FINDING ACCESS TO THE TO THE LOT. UH WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THOSE FOLLOW UP. SUMMARY TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. SO BASED ON THE ZONING UM AND BASED ON WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR BUILDING, UH 2000 SQUARE FOOT HOME COULD BE BUILT THERE. A MINIMUM 2000 SQUARE FOOT HOME COULD BE BOTH THERE WITHOUT A PROBLEM AND ALSO BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID. IT WILL BE SAID. BACK FURTHER OR FURTHER IN THE LOTS SO THAT THE FRONTAGE OF THAT AREA AS FAR AS THE HOUSE BEING SEEN FROM THE STREET MAY OR MAY NOT BE SIMILAR TO THE WILL NOT BE SIMILAR TO THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE AREA. DID I UNDERSTAND YOU? IT WOULDN'T IT WOULD BE. I THINK IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE TO THE HOUSES IN THE AREA, UM, WITH A DIFFERENCE OF HAVING A CHURCH NEXT TO IT. UM OBVIOUSLY, THE SETBACKS WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR THE FOR THE HOUSE TO BE BUILT. DIRECTLY ON GENTLE MEADOW LANE. IT HAD TO BE SET BACK. AH! AH! THE PROPER DISTANCE. THAT S F 13 REQUIRES, UM THEREFORE. GOING BACK TO MY PREVIOUS STATEMENT OF IT OF THE PROPERTY. MOST LIKELY BEING TOWARDS THE SOUTHERN SOUTHERN HALF OF THE OF A LOT TO OUR THANK YOU. MY CONCERN IS THAT IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE DYNAMICS. ONE MOMENT IT DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I MEAN, IF YOU IF I THINK IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS OR COMMENT, WE CAN SAY THE QUESTION FORM. WILL THIS CHANGE THE DYNAMICS OF THE, UH HOW DO YOU SAY AESTHETICS OF THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? NO. IN THE END AGAIN, I WANT TO IMPLORE THAT WE'RE NOT BRINGING FORTH THIS IS NOT A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WHERE WE'RE BRINGING FORTH A. A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME TO LOOK AT THE DESIGN. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, UH AT A AT A LOT THAT'S BEING SUBDIVIDED. FOR THE FLAT ONE LOT THAT'S BEING SO DIVIDED INTO TWO AND, UH, WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE LOOKING AT, DO YOU HAVE UH, EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF HOME YOU'RE LOOKING AT? NO NO, NO AGAIN, THAT'S THAT'S AGAIN. SPECULATION BASED OFF OF ZONING AND LOT SIZE. AND, UH, WHERE IT IS IN THE IN THE COMMUNITY. A NUMBER OF FACTORS, BUT AGAIN. WHAT? WE'RE WHAT WE ARE WHEN I'M BRINGING TO THE COMMISSION TODAY. TODAY AT THIS ITEM IS A REPLAY IT FOR, UM ONE LOT AND TO DO LOTS OF SUBDIVISION. MEASURES ANYMORE QUESTIONS FOR MR WARREN. ALRIGHT COMMISSIONS IS THERE? UH WELL ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE? I HAVE A COUPLE OF SPEAKER CARDS. IS THERE ONE ANYONE HERE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON? FOR OR AGAINST. IT WILL START WITH THOSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR. IF YOU'D COME TO THE PODIUM AT THIS TIME, GIVE US YOUR NAME. YOUR ADDRESS. GOOD EVENING. BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS. I'M JANE GRANER. I'M THE SENIOR PASTOR, TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AND WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          YOU ALL HAVE. THE CHURCH WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1974. AND ORIGINALLY THE IDEA IS THAT THE PARSONAGE WAS GOING TO BUILD REBUILT ON THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED AT PARSONS WAS NEVER BUILT THERE, AND RIGHT NOW WE WERE LOOKING TO RAISE FUNDS FOR OTHER MINISTRY IN OUR CHURCH. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S NEVER BEEN A NOISE COMPLAINT. 
          CERTAINLY NOT SINCE I'VE BEEN PASTOR, WHICH IS GOING ON FIVE YEARS NOW. AS FOR THE PARKING SITUATION THE WAY. THE WAY THE LINE IS, IS THAT THE END OF THE PARKING LOT AND THE LINE OF THE NEW LOT. THERE'S ABOUT 4 FT. OF DIFFERENCE, SO IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE PARKING IN ANY WAY. 
          AND AGAIN, THE IDEA WAS THERE WOULD BE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS. THEN THEY WOULD END UP OPEN UP THE GENTLE MEADOW. IN ANY KIND OF TRAFFIC OR NOISE WOULD JUST BE WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FROM ANY OTHER RESIDENTS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU , PASTOR. IF OUT STANDBY IF 
          [00:25:01]
THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU WILL WILL WILL DEFINITELY CALL YOU BACK. IF SHOULD WE? SHOULD WE HAVE ANY? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY. ANYONE ELSE DESIRING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION? ALRIGHT HEARING NOW IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION? IF YOU PLEASE COME AT THIS TIME AND GIVE US YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS, AND YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS EVENING. MY NAME IS TANYA SAVAGE. I'M A RESIDENT OF 14 15 GENERAL MEADOW LANE. AND WHILE I HAVE AN APPRECIATION, THE CHURCH HAS BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS. I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT'S TO COME. IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN THE LOT THE WAY IT'S CONFIGURED IS ESSENTIALLY AN OBTUSE TRIANGLE. AND TO YOUR POINT IT WILL NOT MEET THE AESTHETICS IF IT'S SOLD AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOR OUR OUR CALLED THE SACK. ALL HOMES ARE AN ACRE ABOVE LOTS, ALL HOMES OR AT LEAST I DON'T DO MEASUREMENTS BUT AT LEAST 3 TO 4 CAR LENGTHS FROM THE CURB AND THE WAY THAT IS CONFIGURED ON GENTLE METAL LANE. IT'S A NARROW TRIANGLE WHERE THE CHURCH PROPERTY IS THAT SITS BETWEEN ME AND MY ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. SHE COULDN'T BE HERE BECAUSE SHE'S CONVALESCENT. HOWEVER WE HAVE CONCERNS BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE A HOME THAT SUITS THE AESTHETICS OF GENTLE MEDAL IS ONE IT WOULD NEED TO BE ONE STORY TO GIVEN THE SIZE OF THAT LOT. WE DOUBT THAT YOU CAN MEET THE SIZE OF THE HOMES BECAUSE ALL ARE AT LEAST 2600 TO 3800 SQUARE FEET, AND IT'S JUST AN ODD SHAPE OF WHERE IT IS. AND WHILE THERE WILL NOT BE ANY UM IMPLICATIONS. SO YOU WILL FOR THE CLARK SIDE OF WHAT THE CHURCH IS DOING. GENTLE METAL WILL DEFINITELY BE IMPACTED. I THINK WE HAVE CONCERNS AS IT AS THE COLDEST HACKERS OR STREET. 
          WE HAVE A VERY QUAINT, UM, COLLEGIAL SORT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURE ON OUR STREET AND ALSO IN ADDITION TO WHAT IS TO COME, WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL AFFECT OUR PROPERTY VALUES, ETCETERA, BUT JUST EVEN THE AESTHETICS ALONE WE HAVE GREAT CONCERNS ON HOW THAT'S GOING TO LOOK. WE ALL CHOSE TO MOVE INTO THIS, UM, CALLED US THAT EVERYBODY HAS BEEN EITHER THE FIRST OR THE SECOND HOMEOWNER AND WE CHOSE IT FOR A REASON. SO THIS TYPE OF CHANGE IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE TO WHAT WE WANT AS A COMMUNITY ON OUR CUL DE SAC, SO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE DESIRING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? TO THIS APPLICATION. ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK GENERALLY ON THIS APPLICATION. ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONERS IT IS 7 26 AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WILLARD FOR CLOSING THE PUBLIC OF MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7 26. IS THERE A SECOND? THANK COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. ALL THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR, PLEASE. DO SO. 
          ALRIGHT THE PUBLIC HEARING STANDS CLOSED. COMMISSIONERS THEIR EMOTION FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM. MR WILLY. UM. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT AS I SEE, IT HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIAL WAITED THAT IT WILL NOT IF THE STRUCTURE IS BUILT. THAT IT WILL NOT. 
          ABRUPTLY. CHANGE THE DYNAMICS. THAT HAS BEEN STATED. IS IT APPLIES TO THE COLDEST SACKED? COMMISSION WHETHER THEN, MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IT IS YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA MY EMOTIONS TO APPROVE A SECOND TO THE AGENDA. ITEM TWO TO COMMISSIONER WILLOWS MOTION TO APPROVE I 2ND 2ND COMMISSIONER. COLUMBUS SECOND THE MOTION. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? HEARING NO DISCUSSION, I WILL SAY, UM UNFORTUNATELY, I WILL BE NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT UM, THIS THIS MOTION? NOT BECAUSE, UM, THAT I BELIEVE, UM, MR WARREN THAT I AM A MEMBER OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. UM BUT I AM A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, WHICH IS TO ENSURE THAT AS WE APPROVED PLANTS AND RE PLANTS THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING LOT PATTERN AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND IS SUBDIVIDED IN SUCH A WAY THAT PROVIDES FOR THE SUITABLE DEVELOPMENT. AND I HAVE NOT BEEN, UH, FACTUALLY CONVINCED BY BY THE PRESENTATION FROM STAFF TODAY THAT GIVEN THE SETBACK OF THE UTILITY EASEMENT AS YOU CIRCLE UM, THE COLDEST SACK. AND THE EXISTING LOT COVERAGE AND PATTERN AND DESIGN THAT THIS APPLICATION WILL MAINTAIN THAT I APPRECIATE AND RECOGNIZE PARSONAGE USAGE USAGES AS AN INSTITUTIONAL YOUTH WITH MANY CHURCHES, HOWEVER, SUCH USES SUBDIVIDED AND PROVIDED FOR ON THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR AND ALMOST REQUIRE THAT THE INGRESS AND 
          [00:30:03]
EGRESS EVEN TO THE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING BE DONE SO FROM CLARK, UM, OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN REPLANTED DIFFERENTLY EVEN FOR THE CONFIGURATION OF THE CHURCH WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE REAR. SO I'VE NOT BEEN FACTUALLY CONVINCED, AND SO THEREFORE I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION. UM COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NINE AND SEEING NINE AND Q. ALL THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR. PLEASE DO SO. 
          WHAT IS THE RULING ON ON THAT WITH A WITH A TWO TO VOTE? THAT'S MY QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          DOES THE MOTION NOT FAIL? YOU HAVE. FIVE WHO'S NOT VOTED. OKAY SO, COMMISSIONER BRIAN, YOU'RE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TURN YOUR VOTING BUTTON TO THE RIGHT TO KNOW. 
          MOTION FAILS. THREE VOTING IN FAVOR TO VOTING IN OPPOSITION COMMISSIONERS DAVIS, O'BRIEN AND THOMPSON VOTING NEGATIVE NAY COMMISSIONERS COLUMBUS AND WILL ARE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 
          [5. Consider a request (2023-27) for approval of a Replat by Bryan Connally of CBG Surveying Texas LLC, applicant, representing Angelo Thompson, owner, to replat from Irwin Keasler Dev Red Bird Unit 1, Block C, Lot 27 and Irwin Keasler Dev Red Bird Unit 1, Block C, Lot 26, to Irwin-Keasler Development Unit 1, Lot 26-R, Block C, more commonly known as 1319 and 1321 North Duncanville Road, in the City of Duncanville, Dallas County, Texas.]
THANK YOU. NEXT AGENDA ITEM. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DAVIS. UH CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A REPLIED BY BRIAN CONNOLLY OF C B G SURVEYING TEXAS LLC APPLICANT REPRESENTING ANGELO THOMPSON, OWNER TO REPLY IT FROM IRWIN. HE'S LEARNED, UH , DIVISION RED BIRD UNIT ONE BLOCK C LOT. 27 AND IRWIN HASTLER DIVISION RED BIRD UNIT ONE BLOCK C LIKE 26 TO IRWIN KEESLER. DEVELOPMENT UNIT. ONE LOT 26 R BLOCK SEE MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 13, 19 AND 13 21 NORTH DUNCANVILLE ROAD IN THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE REQUEST IS TO REPLY TO THE PETITION PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY APPLIED IT AS LOT 26 AND LOT 27 BLOCKS. SEE IRWIN KEESLER, UH, DEVELOPED DIVISION. UH RED BIRD UNIT ONE AREA TO BE REPLIED AS APPROXIMATELY 0.48 ACRES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS THE REPLY TO LOTS INTO ONE LOT. THE IMAGE OF THE PROPOSED RE PLOT. SHOWING THE EXISTING TWO LOTS TO BE PLANTED. REPLIED IT INTO ONE LOT. THE IMAGE ON THE LEFT IS A AERIAL SHOWING THE EXISTING AH, SUBJECT PROPERTY THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT. SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THE ZONING OVERLAY BEING SF 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH L. O R TO THE NORTH AND INDUSTRIAL TO THE EAST. 20 MILLIONS WERE SENT OUT ZERO RESPONSES IN FAVOR AND ZERO RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION. THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST STAFF IN SANFORD QUESTIONS THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          MR WARREN COMMISSION IS ALREADY IN QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ALL RIGHT. SAYING NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. UM IS THERE ANYONE. WELL I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. MR WARREN, IF YOU GO BACK TO YOUR NUMBERED. YEP. UM. CAN YOU KIND OF WALK ME THROUGH LOOKS JUST. TO THE UNTRAINED EYE THAT AS I LOOK AT ALL THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT FRONT DUNCANVILLE ROAD UM, IT SEEMS THAT THE LOTS OF PRETTY MUCH UNIFORM, YOU KNOW, COMING DOWN DUNCANVILLE ROAD. WITH THE EXCEPTION IN THIS INSTANCE AS THE CORNER LOT AT OMAHA'S AW IN DUNCANVILLE ROAD, RESIDENTIAL USE, CORRECT, OKAY? BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE FRONTAGE IS BUYING LARGE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CORNERS ON BOTH ENDS TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH, OR THE FRONTAGE IS ARE RELATIVELY THE SAME OR WITHIN THE SAME, OKAY, AS WELL AS THE SIDE, THE SIDE AS WELL. 
          OKAY CAN STAFF KIND OF WALK US THROUGH. UM. THE UNDERPINNINGS IN TERMS OF A LOT PATTERN AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCK PATTERN IN THIS AREA, THE UNDERPINNINGS OF THEIR APPROVAL FOR TO COMBINE. UM NUMBERS 13 21 AND 13 19. SO THE. RECOMMENDATION THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. UH COMES FROM THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER , UH, OF BOTH LOTS IS THE SAME 
          [00:35:06]
ON BOTH PROPERTIES. THEY WANT TO UM, COMBINE THEIR LOTS INTO ONE LOT. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA IS THAT THEY SUPPORT APPROVAL OF THIS REPLANT REQUEST BECAUSE THE OWNER OWNS BOTH 13 21 AND 13 19. WITHOUT ANY DUE REGARD TO THE EXISTING LOT PATTERN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF YOU INTERPRET IT THAT WAY, YES. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? YOU FIND? I MEAN, DID I MEAN YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER COLUMBUS JUST NEED TO I'M SORRY. SO IT LOOKS LIKE I'M ON THE, UH NOT ON THAT DOCUMENT THAT THE NEW SIDES OF THE LOT WILL BE ABOUT A HALF AN ACRE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES WOULD BE 0.48 ACRES. HOW HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO THE SIZES OF THE OTHER NEIGHBORING LOTS DOUBLE IT'S TOO. IT'S TOO LOTS. IT'S TWO LOTS COMBINED INTO ONE LOT. SO ALL AND I'M JUST CONFIRMING LOOKING AT THE PICTURE. IT LOOKS LIKE ALL OF THEM ARE ABOUT THE SAME SIZE. BUT I WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT SO THE OTHER ONES ARE OKAY? THANK YOU. I'M CLEAR. YOU'RE CLEAR. OKAY THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER COLUMBUS COMMISSIONER O'BRIEN. I JUST WANTED TO REVIEW UM, THE PURPOSE OF DOING REQUEST TO HAVE THESE TWO LOTS AND ONE BECAUSE THE OWNER OWNS BUFFALO. TWO PERSON OWNS BOTH LOTS OF ONE ON ONE PROPERTY. THEY CURRENTLY OWN BOTH LOTS. THEY HAVE A FENCE GOING AROUND BOTH LOTS. UH, UH AND THEY, UH, I BELIEVE. IT IS THE INTENT TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND BUILD ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND IT WOULD BE CLEANER IF IT WAS ONE LIGHT. UM. BUT THAT'S REALLY NOT A MATTER OF SUBDIVISION. THAT'S A THAT'S A MATTER OF DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING INSPECTION AND WHAT IS BEFORE US TODAY IS A REQUEST FOR RE PLATT FROM TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT. SO I NEED TO, UH, BUT UNDERSTAND THAT THE OWNER WANTS TO TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE AND BUILD A NEW ONE. YES THAT THAT WAS THE INTENT THAT WAS DESCRIBED, UM BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND THEN THAT ONE LOT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE TO LAST AT A TURNING INTO ONE. IS THIS GOING TO BE TWO DWELLINGS OR ONE DWELLING DWELLING? HEY MISS IT IN KEEPING WITH THE CURRENT TYPE OF HOMES THAT ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW. THE AS BUILT OF THE, UM OTHER PROPOSED HOME WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE WITH THE PLATTE REQUEST. WELL BEFORE I DOES IT CURE QUESTION. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BRIAN AND I'M COMMISSIONER AND I'M GETTING READY TO ASK THE QUESTION. I THINK THEY MAKE CAST SOME LIGHT ON TO. UH YOU'RE THE SOURCE OF YOUR QUESTION, MR. WARREN. UM YOU BROUGHT SOMETHING UP. THAT WAS INTERESTING THAT I WANT TO EXPLORE A LITTLE BIT MORE BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU THAT YOU KNOW, UM, THAT IS THE AESTHETICS OR THE DESIGN REVIEW IS NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW. COULD YOU WALK PARTICULARLY FOR THE GOOD OF THIS BODY? UM WHAT FACTORS DIS COMMISSION SHOULD BE CONSIDERING IN REVIEWING SUBDIVISION REQUEST PLANTS. SO OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND, UH, OUR CONFIDENCE OF PLAN IS ANOTHER, UH, GUIDING DOCUMENT, RIGHT I'M TALKING ABOUT LIKE PATTERNS. YOU KNOW WHERE I'M GOING? I'M TALKING ABOUT LOT PATTERN THIS, YOU KNOW THE EXISTING LOT PATTERN AND MAKING SURE IT'S NOT A DISRUPTION TO THE EXISTING LOT PATTERN. THOSE THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT IN PLANNING. COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THAT? SO WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF THAT ONE OF THOSE FACTORS THAT WE LOOK AT. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SUBDIVISION NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU WERE GOING INTO, BUT THE FACTS OF WHAT WE LOOK AT IN PLANNING. WITH RESPECT TO LOCK PATTERN. UM, THAT WOULD BE . THE ABILITY. TO AND WE WE'VE WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION MANY TIMES WE HAD, BUT I THINK THAT BUT I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION FOR THE GOOD OF OUR NEW COMMISSIONERS AS I SEE YOUR HELP COMING, UM SO FOR THE GOOD OF 
          [00:40:04]
NEW COMMISSIONERS, SO WE ALL ARE ON THE SAME PAGE MUSIC. WOULD YOU EVER BE ABLE TO JUST THEORETICALLY? AH, APPROVE. APPLY TO RE PLATT BEING ONE LOT INTO ANOTHER NUMBER OF LOTS, MR MORAN. I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO ASK ME THEORETICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT PLANNING. I'M ASKING YOU A FACT. THEORETICAL QUESTIONS. FACTUAL QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ARE THE FACTS THAT THIS COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN APPROVING REQUESTS. MR TENNANT. AND SO IT'S. IT'S ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE LOT AT OMAHA'S AND DUNCANVILLE HAS A SIMILAR LOT PATTERN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED, BUT I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT MATTERS TO THIS. PARTICULAR ARGUMENT OR DISCUSSION. OKAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR YEAH, IT'S NOT RESPONSIVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THOUGH, FOR THAT ANSWER COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO I JUST LIKE TO KIND OF BE CAUGHT UP IN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DYNAMICS BEFORE I MAKE ANY TYPE OF INTELLIGENT JUDGMENT ON ANYTHING . I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW. YOU KNOW ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN MY ABILITY AND MY RESPONSIBILITY AND WHAT IT IS. I NEED TO LOOK AT BEFORE I MAKE A REASONABLE JUDGMENT ON ANYTHING. YES, THANK YOU. YES YES. YES YES , MA'AM, UM AND I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER BRIAN PARTICULARLY AS AS WE LOOK AT PLANNING, AND AS WE LOOK AT THESE ITEMS, IT'S WITHIN OUR QUASI JUDICIAL UH, FUNCTION THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT THESE ITEMS. AND SO THAT'S MY QUESTION OF ASKING KIND OF FACTUALLY FROM A CODE PERSPECTIVE. WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING WHEN APPROVING AND OR DENYING, UM, A PLAID AND SO, UM, MY APOLOGIES TO BELABOR THE POINT, BUT IT'S ONLY TO ELICIT. UM, THOSE FACTS. I THINK THAT WOULD HELP US ALL MAKE A MORE TO YOUR POINT COMMISSIONER O'BRIEN AND INTELLIGENT DECISION ABOUT THESE MATTERS THAT THAT THE CITY HAS ASKED US TO TAKE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TO RULE ON AND I DO SEE THAT ON OMAHA'S AND DUNCANVILLE ROAD AT THE CORNER, YOU HAVE ALMOST THE IDENTICAL LOT PATTERN. UH WITH A SINGLE DWELLING, AND IT LOOKS LIKE SOME TYPE OF DWELLING IN THE BACK. 
          AND THE ACCESSORY. YEAH GARAGE THAT REPLANTED OR WAS THAT THE WAY IT IS QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          UM, I'M NOT SURE. I TEND TO BELIEVE JUST BEING VERY, VERY FAMILIAR, BUT IT'S A TEND TO BELIEVE THAT'S THE EXISTING. I STARTED OUT MY QUESTIONS ASKING ABOUT THE CORNER OF OMAHA AND DUNCANVILLE. FOR THAT VERY REASON, UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS THE. THAT IS EXCEPTION. UM TO THE PATTERN HERE. THAT'S THE BASE OF MY QUESTIONS. STAFF COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALRIGHT HEARING NONE. THANK YOU, MR WARREN. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN THIS DESIRE TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST? UM THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? ALRIGHT SEEING NOT IN HEARING NINE. IT IS 7 42 COMMISSIONERS. IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. WILL ER IS THERE A SECOND? THANKS. 
          COMMISSIONER THOMPSON COMMISSIONERS ARE, UM IS THERE UM, ALL THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? PLEASE DO SO. ALRIGHT THE MOST MOTION PASSES. THE PUBLIC HEARING STANDS CLOSED. COMMISSIONER. IS THERE A MOTION? UM, FOR ITEM NUMBER FIVE. I MOVE. WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER FIVE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WILLARD FOR YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON FOR YOUR SECOND ITEM NUMBER FIVE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? UM SEEING NO DISCUSSION. I WILL SAY MUCH LIKE MY COMMENTS IN THE PREVIOUS ONE. 
          I'M UNABLE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION. UM I BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT PLATTS, UM WE LOOK AT THE EXISTING LOT PATTERN. THERE WILL NEVER BE A PERFECT SCENARIO . UM WHERE YOU CAN GET A UNIFORM LOCK PATTERN WITHIN AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. NEVERTHELESS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CORNER OF OMAHA AND DUNCANVILLE, THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED LIKE PATTERN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THERE TO BOTH. 
          THE EAST AND TO THE WEST ON INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF WE LOOKED AT IT, THERE'S A EXISTING LOT PATTERN. AND WHILE THE ONLY FACTUAL REASON THAT WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY STAFF THAT UNDERGIRDS THAT SUPPORT TO APPROVE THIS PLAN APPLICATIONS BECAUSE THE OWNER SO HAPPENS TO OWN 13 19 AND 13 21. BUT MY CONCERN IS WITH ERODING THE EXISTING LOT PATTERN WITHIN THIS BLOCK FACE IT WILL CREATE AND HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE A DOMINO EFFECT, WHICH IS WHAT YOU 
          [00:45:06]
TRY TO GUARD AGAINST IN SUBDIVISION REVIEW. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, AND THOSE REASONS ONLY I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, BUT I DID WANT MY BASIS OF OPPOSITION. UM, FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS DESIGNED TO SPEAK. DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER REALER SO HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED THAT. THAT THE PATTERN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE SOMEWHAT THE SAME, AND THEY HAVE BEEN WITH THE ONES THAT ARE VACANT. AND IF WE LEAVE IT AS IT IS MR ONE. WHAT COULD YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE? I'M SORRY, MR WILLARD. BUT NOW THAT WE'VE TAKEN THE ITEMS ON THE MOTION PASSED STAFF QUESTION, RIGHT? SO WHAT? SOMETHING TO THE TWO BECAUSE TO CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE IF IT STAYS THE SAME THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THE VACANCY? WHAT WOULD BE APPROVED TO GO IN THAT AREA OTHER THAN WHAT THERE IS NOW. THAT'S SOMETHING TO THE CONSIDERED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. OTHERS. PLEASE VOTE. YEA TO APPROVE THIS PLAN APPLICATION MADE TO DISAPPROVE. MOTION FAILS THOSE VOTING A NEGATIVE COMMISSIONERS DAVIS, THOMPSON AND O'BRIEN. THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR COMMISSIONERS THOMPSON AND WHEELER. UM THE MOTION FAILS. 
          THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, MR WARREN. ITEM NUMBER SIX. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN DAVIS. THE NEXT ITEM IS 
          [6. Continue discussion pertaining to the five-year Comprehensive Plan update.]
TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO THE FIVE YEAR CONFERENCE OF PLAN UPDATE. WE HAVE THE USUAL SUSPECTS OF CAVE IN ROAD, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AH! PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. TO EXPAND THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, PARTICULARLY ALONG VINEYARD IN WHEATLAND OF EXTENDING EAST TO WHEATLAND PLAZA. TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITY AREA FOR TO INCLUDE THE CENTER RIDGE APARTMENTS, UH, TO ALLOW FOR UM. THE EX THE OPPORTUNITY FOR UM, GRANT MONEY TO BE EXTENDED TO THIS AREA. AND THEN, UH, ALSO THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS. UM. AND THEN ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO AGAIN REITERATE. THE DESIRE TO, UH, ESTABLISHED WORKSHOPS. FOR THIS COMMISSION. TWO. UM BE ABLE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS AND TO ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES AND GET INTO THE FUTURE. VISION CASTING FOR THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE AND THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN. AH SO THAT WILL BE COMING IN THE NEXT WEEKS. AND WE WILL KEEP YOU POSTED WHEN WE HAVE MORE ON THAT. THANK YOU, MR WARREN FOR THAT, AND THANK YOU FOR, UM UM SHARING WITH US. YOU ALSO CONTINUED COMMITMENT FOR US TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES I THINK TO ENGAGE IN IN THE WORKSHOP SETTING. I'M VERY, VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT WE HAVE A FULL COMMISSION. SO IT'LL BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY. I THINK FOR US TO TAKE A METHODICAL UM AND STRATEGIC LOOK AT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S NOT VERY OFTEN THAT A FULL COMMISSION GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO THE FUTURE. AND SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. AS I SAY, EVERY TIME MY FAVORITE AGENDA ITEM ADJOURNMENT. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MR THOMPSON. IS THERE A SECOND? THANK COMMISSIONER COLUMBUS. I SEE YOU REACHING, SO I THINK YOU'RE AN AGREEMENT. ALRIGHT ANY OPPOSE ALL THOSE FAVORITE? WE STAND
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.