[5.A. PLAT-2025-00002: Request from Shane Nandlal, applicant and owner, to combine two (2) lots into one (1) lot on real property located at 403 W. Danieldale Road, legally described as James Anderson Survey, Abstract 17, Tract 62.2 on 1.75 acres in the City of Duncanville, Dallas County, Texas.]

CORRECTION. NOW WE WILL GO ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE. PLAT 2025 002. SO IF STAFF WILL PRESENT THAT PLEASE. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. DESIREE POWELL, CITY PLANNER THIS IS OUR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. OUR FIRST ITEM CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR PLAT DASH 2025. DASH 00002A REPLAT REQUEST FROM SHANE LAW TO TO COMBINE TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 403 WEST DANIEL DALE ROAD. LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS JAMES ANDERSON. SURVEY ABSTRACT 17, TRACT 62.2 ON 1.7 ACRES, CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST, OR THE REPLAT REQUEST,

[00:05:05]

IS THE OWNER OF THE LARGER PARCEL, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ADDRESSED AS 403 EAST DANIEL DALE. BUT WILL CHANGE TO 403 WEST. DANIEL DALE IS WANTING TO PURCHASE THE SMALL SLIVER THAT THE CITY CURRENTLY OWNS FOR A DRIVEWAY ACCESS. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY TWO TRACKS OF LAND, SO THAT MEANS NEITHER PARCEL HAS BEEN PLATTED OR HAS BEEN RECORDED AT DALLAS COUNTY. LIKE I MENTIONED, THE SMALLER LOT IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, BUT IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING SOLD TO THIS PROPERTY OWNER ON THE EAST, AND THE APPLICANT PLANS TO DEVELOP THE LOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE. THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT IS PLAN DEVELOPMENT 888, AND THE BASE ZONING OF THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL. THAT WAS THE BEARING OR THE DEVELOPMENT CENTERS THAT WE USE FOR THE PLAT REQUIREMENTS. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE WENT BASED OFF OF. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP WHERE THE STAR IS, THAT IS THE GENERAL AREA OF WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. YES, THIS IS THE MAP FROM OUR OLD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HOWEVER, WE ARE HAVEN'T FULLY TRANSITIONED INTO USING THE NEW MAP BECAUSE WE STILL WANT TO GET PEOPLE ACCOMMODATED TO IT. SO DISREGARD THE THE USES AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ONE. THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD IS FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WAS RECENTLY ADOPTED. THIS IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP. SO AGAIN THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT 888, THE LARGE PARCEL WITH THE STAR ON IT IS THE PARCEL THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CURRENTLY OWNS. AND THEN THAT SMALL PARCEL WITH THE BLACK DOT ON IT IS THE PART THAT THEY ARE COMBINING INTO THEIR LOT TO MAKE ONE LOT. AGAIN, JUST AN AERIAL VIEW. TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE THIS IS OFF OF DANIEL DALE. SO 17 MAILINGS WERE SENT OUT. WE HAD ZERO THAT RESPONDED IN SUPPORT AND ONE THAT RESPONDED IN OPPOSITION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REPLAT PENDING TRANSACTION PURCHASE FROM THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TEAM. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OH, SORRY, OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION, BUT QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. WAS GO AHEAD. SORRY I, I HAD A QUESTION I NOTICED.

YES MA'AM. IT WAS SAYING THE DESIGNATION WAS TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD. YES MA'AM. BUT THIS IS THIS CHANGED THAT ALLOWS THIS ZONING. IS THIS THIS WAS PART OF THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS IS JUST HAS ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING THAT'S THERE TODAY? YES. SO THE ZONING THAT'S PRESENT IS, HAS ALWAYS BEEN OR NOT ALWAYS, BUT OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS HAS BEEN PD 888. SO THIS REQUEST DOES NOT CHANGE ANY ZONING. IT IS SIMPLY TO. RECONFIGURE LOT LINES. AND SO THERE'S NO ZONING WILL CHANGE. AND THEN ONCE THE REPLAT IS APPROVED OR WHEN IT IS, WHEN AND IF IT IS APPROVED, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DEVELOP BASED ON THE USES LISTED IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. YES, MA'AM. SO THE REASON FOR THIS REPLAT IS ESSENTIALLY FOR A BETTER APPROACH INTO THE COMMERCIAL LOT. YES. SO THEY NEEDED DRIVEWAY ACCESS. SO THEY MET WITH THE CITY ABOUT A YEAR OR TWO AGO, MAYBE A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. AND THAT PARCEL THAT THE CITY OWNS BEFORE, THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF CHALLENGES WITH DRIVE, DRIVE ACCESS. AND SO THE CITY RECOMMENDED OR PUBLIC WORKS AT THE TIME RECOMMENDED THAT THEY TRY TO ACQUIRE THAT PROPERTY IN ORDER TO HAVE A MORE DIRECT DRIVEWAY DRIVE ACCESS. AND WHAT PART OF THE LAND DOES THE CITY OWN? IS IT TOWARDS THE CREEK? IS THAT WHY THE CITY OWNS IT? NO. SO THE PART THAT'S THE SMALL PART WITH THE BLACK DOT, THAT PARCEL RIGHT THERE, THAT'S THE ONE THAT THE CITY OWNS. SO THE BIG ONE WHERE TEN MILE CREEK IS RUNNING AT THE BACK, THAT IS THE ONE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS. SO LIKE MY ONLY THOUGHT REALLY IS THE RESIDENCE IS THERE. AND HOW IT CONNECTS INTO THIS COMMERCIAL BUILT A LOT. WHAT DID THEY TELL YOU WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO BUILD. SO THE PD ALLOWS FOR COMMERCIAL USES TO BE BUILT OFFICE. AND SO AT LEAST RIGHT NOW THEY'RE THEY'RE THINKING THINKING OF OFFICE. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S AS MUCH AS THEY'VE SHARED THUS FAR. BUT THAT ISN'T ALLOWED USE BY THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. BUT THAT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED BECAUSE THERE WAS THOUGHT TO BE LIKE A DIVISION OF GREENERY IN BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL PD AND THE AND THE RESIDENCES. RIGHT. SO BASED ON THE PD, THEY DID A MIXED USE. SO THERE'S OFFICES, CONDOS AND RETAIL THAT WAS UNDER THAT WAS APPROVED. AND CONSIDERING THAT THERE WOULD BE LIKE A LOT IN BETWEEN THE PD AND THE RESIDENCES. RIGHT. NOT NECESSARILY. NOT NECESSARILY.

NO. SO WHEN THEY APPROVED THE PD, I WANT TO SAY IT WAS MAYBE 2008, 2015. DON'T HOLD ME TO THAT. BUT THE PD DOCUMENT IS IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET. THAT WAS THE INTENTION THAT THERE WOULD

[00:10:04]

BE THIS MIXED USE. SO WHERE YOU SEE IT KIND OF CURVE AT THE BACK. THESE ARE SOME RESIDENTIAL PARCELS THAT WERE DEVELOPED AGAIN AT THE TIME. TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE RESIDENTIAL THAT ABUTS IT. SO IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE IT SO THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF TRANSITION IN BETWEEN THE TWO, I GUESS ZONINGS TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE PLEASING FOR THE RESIDENCES. SO SINCE THIS REQUEST IS ONLY FOR THE REPLAT, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ZONING. SO THIS IS JUST FOR THEM TO PUT THE LOTS TOGETHER, BECAUSE THAT PARCEL THAT'S TO THE NORTHERN PART OF TEN MILE CREEK IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN. I DON'T SEE A LOT THAT THEY CAN DO, BUT AS FAR AS THAT BUFFER BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL, THEY WILL HAVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SO WHEN THEY COME BACK AND DO A SITE PLAN, THEY'LL HAVE TO DO LANDSCAPING AND THEY'LL HAVE TO BUFFER. BUT WE CAN PUT LIKE ON THE PLAT LIKE CONDITIONS CAN WE NOT. NO, NO, NO. SO THE PLAT IS ONLY LOOKING AT THAT. THEY CAN MEET THE LOT SIZE, LOT SETBACK WITH DEPTH, THAT KIND OF THING. SO IT'S LIKE SETBACK LIKE. YEAH. SO THE SETBACKS FOR THE BASE ZONING FOR LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL IS I THINK 25FT. AND SO THEY COULD AS LONG AS THEY CAN MEET THE 25FT WHICH THEY CAN, I COULD PROBABLY GUESS. I'M NOT SURE IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS HERE. I DON'T THINK HE IS, BUT THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO PROBABLY, BUT UP TO TEN MILE CREEK JUST FOR THE FACT OF RIGHT. IT'LL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR BUILDING. YEAH, I'M MOSTLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE RESIDENCES ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO THE MAIN THING WITH THE RESIDENCE IS, IS AGAIN, ONCE HE COMES TO DO HIS SITE PLAN, HE WILL HAVE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. THERE WILL BE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL.

SO WE CANNOT PUT THOSE CONDITIONS ON THE PLAT AS A THAT DOES RETAIN MORE TO THE ZONING OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? RESIDENTS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THAT. YEAH. ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OKAY. IS THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY HERE? HE'S NOT OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER FOR THIS REPLATTING OR AGAINST IT? COME PRESENT SIR. MADAM, WE HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE TIME. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. JUST ONE SECOND, SIR. WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. BEEN SET? THERE IS NO, THE OWNER IS NOT HERE. BUT THERE IS SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS. OH. SO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I MOTION THAT WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECONDED. MOTION HAS BEEN AMENDED.

APPROVED. OKAY. WHAT IS THAT? YOU NEED TO GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE, SIR. REX MARCHANT, 318 SWAN RIDGE PLACE. OH, HEY. AND I'M AGAIN. THE REPLAT PRIMARILY. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, BUT I'M PRIMARILY AGAINST IT BECAUSE IT OPENS UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO DEVELOP MORE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD NOT AS A RESIDENT. THAT'S RIGHT.

DIRECTLY ACROSS THE CREEK FROM THAT. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL. SO EVEN YOUR QUESTIONS WERE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BARRIER OR PROTECTION. AND THAT'S MY CONCERN AS WELL, BECAUSE HAVING OUR PROPERTY BACK UP RIGHT TO THE CREEK, WE'RE ALREADY LOSING ON THAT SIDE TREES AND LOSING LANDSCAPE ON THAT SIDE OF THE CREEK. IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE, IT'S ALSO GOING TO BE FURTHER GONE. PLUS TRAFFIC. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP. THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE SCHOOL, VILLAGE TECH. THAT SCHOOL IS NOT A GOOD NEIGHBOR FOR US RIGHT ACROSS THE CREEK. THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ALREADY ON DANIEL DALE AND THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON SWAN RIDGE, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE SCHOOL. AND I JUST WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF THE REPLAT SPECIFICALLY FOR FUTURE REPERCUSSIONS THAT IT WOULD HAVE IF THEY DID DEVELOP, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE THE INTENTION IS TO DEVELOP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. I ONE OTHER QUESTION REALLY QUICK CAN.

CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN THAT PROPERTY WAS PUT UP FOR SALE AND OFFERED TO SELL TO THAT CURRENT OWNER, AND WAS IT PUBLICLY OFFERED FOR SALE TO ANYONE ELSE, OR DID WAS THERE ANY NOTICE ABOUT IT, OR WAS IT JUST PRIVATELY OFFERED TO THAT CURRENT OWNER OF THE OTHER

[00:15:05]

PROPERTY? I CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT. SO I THINK, I THINK I WAS EMAILING YOU LAST WEEK.

SO THIS WAS OWNED BY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. AND SO I CAN GET YOU THE CONTACT FOR VICTOR BARRERA TO GIVE YOU MORE INSIGHT ON THAT. BY THE TIME IT GOT TO ME, THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN TALKING TO VICTOR FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF. SO I'M NOT 100% SURE IF IT WAS PUBLICLY NOTICED LAST YEAR AND THEY TOOK IT UPON, THEY PUT IN AN OFFER. BUT I DO KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF. AND AS I MENTIONED, THE TRANSACTION WILL GO TO COUNCIL NEXT WEEK. SO I CAN'T GET YOU THAT INFORMATION ABOUT WHEN IT WAS NOTICED IF IT WAS OFFERED TO OTHER PEOPLE. IS THAT GOING TO BE A TUESDAY'S COUNCIL MEETING? YES. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? PLEASE COME FORWARD PLEASE. HI.

GOOD EVENING. I'M ELVA TREVINO AND I'M THE RESIDENT AT 1443 BIRDWOOD CIRCLE. AND MY HOME IS RIGHT BEHIND THAT PROPERTY. SO I DEFINITELY OPPOSED TO THAT. I HAVE EVERY CONCERN BECAUSE I DO HAVE SMALL CHILDREN. AND AGAIN, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY WOULD BRING A LOT OF TRAFFIC NOT ONLY TO THE AREA. LIKE REX MENTIONED, THERE IS ALREADY ENOUGH TRAFFIC THERE.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, JUST A MONTH AGO I WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC THAT'S ON DANIEL DALE. SOMEONE RAN A RED LIGHT AND TOTALED MY VEHICLE. SO I'M STILL DEALING WITH THE INJURIES ON THAT, BUT AGAIN, WOULD CREATE MORE TRAFFIC. I HAVE NOTICED THOUGH, THAT ON THAT PARTICULAR LOT THERE WERE CLEANING BRUSH AND ABOUT MAYBE A MONTH OR MORE AGO.

AND I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE TRAFFIC NOISE TO MY HOME HAS BEEN LOUDER, AND NOW I AM ABLE TO SEE ONTO DANIEL JOEL ROAD A LOT MORE THAN I WAS BEFORE. SO THAT IS ALSO A MAIN CONCERN THAT THAT IT WOULD DIMINISH THE PRIVACY THAT WE HAVE IN OUR HOMES. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? WILLIAM MORANO AND I'M AT 314 SWAN RIDGE DIRECTLY HIS NEIGHBOR AND OUR LOT BUTTS UP TO SPECIFICALLY THAT SPECIAL LITTLE PARADISE I SAY WE HAVE. WHEN WE FIRST BOUGHT THE HOUSE, THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE DID COME OUT, WAS ABLE TO COME OUT VERY ATTENTIVE BECAUSE WE LIVE ON THAT LOT THAT HAS THE BIG SEWER LINE AND IT WAS COMPLETELY BROKEN, BUT IT HAD GONE UNATTENDED BY PREVIOUS OWNERS AND RENTERS INTO THE CREEK. SINCE THEN. WE HAD THE BOND AND THEY CAME OUT, REDID THAT AND REDID ALL THE BACK, ALL THE ROCK AND THE WALL RETAINING WALL. WE BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE IT IS A PIECE OF PRIVACY, AND IF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ARE BUILT DIRECTLY BEHIND, LIKE MY BACKYARD, I CAN ALREADY SEE THE SCHOOL. WHEN THE LEAVES FALL, I CAN SEE THE OTHER BUILDINGS IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO CONSTRUCTION THERE. I'M I'M IN CONSTRUCTION. I OWN A ROOFING COMPANY, I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT THAT'S TAKING SO MUCH MORE FROM THE CITY. HAVING THE SCHOOL, THE COMMUNITY, THE KIDS, I MEAN, OUR KIDS PLAY IN THE CREEK THAT'S CAUSING FOR TRAFFIC AND UNWANTED VISITORS OR NESTERS. THERE'S ALREADY AN ISSUE WITH A HOMELESS GUY THAT LIVES UNDERNEATH THE DANIEL DALE BRIDGE. SO I DON'T WANT SOMETHING MORE TO BE BROUGHT UPON WITH BRINGING ON THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION, SO I'M OPPOSED TO IT. THANK YOU. THANKS. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? IS 722 WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE? MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. IT'S NOW CLOSED.

COMMISSIONERS WISH TO SPEAK BEFORE WE. SO I BELIEVE THERE'S LIKE, TWO WAYS WE CAN REALLY CONSIDER THIS WITH THESE OPPOSITIONS. MAYBE WE COULD TABLE IT AND LOOK INTO MAYBE SOME SETBACKS, YOU KNOW, AND LIKE SOME BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. OH, SORRY. GO AHEAD, MR. DAVIS. I WAS GONNA ANSWER HIS QUESTION. OH, SO HERE'S SOME OF OUR CHALLENGE HERE. SO WE HAVE THE 30 DAY SHOT CLOCK. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE A DECISION MADE ON REPLAT CASES, PLAT CASES WITHIN 30 DAYS. AND SO IT CAN BE APPROVED. APPROVAL CONDITIONS ESSENTIALLY DENIED OR TABLED. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO LIST THAT. HOWEVER THAT IS A STATE LAW. SO IF WE DO NOT HAVE IT OUT IN 30 DAYS, AND BECAUSE THE OWNER DID NOT SIGN A WAIVER THAT GAVE US THAT LEEWAY, TIME

[00:20:03]

FOR MORE, THAT DOES PUT IT PUT US IN A LIABLE STATE OF HOLDING UP HIS DEVELOPMENT BY STATE LAW.

TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE SETBACKS, HE WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW AGAIN WHAT IS LISTED FOR A LOCAL OFFICE? RETAIL SETBACKS FROM THE BARRIER FROM RESIDENTIAL. AGAIN, BECAUSE IT IS A REPLAT REQUEST, WE CAN'T FOCUS TOO MUCH ON THE ZONING ASPECT OF IT. AND BECAUSE THE ZONING WAS IN PLACE MAYBE MORE THAN TEN YEARS AGO, I APOLOGIZE. I THOUGHT I PUT THE PD IN YOUR PACKET, BUT I DIDN'T. SORRY. YES, I FIRST WANT TO MY COLLEAGUES, I APOLOGIZE. I HAD A FAMILY EMERGENCY. I'M SO I'M SO SORRY. SO I WAS RUSHING TO GET HERE AS QUICKLY AS I COULD.

COULD I ASK YOU A QUESTION? YES. ABOUT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR REPLAT APPLICATION? YES, SIR.

DOES IT COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE STAFF? RECOMMEND APPROVAL? YES, SIR. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, IT CONFORMS WITH THE EXISTING LOT PATTERN WITHIN THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. CORRECT.

IT CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL. BUT WHAT WE LOOK AT AND FROM MISS MORENO AND I THINK FROM SOME OF THE OTHERS, I'VE HEARD SOME OPPOSITION ABOUT WHAT THE USE COULD BE. YES, WE MAY WELL KNOW WHAT THE USE COULD BE, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS IS THAT THE REPLAT IS TO FIGURE OUT THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT, AND AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT COMPLIES WITH OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED OR IN THE NEAR AREA LOT COMPARISONS, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND SO WOULD THIS APPLICANT HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS COMMISSION TO REQUEST THE ZONING? ANY ZONING REQUEST IS NOT ALLOWED USE AS IT RELATES TO THIS, IT WOULD THE APPLICANT HAVE TO COME BACK AND REQUEST ANY OTHER ZONING PERMISSIONS FROM US IF THEIR USE WAS NOT WITHIN A ALREADY PREEXISTING USE THAT WAS ALLOWED BY BY RIGHT? YES, SIR. SO IF HE WANTED TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND THAT DID NOT ALIGN WITH THE LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL, THAT FOR SOME REASON WOULD REQUIRE OR TRIGGER A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT OR AN SP, THEN HE WOULD, BUT BECAUSE HE IS AWARE OF IT AND LIKE I SAID, UP UNTIL NOW, HE HAS SAID HE'S GOING TO DO A USE THAT'S ALREADY PERMITTED. SO UNLESS HE WANTS TO CHANGE THE USE, HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO SEE YOU. WHAT IS THE ALLOWED USE? SO IT CAN BE COMMERCIAL OFFICE RETAIL. AND SO HIS PROPOSED IS I BELIEVE THERE'S MEDICAL OFFICE THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING. SO HE'S PLANNING ON DOING MEDICAL OFFICES OR SIMILAR OFFICE SPACE. NOT NECESSARILY WHAT, WHAT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING. WHAT'S ALLOWED BY COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, OFFICE AND CONDOS. SO CONDOS, COMMERCIAL RETAIL, OFFICE, MEDICAL OFFICES IN GENERAL. SO PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, JUST GENERAL OFFICES. SO WHEN YOU SAY GENERAL OFFICE, I MEAN, BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT PATTERN TRAFFIC PATTERNS, WE'VE WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS FROM OUR NEIGHBORS. SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND PERHAPS WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE ALLOWABLE USE. SO BASED ON THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IT LIKE LEGITIMATELY LISTS CONDOS WHICH IS TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. SO THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICES THEY HAVE LISTED COULD BE MEDICAL, COULD BE OFFICE SPACE FOR GENERAL DENTISTRY, GENERAL DENTISTRY, MEDICAL, POSSIBLY MEDICAL OFFICE, A LAWYER, AN ACCOUNTANT, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OF SOME SORT. YES, SIR.

WHAT OTHER COMMERCIAL USES WOULD BE ALLOWED AT THIS? AT THIS PARTICULAR ADDRESS? ANY USE THAT IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITHIN THE LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL DISTRICT? BECAUSE IT IS THE BASE ZONING. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO THE BASE ZONING IS LAW. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO IT'S GOING TO BE A SMALLER ZONING DESIGNATION THAN THAN I MEAN, BECAUSE YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL. WHEN YOU SAY COMMERCIAL, I MEAN THAT CAN GO FROM BIG BOX RETAIL, RIGHT. ALL THE WAY DOWN. AND SO THEN THAT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ONTO WHAT KIND OF TRAFFIC IT WOULD HAVE IN A PARTICULAR AREA. YES, SIR.

AND BEFORE I MEAN, EVEN BEFORE HE GOT TO THAT POINT WITH THE SITE PLAN OR EVEN BEFORE HE GOT TO THE SITE PLAN, WE WOULD STILL HAVE HIM COME BACK, AT LEAST TO STAFF TO VERIFY THAT THE USE IS PERMITTED AND THAT IT IS MEETING THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS AND OR THE LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE USE. COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OR RESPOND TO THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ARE OUR MINISTERIAL OBLIGATIONS? SURE.

SO LONG AS THAT THIS PLAT APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH THE THE LOT CONFORM, IT CONFORMS WITH THE LOT PATTERN ALREADY ESTABLISHED? YES, SIR. SO FOR FOR US FOR STAFF WE LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL. SINCE THAT IS THE BASE OF THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND THAT IS A LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, LOT SETBACK, LOT DEPTH. THAT'S WHAT WE LOOK AT. AND SO BY THE BASICS, THE BARE MINIMUM OF ALL OF THOSE THINGS, AS WELL AS OUR PLAT CHECKLIST AND APPENDIX B HE'S MEETING THOSE THINGS OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. YES.

[00:25:04]

QUESTION. SO WHAT WHAT IS THE HIGHEST THE BUILDING COULD POSSIBLY BE? I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I WANT TO SAY IT'S TWO, TWO AND A HALF STORIES. SO 25 TO 30FT, MAYBE MAX 30FT. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK, JUST TO BE SURE. SO I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING WRONG, OKAY. AND. OKAY. JUST ONE QUESTION. SURE. AND THIS IS LOCATED ACROSS FROM VILLAGE.

YES, MA'AM. SO VILLAGE TECH IS THIS PIECE THAT'S CUT OFF AT THE BOTTOM HERE. THIS IS THEIR PROPERTY RIGHT HERE. I WONDER IF YOU CAN SEE IT BETTER HERE. OH, SO THIS ONE RIGHT HERE THAT HAS THE DASH LINES. THAT IS VILLAGE TECH. MISS POWELL. WHAT? YES, SIR. I'M SORRY, I MAY BE SPEAKING OUT OF TURN. WHAT WOULD REQUIRE THIS? COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PLAT MAP REALLY QUICK? THIS ONE OR. YEAH. YEAH. THIS ONE, THIS ONE IS THE CURRENT ZONING. CURRENT ZONING? YES. WHERE IS THE LOT LINE WITHIN THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION, OR IS THAT ALREADY ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY? NO, SIR. SO THE CURRENT LOT LINE, IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THIS RED LINE OUT AND COME HERE, THAT'S WHERE THIS PROPERTY WOULD START. AND GO ALL THE WAY AROUND AND UP HERE. AND IF I WOULD TAKE THE RED LINE OUT WHERE. YES. SO IF YOU TAKE THE RED LINE OUT HERE AND MOVE IT TO THIS, OKAY. TO THAT EDGE. YES. OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT HAS BY RIGHT, THE ABILITY TO BUILD LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL. AND THE REASON I GO THROUGH THIS IS BECAUSE I HEAR VERY WELL AND CAN UNDERSTAND VERY WELL THE CONCERNS OF OUR NEIGHBORS ABOUT WHAT THIS WILL DO TO EXISTING TRAFFIC, WHAT THIS WILL DO TO THE EXISTING AREA. I UNDERSTAND THAT QUITE WELL, BUT RIGHT NOW, BY RIGHT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SMALL L THAT WHEN YOU SAY IF I TAKE THIS RED LINE AND MOVE IT OVER TO THE TO THE TO THE WHITE PROPERTY LINE. YES, SIR. THE PROPERTY BORDER RIGHT NOW, THEY COULD BUILD WHAT? SAME THING. SO THEY COULD BUILD THE COMMERCIAL. THEY COULD DO COMMERCIAL RETAIL, PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ON THAT LOT WITHOUT THAT SLIVER THAT THE CITY OWNS. SO THE REASON THAT WE'RE ASKING, THE REASON THIS APPLICANT IS BEFORE US ASKING FOR THIS REPLAT IS REALLY TO CONFORM THIS LOT PATTERN TO INCLUDE WHAT THIS, THIS, THIS. I WON'T EVEN CALL IT A PARCEL. I'LL CALL IT A MORSEL, A PROPERTY INTO IT. RIGHT? I MEAN, BECAUSE IT SO THE REPLAT REQUEST IS FOR THAT PARCEL THAT THE CITY OWNS IS FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS, BETTER DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR HIM TO RIGHT THERE. YES. SO HE WAS RECOMMENDED TO DO THAT FROM PUBLIC WORKS ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. OKAY. SO PUBLIC WORKS IS RECOMMENDED. ANOTHER DRIVE APPROACH. YES, SIR. WHICH MADE HIM THEN GO TO THE EXISTING OWNERS AND WORK OUT SOME TYPE OF DEAL TO CREATE AN EASEMENT ONTO THIS PROPERTY FOR, FOR THIS PARTICULAR USE. CORRECT. OKAY. FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. SO HE WOULDN'T EVEN IF HE DIDN'T BUY THE CITY'S PROPERTY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING A USE. CORRECT. BACK UP AND CORRECT MYSELF. SO WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING A. SO YEAH, EVEN IF HE DIDN'T WANT TO BUY THE CITY'S PROPERTY AND HE JUST WANTED TO PLAT THIS LOT, HE WOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT IS STILL IN AN ABSTRACT. SO IT'S NEVER BEEN RECORDED AT DALLAS COUNTY. SO HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO BUY THE CITY'S PROPERTY, BUT BECAUSE IT WAS RECOMMENDED TO HIM FOR BETTER DRIVEWAY ACCESS AND A BETTER DRIVE APPROACH, THAT IS WHY HE'S WANTING TO PURCHASE IT AND THEN COMBINE IT INTO WHAT HE ALREADY OWNS. ORDINARILY DOES PUBLIC WORKS, MAKES ORDINARILY DOES PUBLIC WORKS, MAKE SUCH A RECOMMENDATION? UNDER WHAT REASONS WOULD PUBLIC WORKS ORDINARILY MAKE SUCH A RECOMMENDATION? IS IT FOR SAFETY, TRAFFIC, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS? IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DRIVEWAY EASEMENT, WAS THERE A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT SO HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO CONSIDER? I DON'T THINK WE CAN CONSIDER COLLEAGUE A TIA AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE WE'RE JUST CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT THE LAND, THE LAND CONFORMS WITH THE EXISTING LOT PATTERN. RIGHT. SO IF IT'S ZONING. YEAH. SO IF IT WAS A ZONING REQUEST THEN AND THEY MAY HAVE WELL COULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT. BUT IF IT'S JUST A ZONING REQUEST, I THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THAT IF IT WAS A ZONING REQUEST TO TIE TO A SITE PLAN. YES. RIGHT. THAT THAT WOULD BE TIED TO A SITE PLAN. MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS. ORDINARILY, WHEN PUBLIC WORKS ASK FOR SUCH AN APPROACH, YOU KNOW, IN AND OUT OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY, UNDER WHAT REASONS IS THAT ORDINARILY MADE? SO SINCE I AM NOT A PUBLIC WORKS EXPERT, I CAN ONLY SPEAK ON WHAT I'VE BEEN, WHAT I KNOW NOW, WHICH IS WHETHER THERE'S EASEMENT ISSUES, ACCESS DRIVE APPROACH. THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS NECESSARILY LOOKING

[00:30:03]

AT IT FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT, IT IS EASEMENT OR ACCESS. SO THAT IS THAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT PUBLIC WORKS MADE TO HIM A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. OKAY. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME. LET ME MAKE A COMMENT. YES, MA'AM. ON THIS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP QUITE WELL IN THE TRAINING, AND THAT IS DOING THESE REPLANTS LIKE THIS, THAT IF THE PROPERTY MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGNATION, THEN THAT IS WHAT WE CONSIDER NOTHING LESS AND NOTHING MORE, BECAUSE WE ARE GOING BY WHAT, WHAT THE REGULATIONS ACTUALLY ARE AND NOT WHAT THE REGULATIONS MIGHT BE OR THE WHAT SOMEONE MAY DO AFTER THE REPLANT. BECAUSE IF THE IF THE IF THE REQUEST FOR REPLANTING MEETS THE MEETS THE REGULATIONS WE HAVE, THEN WE ARE BOUND BY THE LAW TO ACTUALLY APPROVE THOSE. OH REALLY? YES. YES. AND THAT. YEAH, THAT WAS MY STATE LAW. YES, SIR. THAT WAS MY QUESTION ABOUT OUR MINISTERIAL OBLIGATION. IF IT CONFIRMS, IF IT CONFORMS WITH THE EXISTING LOT PATTERN, AND THIS REQUEST HAS COME TO US BY ANOTHER VIRTUE OTHER THAN PUBLIC WORKS ASKING FOR AN EASEMENT WHICH MAY EASE TRAFFIC OR NOT. AND THEY HAVE THE EXISTING ZONING, THEN WE'RE OBLIGATED. AS CHAIR NGUYEN HAS MENTIONED, TO CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION ON ITS FACE AND IN FULL. AND SO I HAVE ONE QUESTION, IF I MAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S IT'S ALL WITHIN THE SAME ZONING, RIGHT. BUT I'M SAYING A PD AND THEN I'M SAYING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. SO WHERE IS THE LAW. THE LAW IS THE BASE ZONING WITHIN THE PD. SO BEFORE THESE BEFORE THIS WAS ALL COMBINED, DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THIS WAS ZONED LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL. SO WHENEVER THEY CAME IN TO DO THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, EITHER THERE WAS SOMETHING IN LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL THAT WAS NOT ALLOWED OR NOT PERMITTED OUTRIGHT. SO THEY CREATED THE PD TO MAKE ALL OF THOSE USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHY THEY CREATED THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. AND SO THAT IS A ZONING CHANGE OF ITSELF. AND SO WHEN THEY DID THAT, IT DID NOT IMPACT THE SINGLE FAMILY, BUT THE SINGLE FAMILY AT THE TIME, I'M SURE HAD TO BE NOTICED OF SUCH. SO LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL IS THE BASE. SO EVERY PLAN DEVELOPMENT HAS A BASE ZONING OF WHAT IT WAS BEFORE IT WAS CHANGED. AND SO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MINISTERIAL DUTY AND WHAT THE LAW IS. BUT WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE HERE OPPOSING IT. SO, SO BASED ON THAT, ALTHOUGH STAFF DOES RECOGNIZE LIKE WHAT THEIR THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, PARTICULARLY WITH THE CREEK FOR STAFF AND FOR THIS BOARD, IT IS IT IS MEETING WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE TO DEVELOP ON THE LAND, AND THAT IS THE BOUNDS OF WHAT WE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE DO SO BASED ON THE REPLAT. THE REPLAT, AGAIN, IS JUST TO LIKE RECORD A PIECE OF PROPERTY.

AND SO THE SAME THING, IF IT WAS A SINGLE FAMILY LOT, PEOPLE COULD ALSO COME OUT IN OPPOSITION OF THAT. HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT IS MEETING WHAT OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES, IT IS MEETING EVEN WHAT STATE LAW REQUIRES. AS FAR AS WE CANNOT DENY IT BASED ON ANYTHING BEYOND THAT. IT IS MEETING WHAT THE REGULATIONS ARE FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THAT LOT. SO FOR A PLAT FOR IT TO BE RECORDED, IT'S MEETING EVERYTHING THAT LOCAL OFFERS RETAIL IS ASKING FOR. SO I'M LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO SAY YES. I CAN'T TELL YOU ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THAT'S A CONTESTED QUESTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT FOR ME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME? ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THIS PARTICULAR PLAT. MADAM CHAIR IN IN ITEM FIVE A. PLAT NUMBER PLAT DASH 2025. DASH 00002I MOVE APPROVAL AND IF I HAVE A SECOND THEN I HAVE COMMENTS. SECOND, SECOND. THANK YOU, THANK YOU COLLEAGUE FOR THE SECOND. WHAT WE UNDERSTAND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS IN IN AND I MOST CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS THAT ARE OFF DANIEL DALE AS I TRAVERSE AND TRAVEL THAT WAY EVERY SINGLE DAY. FORTUNATELY, UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN'T CONSIDER IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE THE IMPACT THAT IT WILL HAVE. WE HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT WE HAVE A

[00:35:05]

PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS THE ABILITY FOR CERTAIN USES AT THE BASE, THAT'S THAT'S WITHIN THIS PD OR ALLOWED USES AT THE BASE, BUT THAT WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT HERE TO CONSIDER A ZONING REQUEST. WE'RE HERE TO CONSIDER A PLAT REQUEST. AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THE 30 MINUTE SHOT CLOCK, SO TO SPEAK, UNDER UNDER TEXAS STATE LAW. YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE COMES IN FOR A REPLAT REQUEST, WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AND UNDERSTAND A WHAT'S THE CONFORMITY WITH OTHER THE EXISTING LOT PATTERN. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE OUR MINISTERIAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LAW. AND I THINK THAT IF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH THE CONFORMITY WITHIN THE AREA, AND THE ONLY REASON THIS APPLICANT IS HERE IS THROUGH THE RECOMMENDATION OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR AN EASEMENT ONTO AND OFF OF THIS PROPERTY, THEN WE ARE DUTY BOUND TO CONSIDER THIS REQUEST, AND THEREFORE MY MOTION IS IN CONGRUENCE. I THINK WITH THAT COMPLIANCE OF APPROVAL FOR THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.

AND SO TO MY COLLEAGUES, WHILE I DON'T THINK THAT ANY OF US ARE HERE TO IGNORE OR MISHEAR OR NOT HEAR THE CONCERNS OF OUR NEIGHBORS, I THINK THAT ALSO WE HAVE TO PUT THOSE INTO THE CONTEXT OF WHAT'S ALLOWED BY USE, BUT ALSO WHAT WE'RE COMPELLED TO DO UNDER STATE LAW, AS THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH ALL THE OTHER CONFORMITY WITHIN THE AREA. AND THEREFORE I MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I WILL NOW MOVE TO. OH, THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL ON THE VOTE. MISS CHAMPAGNE. MR. SALAZAR, MR. DAVIS. YES. MISS NGUYEN, MISS O'BRIEN. YES. I THINK WAS NOT WORKING. I THINK THEY HAVE MISSED. I THINK THEY HAVE, MISS BROWNING. THEY MIGHT HAVE YOU IN THE WRONG TIED TO WHERE I NORMALLY AM. AND I HAVE MISS CHAMPAGNE'S BUTTON. OH, OH, OH OR SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED. BUT BY ROLL CALL, I VOTE YES. SO EVERYBODY. THESE ARE THE ONE A ROLL CALL IF YOU'LL JUST CALL EACH NAME. YEAH. CALL EACH NAME. THANK YOU, MISS CHAMPAGNE. YES.

MR. SALAZAR? YES, MR. DAVIS? YES, MISS WYNNE? YES, MISS O'BRIEN? YES. OKAY. APPROVAL.

FIVE. WILL CONSIDER BE UNDER FIVE ON THE AGENDA. PLAT 20250003. THANK YOU. THIS IS A

[5.B. PLAT-2025-00003: Request from Joy Triplett, applicant/representative, to divide one (1) lot into four (4) lots on real property located at 1207 N. Duncanville Road, legally described as Lot 19, Block F of the Irwin Keasler Development Red Bird Addition No. 1 on 1.203 acres to the City of Duncanville, Dallas County, Texas.]

REPLAT REQUEST FROM JOY TRIPLETT. SHE'S THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO FOUR LOTS ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1207 NORTH DUNCANVILLE ROAD. LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 19, BLOCK F OF THE ERWIN KESSLER DEVELOPMENT. REDBIRD ADDITION NUMBER ONE ON 1.203 ACRES. CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPLAT REQUEST IS TO DIVIDE TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO FOUR LOT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ALREADY PLATTED, MEANING THAT IT IS CURRENTLY RECORDED IN DALLAS COUNTY. THE REPLATTED LOTS CAN ONLY BE USED AND OR DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. THAT IS BECAUSE THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT IS SINGLE FAMILY TEN OR SF TEN. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WHERE THIS BLUE STAR IS. THE AGAIN, CURRENT ZONING IS SF TEN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS WANTING TO SPLIT THIS INTO FOUR LOTS. AND JUST AN AERIAL VIEW OF WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. STAFF SENT OUT 23 MAILERS. WE ONLY RECEIVED ONE IN SUPPORT AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REPLAT REQUEST AS PRESENTED. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK YOU.

WELCOME. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. SURE. YOU WERE SAYING

[00:40:03]

AS FAR AS THE DIVISION OF THE LOTS, ONLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE? YES, MA'AM. OKAY.

MISS POWELL, MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY. YES, MISS POWELL, THE REQUEST IS TO TAKE ONE EXISTING LOT AND TRANSFER IT OR SUBDIVIDE IT SHOULD. THE BETTER VERB WOULD BE TO SUBDIVIDE IT INTO FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. LOTS TO MY COLLEAGUE'S COMMENTS. YES, SIR.

OKAY. AND AND THEY'RE ALL. AND THEY'RE ALL WILL BE SINGLE RESIDENCES. YES, SIR. SO BY THE ZONING DISTRICT, ONLY RESIDENTIAL CAN BE BUILT ON THESE LOTS. SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE LAST PAGE OF YOUR PACKET, IT IS THE, THE REPLAT DOCUMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED. SO ALL FOUR LOTS HAD TO AGAIN CONFORM TO THESE MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 10,000FT■!S FOR THE T SIZE, X AMOUNT OF FEET, LOT DEPTH, LOT WIDTH. AND SO ALL FOUR LOTS MEET THAT. AND SO THAT IS OUR BASE OF WHAT WE LOOK AT AS FAR AS CONFORMING TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THESE LOTS.

SO YOU YOU YOU YOU ARE AN EXPERT IN THIS. AND THAT'S WHY YOU, YOU JUMPED AHEAD TO THE TO THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS. SO WE WILL HAVE SIDE YARD, FRONT YARD. WE HAVE ALL OF OUR SETBACKS IN THESE PARTICULAR IN FOUR LOTS. THEY WILL ALL BE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE THE SAME SETBACKS, IF YOU WILL, AS THE REST IN THE AREA IN TERMS OF CONFORMITY. SO FOR THE REST OF THEM IN THE AREA, IT IS LIKELY THAT THEY WILL BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF SUBDIVISION WAS PLATTED PRIOR TO 2021. AND SO THIS LOT, BECAUSE IT IS A BRAND NEW LOT AND IT'S CREATING NEW LOTS, WILL HAVE TO COME TO TODAY'S STANDARDS BECAUSE THE LOT IS BIG ENOUGH. IT'S ABLE TO DO THAT COMFORTABLY FOR ALL FOUR LOTS. AND SO THE OTHER HOMES THAT YOU SEE FACING IT IN THE FRONT MAY OR MAY NOT BE 10,000FT■!S, BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR ZONING ORDINANCE LIKELY DID NOT EXIST WHEN THIS PREDATES RIGHT PREDATES THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT'S TODAY. RIGHT. AND SO WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE TODAY IS MORE LIBERAL, LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE AS TO SETBACKS AND MINIMUM SQUARE FOOT? I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF BECAUSE AS I LOOK AROUND, THE INTERIOR, LOTS SEEM TO BE A DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION THAN THESE. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE BECAUSE AGAIN, IF IT CONFORMS, WE MUST SUPPORT IT. THAT'S JUST WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES OF US. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE. SO IN THIS CASE, THE LOT SIZES THAT ARE REQUIRED TODAY ARE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN WHAT WAS PROBABLY REQUIRED WITH THESE HOMES IN THE FRONT. THE SETBACKS ARE ABOUT WHAT AND WHAT AND THEN THE MINIMUM OR WE KNOW. BASED ON WHEN THE PLAT WAS CREATED, THEN YES IT WAS. THE LOTS ARE SMALLER. THESE LOTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE 10,000FT■!S IN FRONT OF THIS. SO BASED ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WAS IN PLACE WHEN THIS WAS PLATTED, IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE. SO. IN OTHER WORDS, THE REQUEST TODAY IS MORE LIBERAL IN TERMS OF THE LOTS WILL BE LARGER. THE SETBACKS WILL BE MORE DEFINED THAN THE PREEXISTING. OR DO I MISUNDERSTAND YOU? NO. YOU UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY. SO THE LOTS ARE GOING TO BE BIGGER. THE SETBACKS ARE GOING TO BE SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY WERE IN THIS PARTICULAR IN THIS SUBDIVISION BEFORE IT WAS PLATTED. SO SIMILARLY, 25, 30FT, FIVE FOOT INTERIOR, MAYBE TEN, AND THE LIVING AREA WILL LIKELY BE BIGGER. SO THE MINIMUM LIVING AREA TODAY IS 1800 SQUARE FEET. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY. WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? IS THE APPLICANT HERE TODAY? NO, THE REPRESENTATIVE ISN'T HERE EITHER. OKAY. CAN I GET A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE MEETING, PLEASE? SO MOVED, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS? PLAT? APPROVAL OR REJECTION? OH. REX MARCHAND, 318 SWAN RIDGE PLACE. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO IS THE OWNER OF THE REQUESTED PLAT? DOES THE OWNER OWN ALL OF THAT, ALL OF THE LOTS, OR THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE REPLAT? YEAH, YEAH. SO TODAY IT'S ONE LOT. SO THE. YES.

SO THE THE OWNER DOES OWN THAT SINGULAR LOT. SO ONCE IT'S DIVIDED INTO FOUR THEY CAN SELL THEM OFF TO FOUR INDIVIDUAL OWNERS. BUT THEY CURRENTLY OWN THE WHOLE LOT. YES. IS THAT A REQUIREMENT FOR A REPLAT. IF IT WAS TWO LOTS. AND IS IT A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU OWN BOTH

[00:45:02]

OF THEM TO REPLY. CORRECT. SO HOW DID THE APPROVAL GET DONE? WHERE THE OWNER OF THE ONE PREVIOUS THAT BACKS UP TO US? CORRECT. DID IT WAS APPROVED FOR A REPLAT BUT SO DOESN'T OWN BOTH LOTS. SO IF YOU RECALL IN OUR PREVIOUS ONE AND SORRY TO GO BACKWARDS, BUT THE APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT ON THE PURCHASE REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE. SO THE APPROVAL ACTUALLY DOESN'T GET DONE EVEN THOUGH IT'S APPROVED. BUT ONCE THE CITY CORRECT APPROVES THE SALE, THEN THIS IS ALREADY PRE-APPROVED. CORRECT. BECAUSE THE CITY OWNS THAT PROPERTY.

ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL GO ON TO MOVE DOWN TO ITEM. HAVE WE TAKEN A VOTE ON THIS ITEM. OH DID WE OKAY. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT I'M GOOD. SO WE WILL. PART C ON ITEM B THE PLAT

[5.C. PLAT-2025-00009: Request from John Rodriguez and Adriana Fajardo (owners) and Michael Kersten (applicant/agent) to create two (2) lots on real property located at 202 Roma Drive, legally described as Duncanville Estates No. 2, Block E, Lots 44 & 45 on 0.504 acres in the City of Duncanville, Dallas County, Texas.]

202500009. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. THIS IS A REQUEST FROM JOHN RODRIGUEZ AND ADRIANA FAJARDO. I APOLOGIZE IF I MISPRONOUNCED IT THAT THE OWNERS AND MICHAEL KIRSTEN REPRESENTATIVE TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 202 ROMA DRIVE. LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS DESCRIBED AS LOTS 44 AND LOT 45, BLOCK E OF THE DUNCANVILLE

[00:50:01]

ESTATES NUMBER TWO ON 0.504 ACRES. CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT IS TO DIVIDE, TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS, TO KEEP THE DRIVEWAY AND FENCE CURRENTLY EXISTING ON LOT 44, WHICH YOU'LL SEE. THE PROPOSED NEW LOT IS LOT 44 R AND LEAVE THE REST OF THE LOT VACANT OR THE REST OF THE NEW LOT, WHICH WOULD BE LOT 45 R.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY PLATTED AS ONE WHOLE LOT. WHEN THE SUBDIVISION WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN 1973, THE LOTS WERE ORIGINALLY PLATTED AS TWO LOTS, SO THEY WERE SEPARATED LOT 44 AND 45. THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT TODAY IS SINGLE FAMILY TEN OR SF TEN, AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS ALSO TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS WHERE THIS BLUE STAR IS TO THE WEST OF ROTARY PARK. AGAIN, CURRENT ZONING TODAY IS SF TEN. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT'S AN AERIAL VIEW SO YOU CAN GET AN IDEA OF WHERE IT IS. SO FOR STAFF'S FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS, THE ORIGINAL PLAT DE VILLE ESTATES INSTALLMENT NUMBER TWO WAS RECORDED IN 1973. SIMILAR TO OUR CASE EARLIER, THE LOTS IN THAT SUBDIVISION ARE ESSENTIALLY GRANDFATHERED IN AS RESIDENTIAL LOTS OR RESIDENTIAL USES. AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO THEY MET THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE AT THAT TIME. JUST SOME BACKGROUND. THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED IN 1965. AND SO EVEN THOUGH THE LOT THE SUBDIVISION WAS RECORDED AFTER THAT, THOSE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AT THE TIME WERE MET WHEN THE SUBDIVISION WAS RECORDED. NEW LOTS, ANY LOT RECORDED AFTER 1973 FOR THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE CURRENT STANDARDS OF TODAY'S ZONING ORDINANCE. AND THAT BOTTOM PIECE IS JUST A NOTE OF WHERE THE LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COME FROM, WHICH IS SECTION 2.03. C OF OUR CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS IS JUST A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. AND SO MINIMUM LOT AREA, LOT WITH LOT DEPTH. SO ALL THE DIFFERENT SETBACKS.

AND SO THIS IS THE REPLAT THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. SO THE LOT IS IS THIS ONE BIG LOT. WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO IS TO SPLIT THE LOT INTO THIS LARGER LOT. SO LOT 44 R1 IS WHERE THE CURRENT HOME IS EXISTING. AND THEN LOT 45 R1 IS THE NEW LOT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED. AS YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE ARROW IS, THE NEW LOT IS UNDER THE 10,000FT■!S. SO IT'S RIGHT RIGHT UNDER 80 700FT■!S. THIS ISN'T. WAS THAT ME? OH, SORRY. THIS IS AN IMAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO GIVE AN IDEA OF THAT. THE DRIVEWAY THAT THEY'RE MENTIONING OF WHAT THEY THEY WANT TO KEEP ON ONE LOT OR LOT 44, WHICH IS THIS TOP LOT UP HERE OR 44 R1. 2223 MAILERS WERE SENT OUT. ONE RESPONDED IN SUPPORT, ZERO RESPONDED IN OPPOSITION. BASED ON STAFF'S ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED REPLAT REQUEST AS THE NEW LOT. LOT 45 R1 DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 10,000FT■!S, AND THEN YOUR OPTIS FOR CONSIDERATION. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? IS THERE ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS POWELL? MAN, THAT'S THE ONE I WAS THINKING I WAS GONNA GET QUESTIONS ON. IS THE ARE THE APPLICANTS HERE? I BELIEVE THE SURVEYOR IS HERE. MY NAME'S MICHAEL KIRSTEN. I'M THE SURVEYOR. PRODUCE THE PLAT. CAN I HAND THESE OUT? OKAY. I GOT TWO FOR EACH OF THEM, SO. YEAH, IT'S MAYBE A LITTLE CONFUSED HERE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT IS CURRENTLY TWO LOTS, LOT 44 AND LOT 45. AND MAYBE WE CAN GO BACK TO THE THE SCREEN HERE IN A SECOND TO SHOW WHERE THE ORIGINAL LOT LINE WAS. THE OWNER DOES OWN BOTH LOTS. YOU KNOW ONE OWNER FOR BOTH LOTS. AND SO THE LITTLE LINE RIGHT HERE THAT'S KIND OF GRAYED OUT, WE KIND OF MAKE THIS LITTLE TINY TRIANGLE. THAT'S THE ORIGINAL LOT LINE BETWEEN LOT 44 AND LOT 45. SO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE THIS TRIANGLE PIECE TO BE INCLUDED IN LOT 44, TO MAKE IT 44 R1, AND THE REMAINDER BE AS 44 R1 45 R1. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE ATTACHMENTS THERE, A LOT OF THE LOTS IN THAT AREA ARE ROUGHLY 65 BY ONE, 25 OR 65 BY 130.