4.A. TEXT AMENDMENT: Consider a public hearing and request of the City of Duncanville for a text amendment to Chapter 12C, Boarding and Group Homes, to revise the allowed zoning districts for each land use and to revise and update land use definitions in Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, the current procedure for approval/consideration of each land use, and amend the Zoning Ordinance to add the land use ‘Group Homes’ in Article 3 and Article 3, Section 3.04 Additional Regulations for ‘Group Home’ and ‘Boarding House’. Such uses will require a Specific Use Permit “SUP” within the Single-Family Residential District 43 “SF-43”, Single-Family Residential District 13 ‘SF-13”, Single-Family Residential District 10 “SF-10”, Single-Family Residential District 7 “SF-7”, and Duplex Residential District “TF-7”.

[4.A. TEXT AMENDMENT: Consider a public hearing and request of the City of Duncanville for a text amendment to Chapter 12C, Boarding and Group Homes, to revise the allowed zoning districts for each land use and to revise and update land use definitions in Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, the current procedure for approval/consideration of each land use, and amend the Zoning Ordinance to add the land use ‘Group Homes’ in Article 3 and Article 3, Section 3.04 Additional Regulations for ‘Group Home’ and ‘Boarding House’. Such uses will require a Specific Use Permit “SUP” within the Single-Family Residential District 43 “SF-43”, Single-Family Residential District 13 ‘SF-13”, Single-Family Residential District 10 “SF-10”, Single-Family Residential District 7 “SF-7”, and Duplex Residential District “TF-7”. ]

FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST OF THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT FOR CHAPTER 12. C BOARDING AND GROUP HOMES TO REVISE THE ALLOWED ZONING DISTRICT FOR EACH LAND USE AND TO REVISE AND UPDATE LAND USE DEFINITION IN ARTICLE SEVEN OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE CURRENT PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL CONSIDERATION OF EACH LAND USE AND AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD THE LAND USE GROUP HOMES IN ARTICLE THREE AND ARTICLE THREE. SECTION 3.04 ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR GROUP HOME AND BOARDING HOUSE. SUCH USES REQUIRE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. SUP WITHIN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. 43 SF 43 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 13 SF 13 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SEVEN SF SEVEN AND DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TF7. SO THE POINT OF THIS THIS ITEM IS TO PROPOSE A ZONE CHANGE FOR THE BOARDING HOUSE AND GROUP HOME. SO THE STAFF REVIEWED THE EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE AND CODE OF ORDINANCE AND DRAFTED PROVISIONS TO CLARIFY, STRENGTHEN AND EXPAND SUPPORT FOR EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAND USE GROUP HOMES AND BOARDING HOMES. REVISE AND UPDATE LAND USE DEFINITIONS. ALLOWABLE ZONING DISTRICTS FOR EACH USE. CONCISE LANGUAGE AND ZONING ORDINANCE AND CODE OF ORDINANCE UPDATE LAND USE CHARTS. SO IN ESSENCE, WE'RE LOOKING TO UPDATE AND MAKE IT MORE STRONG OR AND GET MORE CLARITY WITHIN THE ORDINANCE. SO CURRENTLY THE BOARDING HOUSE GROUP HOMES, THE CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT'S PROPOSED IS THAT THE BOARDING HOME. IT TELLS THE DEFINITIONS. THIS USE WILL BE UPDATING THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ORDINANCE ARTICLE SEVEN DEFINITION TO BE CONSISTENT BECAUSE CURRENTLY SOME OF THEM ARE NOT CONSISTENT. AS WELL AS THE GROUP HOME FACILITY. SO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE, THE CURRENT LANGUAGE AND PROPOSED CHANGES, WHICH IS SECTION 12, C-5, WHICH APPLICATION REQUIRED REVISIONS, A GROUP HOME AND OR BOARDING HOUSE AS DEFINED HEREIN, REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT RATHER THAN IS PERMITTED IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IF IT COMPLIES WITH THE REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN THIS CHAPTER. SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD BE CHANGED IS SECTION E, WHICH IS THE

[00:05:06]

FOLLOWING INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED, MUST BE SUBMITTED AS PART OF A FORMAL, SPECIFIC USE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. THOSE ARE THE BIGGEST REVISIONS THAT WILL BE WITHIN THE BOARDING HOUSE AND GROUP HOME UNDER SECTION 12, C-5. ALSO WITHIN 12, SECTION 12, C-7, THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. INSTEAD OF IT BEING REQUESTED, IT WOULD SAY IF MORE THAN FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS ARE TO OCCUPY THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A GROUP HOME FACILITY, A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. ANOTHER THING IS ORIGINALLY THERE WAS NO FEE. THERE IS A FEE NOW FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION.

APPLICATION. ALSO UP UNDER THE REQUEST MUST STATE THE REASON FOR THE ACCOMMODATION FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND OR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE BASIS FOR THE REQUEST. ALSO, THE DIRECTOR AND OR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR REVIEWS THE APPLICATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION SHOULD BE GRANTED. ANOTHER CHANGE THAT WOULD BE UPON THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IS PRIOR TO FINAL DETERMINATION BEING MADE. THE CITY ATTORNEY REVIEWS ALL PERTINENT INFORMATION AND PROVIDES THE DIRECTOR AND OR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ALL APPLICATIONS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. AS FAR AS THE SEPARATION OR SEPARATION REQUIREMENT, CHANGES TO SECTION 12 C DASH TEN, NO GROUP HOME AND OR BOARDING HOUSE SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 1600FT OF ANOTHER GROUP HOME AND OR BOARDING HOUSE, AS DEFINED BY THIS CHAPTER. THIS MEASUREMENT IS TAKEN IN A STRAIGHT DIRECT LINE FROM ONE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER. AS FAR AS THE PROCESS, WHICH IS THE CHANGES TO SECTION 12C-11. ADMINISTRATIVE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO APPROVING ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR BE DENIED OF ANY REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION.

APPLICATIONS MAY BE APPEALED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND AN INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY IS CONDUCTED PRIOR TO APPROVAL, WHICH WOULD BE THE SAME AS THE CURRENT PROCESS, AND THEN ADDITIONAL INSPECTION MAY BE CONDUCTED AS APPROPRIATE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN OUR CURRENT PROCESS WITH INSPECTIONS. SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE WAS ALL FACILITIES AUTHORIZED, UNLESS EXEMPT UNDER THIS CHAPTER, SHALL REQUIRE AN INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND OR HIS OR HER DESIGNEE AND CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS. THE OTHER TWO, B AND C IS ALREADY IN OUR ORDINANCE, AND THERE WILL BE NO CHANGES TO THAT ONE. SO AS FAR AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND USE UPDATES, WE WANT TO UPDATE THE LANGUAGE IN ARTICLE THREE, WHICH IS THE LAND USE CHART IN SECTION 3.04, ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS AND ZONING ORDINANCE. SO THAT WAY THEY CAN MIRROR EACH OTHER. AND WE ALSO WANT TO UPDATE AND ADD GROUP HOME USE TO LAND USE CHART AND DEFINITION IN ZONING ORDINANCE. ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS WOULD BE THE RESIDENTIAL USES, BOARDING HOUSE AND GROUP HOME STANDARDS. THE APPLICATION INFORMATION SPECIFIC USE PERMIT APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION.

SECTION 3.04 ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS. THIS IS SOME OF THE REVISED LANGUAGE WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL USES FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. INFORMATION ON SITE RESPONSIBLE PARTY. OFF SITE EMERGENCY CONTACTS. TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTS. AGE OF RESIDENCE. DISABILITY.

RESIDENCE. TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND CAREGIVER LICENSED WITH THE STATE. TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF DWELLING UNITS AND TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF SLEEPING AREA. NUMBER OF BEDROOMS. TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREAS WHICH WOULD BE SOME OF THE REVISED LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE SECTION 3.04. AND THEN FOR EXCUSE ME, SORRY FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, FOR SPACING. NO BOARDING HOUSE AND OR GROUP HOMES SHALL LOCATE WITHIN 1600FT FOR ANOTHER BOARDING HOUSE. THAT WOULD BE THE BIGGEST CHANGE. AND THE MEASUREMENT IS TAKEN IN STRAIGHT DIRECT LINE FROM ONE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER. AND OF COURSE, THE INSPECTION THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WILL BE ABLE TO. OR HIS OR HER DESIGNEE AND CODE ENFORCER WOULD BE THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND ANNUALLY CHECKING THESE FACILITIES. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THIS IS THE LAND USE CHART UPDATE. THIS IS THE LAND USE CHART CURRENTLY, WHICH WOULD BE THE RESIDENTIAL USES. BUT IF YOU LOOK WE'RE HAVING BOARDING HOUSE AS WELL AS THE GROUP HOMES. AND UP UNDER THAT THE CIRCLE, THE HOLLOW CIRCLE WOULD BE FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. SO WE'RE PROPOSING THAT EVERYTHING BE THAT THESE BOARDING HOUSES AND GROUP HOMES BE UP UNDER SF 43, SF 13, SF TEN SF SEVEN AND TF7. AND THAT WOULD BE BASED OFF OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO COME BOTH TO PLANNING AND ZONING AND THEN TO CITY COUNCIL. AND THAT IS ALL. DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OR COMMISSIONERS? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? TO BE DISCUSSING THIS?

[00:10:07]

YEAH. IS THERE ANYONE IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA? OH, I'M SORRY, I FORGOT ABOUT THAT. IT'S NO, JUST A SECOND, MA'AM. OKAY.

WE'RE NOW AT 721. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THIS MEETING? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. COULD I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER ZORATTI? YES, COMMISSIONER. CHAMPAGNE? YES, COMMISSIONER. SALAZAR. YES. COMMISSIONER NGUYEN.

COMMISSIONER O'BRIEN. YES. COMMISSIONER. RODRIGUEZ. YES. OKAY. I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 721. SO HAVE ANYONE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? IF NOT, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? OKAY. COME PLEASE. HI THERE. MAY DE LA ROSA, 1107 ROCK SPRINGS ROAD. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION AND I HAVEN'T READ ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND AND EVERYTHING, BUT THE ONE THING THAT COMES TO MIND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BOARDING HOUSES OR GROUP HOMES IS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA IS PARKING. AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS THERE ANY ORDINANCE OR ANYTHING THAT IS BUILT INTO THIS NEW DEFINITIONS FOR THESE TWO THAT ADDRESS THE FACT THAT YOU COULD HAVE 4 OR 5, TEN PEOPLE LIVING IN ONE SINGLE RESIDENCE, AND ALL THOSE CARS ARE BEING PARKED ON THE STREET. AND THE REASON WHY THIS IS A CONCERN IS BECAUSE THAT IS A HUGE NUISANCE TO THE NEIGHBORS. AND THERE IS A TEXAS LAW THAT GIVES THE RIGHT FOR, FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE. IT'S A BUNDLE OF RIGHTS. ONE OF THE CAUSE IS THAT THE LEGAL RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. AND YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO POSSESS AND USE YOUR LAND, YOU KNOW, PEACEFULLY AND WITH QUIET ENJOYMENT. AND SO THAT'S WHY THIS COMES TO MIND. SO IF WE IF WE DEAL WITH THIS NOW BEFORE IT BECOMES A PROBLEM, IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH EASIER TO, TO, TO DO RATHER THAN DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVE A GROUP HOME OR A BOARDING HOME THAT THEY NOT NECESSARILY OBJECTED TO, BUT THEY DO NOW BECAUSE ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S TEN CARS PARKING IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE AND THE PIZZA DELIVERY CAN'T COME. AND THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THE BOOK CLUB CLUB HAS NOWHERE TO PARK AND YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AND SO THAT IS LIKE ONE OF THE THERE'S TWO THERE'S TWO COMPLAINTS THAT LANDLORDS USUALLY GET. THE MAJOR ONES IS PARKING ON THE STREET AND NOISE.

AND SO, SO I KNOW THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM. AND SO I HAVE A QUESTION. IF SOMETHING EXISTS TO ADDRESS THIS AND TO MAYBE CURTAIL IT. AND IF IT DOESN'T, CAN YOU BUILD IT IN BEFORE YOU APPROVE THIS? THANKS. WILL YOU ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR CONCERN? YES, MA'AM. SO THE PARKING WOULD STILL BE THE SAME STANDARD WITHIN THOSE SINGLE FAMILY. SINGLE FAMILY. 4313 1070 TF7. THEY WOULD STILL BE HELD TO THE SAME PARKING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT IS AS THAT WHATEVER ZONING DISTRICT AS FAR AS RIGHT OF WAY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND SO WE CAN'T NECESSARILY CONTROL WHO PARKS ON THE PUBLIC STREET, BUT THEY WILL BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS EVERYBODY ELSE WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THEIR HOUSE TYPE WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY. IN REGARDS TO THE CONCERN ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE MISS DELAROSA. YEAH, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER IS FOUR. FOUR.

YES. FOR THE BOARDING HOUSE. FOR THE GROUP HOME IT IS FOUR. AND FOR THE BOARDING HOUSE IS THREE. CORRECT. BUT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY GET MORE IF YOU WRITE THREE OR MORE. FOUR. IF

[00:15:02]

YOU GET THE SUP YOU CAN GET MORE, RIGHT? YES. FOUR. IT SAYS ONE PARKING SPACE PER BEDROOM.

YES. BUT ALSO IN SECTION C. OH NO. D IT SAYS THE AMOUNT OF ON SITE PARKING SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PARKING REQUIRED BY SECTION 303, WHICH IS THE ONE PER BEDROOM. AND THEN IT SAYS BY MORE THAN THREE SPACES. YES. SO THEY'RE ALLOWED SEVEN. NO THEY'RE ALLOWED. THEY'RE ALLOWED THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT GOES WITHIN THAT THAT THAT ZONING DISTRICT THAT'S JUST ACROSS THE BOARD. BECAUSE EVEN IF BEING A BOARDING HOUSE AND OR GROUP HOME, IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY THE, THE REGULATIONS FOR THE PARKING REGULATIONS. OKAY. BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE HERE, IT LOOKS TO ME THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALLOWED, THEY'RE PERMITTED USE, AND THEN THEY CAN'T EXCEED MORE THAN THREE SPACES. THAT'S, THAT'S JUST MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT SECTION.

BUT I MEAN, I COULD BE WRONG AS ANYBODY ELSE SAYING IF YOU GO BACK ONE MORE. NUMBER FOR ADDITIONAL USE REGULATIONS. YEAH, THAT'S. YES, WE WILL WE WILL GO BACK AND LOOK INTO THAT BECAUSE IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE WHATEVER IS FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT. THAT IS THE PARKING.

OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA? NO, NO NO, MA'AM. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? OKAY, IT'S 727. CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE? MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. COMMISSIONER. YES, COMMISSIONER.

CHAMPAGNE? YES. COMMISSIONER. SALAZAR. YES. COMMISSIONER NGUYEN. YES. COMMISSIONER.

O'BRIEN. YES. COMMISSIONER. RODRIGUEZ. YES. ALL RIGHT. SO, COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE VOTE? I YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THE SEPARATION BETWEEN. IT'S CURRENTLY WHAT? IT'S 1650. IS THAT WHAT IT IS BETWEEN BETWEEN THE 1600. YEAH.

1600. I THINK THAT THAT WAS A CONCERN BECAUSE OF.

THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE APPLYING, EVEN THOUGH WITH OR WITHOUT AN SUP IS TO PROPOSE INCREASING THAT TO 5000FT. YES, SIR. WHICH MAY BE A LITTLE BIT EXCESS TO MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I KIND OF THINK THAT'S REASONABLE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE WAY WE'RE CLASSIFYING THESE THAT ALSO SEPARATE AND DEFINING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BOARDING HOME AND AN ACTUAL HOME. TRY TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC IN OUR VERBIAGE BETWEEN THOSE TWO ITEMS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE SEPARATE THEM OR WE KEEP THEM TOGETHER. AND I DON'T KNOW, I'M AS JUST A, MY, MY PERSONAL VIEW, BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN INCREASE IN THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SEPARATION OF THE UNITS. YEAH, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT HAVE SIMILARITIES WHERE THEY MEET, THEY ALSO HAVE DIFFERENCES WHERE THEY ARE ARE NOT RELATED AT ALL. BECAUSE TO HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION OF ONE AND THEY MIGHT HAVE COMMONALITIES, THEY'RE STILL, IN MY OPINION, NEED TO BE SEPARATED. YES, MA'AM. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS. OKAY. WELL, PRIOR TO VOTING, I'M ONE QUESTION. WERE WE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WAS THAT DIFFERENT FOR EACH ONE? IS IT THREE OR 4 OR 4 FOR THE GROUP HOMES AND THREE FOR THE BOARDING? IS THAT FOR THREE PLUS THREE PLUS, UNLESS THEY DID AN SUP AND ASKED. SO OF COURSE IN DOING THE SUP, WE KNOW THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PNC AND CITY COUNCIL. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT PARKING AGAIN. SO IS THERE ANY SORT OF, I GUESS, REQUIREMENT? I'M GUESSING NOT, SINCE WE'RE NOT SEEING IT. OF THESE PEOPLE PROVIDING OFF STREET PARKING, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS WITHIN THE THE HOUSING DISTRICTS TO LIKE PRETTY MUCH LET THEM BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO

[00:20:03]

FOR US, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE YOU YOU SOUND LIKE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, CORRECT? NO, JUST LIKE KIND OF LIKE PROVIDING A DRIVEWAY OR ANY SORT OF OFF STREET PARKING.

SO IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE A LOT OF DENSITY IN THE STREETS. SO THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN REGULATE IS THE ACTUAL DRIVEWAY. WE CAN'T REGULATE THE PARKING. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING IF THEY HAVE A HOA THAT THEY CAN REGULATE IT, OR IT WOULD BE A COMMUNITY LED TASK VERSUS MORE SO ON OUR END, BEING ABLE TO REGULATE THE ACTUAL PARKING THAT WOULD BE TYPICALLY ON THE STREET. OKAY. I ONLY SAY THAT JUST TO TRY TO MITIGATE THE WHOLE POTENTIAL PROBLEM THAT WE COULD BE FACING, WHICH IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE DENSITY, LIKE WHAT WE WERE FACING IN OTHER PLACES HERE. SO THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE LIKE, HEY, PUT A DRIVEWAY IN HERE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN SO MANY RESIDENCES. WELL, ALL OF THESE ZONES CURRENTLY HAVE DRIVEWAYS. THEY ALL DO. YES. AND SO BECAUSE THIS WAS PART OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR EACH OF THESE ZONES TO HAVE, MOST OF THEM ARE TO UNLESS THEY WERE, OF COURSE, FURTHER BACK AS FAR AS BUILT. BUT THE SL 43 SF TEN, THEY'RE ALL HAVE DRIVEWAYS CURRENTLY.

OKAY. OKAY, I OF COURSE, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMENTS SO FAR. AS FAR AS THE DISTANCE, WHICH WAS LISTED AS 5000 BETWEEN THE BOARDING HOUSES AND THE GROUP HOMES, AS WELL AS PULLING OUT THAT THAT INFORMATION ON SEPARATING GROUP HOMES AND BOARDING HOUSES, SUCH THAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE ACTUALLY LISTED FOR EACH ONE, RATHER THAN COMPILING THEM AS IF THEY ARE EXACTLY EQUAL. AND SO IF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE IN AGREEMENT, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE APPROVE THIS WITH CONDITIONS AND THEY WOULD BE THOSE TWO CONDITIONS. IF THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IF IF YOU ALL AGREE, IF IT'S AGREEABLE, THEN IF I COULD HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WITH CONDITIONS, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM ON THOSE TWO CONDITIONS THAT WE DO ADDRESS THE SEPARATION OF 5000FT■!S, AND ALSO DEFINE.

BETWEEN A GROUP HOME AND A BOARDING HOME. WE HAVE A SECOND, PLEASE. I SECOND ROLL CALL, PLEASE. ALL IN FAVOR? YES. NOPE. IT'S WORKING NOW. WHAT JUST CAME UP? YEAH, BUT NOT ON. OKAY, I'LL PUT IT. OH, OKAY. MINE IS PRESSED. ARE TECHNOLOGY. THANK YOU. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON

[4.B. PLAT-2026-00023: Consider a public hearing and request from Dillo Development Services (applicant/agent) and Honeysuckle Properties LLC (owner) to replat two (2) lots into one (1) lot on real property located at 110 S. Cedar Ridge Road, legally described as Victorian Village Replat Addition on 0.895 acres, City of Duncanville, Dallas County, Texas. ]

COMMISSIONERS. WE WILL NOW BE PRESENTING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST FROM DILLO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND HONEYSUCKLE PROPERTIES TO REPLAT. TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 SOUTH CEDAR RIDGE ROAD. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REPLAT TO COMBINE TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE ON THE PROPERTY. THE CURRENT ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY IS LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL. HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE DIMENSIONS AND STANDARDS FOR LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL, WHICH IS 10,000 SQUARE FOOT, 70FT WIDE, 100FT DEPTH 25FT. SETBACK 25FT INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK AND THEN EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK 25FT, AS WELL AS REAR SETBACK. A MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE OF 40% IN TWO STORIES. MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA OF 40,000FT■!S. IF YOU LOOK ON THE MAP, THIS IS WHERE IT'S LOCATED.

THE YELLOW STAR, RIGHT SOUTH. OH EXCUSE ME. YEAH. SOUTH OF METROPOLITAN AMERICAN FURNISHING AND PET MEDICAL CENTER OF DUNCANVILLE. FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS WITHIN THE GATEWAY CORRIDOR. THE YELLOW LINE IS THE PROPERTY OWNER BUFFER. WE SENT IT OUT 200 RADIUS AROUND THE STAR. SO ALL THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE YELLOW LINE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO

[00:25:02]

WERE NOTIFIED. HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AT 110 SOUTH CEDAR RIDGE DRIVE. HERE IS THE PROPOSED PLAT. SO FOR THE STAFF FINDINGS, THE CURRENT LOT IS A VACANT IS VACANT PLANNING TO COMBINE WITH PROPERTY AT 720 WEST CENTER STREET. THE CURRENT BUSINESS OPERATING IS 720. WEST CENTER STREET IS. PET MEDICAL CENTER OF DUNCANVILLE. FENCE WAS STARTED WITHOUT PERMITS THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY NOT ALLOWED TO BE PUT ON A PROPERTY BY ITSELF.

THE NEW LOT. COMBINING BOTH PROPERTIES MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD MINIMUM DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE LOR. THERE WERE 11 MAILINGS THAT WERE SENT OUT. ZERO RESPONDED IN SUPPORT, SIX RESPONDED IN OPPOSITION, ONE RESPONDED IN OPPOSITION, BUT THE PROPERTY WAS OUTSIDE OF THE 200FT BUFFER. THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS IT DOES MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REPLAT AND THESE, OF COURSE, ARE THE OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION. OKAY.

THANK YOU. DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IN REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? IF NONE IS THE APPLICANT HERE. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. OKAY. AND COME DOWN PLEASE. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME AND I'M DOING THIS FOR A FRIEND. SO WHAT IS IT I'M SUPPOSED TO. MY NAME IS WANDA WILLIAM. MY ADDRESS IS 1014 LAMAR AVENUE, DUNCANVILLE, AND I AM HERE TO REPRESENT DILLON DEVELOPMENT SERVICE. THE PERSON, THE SURVEYOR WHO SUBMITTED THE PLAT LIVES IN NEW BRUNSWICK, AND HE'S DOING THE JOB. AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING HIM. AND THAT'S ABOUT AS MUCH AS I KNOW. SO, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT? IT SAYS ON HERE THAT THE FENCE THEY'RE GIVEN A DEADLINE TO REMOVE. DO YOU KNOW IF THAT'S ALREADY IN WORKS OR DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING, I GUESS ABOUT THAT. I KNOW YOU SAID I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THE PROPERTY. I WERE OH, ARE YOU OKAY? I'M SORRY. SHE DIDN'T SEE ME SITTING BEHIND HER, SO I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. MY NAME IS DOCTOR VANESSA ALI. I OWN PET MEDICAL CENTER, DUNCANVILLE, AND I AM THE OWNER OF HONEYSUCKLE PROPERTIES AS WELL. MY ADDRESS IS 3604 MARLBOROUGH DRIVE, PLANO, TEXAS. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, HONORABLE COMMISSIONER, WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE DOING IS I BOUGHT THE LAND WITH THE INTENTION OF EXPANDING THE HOSPITAL. AND THE FIRST PART OF THAT EXPANSION THAT I WANTED TO DO WAS REGARDING OUR BOARDING FACILITY. I WANTED TO GIVE THE ANIMALS THE CAT OR NOT THE CATS, BUT THE DOGS. MORE ROOM TO MOVE.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAT, THERE'S A VERY, VERY NARROW BACKYARD AND WE HAVE TO WALK THE DOGS ONTO THAT PROPERTY. AND I FEEL LIKE THE DOGS NEED MORE ROOM TO PLAY.

AND WE BOARD A LOT OF PUPPIES, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. AND I WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND FENCE THE WHOLE AREA AND THEN CROSS FENCE IT TO WHERE THE WE CAN TURN THE PUPPIES LOOSE WHILE THE STAFF IS SITTING THERE AND THEY CAN PLAY, HAVE AT LEAST 1015 MINUTES TO RUN AND STRETCH THEIR LEGS AND STUFF INSTEAD OF ONLY BEING WALKED ON A LEASH. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? SO WILL YOU BE, I GUESS, AT THIS TIME, SUBMITTING A FORMAL PLAT APPLICATION? AND WILL THAT, I GUESS, WILL THAT ALSO BE ENOUGH FOR THEM TO KEEP THE FENCE? THAT'S THAT'S THE I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR HER. IT'S MORE SO FOR YOU, I GUESS. WANDA, I THINK THE I THINK THE REPLAT IS GONNA SOLVE THAT. YEAH. THE REPLAT WAS FOR US TO GET THE FENCING APPROVED. OKAY.

GOT IT. YEAH. SO THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF IT. OKAY. YEAH, THAT THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MA'AM. THE OTHER ONE.

COULD NOT FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. NOT. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. OH. ALSO SEVEN. THE

[00:30:15]

PUBLIC HEARING OF THE YOU GOT A MOTION WE HAVEN'T CALLED. IF YOU'RE NOT A PART OF THE APPLICANT, WE HAVEN'T CALLED FOR ANYONE ELSE. OKAY, I AM, YES, BUT IT'S WE HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T ASKED FOR PUBLIC OPINION YET. NO. BUT YOU'RE IT'S YOUR TIME IS COMING.

YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL RIGHT. SO. AS FOR. YOU GOT A MOTION. YOU GOT A SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN AT 741. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS? OH, WE VOTED FOR. SO I THINK WE NEED A VOTE FOR THAT TOO. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, WE WILL VOTE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT. SO IS THERE IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? PLEASE SAY YOUR NAME. ADDRESS PLEASE. THANK YOU. I'M DOCTOR SHERRY RICHARDSON AND I HAVE BEEN IN DUNCANVILLE SINCE 1991. I BOUGHT PROPERTY IN THE VICTORIAN VILLAGE, 204 SOUTH CEDAR RIDGE DRIVE. I GUESS IT'S BEEN ABOUT 35 YEARS NOW THAT I'VE BEEN IN DUNCANVILLE. NOT ONLY DO I RUN A CELEBRITY SPA, BUT A PHYSICAL MEDICINE CENTER THERE IN THE VICTORIAN VILLAGE.

AND OF COURSE, AGAIN, I'VE BEEN THERE 35 YEARS AND BASICALLY. THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE, THE PET MEDICAL CENTER, PUT THE FENCE UP WITHOUT A PERMIT, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY DOCUMENTED THAT. AND THE FENCE IS LIKE TEN FEET TALL AND IT'S BLOCKING MY PHYSICAL MEDICINE CENTER.

BASICALLY, IT HAS A, I HAD WROTE A SOMETHING TO SAY, BUT ALL OF THIS IS COMING OUT THAT I'M HERE. BUT LET ME START OVER RIGHT HERE. I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THE CITY TO REVIEW THE FENCE LOCATED ACROSS THE DRIVE FROM MY BUSINESS, 204 SOUTH CEDAR RIDGE DRIVE IN DUNCANVILLE. MY CONCERN IS THAT THE FENCE MAY OBSTRUCT VISIBILITY FOR VEHICLES ENTERING AND EXITING THE PROPERTY. IN PARTICULAR, IT APPEARS TO CREATE POOR PERIPHERAL VISION, AND THAT'S COMING FROM THE SOUTH, GOING NORTH, COMING IN AND EXITING.

IN PARTICULAR, IT APPEARS TO CREATE POOR PERIPHERAL VISION AND REDUCE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR DRIVERS, WHICH COULD PRESENT A TRAFFIC SAFETY HAZARD. I WOULD APPRECIATE CONFIRMATION AS TO WHETHER THE FENCE WAS PROPERLY PERMITTED AND WHETHER IT COMPLIES WITH DUNCANVILLE VISIBILITY AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS. BASICALLY, WE OWN THE ACTUAL PROPERTY AND WHEN THINGS BREAK DOWN OR HOLES GET THERE, THE CITY IS ALWAYS ON OUR BACK. IN REFERENCE TO DOING THIS, AND EACH PERSON IS GIVEN TWO MINUTES. OKAY? AND SO IN YOUR TWO MINUTES, I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, BUT I HAVE THE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE VICTORIAN VILLAGE HAVE OPPOSED TO THIS. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANYONE? I'VE NEVER BEEN TO A CITY COUNCIL MEETING. SHOULD I EXPLAIN HER CONCERNS AND EXPLAIN THE FENCE HEIGHT OR. NO? OKAY. YEAH. SO AT THIS TIME, THIS IS A PUBLIC. SO WE CAN ASK FOR YOU TO COME BACK AFTERWARDS. SO WHAT'S YOUR RESOLUTION? OH, SO SHE HAD THIS. WE'RE STILL IN THE PUBLIC. SO THEN. YES. OKAY. SO YOU'LL. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE

[00:35:01]

WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM. I'LL SEEK A MOTION TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED NOW AT 745. MOTION TO CLOSE. SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. IT'S ALL IN FAVOR. OKAY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IN REGARD TO THIS ITEM? I WOULD HAVE A QUESTION WITH THIS ITEM WITH FOCUS TO THE FENCE. ITS CONSTRUCTION. WAS IT PERMITTED BY THE CITY. AND THEN WHAT WOULD BE THE RESOLUTION. SO SORRY. SO THE FIRST WAS STARTED WITHOUT A PERMIT AS IT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY ALLOWED EVEN IN THAT AREA. AND SO AS FAR AS NOW, THE CODE WOULD BE THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD GO AND CAN LOOK INTO THE FENCE AND SEE IF IT MEETS THE STANDARDS AND THE REQUIREMENTS. AND WE WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE SOMEONE GO IN TO DO THAT. BUT IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT. I HAVE A QUESTION. THE THE, THE BUSINESS OWNER SAID THAT THE FENCE WAS TEN FEET IS THERE FOR FENCES. IS THERE A CERTAIN FEE THAT IS ALLOWED, LIKE 8FT OR 6FT OR SOMETHING? YES, MA'AM. SO TYPICALLY FENCES, WE LIKE TO KEEP THEM SIX FEET OR LOWER. ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT, THEY WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE ZBA FOR SOME FORM OF VARIANCE. TEN FEET IS NOT IN OUR ORDINANCE. AND SO I THE STAFF, WE WE'VE HEARD THE COMPLAINT, BUT WE HAVE NOT ACTUALLY MEASURED THE FENCE. I WOULD SAY THAT. AND SO ON OUR END, IT IS NOT ALLOWED. ANYTHING IS TEN FEET. AND I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. AS FAR AS FENCES ARE CONCERNED, ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO BE MADE OF CERTAIN THINGS OR LIKE I THINK IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF LIKE VISIBILITY, LIKE SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS THERE ARE CERTAIN. SOMETHING THERE THAT IT SAYS HOW IT SHOULD BE BUILT OR WHAT IT SHOULD BE BUILT OUT OF. YES, MA'AM. EVERY ZONE HAS REQUIREMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO THE FENCING MATERIAL. SOME OF THEM HAVE MAYBE WROUGHT IRON, MAYBE WOOD. AND SO EVERY ZONE DOES HAVE THIS IS ACTUALLY LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL. AND SO WITH THAT IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW WOOD FENCES ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THAT AREA AS WELL. BUT AGAIN, NOT AT TEN FEET. IT WOULD NEED TO BE SOMETHING LOWER THAN THAT. THANK YOU. I THINK I MEAN STAFF I THINK THAT ORDINANCE CALLS FOR MAXIMUM EIGHT FEET IF IT'S COMMERCIAL AT THE BACK. YES.

EXCUSE ME. YEAH. EIGHT AT THE REAR. THAT THAT IS ONE ONE POINT TO KEEP IN MIND. AND TWO IS SINCE IT'S BEING REPLATTED. I MEAN WE WE CAN'T LOSE FOCUS. THAT FENCE MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT, BUT NOW IT SHOWS UP AS A CROSS SECTION IN A REPLAT LOT. YES. I MEAN, HOW ARE WE GOING TO ENFORCE A FENCE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT NOW? BECAUSE IT'S NOT IF IT'S NOT ENCROACHING INTO ANY SIDE YARD SETBACKS OR VISIBILITY TRIANGLES, IT MAY BECOME AN OBSTACLE, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, LOOKING ACROSS, TRYING TO LOOK TO THE CORNER, BUT I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE REPLAT BY ANY MEANS AT ALL. YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AND CROSS FENCING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, START PUTTING RESTRICTIONS ON, ON A REPLAT BECAUSE OF THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL CAN INTERJECT THERE A LITTLE BIT, BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T THINK WE WE HAVE MUCH OF A CHOICE BUT TO APPROVE THE REPLAT AND, YOU KNOW, EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT. THAT'S THE ORDINANCE ON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. YES. AND NOT TO MENTION THIS CASE IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE REPLAY. THIS IS NOT INCLUDING THE FENCE AT ALL. YEAH. SO I KNOW WE HAVE CONCERNS, BUT I THINK THAT THE REPLAT IS A REPLAT. YES. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THEN JUST BECAUSE THE VERBIAGE WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR, THE IT SAYS FOR THE STAFF REVIEW WITHOUT PERMITS AND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS GIVEN A DEADLINE TO REMOVE THE FENCE OR SUBMIT A FORMAL PLAT APPLICATION TO COMBINE THE LOTS. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF THIS WAS APPROVED, THEN THE FENCE IS OR STAYS UP ESSENTIALLY CORRECT LIKE THE FENCE IS AT THAT POINT FALLS WITH WITHIN STANDARDS. YES. CORRECT. OKAY. YES. AND

[00:40:03]

THAT'S RIGHT. YES. SO IF IT IS APPROVED, THEN THE BECAUSE THIS IS THE REPLAY. SO IT WOULD FALL WITHIN THOSE STANDARDS, BUT THE HEIGHT STILL IS NOT WITHIN THOSE STANDARDS. ABSOLUTELY.

OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN THE ONE HAS BEEN SHOWN AND CODES COME, COMES OUT AND CHECKS THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE, THEY WILL HAVE IT CUT DOWN TO, IT'LL ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE CUT TO THE ACTUAL HEIGHT THAT CODE HAS SAID. AND AS COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ HAS SAID, IT IS EIGHT FEET. I'VE SEEN THAT. I'VE ACTUALLY SEEN THEM COME AND HAVE THEM TO CUT DOWN A FENCE AFTER IT'S BEEN PUT UP. AS FAR AS HOW HIGH IT IS. YEAH.

SO WITH THAT, EIGHT FEET STILL BE BLOCKING ANY SORT OF VISIBILITY TO ANY OTHER BUSINESSES AROUND THERE OR BLOCK ANY TRAFFIC, LIKE WHERE WHERE'S THE SETBACK FOR THE FENCE? ON CENTER STREET? LIKE, IS IT 25FT? SO IT IS 25FT. SO I'M JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW IT'S BLOCKING VISIBILITY. IF THERE'S LIKE A 25 FOOT SETBACK, UNLESS THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THAT, THAT IS POSSIBLE. WELL, YOU KNOW, AS AS AS COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ HAS NOTED SINCE THIS, THE REALLY AT THIS AT THIS POINT WHERE THE THE FENCE IS LOCATED. AND OF COURSE, EVEN HEIGHT IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE REPLATTING. BUT WE COULD ALSO PUT IN LIKE A CONDITIONS ON THE PLAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE NEED TO. BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO IF THERE'S ALREADY A SETBACK IN PLACE. RIGHT. I YES, WHEN CODE ENFORCEMENT COMES OUT. AT THIS POINT, I THINK IT'S OKAY AT THIS POINT I'M ASKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

SO DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION TO TO APPROVE. SECOND. I'LL GO ON TO THE NEXT

[4.C. PLAT-2026-00024: Consider a public hearing and request from GeoNav (applicant/agent) and Forney Residence Inc. (owner) to replat two (2) lots into one (1) lot on real property located at 743 W. Camp Wisdom Road, legally described as Irwin Keasler Development Red Bird No. 5 Addition on 1.14 acres, City of Duncanville, Dallas County, Texas.]

ITEM. ON THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. THE NEXT ITEM IS PLAT 2026-00024, WHICH IS TO CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST FROM GEO NAV APPLICANT AGENT AND FANI RESIDENTS, INC. OWNER TO REPLAT. TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED 743 COUNT WEST CAMP, WISDOM ROAD. SO THE PURPOSE FOR THIS REQUEST IS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REPLAT TO DO A REPACK TO COMBINE TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE CURRENT ZONING WITHIN THIS AREA IS NEIGHBOR, NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE RETAIL.

HERE ARE THE STANDARDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE RETAIL WHICH IS 6000 MINIMUM LOT AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 60FT. LOT DEPTH 100,000. WHAT IN THE WORLD? I'M SORRY.

100FT AND ON FROM SETBACK 30FT. INTERIOR SIDE SET BACK TEN FEET. EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS 30FT.

REAL SETBACK 25FT WITH A MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE OF 50% AND A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA OF 5000FT■!S. AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGT IS ONLY ONE STORY. IF YOU NOTICE THE STAR IN THE PINK AREA, THAT IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE RETAIL AND THE STAR IS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

OFF OF CAMP WISDOM AND VERY CLOSE TO CHERYL BOULEVARD. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR THIS IS ALSO GATEWAY CORRIDOR, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE CIRCLE, THAT IS THE RADIUS IN WHICH EVERYBODY WAS NOTIFIED, WHICH WAS WHICH WAS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS. HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF 743 WEST COUNT WISDOM. HERE IS THE PROPOSED REPLAT. SO FOR STAFF FINDINGS, THE CURRENT LOT IS VACANT, COMBINING WITH LOT AT 739 WEST CAMP WISDOM ROAD. THIS LOT IS ALSO VACANT. THE NEW LOT. COMBINING BOTH PROPERTIES MEET THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR N O, R AND THE PROPOSED USE HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED. THERE WERE SEVEN

[00:45:01]

MAILINGS. SEVEN MEMBERS SET OUT, ZERO RESPONDED IN SUPPORT AND ZERO RESPONDED IN OPPOSITION.

THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AS PRESENTED, AND THERE ARE THE OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? I'M SORRY, COULD YOU PUT THAT AERIAL VIEW UP AGAIN? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU.

YEAH. IS THE APPLICANT HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? NO, THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE. MOTION TO OPEN SECOND. THANK YOU BOTH. PLEASE.

COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM FOR OR AGAINST IT? DO YOU HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS. ARE SEEING. THERE ARE NONE. WE'LL HAVE A MOTION. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING AT 757. MOTION TO CLOSE HEARING. SECOND. AND WE'LL VOTE, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, PLEASE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SECOND.

I'LL VOTE COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. OUR STAFF WILL GO TO ITEM 202600025, PLEASE. YES, MA'AM.

[4.D. PLAT-2026-00025: Consider a public hearing and request from Kevin Shepherd (applicant/agent) and Monte Anderson (owner) to replat one (1) lot into two (2) lots on real property located at 402 E. Wheatland Road, legally described as Lot 1, Block A & Abandoned Alley, Wheatland Plaza Shopping Center on 7.501 acres in the City of Duncanville, Dallas County, Texas. ]

COMMISSIONERS, I'M HERE TO PRESENT PLAT 2026-00025, WHICH IS TO CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST FROM KEVIN SHEPHERD, WHICH IS THE APPLICANT AND AGENT, AND MONTY ANDERSON, WHO'S THE OWNER, TO SPLIT ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 402 EAST WHEATLAND ROAD. SO THE PURPOSE FOR THIS REQUEST IS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REPLAT TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING INTO TWO LOTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. THE CURRENT ZONING IS A PD 2535 ARE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, 2535 ARE. AND THE CURRENT SETBACKS AS OF APRIL 2026 IS TEN FOOT MINIMUM FRONT, FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SIDE AND TEN FOOT MINIMUM REAR. IF YOU NOTICE THE AREA WHERE THE STORY IS, THAT IS THE AREA THAT IS BEING REQUESTED TO BE REPLANTED OFF OF EAST WHEATLAND. AND AGAIN, THE STAR IS THE SUBJECT AREA, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR THIS IS THE DOWNTOWN AREA, OUR DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. EXCUSE ME. THE PROPERTY OWNER BUFFER. THE YELLOW LINE REPRESENTS THE 200 RADIUS THAT WAS SENT TO ALL OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THAT AREA. HERE'S THE AERIAL VIEW OF 402 EAST WHEATLAND. THE STAR AGAIN REPRESENTS THE AREA IN WHICH IS LOOKING TO BE REPLANTED. HERE IS THE PROPOSED REPLAT. IF YOU NOTICE, THE AREA WHERE THE STAR IS IS THE CENTER AREA THAT IS BEING, WHICH WILL NOW SERVE AS A SECOND LOT. SO AS FAR AS THE STAFF ANALYSIS, THE REPLAT WAS DENIED DURING FEBRUARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DUE TO SETBACK STANDARDS NOT MEETING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE PD 2535. THE SETBACK STANDARDS WERE AMENDED AND APPROVED AT APRIL 2026. CITY COUNCIL STAFF POSED CONCERNS REGARDING THE NEW LOT. LOT ONE ARE THAT HE DID NOT TOUCH THE WHEATLAND ROAD, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THE COMMENT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT. THE STAFF POSED CONCERNS REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE CURRENT FIRE LANE AND IF IT MEETS THE CURRENT FIRE CODE REGULATION. THOSE COMMENTS HAVE

[00:50:03]

ALSO BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT. WITHIN THIS, $52 MILLION WERE SENT OUT. ONE RESPONDED IN SUPPORT, ZERO RESPONDED IN OPPOSITION OPPOSITION. EXCUSE ME.

INITIALLY, THE STAFF DID NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS REQUEST BASED ON THE CONCERNS STATED. HOWEVER, NOW THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS IT DOES NOW MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS. HERE ARE THE OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? I DO. WE'RE THE SETBACKS AMENDED ALREADY.

WERE THEY APPROVED BY ZBA OR SOMEBODY? YES, IT WAS APPROVED. THEY WERE SENT TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL PD WAS REOPENED IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE SETBACKS, BECAUSE THEY WERE MORE FLUID, THE ORIGINAL SETBACKS THAT WAS IN THE PD. AND SO THEY WERE ADDRESSED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY MEET THOSE STANDARDS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. REPLAT SO THAT REPLAT IS GOING TO PUT THOSE LOTS UP CLOSER TO WHEATLAND, RIGHT? IT WILL PUT IT WITHIN THE CENTER OF THE WHEATLAND PLAZA AND WHERE THE FIRE LANES AT. IT WON'T BE ON THE FIRE LANE. IT WILL BE OUTSIDE OF THE FIRE LANE. YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? HE IS NOT. IT IS. 802. CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE. MOTION TO OPEN HEARING SECOND. VOTE. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TODAY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA? FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

802 CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION TO CLOSE. SECOND. UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA? MOTION TO APPROVE. A SECOND, PLEASE. SECOND. THANK YOU. YOUR VOTE PLEASE. WITH THREE AND THREE. THIS MOTION DOES NOT PASS. OUR STAFF WILL GO TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

[4.E. PLAT-2026-00027: Consider a public hearing and request from TND Geomatics (applicant/agent) and Samuel Imarhiagbe (representative/agent) for a final plat to record an unplatted parcel on real property located at 311 E. Danieldale Road, legally described as A Slayback Abstract 1299, Page 880, Tract 20 on 2.5 acres, City of Duncanville, Dallas County, Texas. ]

COMMISSIONER HERE TO PRESENT PLAT 2026-00027. CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST FROM TND GEOMATICS, APPLICANT, AGENT AND SAMUEL MRMRM. EXCUSE ME, I DON'T WANT TO THANK YOU. I DON'T FOR A FINAL FOR A FINAL PLAT TO RECORD AN UNPLATTED PARCEL ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED 311 EAST DANIEL DALE ROAD. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FINAL PLAT TO RECORD AN UNPLATTED PARCEL FOR THE FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. CURRENT TRACT OF LAND HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED WITH DALLAS COUNTY. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED BY PNC ON 41326. THE CURRENT ZONING IS LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL LAW AND THE LOT SIZE IS 2.49 ACRES. THE AREA WHERE THE STORY IS LOCATED IS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS, WHICH IS LOR LOCAL OFFICE RETAIL OFF OF DANIEL DALE. THE CURRENT ZONING IS LOCAL OFFICE, RETAIL LAW AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES AS MAIN STREET. THE STAFF FINDS THE CURRENT LOT MEETS MINIMUM SETBACKS AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR LOR, THE FIRST STEP IN PROCESS TO DEVELOP OR BUILD ANY STRUCTURE. PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED AT PNC ON APRIL THE 13TH, 2026. HERE IS A IMAGE OF THE REPLAT. I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, OF THE FINAL PLAT. HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. THE AREA WHERE THE STORE IS, WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED OFF OF 311 EAST DANIEL DALE. THE YELLOW LINE IS THE AREA IN WHICH EVERYBODY WAS NOTIFIED WITHIN THE RADIUS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER BUFFER MAP, THERE WERE 25 MAILERS THAT WERE

[00:55:06]

SENT OUT, ZERO RESPONDED IN IN SUPPORT AND ZERO RESPONDED IN OPPOSITION. THE STAFF DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT REQUEST, AND THE OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION WAS TO APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS AND OR DENY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? IS THE APPLICANT HERE WISH TO SPEAK? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US AGAIN. IT'S A PLEASURE BEING BACK. MY NAME IS DOCTOR SAMUEL.

I'M THE LEADER OF THE OF THE CHURCH GOD'S KINGDOM SOCIETY. THE GOAL AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE A CHURCH BUILDING. THEY HAVE A COMMUNITY CENTER FOR EVENTS AND FOR AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND ALSO TO SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY. SO OUR GOAL IS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNITY. AND BY THE GRACE OF GOD, WE DO OUR BEST TO HELP EVERYONE AROUND US. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OH, COULD I GET YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE? FOR THE RECORD, MY ADDRESS IS 1518 LEGACY DRIVE. SEE THAT HE TAKES US. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, 807, COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE? MOTION TO OPEN SECOND. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR OR AGAINST? IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT HERE TODAY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA? MY NAME IS ABIGAIL MARIA. I'M HIS WIFE. MY ADDRESS IS 1518 LEGACY DRIVE. WE CAME BEFORE. WE JUST WANT TO APPEAL TO YOU GUYS TO APPROVE IT. THE FINAL APPROVAL SO THAT WE CAN START BUILDING.

LIKE HE SAID, WE JUST WANT TO CONTRIBUTE OUR CULTURE, BRING OUR CULTURE INTO THE COMMUNITY TO HELP THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER AFTER SCHOOL TO HELP ANYBODY, BECAUSE IT'S A CHURCH AND IT'S A LARGE CHURCH FAMILY. WE JUST WANT TO BRING OUR CULTURE. SO WE JUST APPEALING FOR IT TO BE APPROVED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA? THERE IS NONE SAYING THERE'S NONE IS NOW. 809 COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION TO CLOSE SECOND. COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR APPROVE THE CONDITIONS OR DENY THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, PLEASE? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF REPLAT. SECOND. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. YOUR VOTE PLEASE. THANK YOU. OUR

[4.F. PLAT-2026-00028: Consider a public hearing and request from request from Burns Surveying (applicant/agent) and Gary Beekman (owner) to replat two (2) lots into one (1) lot on real property located at 733 N. Merrill Road, legally described as Lot 17, Block A, Carder Crest on 0.258 acres, City of Duncanville, Dallas County, Texas.]

STAFF, OUR NEXT ITEM, PLEASE. COMMISSIONERS HERE TO TO PRESENT PLAT 202600028 WHERE.

CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST FROM REQUEST AND REQUEST FROM BURN SURVEYING APPLICANT AGENT AND GARY BECKMAN WHO'S THE OWNER TO REPLAT TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT ON REAL PROPERTY IS 733 NORTH MERRILL ROAD. THE PURPOSE FOR THIS REQUEST IS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND REPLACE TO COMBINE TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT WITH ONE STORAGE BUILDING ON IT.

[01:00:04]

PREVIOUSLY, THERE WERE TWO STORAGE BUILDINGS ON THE LOT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES CANNOT EXIST ON A LOT WITHOUT A PRIMARY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE CURRENT ZONING FOR THIS AREA IS DOWNTOWN DUNCANVILLE, GENERAL MAIN STREET, D, D, G, M, AND THE EXISTING BUILDING AND BUSINESS PROPERTY. 739 NORTH MERRILL AVENUE. COMBINED, THE LOT IS 733 NORTH MERRILL WITH PROPERTY AT 739 NORTH MERRILL. SO HERE ARE THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, WHICH BASICALLY THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING HEIGHT WILL BE 1 TO 6 STORIES. THERE'S A 90% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE. THE GROUND FLOOR FROM SIDEWALK IS 18IN MAX, FIRST STORY HEIGHT, 15FT MINIMUM AND UPPER STORY HEIGHT TEN FEET MINIMUM. NARCOTIC PRINCIPAL BUILDING HEIGHT. IF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IS TWO FLOORS OR LESS. I WANT TO REITERATE THAT THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY IS VACANT. THE CURRENT ZONING MAP. IT IS GENERAL MAIN STREET. THE AREA WHERE THE STORE IS IS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. AND OF COURSE, THE GREEN AREA IS THE GENERAL MAIN STREET, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN SUBDISTRICT. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS THE MAIN STREET CORRIDOR, WHICH IS WHERE THE STAR IS. AND THE YELLOW LINE AROUND THE STAR IS THE PROPERTY OWNER BUFFER WITH THE 200 RADIUS FOR THE. ALL THE RESIDENTS THAT WERE NOTIFIED OR THE OWNERS THAT WERE NOTIFIED. HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF 110 SOUTH CEDAR RIDGE OFF OF NORTH MERRILL AND WELL CORNERING NORTH MERRILL AND EAST COUNT WISDOM. AND HERE'S THE PROPOSED REPLAT. IF YOU LOOK WHERE IT SAYS LOT 16 OR BLOCK A, AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE PROPOSED REPLAT. SO WITH THE STAFF FINDINGS, THE CURRENT LOT IS VACANT, PLANNING TO COMBINE WITH PROPERTY AT 739 NORTH MERRILL. THE CURRENT BUSINESS OPERATING WITH ACTIVE CO, THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WERE CITED IN WARRANT AND THEY WERE WARNED PREVIOUSLY DUE TO BEING STORED ON A VACANT LOT, ONE ACCESSORY STORAGE STRUCTURE WAS REMOVED.

THE NEW LOT COMBINING BOTH PROPERTIES, MEETS THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR D, G, MS11 MAILERS WERE SENT OUT. ZERO RESPONDED IN SUPPORT, ZERO RESPONDED IN OPPOSITION, AND THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT OF THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SO COMBINING THE LOT WILL THEN ALLOW THEM TO KEEP THE STORAGE BUILDING OR ADD ANOTHER STORAGE BUILDING, I GUESS IF THEY WANTED, BECAUSE IT'S A TIED TO A BUILDING. BUILDING? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE ESSENTIALLY OF. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. DO WE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE USING THE BUILDING FOR? JUST, I GUESS, THE STORAGE BUILDING? YEAH. I'M NOT FOR CERTAIN. JUST I ASSUME SOME OF THE SUPPLIES THAT GOES WITH THEIR COMPANY. I CAN'T THINK OF THE EXACT COMPANY RIGHT NOW, BUT I. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE IT WAS ALREADY THERE WHEN THEY GOT IT. THEY WERE ABLE TO GET IT. AND SO THEY JUST DIDN'T MOVE IT UNTIL THEY WERE GIVEN THE WARNING. AND THEN OF COURSE, BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE ON THE PROPERTY BY ITSELF. GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. IT IS NOW 814. COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE? MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND, THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR? ONE HERE. EXCUSE ME. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA? MY NAME IS STEVE VAN ROOY. I LIVE CURRENTLY AT 5411 RANCHERO LANE, CLOSE TO DUNCANVILLE, BUT NOT QUITE IN. I HAVE LIVED IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR 50 YEARS. FIRST BOUGHT A HOUSE IN THE FAIR MEADOWS AREA IN 1976. MY BROTHER IN LAW, WHO IS MY PARTNER AND I RUN A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY. YOU'VE SEEN THE LOCATION RIGHT BEHIND THE QTY, AND WE'RE TRYING TO AMALGAMATE THESE TWO LOTS INTO

[01:05:02]

ONE SO THAT WE CAN UTILIZE THE VACANT LOT, WHICH WAS VACANT WHEN WE PURCHASED IT. AND WE PURCHASED THAT LOT WHEN WE BOUGHT THE BUILDING 15 YEARS AGO. AND WE USED THAT LOT FOR 15 YEARS BEFORE THE CODE DEPARTMENT DECIDED THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE USING THAT LOT ANYMORE. AND IN FACT, THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED WERE BROUGHT IN AFTER THE PROCEDURE STARTED ASKING US TO REMOVE ALL THE STUFF THAT WE HAD ON THAT LOT, WHICH WAS PART OF OUR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT BUSINESS, THE BUILDING THAT IS THERE, THE SHED THAT IS THERE IS 12 FOOT WIDE BY 30 FOOT LONG. IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO MOVE, BUT WE MOVED IT FROM AN ADJOINING PROPERTY THAT YOU PROBABLY ARE DEALING WITH AS WELL. THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE MADE INTO A TACO STAND. AND WE BROUGHT IT ONTO THE PROPERTY AND THEN WE'RE TOLD TO REMOVE IT. BUT IN ANY CASE, THE EASY WAY OUT OF THIS WHOLE THING, AND ACTUALLY, I WANT TO THANK THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE FOR WORKING WITH US AND TALKING TO THE MAYOR AND TALKING TO THE CITY MANAGER, AND FINALLY FIGURING OUT A WAY THAT WE CAN DO THIS. WE ARE SUBMITTING THIS REPLAT REQUEST, AND I HOPE THAT YOU ALL WILL APPROVE IT AND WE'LL GET BACK TO WORK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SIR, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA? HEARING NONE, COULD I HAVE A MOTION AT AGE 17 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION TO CLOSE.

SECOND, A REAL VOTE, PLEASE. AT THIS TIME, COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OR DENY THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. WE'LL VOTE PLEASE. THANK YOU. MOTION HAS BEEN APPROVED. STAFF. COMMISSIONER HERE TO PRESENT

[4.G. ZONE-2026-00013: Consider a public hearing and request from Monte Anderson (owner) to amend the current Planned Development 1817 (PD-1817) to add the land use ‘tattoo shop’ as a permitted use on real property located at 100 S. Main Street, legally described as Lot 1, Block A, Main Statin on 1.31 acres in the City of Duncanville, Dallas County, Texas.]

ZONE 202600013, WHICH IS TO CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST FROM MONTE ANDERSON, WHO'S THE OWNER, TO AMEND THE CURRENT PLAN. DEVELOPMENT 1817 PD 1817 TO ADD THE LAND USE TATTOO SHOP AS PERMITTED USE ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 104.

SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS THE APPLICANT. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PD AMENDMENT TO ADD THE LAND USE TATTOO AND BODY PIERCING TO THE PERMITTED USE STATED IN THE PD. THE CURRENT BUSINESS SUP EXPIRED MAY OF 2025. THE CURRENT ZONING IS SUP2384, WHICH IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR 2384 AND PD 1817. PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1817. IF YOU LOOK AT THE STAR ON THE HATCH AREA, THAT IS THE AREA WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, WHICH IS THE AREA WHICH IS THE PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY OWNER BUFFER THAT WE SENT MAILERS TO. IF YOU LOOK AT THE STAR, THE AREA WITHIN THE YELLOW IS THE RADIUS IN WHICH WE SENT FOR THE 200 FOOT RADIUS THAT WE SENT TO ALL OF THE OWNERS. THE STAR IN THE CENTER OF THE GREEN IS THE AERIAL VIEW FOR 100 SOUTH MAIN STREET. IT'S SUITE 104. THIS IS THE CURRENT SITE PLAN FOR THE SUITE. THE STAR IS WHERE THE TATTOO SHOPS TATTOO SHOP IN SPECIFIC IS SITTING RIGHT NOW. SO FOR THE STAFF ANALYSIS, THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN OPERATING SINCE 2020. REASONING FOR THE AMENDMENT WAS BASED ON THE SUP2384 EXPIRATION IN MAY 2025, STATED FIVE YEAR EXPIRATION IN THE APPROVED SUP, THE STAFF RECOMMENDED TO AMEND EXISTING PD TO ALLOW THIS LAND USE WITH THE PROPOSED CONDITION FOR CLEANER ZONING. NO PREVIOUS ISSUES OR INCIDENTS WITH THE CURRENT BUSINESS OPERATION. THE LAND USE AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW THE USE TO BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITHOUT AN EXPIRATION DATE. CONDITIONS OF LAND USE, TATTOO AND BODY PIERCING STUDIO ON ONE PROPERTY SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLOOR PLAN, WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AND IS INCORPORATED HEREIN AS A SPECIAL CONDITION. THE PROPERTY SHALL MEET ALL CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS FOR BUILDING FIRE CODES AND ACCESSIBILITY. THE EXISTING PUBLIC PARKING AVAILABLE IN THE DOWNTOWN DUNCANVILLE DISTRICT TO SATISFY THE PARKING NEEDS FOR THE USE. THE HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE MONDAY THROUGH SUNDAY FROM 10 A.M. TO 10 P.M. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER