[1. PD25-011 GENECOV WEST MUD CREEK LLC (A PORTION OF 8751 PALUXY DRIVE) Request that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider recommending a zone change from R-1A, Single-Family Residential District to PUR, Planned Unit Residential District with a final site plan on a 28.79 acre portion of Tract 1 of ABST A0984 R Tombs, one tract of land containing approximately 107.53 acres of land located at the northwest intersection of Cumberland Road and Paluxy Drive (8751 Paluxy Drive). The applicant is requesting the zone change to specifically and exclusively develop a gated single-family detached housing development]

FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ZONING. ZONING. PD 25 TO 0 ONE ONE JERICHO WEST MUD CREEK, LLC.

AND GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS AND EVERYBODY HERE PRESENT.

I DO WANT TO STATE FOR THIS CASE. IT WAS ONE OF OUR CASES THAT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.

IT WAS HELD AT OUR MAY MEETING FOR PRS AND IT WAS DENIED.

THE REASON THAT IT'S BEING PRESENTED TODAY IS BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT LAYOUT THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED IN MAY.

SO I'LL KIND OF GO OVER WHAT THE CASE IS REQUESTING.

SO THIS REQUEST IS FOR AN R-1, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO A PER PLANNED UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

IT IS LOCATED AT WEST THE WEST INTERSECTION, WEST OF THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF CUMBERLAND ROAD AND BILOXI DRIVE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ZONE CHANGE TO DEVELOP DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH PRIVATE STREETS.

THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED WITH R1, A PMC ONE PLAN, MIXED USE DISTRICT, PMF PLAN, MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND RPO RESTRICTED PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT.

MAJORITY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE UNDEVELOPED.

SOME OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND WEST ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THE FUTURE LAND USE WOULD CONSIST OF SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM LOW DENSITY.

FOR THIS PROPOSED SITE PLAN. THEY ARE PROPOSING 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT A DENSITY OF 1.48.

THE SITE PLAN SHOWS TWO ACCESS POINTS, ONE CONNECTING TO WILDER TRAIL AND ANOTHER CONNECTING TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST.

THE PROPOSED 40 LOTS AND THE EXISTING 13 LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST ONLY REQUIRE ONE ACCESS POINT GIVEN GIVEN THAT THERE ARE FEWER THAN 60 LOTS. THE SECOND ACCESS POINT TO THE WEST TO THE EAST, ALREADY EXCEED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.

HOWEVER, IT WILL ALLOW FOR ALTERNATIVE ACCESS FOR RESIDENTS WHEN THE THE ADDITION OF THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS ADDED.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD CREATE A LOWER DENSITY THAN WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE R-1,

[00:05:02]

A ZONING. ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SETBACKS, DENSITY, HEIGHT, LANDSCAPE AND PARKING WILL COMPLY WITH THE R-1 EIGHT REGULATIONS. THE SITE PLAN PROPOSES A CUL DE SAC WHICH EXCEEDS THE 600FT LENGTH.

THE PROPOSED PRIVATE CUL DE SAC WILL HAVE A LOWER TRAFFIC VOLUME, AS THE LOT SIZES ARE LARGER AND ONLY 20 LOTS WILL STREET FRONT ALONG IT.

OF THE SEVEN NOTICES, ONE NOTICE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR AND THREE WERE RETURNED IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST, BRINGING THE TOTAL PROTEST CALCULATIONS TO 18.47%.

THE OPPOSITION STATED CONCERNS OF PRIVACY, TRAFFIC AND DENSITY.

STAFF HAS PERFORMED A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE REQUEST AND FINDS THAT THE REQUEST IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL CRITERIA, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

THANK YOU. ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANNA? IF IF NOT I KNOW NOBODY SIGNED UP TO TO SPEAK ON MY PAD, BUT I KNOW THE PERSONS HERE WHO ARE INTERESTED.

SO IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST AN ITEM, THIS ITEM, WILL YOU PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND.

YOU KNOW, THERE YOU GO. I KNOW WESLEY IS IN IS IS NOT FOR THIS. SO I'M SORRY. SAY IT AGAIN.

WESLEY. HAMILTON. THE GUY THAT'S THAT SHOWS HE'S NOT AGAINST IT.

HE IS AGAINST IT. BUT ANYWAY I WAS HOPING THAT Y'ALL WERE GOING TO THAT THAT JENICA WAS GOING TO DO A LARGER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SO THAT WE WOULD KNOW WHAT WHAT THE FUTURE IMPACT WOULD BE ON THE CUMBERLAND ROAD RESIDENTS.

WE STILL HAVE THE CONCERNS OF THE ROAD CONGESTION, THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO BE GOING ON CUMBERLAND ROAD. THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S A COMMON KNOWN THING THAT WHEN YOU DO A DEVELOPMENT, THE RUNOFF THAT GOES INTO THE CREEK IS, IS GOING TO CAUSE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. AND I WAS COMING DOWN CUMBERLAND ROAD ON JULY.

ON JUNE 4TH AND WATER WAS GOING ACROSS CUMBERLAND ROAD.

I'VE GOT A VIDEO OF IT I WOULD LIKE TO WOULD I'LL BE ABLE TO LET Y'ALL LOOK AT IT.

CAN WE CAN WE DO THAT CALL YOU HAVE YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO IT OR NOT? NO. EVIDENTLY, WE DON'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY. I MEAN, I COULD I'VE GOT IT RIGHT HERE. COULD I SHOW IT TO YOU? IT MIGHT WORK. YEAH. LET EVERYBODY SEE IT WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, JIM, WOULD YOU JUST IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE JIM CLARK, 1418 CUMBERLAND ROAD? I'M SORRY. I'VE BEEN UP HERE SEVERAL TIMES.

BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY A HIGHER DENSITY THAN WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY WERE PUTTING IN.

AND YOU KNOW, WE WERE WANTING THE GROUP TO DO LIKE A ONE ACRE MINIMUM.

AND THESE ARE GOING TO BE HOW MANY HOW BIG ARE THEY? WHAT'S. WHAT HOW BIG ARE THE LOTS THOUGH? BETWEEN HALF AND ONE.

FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, THEY'RE BETWEEN HALF AND ONE A HALF A HALF ACRE LOTS.

THE DEVELOPER CAN PROBABLY TELL US TO BE FOR SURE.

BUT AGAIN THE CONGESTION ON CUMBERLAND ROAD, THE FUTURE OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO AFTER THIS, HOW DID HOW DOES THAT WORK WHEN THEY DECIDE TO ADD ON TO THAT? IS THAT ALREADY APPROVED? NO, NO. OKAY. IF IF YOU GUYS HAVE Y'ALL. I MEAN, ARE Y'ALL NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER RUNOFF AT ALL? WE'RE WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT EVERY ASPECT OF THIS PROPOSAL.

SO I WOULD JUST THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A STUDY BECAUSE THAT THE WATER'S COMING OVER THE ROAD.

[00:10:02]

AND WITH THIS ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE WORSE.

SO ANYWAY, I'M AGAINST IT, OBVIOUSLY. AND IF I WOULD LIKE TO PASS THAT AROUND TO LOOK AT THAT, I THINK WE CAN SEE IT. AND EARLIER YOU REFERRED TO ANOTHER GENTLEMAN, WESLEY HAMILTON.

RIGHT. RIGHT. AND ARE YOU REPRESENTING THAT? HE HAS HE HE'S AGAINST IT.

I MEAN MR.. MR.. I HAVE A PETITION THAT HE SIGNED AGAINST IT.

OKAY. WE'LL PASS IT ON. PASS THAT AROUND. IS MR. HAMILTON HERE? NO, HE'S NOT HERE. OKAY. THERE'S SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO BE HERE THAT AREN'T ABLE TO BE HERE BECAUSE OF FUTURE COMMITMENTS.

SO. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. CLARK? IF NOT. JIM, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.

OKAY, THANKS. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE OTHER PEOPLE TO SEE THAT.

I THINK WE CAN SEE IT. I THINK I THINK WE ALL SAW HIM.

OKAY. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. IS THIS PETITION REGARDING THIS NEWEST PLAN OR IS THIS FROM AN THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN? THAT'S FROM ANY PLAN THAT DOESN'T MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

THEIR ONE ACRE MINIMUM IS WHAT WE WERE REQUESTING.

GOT IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE.

ARE THERE OTHERS? I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHERS HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS.

JOHN? JOHN SAULS. GOOD AFTERNOON, JOHN SOLES, 1401 CUMBERLAND ROAD IN TYLER. I'M JUST I'VE LIVED THERE 25 YEARS. I'VE SEEN THE WATER OVER CUMBERLAND ON OTHER OCCASIONS.

I'VE NEVER SEEN IT AS WIDE AS IT IS UNDER THIS CURRENT FILM.

WHICH TO ME INDICATES THAT THERE'S MORE PAVING BEEN DONE AND THAT CREATES MORE RUNOFF.

MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS OVER THE YEARS, I'VE BECOME MORE INVOLVED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

AND I SEE THIS TERRAIN MAP AND FROM FROM GOING FROM A ONE ACRE PLOT TO A HALF ACRE PLOT, OR FROM A HALF ACRE PLOT TO MULTI DWELLING. THE MORE PEOPLE YOU HAVE IN A CERTAIN AREA, THE LESS GREEN SPACE THERE'S GOING TO BE.

GREEN SPACE IS WHAT IT MITIGATES THE WATER RUNOFF, ABSORBS IT, AND ALLOWS IT TO RECIRCULATE BACK INTO THE SOIL.

SO I WOULD JUST ASK THE COUNCIL TO OR THE COMMISSION TO, TO PLEASE CONSIDER EVERY TIME YOU REDUCE THE, THE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE FOR, FOR A FAMILY OR YOU INCREASE THE NUMBER OF FAMILIES WITHIN GREEN SPACE THAT THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF THAT IN THIS VERY SLOW DRAINAGE TERRAIN IS GOING TO BE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A HIGHER ACCUMULATION OF RUNOFF WATER, AND THAT'S GOING TO ADVERSELY AFFECT PEOPLE.

AND CUMBERLAND HAS BECOME 25 YEARS AGO, IT WAS KIND OF A LAZY LITTLE ROAD.

IT'S NOT LAZY ANYMORE. IT'S VERY FULL OF TRAFFIC.

TIMES. VERY OFTEN IN MORNINGS AND AFTERNOONS.

IT'S A TEN, 15 MINUTE WAIT TO GET PULLED OUT FROM YOUR DRIVEWAY OUT ONTO IT SO WE CAN.

AS RESIDENTS, WE CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT HOW MUCH WORSE IT'S GOING TO BE.

WITH WITH ADDITIONAL BUILDING. BUT WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THE BUILDING.

WE JUST WANT IT TO BE DONE. SORT OF IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF THE HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY OUT THERE AND HAVE BEEN FOR SEVERAL YEARS. AND AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WITH THIS EXTREME TERRAIN.

THE SMALLER YOU MAKE THE THE FAMILY DWELLINGS, THE GREATER THE CHANCE FOR ADVERSE RUNOFF WATER.

I MEAN, THAT'S IT'S JUST GOING TO BE INEVITABLE.

SO WE WE REALLY THINK AT THE VERY MINIMUM, ACRE LOTS WILL PROVIDE ENOUGH GRASS AND GREENERY AND ABSORPTION AREA THAT THE HEAVY RAINFALL IS NOT GOING TO FLOOD THAT ROAD OUT.

MUCH MORE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPASSABLE. I SAW JIM'S COPY BEFOREHAND OF THE OF A COUPLE OF CARS NOT TURNING AROUND.

THEY THEY WENT THROUGH IT. IF IT HAD BEEN MUCH MORE RUNOFF THERE COULD HAVE BEEN SWEPT OFF INTO THE TO THE CREEK, WHICH IS A IT'S A PRETTY DEEP ON THE WHAT IS THAT? THE SOUTH SIDE OF CUMBERLAND. IT'S A PRETTY DEEP DITCH RIGHT THERE.

SO I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRETTY DANGEROUS HAD THERE BEEN VERY MUCH WATER GOING OVER THAT ROAD FOR THAT VEHICLE TO DRIVE THROUGH IT.

[00:15:07]

SO YOU KNOW, IF IF THIS AREA CONTINUES TO DEVELOP, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT MAYBE NEEDING A BRIDGE CROSSING THERE. SO I WOULD JUST I WOULD ASK YOU, PLEASE, TO TAKE ALL THESE DIFFERENT CONCERNS INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THIS DECISION.

THANK YOU. MR.. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SULLINS? THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND PRESENCE. ARE THERE OTHERS WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK? GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TREY BREWER. I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF REAL ESTATE AT THE GROUP.

I WANT TO FIRST THANK KYLE KINGMA AND CAMERON WILLIAMS AND DARYL COATS FOR THE CITY OF TYLER FOR WORKING WITH US ON THIS, ON THIS DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS SOMETHING WE'VE WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM CLOSELY ON THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, AND I WANT TO THANK THE INTERNAL CODE TEAM FOR FOR WORKING HARD ON THIS PROJECT.

OUR, OUR PRIMARY DESIRE HERE IS TO DEVELOP A FIRST CLASS HIGH END RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD HERE IN THIS SECTION OF OF THE FORMER MANZIEL FARM. WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF PROPERTY OVER AT LEGACY BEND TO, TO KEEP GOING THERE.

AND SO WE SEE THAT THIS IS, IS THE NEXT THE, THE NEXT BEST PLACE TO DEVELOP IN TYLER.

OUR RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'VE ALREADY FILED OF RECORD ARE IDENTICAL TO THE LEGACY RESTRICTIONS.

THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WITHOUT GETTING ANY APPROVAL FROM THIS BODY, ALLOWS DEVELOPING 4 TO 5 UNITS, HOUSING UNITS PER ACRE.

AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS A GATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH A DENSITY OF LESS THAN ONE AND A HALF UNITS PER ACRE.

AND SO WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE WE'RE TAKING STEPS TOWARDS THE NEIGHBOR THE NEIGHBORS WISHES OF OF HAVING THE LOTS LARGER THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY REQUIRED AND WAS CURRENTLY PASSED BY THIS COMMITTEE OVER A YEAR AGO. WITHIN THE LAST YEAR, WE'VE WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT THE CITY REQUIRED FOR A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S THIS LARGE.

AND THE THE STUDY CAME BACK AND SHOWED THAT THE TRAFFIC WAS ADEQUATE ON CUMBERLAND ROAD AND BILOXI TO TO CARRY THE TRAFFIC.

ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT WE'RE GENERATING FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. SO WITH THIS 25 ACRES OR SO, THAT'S ABOUT 100 OR 125 HOUSES THAT WE COULD FIT IN THIS IN THIS AREA.

AND WE'RE PROPOSING LESS THAN 30 HERE. MR. SAWS AND MR. CLARKE HAVE VALID CONCERNS ABOUT RUNOFF. AND WE WANT TO WORK CLOSELY WITH OUR ENGINEERS AND THE CITY ENGINEERING STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.

AND WE'D WE'D LOVE TO TO MEET WITH THEM OUTSIDE THIS MEETING.

BUT I WOULD URGE YOU GUYS TO, TO PASS THIS. WE'VE ALREADY BEEN HERE SEVERAL TIMES, AND THE CITY IS IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

AND SO I'D LOVE TO ANSWER ANY, ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE.

THANK YOU. MR.. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BREWER? I HAVE ONE. SO IN ADDITION TO LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC, HAVE YOU LOOKED AT WATER RUNOFF? WHAT HAVE YOU GUYS COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF PLAN FOR THAT.

SURE. SO THAT THAT PROCESS HASN'T HAPPENED JUST YET.

OUR ENGINEERS ARE FINALIZING THEIR THEIR CALCULATIONS AND THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO TO DARYL COTTER, THE CITY, THE CITY ENGINEER FOR THIS. AND MAKE SURE IT'S IN KEEPING WITH THE WITH THE TYLER STATUTE.

SO WE VERY MUCH WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S THAT'S ADDRESSED.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. BREWER? IF NOT, THANK THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND PRESENCE.

ARE THERE OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE.

THE TRAFFIC. WAS THAT WERE WE DOING PART OF THAT STUDY OR WAS THAT A SEPARATE STUDY FOR THIS SPECIFIC SUBDIVISION OR THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS FOR THE ENTIRE 300 400 ACRE AREA.

SO I THINK THE. YOU KNOW, THE WHATEVER CHANGES HERE IS ACTUALLY LESS DENSE THAN THE CURRENT ZONING. SO IF ANYTHING, IT WOULD REDUCE THAT, THAT OVERALL TRIP GENERATION WITHIN THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. SO IF THAT TRAFFIC STUDY WAS BEING CONDUCTED AND THEY WERE REQUESTING TO GO HIGHER INTENSITY, THEN THAT MIGHT HAVE YOU MIGHT HAVE TO TWEAK TWEAK THOSE CALCULATIONS, BUT BUT YEAH, AND THAT'S,

[00:20:04]

THAT'S OCCURRING CONCURRENTLY. BUT LIKE I SAID, IT'S A LOWER INTENSITY.

SO IT SHOULD NOT IMPACT THAT STUDY. KYLE, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE CUL DE SAC? IS THIS A NORMAL WAY TO DEAL WITH AN A LONG CUL DE SAC? OR DOES IT NORMALLY HAVE TO HAVE A VARIANCE? WITH IT BEING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, IT CAN BE IMPROVED THROUGH THIS, THIS PROCESS. AND ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THERE IS THAT WE ACTUALLY WILL HAVE WITH IT BEING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, YOU HAVE THE SITE PLAN, YOU HAVE THE THE SIGNS AND THE LOTS THAT ARE ON IT.

YOU KNOW, HOW MANY ARE ON THERE. AND SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT AS A COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT AND YOU CAN MAKE THAT APPROVAL THROUGH THIS PROCESS. ANY OTHER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER PERSON HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? MR. KEANE AND THE AND THE ABSENCE OF EMOTION.

THERE WILL NEED TO BE SOME TYPE OF ACTION BY THE COMMISSION, EITHER FOR OR DENIAL.

OR COULD IT BE TABLED PENDING FURTHER STUDY ON THE TRACK AND THAT OPTION AS WELL, IN THE WATER RUNOFF SIDE? BECAUSE THE DENIAL WOULD SET THEM WAY FURTHER BACK.

CORRECT. IF THERE'S A DENIAL, IT COULD BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THERE'S THAT AVENUE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, WE NEED A NEED SOME SOME SOME SORT OF A DAVID SORT OF ACTION.

DAVID, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE. ITEM PD 25-011.

ONE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO APPROVE.

YOUR MOTION DIES FOR A SECOND. I WILL SECOND.

I'M UNDERSTANDING IT. I WILL SECOND. SECOND. OUI OUI OUI.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. WELL, SOMEBODY CALL THE ROLL. CARLEEN.

HI. CLINT. CHARLES. HI. PHILIP. HUMBER. CHRISTINA.

DAVIS. OKAY. MICHAEL. CARMICHAEL. HI. ROY. MARTINEZ.

HI. DAVID HUDSON. NO. WHAT CAN YOU TELL ME? WHAT? THE VOTE WAS? 5 TO 2 IN FAVOR? MOTION WAS THE MOTION PASSED 5 TO 2.

GOOD. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. THE NEXT NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS.

[2. Z25-016 DRAKE EQUITY PARTNERS, LP (A PORTION OF 2571 WEST GRANDE BOULEVARD) Request that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider recommending a zone change from AG, Agricultural District, to C-2, General Commercial District on a 20.77 acre portion of Tract 19A of ABST A0624 M University, one lot containing approximately 58.93 acres of land located at the northeast intersection of Oak Hill Boulevard and West Grande Boulevard (2571 West Grande Boulevard). The applicant is requesting the zone change for future commercial development.]

ACTION.

IS IT? IS IT DIRECT EQUITY? IS THAT THE NEXT ONE? DRAKE EQUITY Z. 25 016 DRAKE EQUITY PARTNERS.

ALL RIGHTY. SIR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE.

SORRY, SORRY, SORRY ABOUT THAT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THE LAND IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF OAK HILL BOULEVARD AND WEST GRANDE BOULEVARD.

THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS ZONED AG AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND IS UNDEVELOPED.

THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS ZONED C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND IS DEVELOPED WITH COMMERCIAL USES.

PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ARE ZONED AG AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND C1 LIGHT COMMERCIAL, AND ARE UNDEVELOPED TO THE WEST.

THE PROPERTIES ARE ZONED AG AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND PLANNED MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT AND ARE UNDEVELOPED.

[00:25:05]

THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE IDENTIFIES THIS PROPERTY AS MIXED USE MEDIUM CENTER.

THE REQUEST WOULD AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

AS OF FRIDAY, JUNE 27TH, 2020, FIVE OF THE FOUR NOTICES MAILED, NO NOTICES WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.

ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND ANTICIPATE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON SERVICES AND FACILITIES BY THE PROPOSED REZONING REQUEST.

STAFF HAS PERFORMED A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE REQUEST, AND FINDS THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL CRITERIA, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE OF THE ZONE CHANGE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF NOT OTHER PERSONS HERE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM FOR OR AGAINST? IF NOT, IS THERE A COMMISSIONER YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO. MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS POINT BLANK ON.

Z 20 5-016. SECOND MOTION'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEMS. NEXT IS S 25 001 DRAKE CANDY PARK.

[3. S25-001 DRAKE CANDY PARK LLC (1210 BENNETT AVENUE) Request that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider approving a Special Use Permit on Lot 20 F, G, and H of NCB 855-A, one lot totaling approximately 1.70 acres of land located north of the northeast intersection of Robertson Road and Bennett Avenue (1210 Bennett Avenue). The property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial District. The applicant is requesting the Special Use Permit to allow for a wireless communications facility with a monopole communications tower up to 150 feet in height for AT&T Mobility]

YES, SIR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY WITH A MONOPOLE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER UP TO 150FT IN HEIGHT FOR AT&T MOBILITY.

THE LAND IS LOCATED AT THE NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF ROBERTSON ROAD AND BENNETT AVENUE, AND THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS ZONED INT INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT AND IS DEVELOPED WITH AN EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL.

THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST ARE ZONED M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH COMMERCIAL USES AND INDUSTRIAL USES. THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE IS CURRENTLY A BUSINESS OFFICE PARK AND WOULD NOT BE AMENDED. AERIAL VIEW. PER THE APPLICANT SITE PLAN.

THE APPLICANT WILL BE USING THE EXTRA SPACE TO BUILD TWO ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT BUILDINGS FOR THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY.

TEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED A VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL 15FT TO THE REAR YARD.

SETBACK OF 25FT. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THE NECESSARY INFORMATION.

THAT LOCATION WITHIN 500FT IS NOT FEASIBLE ON ON THE LOT.

AS OF FRIDAY, JUNE 27TH, 2020, FIVE OF THE 11 NOTICES MAILED, NO NOTICES WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.

ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND ANTICIPATE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON SERVICES OR FACILITIES BY THE PROPOSED SUP REQUEST.

STAFF HAS PERFORMED A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE REQUEST AND FINDS THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL CRITERIA.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONOPOLE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER OF 150FT IN HEIGHT.

THANK YOU HUNTER. ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? I DO. WHAT'S THE PROPOSED TERM FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT? INDEFINITE. INDEFINITE? OKAY. ANY OTHER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAN? I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. IS THIS. HOW DOES THAT CONNECT TO THE THE TOWER THAT WE RECOMMENDED? 2 OR 3 MONTHS AGO? OR IS IT COMPLETELY A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE? THERE'S NO NO CONNECTION. THAT WAS FOR, I THINK, A RADIO TOWER.

THIS IS A CELL TOWER, WHICH WE APPROVED AND HAS NEVER BEEN BUILT.

THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. THERE ARE THE PERSONS HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

YES, SIR. MR. CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS VINCE HEBNER, WITH VINCENT GERARD AND ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING THE LAND OWNER OR THE TOWER OWNER IN AT&T

[00:30:01]

MOBILITY. I'VE GOT A REAL QUICK WITH WIRELESS ONE ON ONE SLIDE PRESENTATION.

IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL SHOW YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE GOING.

GO FISHING. YEAH, I LOVE TO BE ENTERTAINED, SO GO RIGHT AHEAD.

IT IS. THERE'S A THERE'S A HUGE PUSH RECENTLY BY THE CARRIERS TO PROVIDE INFILL SERVICES BECAUSE OF CAPACITY.

THIS IS THE LOCATION THAT STAFF IS TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INDUSTRIAL PARK. OH.

THANK YOU. THE STAR REPRESENTS WHERE THE SITE WOULD BE.

IT IS IN THE BACK. IT'S ALL ZONED INDUSTRIAL, EXCEPT FOR BEHIND US IS THE SCHOOL, AND THAT'S BASICALLY OPEN SPACE.

WE DID GET A VARIANCE APPROVED FOR THE EQUIPMENT CABINETS ONLY IN THAT LAST 15FT OF THAT AREA AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, BECAUSE THERE'S MORE BUFFER IN THERE. THERE'S A DOVE AVENUE THAT'S UNBUILT AND AND CONSTRUCTED WHICH, WHICH IS MORE BUFFER IN THAT AREA. AND PLUS THE THE TENANT COULD NOT USE AND OPERATE THE GATES UNLESS WE PUSHED THEM BACK.

FURTHER, THEY HAVE LARGE 40 FOOT TRUCKS THAT GO IN THERE, BUT THAT WAS APPROVED.

THIS IS WHERE THE SITE IS A PERFECT LOCATION ON THE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX THAT IS PRETTY FAR FROM THE ROADWAY, PRETTY FAR FROM VISIBLE VISIBILITY. PRETTY FAR FROM EVERYBODY'S VIEW.

AS WE KNOW, WE LOVE TO USE OUR CELL PHONES. WE JUST DON'T ALWAYS WANT TO LOOK AT THE CELL TOWERS.

A STUDY WAS DONE BY OUR OFFICE WHERE THE CLOSEST TOWERS WERE.

WE FOUND THREE OVER A MILE AWAY. SO THERE WASN'T ANY CO-LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES IN THIS INDUSTRY.

NOW THE CARRIERS PLAY BETTER TOGETHER. PLUS, ALL THE TOWER COMPANIES ARE BUILDING TOWERS FOR THEM.

SO THEY LOOK FOR VERTICAL FACILITIES FIRST BEFORE THEY COME IN AND SAY, HI, TYLER, I WANT TO BUILD A NEW BUILD HERE.

AND THIS IS WHY. THEY DO PROVIDE SOME RF MAPS.

THESE ARE LIKE THE DOPPLER RADAR MASS, BUT THIS IS THE CURRENT COVERAGE FOR AT&T MOBILITY.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEIR SITES ARE ALSO IN THE BIG BLUE CROSSES THERE.

GREEN IS GREAT. IN-BUILDING COVERAGE. YELLOW AND LIGHTER GREEN IS IN VEHICLE COVERAGE.

WHERE YOU SEE WHITE ARE REALLY, REALLY POOR COVERAGE AS WELL.

SO YOU CAN SEE THIS THE SITE THAT YOU CAN SEE THE HOLE IN THE GAP OF COVERAGE.

PREFERABLY WE WOULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE, TO THE WEST, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU TURN.

OOPS. IN THE STORY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU TURN THAT SITE ON.

MAC, IN MIND THAT. WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS. ANYWAY, YOU COULD SEE THE GREEN EXPAND QUITE A BIT, AND WE DIDN'T GET ALL OF THAT AREA, BUT THAT'S VERY UNPOPULATED AREAS OF THE PART OF TYLER OVER THERE AS WELL.

CAPACITY IS DRIVING A LOT OF THESE THINGS. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE DOWNLOADING A SOMETHING ON YOUR PHONE AND ATTACHMENT, IT'S GOING AND GOING AND GOING. THAT'S RF POWER.

THAT'S WHAT CAPACITY IS DOING. THOSE SITES ARE PRETTY MUCH OVERLOADED WITH VIDEOS AND PHONES AND PICTURES THAT THAT WERE NOW STATE OF THE ART FOR THE IPHONES. I BLAME APPLE ON ALL THAT STUFF, BUT CAPACITY IS A MAJOR PROBLEM.

YOU SEE THE GRAPH THERE WHERE IT'S OVER, OVER GROWING THE RED LINE WHERE THAT SITE IS ALREADY OVER CAPACITY AS WELL.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE NEIGHBORING SITES ARE DOING.

THE ON THE LEFT SIDE YOU SEE A STANDARD MONOPOLE PICTURE.

IF THEY MODIFIED EVERYTHING TO THE MOST EXTENT STRUCTURALLY AND ANTENNAS FIVE GHZ UP THERE.

AT&T FIRST NETS UP THERE AND IT'S COMPLETELY MAXED OUT.

THEN THAT'S THAT'S WHEN THE RF ENGINEERS CALL FOR A NEW SEARCH RING.

AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN TYLER. IN MY CLOTHES OUTSIDE.

WE RUN SO MANY APPS. I KNOW I'VE GOT SO MANY APPS RUNNING ON MY PHONE AS WELL.

ALL THAT'S COMING FROM THE TOWER. YOU'RE CONSTANTLY TALKING TO THAT TOWER AS WELL.

SO I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS, BUT IT'S A IT'S A MUCH NEEDED FACILITY FOR TYLER.

WE'VE GOT A GREAT LOCATION. AND EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE PLEASED WITH THE BETTER COVERAGE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS EXPERT? THERE'S THE NEW TOWER. RELIEVE OR MAKE THE OTHER TOWERS MORE EFFECTIVE.

YES, SIR. THEY'RE TAKING SOME OF THAT. GRABS THAT TRAFFIC THAT'S CURRENTLY GOING ON THOSE OTHER TOWERS THAT YOU SAW ON THAT ONE SCREEN.

BEST SERVER IS PICKING IT UP AS WELL AND PROVIDES BETTER SERVICE.

AND IT JUST GOES SMOOTHER AFTER THAT. OKAY. PLUS THAT GAP IS COVERED TOO, WITH IN-BUILDING COVERAGE.

[00:35:03]

AGAIN, THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PRESENCE. THERE ARE OTHER PERSONS HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM FOR AGAINST. YES, SIR. COME TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE.

GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MR. CHAIRMAN, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

GOOD TO SEE YOU, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS OTIS WEBSTER.

I WAS ASKED TO BE HERE TODAY ONCE I RECEIVED A CALL ABOUT THIS GATHERING.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT.

I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS COMMUNICATION TOWER IS ALL ABOUT.

BUT I'M WONDERING, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO. REALLY INVOLVED WITH IT.

HAVE YOU GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO OR IS THERE THE POSSIBILITY OF LIMITING THE EMISSION OF RADIATION? THAT'S ONE QUESTION. IT'S EASY TO SEE THAT WHERE WE WHERE THIS IS PROPOSED TO, TO BE BUILT.

AND YOU SAID 150FT HIGH. COMMUNICATION TOWER.

AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THIS AREA IS BECOMING SOMEWHAT OF INDUSTRIALIZED CORRIDOR.

WITH THAT IN MIND, I CAN SEE THE NEED FOR IT, BUT IT'S ALSO APPROXIMATED VERY CLOSELY APPROXIMATED TO WHERE PEOPLE ARE LIVING.

AND YOU MIGHT KNOW THAT RADIATION IN THE AIR IS VERY HARMFUL.

SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT IF IT'S GOING TO BE ESTABLISHED.

IS THERE ANY WAY TO MODERATE THE EMISSION OF RADIATION? THAT'S THE QUESTION. THANK YOU, MR. CARL. YEAH.

I'LL JUST MENTION THAT THE THE TOWER WILL BE REGULATED BY THE FCC AND FAA AND AND ALL THOSE OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT THAT KIND OF HAVE PREEMPTION ON, ON THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT RADIATION AND RF WAVES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND SO SO THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK MAYBE THE APPLICANT MIGHT ALSO HAVE SOME, SOME EXPERT, YOU KNOW INPUT ON THAT AS WELL. BUT THE, THE RADIATION AND ALL THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION, NOT TO LOCAL REGULATION. OKAY. YES, SIR. COULD WE MAYBE.

TELL US. TELL US ABOUT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT RADIATION.

IT'S NOT RADIATION. IT'S NON-IONIZING RADIO WAVES.

AND IT'S BEEN AROUND SINCE A M. RADIO HAS BEEN INTRODUCED.

IT'S A SEND AND RECEIVE, BUT IT'S BACK AND FORTH.

SO FCC DOES REGULATE THE THE AMOUNT. THIS GENTLEMAN'S NOTE IS ALL THERE'S ALWAYS SOMEBODY ASKING ABOUT THIS, AND IT'S ALWAYS A FAIR QUESTION. WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT.

THEY CONTROL THE AMOUNT BASICALLY BY BY THE REGULATORY PROCESS, AND WE CAN'T EXCEED THAT AMOUNT.

PERIOD. WE ALSO HAVE TO FILE THAT PAPERWORK WITH THEM BEFORE WE GO ON AIR.

YOU GET MORE RADIATION OR RADIATION, NON-IONIZING RADIO WAVES IN FRONT OF YOUR MICROWAVE.

ABOUT TEN TIMES MORE LIKE YOU DO. LIKE ME, I'M WARMING UP MY COFFEE AGAIN, STANDING IN FRONT OF.

THEY'RE THERE. GET MORE. TEN TIMES MORE THAN STANDING BELOW THE TOWER ITSELF.

SO THESE THINGS ARE SAFE. THESE THINGS ARE NOT RADIOACTIVE.

RADIOACTIVE IN ANY WAY. THEY'RE NON-IONIZING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANKS. BOTH OF YOU. THANKS SO MUCH.

ARE THERE OTHERS YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK? YES.

HOW ARE YOU DOING, GLEN JOHNSON? I'M HERE AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS GROUP FROM THE AREA WHERE I WAS RAISED UP IN FROM BIRTH.

I'VE BEEN IN TYLER PRACTICALLY ALL OF MY LIFE.

OTHER THAN GOING LEAVING FOR MILITARY DUTY AND OTHER THINGS.

BUT MY CONCERN IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS IT I CAN DO AS AN INDIVIDUAL? AND THEN I THANK DOCTOR WEBSTER FOR BRINGING UP THE QUESTION ABOUT RADIATION.

BECAUSE I HAVE TAKEN SOME INTEREST IN MAYBE INVESTING IN SOME SOME OF THE PROPERTIES OVER THERE IN THAT AREA.

[00:40:07]

WE ALL KNOW JUST SOUTH WEST OF OF WHERE YOUR PROJECT FOR THE PROJECT IS GOING ON.

THEY'RE DOING SOME MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS, AND THAT'S WHAT POSED MY INTEREST IN TRYING TO MAKE SOME INVESTMENTS.

SO MY MAJOR PURPOSE HERE AS AN INDIVIDUAL IS BASICALLY TO KIND OF GET INVOLVED AND JUST TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT I CAN DO AS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHAT OUR GROUP CAN DO AS A GROUP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHAT WE CAN DO TO, TO MAKE THAT THAT AREA THE BEST THAT IT CAN BE.

SO THAT'S A THAT'S MY TAKE. I DON'T HAVE ANY YAY OR NAY.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE MY GROUP STANDS ON THIS RIGHT NOW, BUT I WAS, I WAS INVITED I JUST LOOK FORWARD TO COMING AND JUST GET AN IDEA OF WHAT'S GOING ON. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND PRESENCE, SIR.

OR ARE THERE OTHERS YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, MA'AM.

HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON TO THE COMMISSION. I'M BRENDA DEARMAN, AND I LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND I KNOW THAT THE FCC MAY REGULATE THE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CELL TOWER RADIATION.

BUT WITHIN THERE WAS A STUDY IN GERMANY. WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF THE CELL TOWERS THE COMMUNITY, THERE WAS CANCER RELATED ILLNESSES IN THE COMMUNITY FROM THE CELL TOWERS RADIATION.

THAT'S WITHIN FIVE YEARS. SO EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT LETTING OFF ENOUGH OF RADIATION, WITHIN TIME THERE WILL BE A BUILDUP OF RADIATION AND IT WILL AFFECT THE COMMUNITY.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS LADY? SO. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND WHAT I FOUND IN MY STUDIES.

SO THERE IS A RISK FOR RADIATION, AND IT IS A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

CHILDREN'S, ELDERLY. I DO APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ARE THERE OTHERS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAN? WHAT'S THE DISTANCE FROM THIS SITE TO THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL? THE SCHOOL NOTWITHSTANDING. AND IS THERE ANY WATER SUPPLY NEARBY THAT COULD BE SOMEHOW AFFECTED? DO WE KNOW? I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A ZONING MAP.

YEAH, AND THERE ARE SOME HOMES TO THE. WELL, THERE ARE HOMES ON TO THE NORTH WEST.

THAT MIGHT BE FIVE. UNDER 1000FT, I WOULD SAY.

NOT IMMEDIATELY. 500. 700FT. YEAH. NOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT? NO. IN TERMS OF WATER. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANY SURFACE WATER.

THAT WOULD BE. AT RISK OR EVEN GROUNDWATER. BUT THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? ANY OTHER PERSON YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK? IF NOT, THE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE. WE APPROVE S 25 001 SECOND.

MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEMS APPROVED. NEXT. 25 TO 0 ZERO TWO SAMUEL BANKS.

[4. C25-002 SAMUEL BANKS (AN UNIMPROVED PORTION OF BUDDIE STREET) Request that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider recommending the closure of an unimproved portion of Buddie Street. The north side of the right-of-way is adjacent to Walton Road. The east side of the right-of-way is adjacent to Lots 45 and 46. The south side of the right-of-way is adjacent to Patrick Street. The west side of the right-of-way is adjacent to Lot 5B of NCB 840-M. The applicant is requesting the closure to replat the right-of-way into adjacent properties]

AN UNIMPROVED PORTION OF. IS THAT BUDDY STREET, MR..

SHEILA? THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CLOSURE OF AN UNIMPROVED PORTION OF BUDDY STREET. THE THE REQUEST IS TO REPLANT THE RIGHT OF WAY INTO THEIR ADJACENT PROPERTY.

THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH EAST, SOUTH AND WEST ARE ALL ZONED R1, B.

[00:45:09]

THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE IDENTIFIES THIS PROPERTY AS SINGLE FAMILY, MEDIUM LOW DENSITY.

YOU SEE, THE BUILDING TO THE WEST OF THAT IS ALSO A SCHOOL EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE CLOSURE TO REPLANT THE RIGHT OF WAY INTO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THE STREET THAT THE APPLICANT OKAY. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING IS IS UNIMPROVED AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE EVER BEEN UTILIZED AS A STREET. THIS REQUEST WOULD HELP FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFIELD HOUSING.

THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE UTILITY EASEMENTS AS NECESSARY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE EXISTING UTILITY LINES LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

OF THE 11 NOTICES MAILED, NO NOTICES WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUESTED CLOSURE.

ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND ANTICIPATE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON SERVICES AND FACILITIES BY THE PROPOSED REQUEST.