[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:12]
>> GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I AM CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:30 P.M. ON JULY 2ND, 2026, FOR A MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING OF THE CITY OF CARROLLTON. THIS COMMISSION CONSISTS OF NON MEMBERS, ALL OF WHOM ARE PRESENT TONIGHT.
THIS COMMISSION HAS FINAL AUTHORITY'S ON CERTAIN ITEMS IN AN ADVISORY ROLE AND OTHERS IN THE CASE OF ADVISORY ITEMS, THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE APPLICANT MAKES A WRITTEN REQUEST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY ORDINANCE.
THE COMMISSION CONDUCTS ITS BUSINESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POSTED AGENDA, COPIES WHICH ARE LOBBIES OUTSIDE THESE CHAMBERS.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION IS RESTRICTED FROM TAKING ACTION ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION PLAT OR REPLAT AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, IF IT MEETS ALL APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF STATE LAW IN THE CITY OF CARROLLTON ORDINANCE.
A PLAT IS DEEMED APPROVED BY OPERATION OF LAW, NO ACTION TO APPROVE OR DENY A PLAT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER A PLAT MEETING ALL REQUIREMENTS IS FILED. THE PUBLIC MAY COMMENT ON ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA FOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION TONIGHT. IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON ANY AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE COMPLETE AN APPEARANCE CARD LOCATED ON THE TABLE AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA UNDER THE HEADING "PUBLIC HEARING" WILL BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY, BEGINNING WITH THE CASE PRESENTATION. AFTER ANY QUESTIONS ON THE COMMISSION AND STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, THEY WILL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS TO SPEAK ON THE CASE.
WHEN IT IS YOUR TIME TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE PODIUM AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND MAKE YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION. WHEN EVERYONE HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, THE APPLICANT WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A BRIEF CLOSING COMMENT.
AT THAT TIME, THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THAT ITEM. THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTIONS OF THE CASE IS CONSIDERED TONIGHT ARE INTENDED TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE HEARD BY THE COMMISSION.
IT IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMISSION TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY OR ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.
AFTER THE CASE PRESENTATIONS, A PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD IS COMPLETED, THE COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT ANY DISCUSSION AND ACTION AS APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
SO THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE FOUR AGENDA ITEMS LISTED TONIGHT.IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WITH COMMENTS FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA? ANY ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME? IF YOU WOULD COME UP PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. PLEASE PULL THAT MICROPHONE D
DOWN. >> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND I AM SPEAKING CONCERNING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA COME A RIGHT? OKAY. SO MY NAME IS MARTHA SCHROEDER.
I AM AT 2425 IN CARROLLTON. I LIVE IN KELLER SPRINGS VILLAGE, A NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH AND WEST OF SALAZAR, AND I JUST HAD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THAT.
IS THIS THE TIME TO MAKE COMMENTS CONCERNING THE
DESIRE -- >> YES, MA'AM, THIS IS YOUR TIME
TO SPEAK RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU.
I REPRESENT THE VILLAGE. THERE ARE SEVERAL THAT WANTED TO COME BUT THIS BEING SO CLOSE TO HOLIDAY, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO COME. SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ME, MANY YEARS AGO, MY HUSBAND AND I CAME TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, TURNING THE FOOD LION INTO THE SALAZAR, AND WE WERE HIGHLY IN FAVOR OF THAT CHANGE.
SOME TIME LATER, MY HUSBAND BECAME A MATH TEACHER FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND WE APPRECIATE WHAT THE SCHOOL DOES FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THE FAMILIES. AT THAT TIME, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BASICALLY PROMISED A QUIET SCHOOL WITH A VERY SMALL STUDENT POPULATION COME A SLIGHT TRAFFIC COME A "NO" SCHOOL ZONES COME A LITTLE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT NOW IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A BIG CHANGE COMING.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE STUDENT POPULATION WILL TRIPLE ON THE
[00:05:02]
RESULTS SHE HAD COME A PAGE TWO, .3, THERE IS CLEAR WORDING THAT ALLOWS FOR A STUDENT ENROLLMENT OF GREATER THAN 200.AND ON THE MAP OF THE VERY LAST PAGE SHOWS A DOUBLE CAR QUEUE OF 50 CARS QUEUING UP AND I JUST WONDER, IF THEY ARE GOING TO START WITH 24, BUT WOULD 50 BE IN CASE A POPULATION EXPANDS, THE STUDENT POPULATION EXPANDS, OR WHAT PURPOSE WOULD THAT BE FOR A? I UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERNING SCHOOL ZONES, THAT WILL BE ASSESSED AFTER THE SCHOOL OPENS.
LIVING IN THAT AREA, KELLER SPRINGS IS A VERY FAST PACED STREET, AND JUST WHEN I AM DRIVING AND I AM TRYING TO TURN RIGHT TO GET INTO MY NEIGHBORHOOD COME I WILL BE FOLLOWED VERY CLOSELY OR HONKED AT BECAUSE I AM SLOWING DOWN TO TURN. SO I WOULD HAVE A CONCERN FOR PEOPLE BRINGING THEIR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL.
IF SCHOOL ZONES ARE DECIDED TO BE PUT IN, I DO HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT. I WAS AT A CITY -- THEY CALL IT A CITIZENS EVENING, A LONG TIME AGO COME IT WAS THE SPRING OF 2014. AND THE MAYOR WAS SPEAKING, AND HE BROUGHT UP THAT AT COUNTRY PLACE ELEMENTARY ON KELLER SPRINGS, THE SCHOOL ZONES HAD BEEN TAKEN DOWN, AND HE WAS VERY PLEASED ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE APPARENTLY, WHOEVER WAS IN CHARGE OF THINGS LIKE THAT, THE CITY HAD GOTTEN SOME COMMENTS ABOUT HAVING A SCHOOL ZONE ON THE VERY MAJOR THOROUGHFARE UNDER THE AIRPORT AND COMING INTO THE CENTER OF THE CITY, AND SO WHEN HE MADE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT, HE MADE IT WITH, I FELT COME A GREAT PLEASURE, THAT IT WAS GONE.
SO I ASKED, IF BEA SALAZAR DOES NEED A SCHOOL ZONE, TO ME, THAT WOULD BE GOING BACKWARDS BECAUSE KELLER SPRINGS IS EVEN MORE OF A THOROUGHFARE INTO THE CENTER OF THE CITY NOW THAN 12 YEARS LATER. WE HAVE MORE RESTAURANTS, SERVICES, VENUES, AND SO FORTH. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR A SCHOOL ZONE. ALSO COME AT THE EXPANSION OF THE SCHOOL TO 200 STUDENTS WOULD GREATLY IMPACT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE ONLY HAVE TWO ENTRIES AND EXITS, AND PEOPLE WOULD BE GOING TO SCHOOL ABOUT THE SAME TIME. THEY WOULD BE TAKING THEIR OWN CHILDREN TO SCHOOL, GOING TO APPOINTMENTS, THAT SORT OF THING, ABOUT THE SAME TIME PEOPLE ARE DROPPING THEIR CHILDREN OFF AT SCHOOL. THERE ARE NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT EITHER ONE OF THOSE INTERSECTIONS AND WE DON'T REALLY WANT THEM. SO I AM JUST CONCERNED ABOUT CONGESTION AT BOTH OF THOSE POINTS.
WE HAVE 110-12 HOUSES AND OVER 300 CITIZENS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA. AND A LOT OF CHILDREN.
AND THE SCHOOL START TIMES AT 7:30 AND 8:20, THAT IS ABOUT THE TIME THE CITIZENS IN THAT AREA ARE GETTING OUT TO THEIR OWN WORKPLACES AND SO FORTH. AND THEN, THERE IS A LITTLE SMALLER AREA CALLED FOUNTAIN COVE THAT IS OFF OF COLONIAL CLUB, AND THEY HAVE ONLY ONE STREET THROUGH THAT, AND I COULD SEE PEOPLE GOING THROUGH THAT, THEY DON'T WANT TO STOP AT THE BUSY INTERSECTION AND THEY MIGHT JUST TURN RIGHT AND GO THROUGH THAT SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD AREA, WHICH WOULD BE A DETRIMENT TO
THE FOLKS THAT LIVE THERE. >> MA'AM COME I'M GOING TO GIVE
YOU ONE MORE MINUTE IF YOU CAN. >> I AM FINISHING UP.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT CARROLLTON HAS CLOSED THREE SCHOOLS, JUST WONDERING IF AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT PUTTING THE COMBINATION OF BEA SALAZAR AT ONE OF THESE LOCATIONS THAT HAS BEEN CLOSED.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING TO ME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE YOUR WORK.
>> IF YOU WOULD COME PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR
THE RECORD PLEASE. >> YES, I LIVE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AT 2224 HERE IN CARROLLTON.
SO YOU CAN'T QUITE SEE IT YOU CAN'T SEE IT COME AT THE TOP LEFT, IT IS THE HOUSE WITH THE SWIMMING POOL DIRECTLY ACROSS KELLER SPRINGS AND I JUST WANTED TO ECHO MARTHA'S CONCERNS, I READ IN THE PROPOSAL THAT THEY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS, AND I DO HAVE CONCERNS THAT IT WILL. THE FIRST THING THAT I NOTICED, WHEN WE SPOKE HERE BEFORE ON THE PROPERTY, I THOUGHT I HAD
[00:10:01]
REMEMBERED IT WAS DATED ABOUT 5 ACRES AND IN THIS PROPOSAL, IT SAID 8 ACRES, OR 7.95 ACRES. I HAD A REALTOR FRIEND LOOK IT UP AND IT DID SAY -- ON TAX RECORD, 5 ACRES.I WAS QUESTIONING THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY THEY WERE PROPOSING, AND REALLY COME UP WITH THE PENINSULA PROBABLY TAKING AN ACRE, ACRE AND A HALF, REALLY SQUEEZING THAT CAMPUS COME A PRETTY LARGE CAMPUS, PROBABLY THREE AND A HALF OR 4 ACRES. SO IT JUST SEEMS ODD TO ME THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO SQUEEZE A LARGE SCHOOL, MULTIPURPOSE SCHOOL IN A RELATIVELY SMALL PROPERTY THAT IS GOING TO BE TIGHT IN A VERY BUSY AREA, WHICH IS KELLER SPRINGS, WHICH IS A VERY BUSY THOROUGHFARE, AND AS MARTHA STATED, SHE SAID 3-I READ THERE IS FOUR SCHOOLS THAT CLOSED.
I HAVE THEM LISTED HERE. MCCOY, ALL OF THEM BUILT AROUND 1980 SOME OF WHICH WERE ACTUALLY CENTRAL BUILT IN '64.
A COUPLE OF THEM BUILT IN '80, '78, NOT THAT OLD.
I THOUGHT IT WAS ODD. THOSE ARE MUCH LARGER PROPERTIES COME A READY MADE CAMPUSES, MAYBE THAT IS A SCHOOL BOARD QUESTION. WHY ARE THEY ABANDONING THOSE, GOING TO TEAR THOSE DOWN, AND SPEND MULTIMILLIONS OF DOLLARS COME I AM SURE COME ON A NEW PROJECT LIKE THIS IN A RELATIVEY TIGHT SPACE? SO MY CONCERNS IS THE SIZE.
NOT ENOUGH PARKING, CONSIDERING THEY WILL BE ADDING, NOT JUST GOING TO BE ELEMENTARY, IT IS GOING TO BE HIGH SCHOOL, ADULT PROGRAMS AS WELL, SO A LOT MORE PARKING.
SO YOU WILL HAVE A COMBINATION OF PARENTS DROPPING OFF ELEMENTARY KIDS, HIGH SCHOOL KIDS PARKING, ADULT PROGRAMS WILL NEED PARKING. SO IT IS GOING TO IMPACT THAT INTERSECTION, WHICH IS EXTREMELY BUSY ALREADY.
WE ALREADY HAVE A DIFFICULTY PULLING OUT DURING MORNINGS AND AFTERNOONS. SO THAT IS A CONCERN, DOES IT REALLY FIT IN THAT AREA, WHERE THERE MIGHT BE MORE SUITABLE AREAS FOR IT? AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IT IS A BUSY INTERSECTION. YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT ON THERE BUT THERE ARE SOME CORNER STORES RIGHT OFF THE MAP THERE.
THERE IS ANOTHER WHOLE SHOPPING CENTER THERE WITH A MARIJUANA SHOP, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO CALL IT.
YOU COULD THROW A STONE AND HIT IT FROM RIGHT THERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY IT IS NEXT DOOR TO THE SCHOOL.
THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE. BUT IT AIN'T RIGHT.
THAT IS MY CONCERN. IT HAS WORKED PRETTY WELL SO FAR, BEING A SMALL, QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH A SMALL SCHOOL, AND NO REAL BIG ISSUES, SO THAT IS MY CONCERN.
PUTTING A LARGE, MULTIUSE, SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDING THIS PROPERTY, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT IT FITS, AND I THINK THAT INTERSECTION IS JUST GOING TO BE EXTREMELY BUSY.
SO THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. SPEAK UP AGAIN, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME WITH COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS QUESTIONMARK I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE COMING FORWARD. ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE FOUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS OR WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT TONIGHT? COMMISSIONER FOSTER.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN MAY I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS NUMBER ONE THROUGH FOUR WITH THE MODIFICATION TO ITEM NUMBER TWO AS THE STAFF STIPULATION NUMBER TWO TO CHANGE THE WORDING FROM "SECONDARY" TO "HIGH
> THANK YOU. Select to skip to this part of the video">SCHOOL"? >> THANK YOU.
THAT IS WITH CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS NUMBER TWO AND FOUR,
>> OKAY. >> YES, COMMISSIONER HERMAN.
>> THANK YOU COME ON MR. CHAIRMAN.
I SECOND THAT MOTION. >> THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FOSTER AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HERMAN, APPROVED THE FOUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS TONIGHT WITH THE MODIFICATION AND AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2. STIPULATION NUMBER TWO.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MOVE IT TO A VOTE? NO? LET'S MOVE IT TO A VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES WITH A COMMISSIONERS DOYLE PASSING AGAINST, SO THE MOTION PASSES.
[PUBLIC HEARING ]
[00:15:08]
>> THANK YOU. >> SO THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO HEAR THE PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM STARTING WITH NUMBER FIVE, THAT IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE AN APPROXIMATELY 8.36 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 2415 EAST TRINITY MILLS ROAD, FROM LOW INTENSITY TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS CASE NUMBER PLMA206, KELLY COVE PLANT, THE CASE COORDINATOR TONIGHT IS
MR. MICHAEL MCCAULEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
GOOD EVENING. LET ME GET CAUGHT UP HERE.
OKAY. THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT FOR LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY THEY ARE THEY ARE PROPOSING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON THE SITE WHICH IS THE NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA. BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE NORTH AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING PROPOSAL WHICH WE WILL BE LOOKING AT SHORTLY IS A CHALLENGING PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND WE BELIEVE BOTH PROPOSALS SHOULD NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
FURTHER STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, AND I'M WILLING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL FOR HIS AMENDMENT.
>> COMMISSIONER OVERHOLT. >> RESIDENTIAL?
>> THEY ARE CONTINGENT ON EACH OTHER.
THEY COMPLEMENT ONE ANOTHER. IF YOU ARE WANTING TO IMPROVE THE ZONING, YOU SHOULD APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BECAUSE WITHOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGING OFFICE MEETING THE DENSITY TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL, THE FOLLOWING CASE WOULD NOT BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE P PLAN.
THE ZONING WOULD STAY AS HEAVY COMMERCIAL.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER DOYLE.
>> THANK YOU. IN THE DESCRIPTION AND THE STAFF REPORT, THEY CALL IT A DIFFICULT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD COME A CLOSE ENOUGH EYE TO KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN EMPTY SINCE 1984, AT LEAST.
WHAT MAKES IT SO DIFFICULT? IS THIS THE FIRST TIME SOMEBODY HAS SAID SOMETHING? OR DO WE THINK THAT IT IS NEVER
GOING TO DEVELOP? >> CONSIDERING WHAT IS TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH OF THIS SITE, WHICH WAS PLATTED IN 1978, SO IT HAS BEEN THERE, IT WAS THERE AT THE TIME WHEN THE GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE COME OTHER RIGHT AWAY -- 25 SOME ODD YEARS AGO, SO IT IS THE PIECE, THE ZONE HEAVY COMMERCIAL, IT IS NOT REALLY IDEALLY SUITED FOR THAT TYPE OF USE, SUCH AS WAREHOUSE STORAGE, THE MORE INTENSE NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL. SO WE HAVE HAD PROPOSALS IN THE PAST, WHETHER IT IS HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY, HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOMES WITH 25-FOOT WIDE LOTS BEING PROPOSED INSTEAD OF 35 FEET WIDE THEORY THAT DID NOT REALLY GO FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THE SITE. THE SITE IS CHALLENGING BECAUSE IT IS NARROW. IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU A LOT OF DEPTH TO IT. IF YOU ONLY HAVE ONE ROADWAY, THEN YOU HAVE A VERY DEEP LOT AND IF YOU HAVE TWO OR ONE WHERE YOU HAVE DEVELOPMENT ON BOTH SIDES, IT IS MORE -- THERE IS MORE OF A MERIT TO THAT, IF YOU WILL.
I WON'T GET TOO MUCH INTO THE NEXT CASE ITSELF.
[00:20:01]
SO THE CHALLENGE IS, YOU'VE GOT AN ALLEY THEY'RE, AND THE ONLY THINGS THAT CAN USE AN ALLEY, IN THIS CASE, IS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO COMMERCIAL CANNOT, SO THE PUBLIC POINTS WOULD BE FROM TRINITY MILLS ROAD, JUST LIKE WHAT YOU WILL SEE NEXT. WITH THAT IN MIND, IT JUST MAKES THE LAND USE ITSELF IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH WHAT YOU SEEAND I GUESS, THE WIDTH IF IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO PUT A STRIP MALL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT IT IS INTERESTING YOU SAY THAT THIS IS LIKE A REMNANT FROM
BUSH, KIND OF BUSH PROPERTY. >> CORRECT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO? OKAY.
THANK YOU. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, YOU MAY COME FORWARD AND DO SO AT THIS TIME. IF YOU WOULD.
>> SHE IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO MAKE COMMENTS, THEIR OPINION OF THIS CASE, MAY COME FORWARD AND DO SO AT THIS TIME. INDEED, IN FACT, I DID GET ONE CARD IN. MR. JACOB BOEING, WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM.
IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> I LIVE AT 20 2:30 TWO BIG BEND DRIVE.
THAT IS ONE OF THE HOMES BACKED UP TO THIS PLOT OF LAND.
THE PROPOSED HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE VERY CLOSE TO OUR BACKYARD.
I HAVE GIVEN YOU SOME IMAGES THAT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THOSE. BUT THE SECOND STORY WINDOW PROPOSED WOULD LOOK OVER OUR ENTIRE YARD.
I HAVE YOUNG KIDS. THERE'S A LOT OF FAMILIES ALONG THIS ROAD THAT HAVE YOUNG KIDS COME CARPOOLS COME A HOT TUBS COME IT WOULD JUST BE A MAJOR INVASION OF PROPERTY TO HAVE A SECOND STORY HOME THAT CLOSE. ALSO, IN THOSE DOCUMENTS I PRESENTED, DEMONSTRATES THAT THE CURRENT TWO STORY HOMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE 40-FOOT GAP BETWEEN THE LOT LINE AND WHERE THE SECOND STORY WINDOWS ARE, WHICH PROVIDES A MUCH MORE ACCEPTABLE VIEW OF A NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD.
MAYBE YOU COULD SEE SOME HEADS POKING UP BUT NOT ENTIRE KIDS OR ENTIRE BODY IS, LIKE THE PROPOSED PLAN WOULD DO.
WITH THAT SAID, I'M NOT AGAINST THE REZONING.
I THINK THAT SOME HOMES THERE WOULD BE A GOOD PLAN.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT TWO STORY HOMES THAT CLOSE TO THE EXISTING PROPERTIES IS ACCEPTABLE.
AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAST PAGE OF THAT DOCUMENT I PRESENTED A COUPLE OTHER OPTIONS, POTENTIALLY A SINGLE ROW OF TWO STORY HOMES POSITIONED A LITTLE FURTHER BACK FROM THE CURRENT PROPERTIES, OR TWO ROWS OF -- I AM SORRY -- MAYBE EVEN JUST A SINGLE ROW OF SINGLE STORY HOMES WITH SOME GREEN SPACE, MAYBE EVEN A PLAYGROUND, WHICH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS CURRENTLY LACKING. THAT IS MY SUGGESTION AND MY
SO AGAIN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO MAKE COMMENTS, THEIR OPINION KNOWN FOR THIS CASE MAY COME FORWARD AND DO SO AT THIS TIME.
I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE COMING FORWARD.
DOES ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO? DOES ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY FINAL QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF AND WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION CONCERNING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE? SO I'M GOING TO LET COMMISSIONER
>> YES, COMMISSIONER PENDLETON. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE, KELLY COVE PLAN.
[00:25:10]
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PENDLETON.
YES, COMMISSIONER FOSTER. >> I SECOND THE MOTION.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FOSTER.
SO A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER PENDLETON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FOSTER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE CASE NUMBER PLM A 2026-078 KELLY COVE COMP PLAN.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOVE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS UNTIL WE MOVE TO THE VOTE? NO? THEN LET'S MOVE TO A VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
SO THIS CASE WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED AUGUST 11TH, 2026. THANK YOU.
SO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ON AN APPROXIMATELY 8.36 ACRE TRACT ZONE, PD 44, THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2415 EAST TRINITY MILLS ROAD TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 44 TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH CONSENSUAL PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY. THIS IS CASE NUMBER PLC2026-079, ZONING, AND THE CASE COORDINATOR, MR. MCCAULEY.
>> THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. C MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE PED, CHANGING THE ZONING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT -- EXCUSE
ME -- >> GETTING CHOKED UP THERE.
SHOWS YOU HOW EXCITED I AM. [LAUGHS] IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, AMENDING THE PD TO ALLOW THIS PROPOSAL OF THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, 61 HOME SITES TO BE DEVELOPED.
HERE IS THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN.
IT IS SIMILAR TO THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU WILL SEE IN A FEW MINUTES, MINUS THE SHRUBBERY. IT SHOWS TWO POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS OFF OF TRINITY MILLS ROAD, WITH THE EASTERNMOST POINT HAVING A RIGHT TURN ON TRINITY MILLS ROAD.
THE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO OR FROM THE SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTH. THANK YOU.
IT WON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE ALLEYWAY, EVEN THOUGH IT IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THEY CAN USE AN ALLEYWAY, THEY CHOOSE NOT TO. THE PROPOSAL IS SHOWING A 65-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AS OPPOSED TO A 50-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THEY ARE STILL MAINTAINING THE 31-FOOT OF IMPROVEMENT WITHIN THIS RIGHT OF WAY. AT THE CURB.
THEY ALSO HAVE THE 5-FOOT SIDEWALKS ON EACH SIDE OF THE ROAD, WHICH IS REQUIRED AS WELL. ALSO, THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A REDUCTION OF A LOT OF WIDTH AND DEPTH AND WE HAVE HAD THAT FROM TIME TO TIME FOR RESIDENTIAL PLAN DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAPPENS.
BUT SOMETIMES IT IS NECESSARY AS WELL.
THE DEVELOPMENT ALSO INCLUDES A 6-FOOT BORDER FENCE ON THE NORTHERN SIDE RIGHT ALONG THE ALLEYWAY THAT IS ALREADY THERE, AND AROUND THE REST OF THE PERIMETER, THERE WILL BE AN 8-FOOT MASONRY WALL. THE STAFF BELIEVES THE ELEVATIONS THEY PROVIDED US, THEY ARE NICE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT MODELS AVAILABLE, SHOWN THE ELEVATION BEYOND THE TWO WIDEST LOTS THAT HAVE SIDE ENTRY GARAGES ON THE SOUTHERN, EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE. AND IT DOES HAVE THE WRAPAROUND PORCH. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF A 45-FOOT LOT, THE FRENCH COUNTRY STYLE, AND IT'S ACCOMPANIED ELEVATIONS FOR THE THREE SIDES AND THE MODERN PRAIRIE.
AND ELEVATIONS, THE FOUR SIDED ARCHITECTURE.
AND THE ONE YOU SAW EARLIER FOR THE LARGER, WIDER LOTS, THAT THE TWO LOTS HAVE THE SIDE ENTRY, THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE, A LITTLE SLIMMED DOWN VERSION, 45-FOOT WIDE LOTS, TRANSITIONAL
[00:30:07]
STYLE. A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.STAFF BELIEVES THE REDUCTION OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS SHOULD BE APPROVED, CAUSED THE HEARING TO RESTRICT ZONING CODE CAUSES UNNECESSARY PHYSICAL HARDSHIP DUE TO THE UNIQUE, UNUSUAL SHAPE OF THIS PARTICULAR LOT, WHICH IS A REMNANT PIECE LEFT BY THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE AND ACQUIRED PROPERTY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THAT ROADWAY. FURTHER STAFF BELIEVES THAT APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST SHOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, NOR VIOLATE PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS.
FOR THIS REASON, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS THE STIPULATIONS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THE STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED THE WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS REQUEST, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM. , ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR
MR. MCCAULEY A.? >> ACTUALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO
>> MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. I AM DIRECTOR OF BRIDGE TOWER HOMES AND I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
REGARDING THE GENTLEMAN'S CONCERNED, I SEE THAT LOOKS LIKE THE FENCE WOULD BE 8-FOOT -- THE BACK FENCE IS 6-FOOT, THE FRONT, THE SCREENING WALL IS 8-FOOT.
>> SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS 8-FOOT? >> OKAY.
THE 6-FOOT FENCE. AND I THOUGHT I READ TOO THAT YOU HAD DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY.
RIGHT? >> YES, WE DID HAVE A MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK IT WAS ABOUT A MONTH AGO. AND WE ACTUALLY TALKED IT OUT WITH THEM AND WE HAD ALSO HEARD SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO WITH ANOTHER APPLICATION HAD COME FORWARD ON THIS PROJECT, AND THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH THEIR COMMUNITY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
HENCE, WE ACTUALLY THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED THE SITE PLAN WHERE WE ARE NOT SENDING TRAFFIC FROM OUR COMMUNITY TO THEIR COMMUNITY, AND AS MIKE SAID, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS AN ALLEYWAY WHICH WE COULD HAVE USED, WE DECIDED NOT TO USE IT, AND HAVE BOTH THE ENTRANCES ON TRINITY MILLS ROAD. SO I THINK THAT WAS, FOR MOST OF THEM, LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE PRETTY HAPPY TO HEAR THAT, THAT WE ARE NOT SENDING TRAFFIC TO THEIR COMMUNITY.
I THINK THEY WERE ALSO HAPPY TO HEAR, BRINGING RESIDENTIAL HERE VERSUS HAVING THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT THIS LOCATION, LOOKING AT THE BACK, I DON'T KNOW, A MATTRESS STORE OF
A STRIP MALL. >> HAD YOU CONSIDERED DOING AN O THEN? I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THE FRONT, FACING TOWARDS TRINITY MILLS.
INSTEAD, RIGHT NOW, IT IS A 6-FOOT.
>> IF THAT IS SOMETHING -- IF COMMISSIONERS FEEL THAT WOULD HELP, THEN WE WOULD BE OPEN TO DOING THAT.
>> THANK YOU. THAT IS GOOD TO KNOW THAT YOU
ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH -- >> ABSOLUTELY.
>> YES, COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN. >> YES.
I HAD A SIMILAR COMMENT WITH THE FACT THAT THAT COULD BE AN 8-FOOT BOARD ON BOARD, THAT WOULD HAVE HELPED TO MITIGATE THE ISSUE OF SOMEBODY LOOKING OVER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE NORTH, THAT WAY IT WOULD HELP QUITE A BIT.
ALSO, THE OTHER COMMENT THAT I WANTED TO MAKE FIRST OF ALL, I REALLY LIKE THE ELEVATIONS THAT YOU HAVE DONE.
>> THANK YOU. >> I AM A RETIRED ARCHITECT SO I
[00:35:02]
HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT STUFF LIKE THAT.ANYWAY -- >> I AM AN ARCHITECT BY EDUCATION TOO. [LAUGHTER]
>> BUT I LIKE WHAT IS GOING ON, REALIZING THAT THE BACKYARD IS GOING TO BE VERY SMALL AND, SO I THINK ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO MITIGATE THAT, ESPECIALLY BY PUTTING SOME LANDSCAPING BACK THERE, WOULD ALSO HELP DEFER THAT LOOKING OVER EITHER WAY, LOOKING INTO THEIR BACKYARD OR PEOPLE LOOKING INTO THE NEW DIVISION BACKYARD. SO JUST THINK ABOUT THAT.
>> SURE, THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER OVERHOLT.
>> YES, SIR. >> ON THE EAST END WHERE THE ENTRANCE IS, YOU SAID THAT WAS CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL BY THE STATE OR BY THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT?
>> WELL, THE RIGHT TURN LANE ON THE EASTERN SIDE, AS WELL AS THE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF TRINITY MILLS IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE
APPROVAL. >> SO IF YOU DON'T GET APPROVAL
-- WHAT IS THE STATUS THEN? >> THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
DEVELOP IT AS YOU SEE HERE. >> OKAY.
>> THE PD WOULD NOT BE AS FULL. AT THAT POINT.
IT WOULD STILL BE INTACT BUT IT JUST WOULD NOT BE USEFUL.
>> AS FAR AS THE CITY IS CONCERNED, IS THERE ANY CONCERN FROM THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT ABOUT ANY OF THESE
QUESTION MARKS. >> I WILL DEFER TO
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING. >> OKAY.
[LAUGHTER] >> CITY SB TRANSPORTATION.
YES, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, WE DID LOOK AT THE TWO INGRESS POINTS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND DISCUSS WITH THE DEVELOPER THE NEED FOR A DECELERATION LANE. THERE IS SOME CONCERNS WITH, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS RELATIVELY LOW AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING TO BE EXITING AND ENTERING THIS SITE DUE TO THE LOWER NUMBER OF HOUSES, TRINITY MILLS IS A FAIRLY HIGH SPEED ROAD WITH VEHICLES TRAVELING IN THE 50-MILE-AN-HOUR RANGE, SO STAFF FEELS IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR A SHORT RIGHT TURN BAY INTO THE SITE. HOWEVER, THE TWO ACCESS POINTS ALONG WITH THE DECELERATION LANE IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL.
>> SO LET'S SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS.
WE COULD GO AHEAD -- IF WE WENT AHEAD AND APPROVED THIS TONIGHT COME IT STILL COULD FAIL IF THE DECELERATION LANE ISN'T
THE TWO ACCESS POINTS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NECESSARY.
IF THEY DENY THE RIGHT TURN BAY, THAT IS THEIR PREROGATIVE, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND TO TXDOT AND TYPICALLY, TXDOT FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF CARROLLTON STAFF FOR DEVELOPMENTS, BUT TXDOT COULD POTENTIALLY DENY THE REQUEST.
HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT STAFF FEELS WOULD ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
>> SPECIFICALLY FOR A RIGHT TURN BAY BECAUSE OF THE LOW AMOUNT OF
TRAFFIC. >> YES, COMMISSIONER KRAMER.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FOR THE APPLICANT.
I AM LOOKING OVER THE SPECIFICATION AND I WANT TO CONFIRM FOR THE STRUCTURE TO THE END OF THE PROPERTY OF EACH HOME, IS THAT 5 FEET? AM I READING THAT?
10 FEET BETWEEN EACH BUILDING? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
[00:40:03]
>> AND IS THERE FENCES BETWEEN EACH YARD?
>> YES. FENCES DO COME ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY LINE COME ABUT YES, THERE WILL BE A FENCE COME BEFORE THE BACKYARD GETS DIVIDED AND PART OF THE
SIDE YARD GETS DIVIDED TOO. >> IS THE FENCE OWNED BY ONE PROPERTY OR THE OTHER OR IS IT SHARED?
>> IT IS USUALLY SHARED, RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, A SHARED
>> YES, VICE CHAIR PENDLETON? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THIS IS MAYBE A LITTLE -- BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE LOCATION OF YOUR PLAYGROUND, AND LIKE OUR DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC TALKED TO US ABOUT, THE TRAFFIC AROUND THAT AREA CAN BE RATHER FAST.
WOULD IT BE SAFER TO MOVE THE PLAYGROUND TO THE BACK CORNER OF THAT AREA INSTEAD OF THERE ON THE STREET IN CASE A CAR DECIDED
TO PLOW THROUGH THAT BRICK WALL? >> I AM SORRY, WHAT ARE YOU
ASKING TO ME? >> WHERE YOUR PLAYGROUND IS RIGHT THERE ON THE CURVE? IF A CAR PLOWS THROUGH THAT BRICK WALL -- BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE DOING 75 MILES AN HOUR, WOULD IT BE BETTER TO PUT IT UP IN THE CORNER A LITTLE
FURTHER AWAY? >> SHOULD IT BE UP?
>> YES. WE WILL COME UP ONCE WE GO INTO THE DETAILED DESIGN, THE EXACT LOCATION CAN BE DECIDED.
I ALSO WANTED TO ADD, WE DO HAVE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER FIRST FROM TRINITY MILLS ROAD, AND THEN THERE IS THE 8-FOOT SCREENING FENCE, AND THEN THERE WILL BE THAT OPEN SPACE.
>> YOU ARE WELCOME. >> OKAY, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, STAFF? I WAS GOING TO ASK IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON YOUR ITEM BEARD WOULD YOU STILL WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? DO YOU WANT TO ASK HER MORE
QUESTIONS? >> UNLESS YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION COME I AM HERE TO ANSWER.
>> THANK YOU. >> BUT I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE MORE THING. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THE LAST FOUR MONTHS, AND STAFF HAS BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL TO WORK WITH, AND THEY HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY DILIGENT ABOUT VERY SMALL DETAILS, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE ALSO THAT QUALITY PROJECT COMES FORWARD, AND SO IT'S OUR GOAL.
SO WE ARE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND HOPEFULLY IT
GETS PASSED TONIGHT. >> THANK YOU.
>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WHO MAKES COMMENTS OR OPINION ON FOR THIS CASE, YOU MAY COME FORWARD AND DO SO AT THIS TIME. DO PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL HAVE 3 MINUTES TO SPEAK, SO PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AGAIN. >> I DON'T HAVE MUCH ELSE TO SAY, JUST THE FACT THAT THE LOT LINE IS SO CLOSE TO THE HOUSE THAT THE FENCE TO BLOCK ANY PART OF THE VIEW WOULD HAVE TO BE OVER 12 FEET TALL CLEARED AN 8-FOOT FENCE IS GOING TO BE THE SAME AS A 6-FOOT FENCE. SO THAT'S ALL.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND MAKE THEIR COMMENTS COME AND MAKE COMMENTS OR THEIR OPINION KNOWN AT THIS TIME FOR THIS ITEM? I DON'T SEE ANYONE COMING FORWARD. DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE ANY CLOSING REMARKS? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY? NO? DOES ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY FINAL QUESTIONS OR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION CONCERNING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
SIX? >> EXCUSE ME COME ON MR. CHAIRMAN. SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
I DID HEAR A LOT OF GREAT QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.
JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, ZONING SOME OF THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING 512, RIGHT ABOVE WHAT IS ON THE NORTH SIDE, 712.
OR 714. THE 10-FOOT REAR SETBACK THEY ARE SHOWING AS WELL AS THE 5-FOOT SIDE SETBACKS, THOSE ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE CURRENT ZONING WE ARE RECOMMENDING.
THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER FOSTER.
>> WERE YOU LOOKING FOR A MOTION?
>> YES. >> I MAKE THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND VOTE TO APPROVE THE STAFF STIPULATIONS,
CASE NUMBER PLZ 2026-079. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER
[00:45:06]
FOSTER. YES, COMMISSIONER OVERHOLT.>> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER OVERHOLT. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FOSTER AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OVERHOLT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CLOSE CASE NUMBER PLZ.
WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BY THE COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE MOVE TO A VOTE? YES, COMMISSIONER DOYLE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ONE -- NOT THE ONE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET LIKE THAT GENTLEMAN BUT I HAVE STARED AT THIS BLANK LOT FOR 40 YEARS AND I AM EXCITED TO HAVE SOMETHING GOING IN THERE.
I WOULD SAY, AND ALSO MY EXPERIENCE, I HAVE LIVED IN HOMES THAT WERE ONE STORY ACROSS THE STREET FROM TWO STORIES I HAVE LIVED IN TWO STORIES ACROSS THE STREET FROM ONE STORIES.
AND WHEN I LIVED IN THE ONE STORY HOUSE, I PLANTED A TREE APPEARED WHEN I LIVED IN A TWO STORY HOUSE, I PLANTED A TREE.
I AM EXCITED TO SEE THIS GOING HERE.
I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, I WOULD HOPE THAT MAYBE SOME OF THOSE THINGS COULD BE WORKED OUT.
THIS COULD BE A VERY SUCCESSFUL PROJECT.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DOYLE. AGAIN, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE MOVE TO A VOTE? NO? THEN LET'S MOVE TO A VOTE.
EIGHT COMMISSIONERS VOTE FOR, WITH COMMISSIONER KRAMER VOTING AGAINST. THE MOTION DOES PASS SO THE CASE WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 11TH, 2026. THANK YOU.
THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING TO AMEND RESTATE AND REPLACE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 508 TO ALLOW OTHER MOTOR VEHICLES, SALES COME A HEAVY LOAD TRUCKS, ANTI REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON APPROXIMATELY 8.79 ACRE TRACT ZONE, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1519 WEST MOUNTAIN LION ROAD, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY.
THIS IS CASE NUMBER 2026-104. THE CASE COORDINATOR FOR THIS
AGENDA ITEM. >> THANK YOU PETER GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. SO AS STATED, THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND AS IT RELATES TO THE PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THIS IS THE SITE DELINEATED BY THE ADDRESSES, 5019 WEST BELTLINE ROAD, IT IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF US, SO IN BETWEEN THE TURNPIKE AND 35 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BELTLINE. IN MARCH -- OR MARCH THIRD -- EXCUSE ME, 2026, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT FOR OTHER MOTOR VEHICLE SALES TO PERMIT THE SALE OF THE VOLUMETRIC CONCRETE MIXER, SO THAT IS GOING TO BE I BELIEVE THE ONE TO THE LEFT. THESE ARE CLASSIFIED AS HEAVY LOAD TRUCKS BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 35 OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO DO IS AMEND THIS SUP TO ESSENTIALLY ALLOW ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE TYPES, SO IT WAS SPECIFIED SPECIFICALLY UNDER 508 THAT THEY WOULD BE CONCRETE MIXING UNITS FEARED WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO IS THEY REALLY ALL LOOK THE SAME, THEY MAY JUST HAVE A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. SO ASIDE FROM THE WATER TRUCK, GIVING IT AWAY, YOU PROBABLY COULDN'T TELL WHAT THESE TRUCKS DO JUST FROM GENERAL APPEARANCE. SO ULTIMATELY, WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS AMEND THE PORTION OF THE APPROVED ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THESE ADDITIONAL TRUCKS. SO YOU WILL SEE THE MARKUPS IN THE REPORT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM THAT.
THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING TO DO ANY SITE MODIFICATIONS, NOR ARE THEY REQUESTING TO INCREASE THE OVERALL VEHICLES ON THE SITE.
THEY WERE APPROVED UNDER SUP 508, WHICH WAS FIVE, ALL THE VEHICLE STORAGE AREAS WOULD STAY THE SAME.
THOSE ARE MARKED IN RED, SO THEY'VE GOT A LARGE STORAGE YARD BEHIND THE BUILDINGS OFF OF BELT LINE AND SOME DISPLAY SPACES UP FRONT, KEEP IN MIND, THEY DO OTHER VEHICLE RENTAL AND SALES OUTSIDE OF THESE PARTICULAR TRUCKS, SMALLER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THEY USE THAT, THOSE DISPLAY SPACES IN BELT LINE TO SHOWCASE THOSE ESSENTIALLY APPEARED WHAT IS NOT STORED UP THERE IS STORED
[00:50:03]
IN THE STORAGE AREA YOU IN THE BACK WHICH IS FENCED AND SCREENED APPROPRIATELY. SORRY ABOUT THAT.SO LIKE I SAID, NO SIGHT MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED, ALL THE VEHICLES WILL BE STORED IN ACCORDANCE.
THE ONLY MODIFICATION WOULD BE RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE ACTUAL PERMITTED TRUCK TYPES, IF THEY CAN COME OR THAT THEY WOULD SELL.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS.
THE AREA, AS YOU CAN SEE, WITH THE ZONING MAP, IT IS PRIMARILY, PREDOMINANTLY INDUSTRIAL. STAFF FEELS THE USE IS COMPATIBLE AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE STIPULATIONS OUTLINED IN YOUR CASE REPORT.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE IF
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS?
YES, COMMISSIONER DOYLE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IF THEY DECIDE TO PUT ANOTHER KIND OF TRUCK THERE SOME ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK TO COME AND ASK FOR THAT KIND OF
TRUCK? >> THE WAY IT IS WORDED COME A HEAVY LOAD VEHICLES, ANY TRUCK WITH A GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT OF 7500 POUNDS. IF IT FITS IN THEIR, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. WHAT THIS AMENDMENT TO DO IS, ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION COME IT WILL ALLOW THEM TO DO ANY TYPE OF TRUCK TYPE. THEY ARE JUST LIMITED TO HAVING NO MORE THAN FIVE ON SITE. SO IT IS NOT SPECIFIC.
WE ARE USING THESE AS EXAMPLES -- WATER TRUCK, ASPHALT TRUCK, CONCRETE TRUCK. IF IT IS A HEAVY LOAD VEHICLE, IT MEETS THE WEIGHT CLASSIFICATION, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT AS LONG AS THEY DON'T EXCEED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
FIVE. >> IT IS MORE ASSOCIATED WITH THE GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT THAN THE USAGE OF THE TRUCK.
>> RIGHT. I GUESS TO MORE SPECIFICALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE USE ALLOWANCE OF OTHER MOTOR VEHICLE SALES, THAT INCLUDES NOT ONLY HEAVY LOAD TRUCKS, BUT ALSO BOATS, TRAVEL TRAILERS.
THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT. SO WE HAVE SPECIFIED IT DOWN TO
JUST THE HEAVY LOAD TRUCKS. >> OKAY.
YES, COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN. >> YES.
MY QUESTION WAS SIMILAR TO THAT. SO, THESE TRUCKS THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THAT HAVE THE BIG, LONG EXTENSIONS OUT THERE, THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE THAT? THOSE COULD BE VERY UGLY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THEY STICK UP IN THE AIR AND PROBABLY WOULD BE
AN EYESORE TO SOME PEOPLE. >> IT WILL DEPEND APPEARED AGAIN, IF IT IS SELF-PROPELLED, LOT OF THIS, IN ORDER TO HAVE THESE BECAUSE THEY ARE ROAD-WORTHY, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE STATE TO GET A LICENSE TO SELL THEM.
SO IF THEY FIT UNDER THAT CLASSIFICATION, THEY ARE SELF-PROPELLED, ROADWORTHY, THEY MEET THE GROSS VEHICLE LIMIT, THE WAY THIS ORDINANCE IS STRUCTURED, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AGAIN COME A LIMITED TO FIVE ON SITE. I AM NOT SURE THAT IS THE INTENT WITH THIS. THESE ARE REALLY WHAT THEY ARE
AND THEN ONE LAST QUESTION, IT SAID SEE ARCHITECTURAL FOR THE PROPOSED SCREENING LAW. WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THAT
SCREENING LAW? >> I BELIEVE, THEY ARE NOT -- THE SCREEN LAW IS THERE. THERE IS NO SITE MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED, BUT THERE IS A SCREENING WALL, KIND OF ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY COME IF YOU CAN SEE MY POINTER COME A KIND OF RUNS DOWN, LIKE I SAID, THE WESTERN SIDE.
YOU SEE THAT LINE. THERE IS A WALL THERE.
I BELIEVE IT IS A CONCRETE WALL. I BELIEVE IT IS 6-8 FEET.
BUT IT IS EXISTING. >> IT IS EXISTING, OKAY.
>> YES, COMMISSIONER OVERHOLT? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I AM STILL A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT THE HIGH END OF WHAT WE ARE ALLOWING HERE. IS THERE A LIMIT? WHAT IS THE WEIGHT LIMIT ON THE ROADS AROUND HERE?
>> THE WEIGHT LIMIT ON THE ROADS?
>> I HAVE SEEN SOME PICTURES OF REALLY BIG TRUCKS.
>> SO I CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THE WEIGHT LIMIT OR RATING FOR THE ROADS ARE BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS FOR HEAVY LOAD TRUCKS, THAT IS DEFINED AS HAVING A GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT -- SO FULLY LOADED -- OF IN EXCESS OF
SO THAT -- >> THAT IS KIND OF WHAT DIFFERENTIATES A HEAVY LOAD TRUCK FROM A TYPICAL TRUCK THAT YOU MIGHT DRIVE AROUND, YOUR OWN PERSONAL VEHICLE.
>> SOMEBODY HAD A TRUCK OVER 7500 POUNDS, THAT WOULD STILL BE
NOT ALLOWED? >> THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED, YES,
[00:55:02]
AS A HEAVY LOAD VEHICLE COME A HEAVY LOAD TRUCK.SO THE BASE IS KIND OF THE 7500-POUND THRESHOLD, SO TO SPEAK. IF IT IS LOWER THAN THAT, IT'S NOT A HEAVY LOAD TRUCK. IF IT IS 7500 POUNDS OR GREATER,
IT IS A HEAVY LOAD TRUCK. >> I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE TOP END. 7500 UP TO WHAT?
>> I AM NOT SURE THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THAT IS GOING TO BE BASED ON WHATEVER THE VEHICLE IS RATED FOR AND HOW THAT VEHICLE IS CONSTRUCTED, SO I AM SURE EVERY VEHICLE HAS A WEIGHT SPECIFICATION THAT THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED TO THAT THEY ARE RECOMMENDED TO NOT EXCEED, SO YOU ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO PUT SIX, 7 TONS OF MATERIAL IN THE BACK OF AN F-150. SO I WOULD ASSUME IT IS THE SAME
PRINCIPLE WITH THESE TRUCKS. >> I AM NOT SURE YOU ARE ANSWERING MY QUESTION. I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE STREETS AND WHAT KIND OF WEIGHT LIMIT WE HAVE ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF
THERE. >> SO THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION TO POSE TO THE APPLICANT. FROM WHAT I AM UNDERSTANDING IS, WHETHER OR NOT THOSE LARGER VEHICLES WILL BE UTILIZED ON THE CITY STREETS COME IF I UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING YOU MIGHT WANT TO DIRECT TO THE APPLICANT TO HOW THEY MOVE THOSE VEHICLES TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY.
>> OKAY. >> JUST ONE THING TO ADD FOR STANDARD SEMI TRUCKS DRIVING ON THE ROADWAY NETWORKS AND INTERSTATES, THEY CAN BE UP TO 80,000 POUNDS BEFORE THEY REQUIRE SPECIAL PERMITTING FOR EITHER EXTRA WIDE LOADS COME HIGH LOADS COME OR HEAVIER TRUCKS, IN THOSE CASES, THAT IS WHEN WE WOULD HAVE APPARATUS THAT HAS ADDITIONAL TIRES THAN THE 18 THAT YOU WOULD SEE ON A SEMI TRUCK TO SPREAD THE LOAD ON THE ROADS TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF DAMAGE.
>> ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THIS ORDINANCE?
>> I DON'T SEE A SPECIFIC PROBLEM WITH THIS REQUEST.
>> I AM IN SUPPORT OF -- I DON'T KNOW IF -- PUTTING THIS MUCH WEIGHT ON OUR STREETS.
>> ONCE AGAIN, I BELIEVE THE REQUEST IS JUST TO BE ABLE TO SELL HEAVY TRUCKS, NOT NECESSARILY TO HAVE --
>> LET ME INTERRUPT HERE. YOU NEED TO KEEP THE QUESTIONS TO REGARDS THE AGENDA ITEM AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO APPROVE, AND THIS IS NOT PART OF THAT, SO STICK TO QUESTIONS THAT --
>> WE ARE TRYING TO RAISE THE LIMIT ON THE SIZE OF TRUCKS THAT CAN BE DISPLAYED ON THIS PROPERTY?
>> FOR SALE, AND I ALREADY GAVE THE SIZE OF THOSE TRUCKS AND THE WEIGHT, THAT IS ALREADY CONSIDERED AND YOU ARE GOING BEYOND THAT, HE HAS ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT AS FAR AS WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE IN THERE. SO LET'S STICK TO THE QUESTIONS
THAT ARE RELEVANT TO. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> OKAY, COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? NO?
>> IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, YOU MAY COME FORWARD AND DO SO AT THIS TIME.
>> GOOD EVENING. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPLIANCE AND MANAGEMENT AND I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
ALL WE ARE ASKING TO DO IS TO JUST EXPAND THE LINE OF UNITS THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO SELL. THESE ARE SPECIALTY UNITS.
THEY ARE NOT KEPT IN INVENTORY. THESE ARE ORDERED BY CUSTOMERS, MANUFACTURED, DELIVERED TO US, COMMISSIONS, AND THEN DELIVERED TO THE CUSTOMER. THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE VERY LIMITED INVENTORY AND DISPLAY. WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO HAVE A DISPLAY. THESE UNITS WILL NOT BE OPERATED ON CITY STREETS. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE DEMOED ON OUR SITE OR ON THE STREETS. AND SO COME ALL WE ARE ASKING IS THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO DO THIS, BECAUSE WE HAVE MERGED OPERATIONS WITH A SUBSIDIARY WE PURCHASED IN 2020 FOR, WE BROUGHT THEM IN, AND IN DOING SO, THEY HAD A LICENSE WITH THE STATE. ONCE WE FINISHED THIS MERGER,
[01:00:03]
THEIR DUTY AND LICENSE WILL BE DISSOLVED.WE NEED TO EXPAND OURS TO TAKE ON THESE TRUCKS AND THE LIKE.
AGAIN, WE WILL NOT BE OPERATING THESE ON THE CITY STREETS, WE ARE NOT BRINGING THEM IN AND OUT, AND THEY WILL NOT BE OPERATING ON THE STREETS IN CARROLLTON.
THEY WILL BE TRUCKED IN, COMMISSIONED, AND THEN SENT OUT TO CUSTOMERS, AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU HAVE. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO?
>> I THANK YOU. >> SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO MAKE COMMENTS, THEIR OPINION KNOWN FOR THIS CASE MAY COME FORWARD AND DO SO AT THIS TIME.
I AM NOT SEEING ANYONE COMING FORWARD.
DOES ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY FINAL QUESTIONS OR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION CONCERNING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN? YES, COMMISSIONER HERMON.
>> THANK YOU, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE CASE NUMBER 104 WITH STIPULATIONS.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HERMON.
YES, VICE CHAIR PENDLETON. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BEFORE I SECOND THAT MOTION, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER OVERHOLT, TO LET HIM BE ASSURED THAT UP AND DOWN THAT SECTION OF BELT LINE, FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMEROUS AMOUNT OF CONCRETE TRUCKS COME A FULLY LOADED, MUCH HEAVIER THAN THESE DEVICES ARE GOING TO BE, UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD. AS THESE DEVICES LEAVE THAT LOT, THEY WILL BE EMPTY. THEY WILL NOT BE FULL OF WATER, CONCRETE, ASPHALT, OR ANYTHING. SO THEY WILL PUT MINIMUM WEIGHT ONTO THOSE ROADS. SO I THINK WE CAN BE CONFIDENT THAT THIS WILL BE OKAY. IN SAYING THAT, I DO SECOND THE
MOTION. >> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR PENDLETON. SO A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER HERMON AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR PENDLETON WHO CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVED CASE NUMBER PLSUP2026-104 ROMCO. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BEFORE WE MOVE TO A VOTE? NO? LET'S MOVE TO A VOTE. COMMISSIONER OVERHOLT, IT DIDN'T REGISTER YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER OVERHOLT. SO THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. SO THE CASE WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 11TH, 2026.
THANK YOU. SO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, NUMBER EIGHT, TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING TO REPEAL SUP 523, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING ALL OTHER AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION, USES AND ACTIVITIES LOCATED AT 2661 MIDWAY ROAD SUITE 110 IN ZONE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY, THIS IS CASE NUMBER PLSUP2026-097, CODED LOUNGE CAFE REPEAL, THE
CASE COORDINATOR IS MR. SHAPIRO. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. SO THE GUESTS WHO CAME BEFORE YOU CAME THROUGH TO YOU ALL LAST YEAR AND ULTIMATELY, IT WENT THROUGH COUNCIL, IT WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL.
SO JUST LIKE ANY SUP, THERE'S TIMES WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND REASSESS THE CONDITION OF THE SUP.
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, IT IS DUE TO ACTIVITIES THAT DID OCCUR ON THE PROPERTY. SO JUST REAL QUICK, SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THAT ANY APPLICANT WITH THE SUP HAS TO COMPLY WITH CITY ORDINANCES, NOT JUST THE ZONING ORDINANCE BUT ALL CODE OF ORDINANCES AS WELL AS STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.
OTHER REGULATIONS THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW IS OBVIOUSLY ANY TYPE OF BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY WOULD HAVE TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THROUGH THE BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT.
AND THEN ANY BUSINESS THAT PROPOSES ANY TYPE OF BYOB MUST FIRST APPLY AND ACQUIRE A PERMIT FROM THE CITY THROUGH THE
[01:05:02]
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT.FINALLY COME IF THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE ANY TYPE OF SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, THAT DOES REQUIRE THEM TO ACQUIRE A LICENSE. GIVING YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON THAT. SO AGAIN COME WITH A TIMELINE, IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR, THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE US THE SUP APPLICATION FOR THE CODED LOUNGE BEER THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A LENGTHY NARRATIVE. AND SO SOME OF THE ASPECTS OF THAT NARRATIVE INDICATED THAT IT WOULD JUST MERELY BE A USE IN WHICH THEY WOULD NOT BE ANY SMOKING, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY ALCOHOL AND THAT THEY WOULD ADHERE TO OUR CITY REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS MAYBE IN THE TIME IN THE FUTURE, THEY MAY COME BACK AND CONSIDER DOING A SMOKING LOUNGE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE SUP, WHICH THEY ACKNOWLEDGED IN THAT NARRATIVE, AS WELL AS THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WHILE THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY ALCOHOL ON SITE, THIS PARTICULAR SUP, THEY DID SAY THEY WOULD COME BACK AND PERHAPS GET A PERMIT THROUGH THE CITY FOR BYOB OR PERHAPS THE STATE WITH TABC. ANYWAY, ON NOVEMBER 4TH, COUNCIL, FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE COMMISSION DID APPROVE SUP-523 AND IT SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THOSE STIPULATIONS THAT SMOKING WOULD BE PROHIBITED.
COUNCIL EVEN EXTENDED THEIR HOURS OF OPERATION, STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED A 2:00 A.M. CLOSURE, BUT THEY WENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDATION, KNOWING BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS SAYING COME THERE WOULD BE NO SMOKING AND THERE WOULD BE NO ALCOHOL, SO THEY EXTENDED THOSE HOURS, FRIDAY TO SUNDAY, TO 4:00 A.M. INSTEAD OF 2:00 A.M.
SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THEN? SO BUILDING INSPECTION WORKS WITH ANY BUSINESS, CODED LOUNGE IS NO DIFFERENT, AND THEY WENT IN THERE TO DO INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO THE REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THEY HAVE TO BE READY TO OPEN, CORRECT? SO THEY OBSERVED THAT APPARENTLY THE BUSINESS WAS OPERATING BEFORE THEY ACQUIRED THE SUPPORT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WE USUALLY DO INSPECTION OF THE SIDE. BACK ON FEBRUARY 22ND, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INSPECTED CODED LOUNGE EARLY IN THE MORNING AND AS I INDICATED HERE, WITHIN THE CASE REPORT, I MENTIONED IT, THE STAFF OBSERVED THAT AND DOCUMENTED THE PATRONS WERE ENTERING AND LEAVING, CONFIRMING THE BUSINESS WAS INDEED OPERATING WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
SO IN RESPONSE TO THAT COME ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES REQUESTED THAT PD GO IN THERE WITH THEIR BODY CAMS TO OBVIOUSLY FIND OUT IF THIS IS A PATTERN, AND SURE ENOUGH, ON TWO OCCASIONS, FEBRUARY 25TH AND MARCH 15TH OF THIS YEAR, THEY DID JUST THAT, AND THEY FOUND AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY WERE OPERATING ILLEGALLY WITHOUT A A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
THEY FOUND AND VIDEOED THAT ALCOHOL WAS BEING CONSUMED AND POSSIBLY FOR SALE WITHOUT A TABC LICENSE NOR A BYOB.
FURTHERMORE, BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, ANYWAY COME WITH A SMOKING PART WAS ALSO FOUND ON THE SITE, WHICH IN TURN VIOLATES THE SUP. THIS IS A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS WHERE THESE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED. THIS ALSO FOLLOWS WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD INDICATED WHEN THEY FIRST SUBMITTED THEIR APPLICATIONS TO US FOR REVIEW, TAKING TWO COMMISSION AND COUNCIL, STATING THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY SMOKING, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ALCOHOLIC SALES AND THEY WOULD NOT BOTHER TRYING TO ACQUIRE THE TABC LICENSE, NOR A BYOB LICENSE AND FURTHERMORE, VIOLATING THE SUP ITSELF BY HAVING SMOKING ON SITE AND NOT HAVING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO OPERATE.
THAT ALL RESULTED IN MUNICIPAL COURT HEARING, THE CASE ON MAY 21ST, WHILE THE OWNER DID PLEAD NO CONTEST, THEY STILL DID PAY THE FINES AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WERE THESE VIOLATIONS.
FOR THAT REASON, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES HAVE REQUESTED THAT IT WAS REVOKED, AND SO THE NEXT STEP IS TO GO THROUGH THE SUP PROCESS TO REASSESS AND REVOKE THE SUP.
BECAUSE OF THE NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS, WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE CITY TO GO AHEAD AND REVOKE IT, SO AS A RESULT, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO RECOMMEND REVOKING SUP-523. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> YES, COMMISSIONER FOSTER. >> YES, I THINK YOU HAVE ANSWERED MY QUESTION BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS.
MARCH 15TH AND MAY 21ST AT SOME POINT COME BUT THEY DID GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY? OR DID THEY --
>> I WAS SPECIFYING THE DATES. BUT WE INITIALLY WENT IN THERE,
[01:10:02]
THEY WERE OPERATING WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BUT WECAN GIVE YOU THE EXACT DETAILS. >> AT SOME POINT, THEY DID GET
WHEN STAFF FIRST INSPECTED THE BUSINESS, WE FOUND MENUS THAT ADVERTISED HOOKAH AND BYOB AS WELL AS THE WEBSITE ADVERTISED HOOKAH AND BYOB, BOTH VIOLATIONS OF OUR ORDINANCES.
WE REQUIRED THEY CORRECT THOSE VIOLATIONS PRIOR TO BEING ABLE TO CLAIM A. WE ARE NOT GOING TO ISSUE ONE KNOWING THERE IS VIOLATIONS. THEY CORRECTED THE MENU, CORRECTED THE WEBSITE, WE PROCEEDED WITH ISSUING IT, HOWEVER, THEY RECEIVED SEVERAL VIOLATIONS, PLED NO CONTEST IN COURT WHICH EQUATES TO A CONVICTION, SUBSEQUENTLY, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES STAFF REQUEST THAT WE REVOKE THE C.O., WHICH WE DID. THE APPLICANT'S OUR BUSINESS OWNERS TIME. TO APPEAL THAT DECISION HAS ALSO ELAPSED AND THEY DID NOT CHOOSE TO APPEAL THAT DECISION.
>> THANK YOU. >> YES, COMMISSIONER HERMON.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IS THIS OPERATING CURRENTLY?
>> COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? YES, COMMISSIONER DOYLE.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE KNOW IF THE OWNERS OF THAT LOUNGE ARE OPERATING ANY OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE CITY, AND THAT WE HAVE SEEN THIS SAME KIND OF S.U.P. REQUEST OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL MONTHS? >> I BELIEVE THAT THAT OWNER ALSO OPERATES A RESTAURANT IN THE CITY OF CARROLLTON, NOT A
USE THAT REQUIRED A S.U.P. >> THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THIS WAS CITY INITIATED, SO THE APPLICANT'S, THERE ARE NO APPLICANTS. MR. SHAPIRO IS OUR APPLICANT FOR A RECORD TONIGHT. AGAIN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO MAKE COMMENTS OR THEIR OPINION ON ON THIS CASE MAY COME FORWARD AND DO SO AT THIS TIME.
I DO NOT SEE ANY ONE COMING FORWARD.
SO DOES ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY FINAL QUESTIONS OR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION CONCERNING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND VOTE TO REPEAL S.U.P. 523 SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ALLOWING FOR A CASE NUMBER PLSUP2026-097 COATED
LOUNGE CAFE REPEAL. >> YES, FIRST VICE CHAIR DOYLE.
>> I SECOND THAT MOTION. >> FIRST VICE CHAIR DOYLE.
SO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FOSTER AND SECONDED BY FIRST VICE CHAIR DOYLE. THE CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVED CASE NUMBER PLSU PLSUP2026-097 CODED LOUNGE CAFE REPEAL. ANY DISCUSSIONS ON THE MOTION BEFORE WE MOVE TO A VOTE? NOBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY? BUT I AM GOING TO. IT IS A SHAME THAT THIS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF CARROLLTON AND OUR CITY COUNCIL DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO HELP THIS BUSINESS OWNER BE SUCCESSFUL AND OPERATE IN OUR CITY AND THEY FAILED TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS, THE RESULTS.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE SEEN THIS WHERE WE ARE REMOVING A S.U.P. I AM GLAD TO SEE WE ARE FOLLOWING THROUGH ON THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS. WITH THAT, LET'S MOVE TO A VOTE.
SO THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, SO THIS CASE WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST
[OTHER BUSINESS]
11TH, 2026. ARE THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS ITEMS OR STAFF REPORTS, MR. SHAPIRO?>> THERE IS I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A REPORT ON THE COUNCIL MEETING THAT OCCURRED AFTER YOU ARE MEETING IN JUNE, THE AUTOZONE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER, THAT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY COUNCIL BACK ON JUNE 9TH.
THE DAY CARE AT 3918 DENTON WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
A SELECTIVE AUTO, WHICH IS RIGHT NEARBY WHERE THE ROMCO IS, IT
[01:15:05]
WAS APPROVED 7-0 AFTER THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVING THE MONTH BEFORE AT THE WALMART GAS STATION THAT YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT CAME IN TO ALLOW THE GAS STATION WAS ALSO APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. BY CITY COUNCIL AND AS YOU SAW TONIGHT, SALAZAR DID NOT APPEAL THE P&Z ACTION WHICH IS WHY THEY CAME BACK WITH THE T SP. THOSE ARE ALL THE REPORTS I HAVE. I HOPE YOU ENJOY YOURFOURTH OF JULY WEEKENDS. >> THANK YOU.
[LAUGHTER] >> YES, I WAS GOING TO POINT THAT OUT BEFORE I CLOSE THIS MEETING.
>> SORRY. >> THAT IS A BEAUTIFUL TIE.
I AM SO JEALOUS THAT I COULD NOT HAVE ONE LIKE IT BUT I AM GOING TO GO FIND ME ONE NOW. [LAUGHTER] SO WITH THAT COME I AM CLOSING THE MEETING, AT A QUARTER TO 8:00, THERE ARE 14 MINUTES TO 8:00.
EVERYBODY COME HAVE A GOOD NIGHT, DRIVE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.