Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:02]

>> OKAY. AT THIS TIME WE WILL CONVENE THE REGULAR SESSION AND

[3. CITIZENS’ INPUT]

MOVE TO ITEM 3. CITIZENS INPUT TO PROVIDE COMMENT FOR A MEETING. PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO WWW.CITIZENINCOMEATROWLETT.COM BY 3:30. YOU'RE COMMENT WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD DURING THE MEETING. THERE IS A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT AND NO COMMENTS TAKEN DURING THE MEETING. SO, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS, LAURA? OR ANY

SPEAKERS? >> I BELIEVE SUSAN RECEIVED ONE

COMMENT. >> I DID, CAN YOU HEAR ME.

>> YES. >> PERFECT. THIS IS FROM JAMES SPENCER AND THIS COMMENT IS REGARDING LIGHT PARK PLATTE AND THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM SO WE'LL READ IT THROUGH CITIZEN'S INPUT. I LIVE IN HAAR VEER SIDE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE GOING THROUGH TO ACCESS THE NEW HOMES. AFTER READING THE TRAFFIC STUDY THE DEVELOPER COMPLETEED IT SHOW THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO WIDEN MILLER FROM GEORGE BUSH EAST. THIS ADDITION O HOMES WILL BRING TO MILLER. WHAT IS THE CITY DOING ABOUT THAT IF THE PLATTE IS APPROVED AND WHAT WOULD THE SCHEDULE BE TO WIDEN MILLER IT'S ALREADY A TRAFFIC JAM DURING RUSH HOUR NOT TO MENTION THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE TOLL IT WILL TAKE ON OUR ROADS. AND THAT'S IT. I DON'T

HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, SUSAN.

[4. CONSENT AGENDA]

>> AND NOW WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 4. THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ITEM 4-A. AND WE HAD CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING. TO CONSIDER THE AGENDA MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 9TH. DID EVERYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM AND REVIEW THEM? IF THERE'S NO CHANGES, I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

>> MR. COTE? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING AND ZONING FOR FEBRUARY 9TH, 2021.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. SMITH. ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT MOTION. I GUESS WE USE IS IT SHOW OF HANDS OR? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MIRANDA ARE YOU VOTING?

>> I WASN'T BRPRESENT FOR THAT MEETING.

>> SO, WE HAVE AN. DID YOU GET THAT SUSAN. ?

>> >> YES.

>> OKAY. AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE NOW TO ITEM 4-B WHICH IS TO CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING FROM FEBRUARY 23RD, 2021. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, DID EVERYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES. ANY CHANGES? IF NOT

I'M READY FOR THE MOTION. >> I'D LIKE TO APPROVE THE

MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23RD. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. ENGEN FOR THE MINUTES OF THE 23RD. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. COTE. ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? IF NOT, LET'S VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND SUSAN THAT'S UNANIMOUS. FROM M

[ 5A. Consider and take action on a request by Colin Helffrich, Dowdey Anderson, on behalf of property owners Sunrise Primary Care Services, Inc., and RP Associates, LLP, for the Lake Park Preliminary Plat. The approximately 35.194-acre site is located in the Oliver V. Ledbetter Survey, Abstract Number 790, and the John D. Alston Survey, Abstract Number 7, approximately 400 feet south of Panama Drive at the termination of Sunrise Drive and Lafayette Drive, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

>> TO PROVIDE COMMENT DURING ANY PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANY ITEM YOU CAN CALL THE TOLL FREE NUMBER ABOVE AND ENTER THE MEETING ID OR SEND AN EMAIL TO WWW.CITIZENINPUTATROWLETT.COM BY 3:30 P.M. ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING. PLEASE PUT IN THE

[00:05:04]

SPECIFIC EVENT YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON AND IT WILL BE READ INTO THE MEETING AND THERE'S A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT. SO MOVING TO ITEM 5-A. CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY COLIN ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS, OF RP ASSOCIATION, LLP.

THE APPROXIMATELY 35.194 SITE IS LOCATED AT THE OLIVER LED BETTER SURVEY AND THE JOHN D AUSTIN SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 7 AT THE TERMINATION OF SUNRISE DRIVE AND LAFAYETTE DRIVE IN THE CITY OF

ROWLETT, DALLAS, COUNTY TEXAS. >> COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU GUYS FOR ALLOWING THE TIME TO PRESENT THIS. AS YOU MENTIONED WE'RE HERE TO CONSIDER THE LAKE PARK PRELIMINARY PLATTE, AS IT LOADS. THANK YOU, LAURA. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 35 ACRES AND IT'S ZONED FOR A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S PART OF THE SIGNATURE GATEWAY AREA OR DESIGNATION AS FAR AS THE FRAME GOES AND IT'S JUST NORTH OF THE MANSIONS BY THE LAKE. IT WAS REFORMED TO BASE NEIGHBORHOOD IN NOVEMBER 6TH OF 2012 AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS RECENTLY APPROVED IN JANUARY. THE GRAPHIC TO YOUR RIGHT SHOWS THE PRELIMINARY PLATTE IN CONTEXT AND THE PLATTE DOES REFLECT 142 RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH FOUR OPEN SPACE LOTS DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE SITE CREATING VIEWS AND CORRIDORS TO THE LAKE. THE SITE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A TWO-PHASE PROJECT WITH THE FIRST PHASE OCCURRING TO THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE AND PHASE TWO TO THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE TO THE SOUTH. A TOTAL OF 12 NEW RIGHT OF WAYS ARE PROPOSED, A MIXTURE OF STREETS AND ALLEYS. AND THESE ARE IN ADDITION TO THE EXTENSIONS THAT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR SUNSUNRISE DRIVE, LAFAYETTE DRIVE AND BEON DRIVE. THIS IS A FOUR-PHASE PLATTE AND YOU HAVE THAT IN YOUR PACT, THE NEXT TWO GRAPHICS ARE THE FIRST TWO SHEETS WE SHOWED THE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY, THIS BEING PHASE ONE AND THE NEXT BEING PHASE TWO. AND SO, AS YOU KNOW, PRELIMINARY PLATTES DO HAVE A DURATION OF TWO YEARS, AT WHICH TIME IF A FINAL PLATTE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, THIS WOULD EXPIRE AND THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO REAPPLY FOR THIS. THAT SAID, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLATTE AND ALL THE ORDINANCE OF ROWLETT CODE, AND THE TEXAS REQUIREMENT CODE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION OR IS HE JUST WANT TO TAKE QUESTIONS.

>> THEY'RE JUST AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT?

>> CARLOS, CAN YOU GO BACK TO I THINK THE FIRST SLIDE, THE TIMELINE THERE, IT WENT BY QUICKLY AND I DIDN'T KEEP UP WITH IT, I THINK IT WAS 2012 WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY?

>> SO, WHEN THE FORM BASE CODE WAS APPROVED, SOON AFTER THERE WERE SEVERAL STRATEGIC ZONES LIKE THE NORTH SHORE TO DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, THE BASELINE DISTRICT. THE SIGNATURE GATEWAY DISTRICT AND IT INCORPORATED THE URBAN VILLAGE TO THE SOUTH AS WELL AS THIS DISTRICT WHICH IS SOMEWHAT AN EXTENSION OF THE RESIDENTIAL

FABRIC ALREADY IN PLACE. >> THANK YOU, I JUST MISS IT

[00:10:07]

HAD THE FIRST TIME. >> I CAN'T SEE MIRANDA, OKAY.

WELL, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. NO QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT, ANYBODY? >> SO, I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

MR. COTE. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LAKE PARK PRELIMINARY PLATTE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. COTE. DO WE HAVE A

SECOND? >> I HAVE A SECOND BY MR. SWIFT. ANY COMMENTS ON THE MOTION?

>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S VOTE. >> THERE'S A MOTION FOR APPROVAL ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND SUSAN, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

[5B. Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a request by Sam Lawrence, Narrowpath LLC., on behalf of property owner Chiesa Miller Development, LLC., for approval of a Tree Removal Permit application and reduction in the mitigation fee calculation for properties zoned Planned Development (PD) District for Single Family (SF-15) District, (SF-7) District, (SF-5) District, Mixed-Use Waterfront (MU-WF) District, and Limited Commercial (C-1) District Uses. The approximate 25.426-acre site is located in the James Hobbs Survey, Abstract Number 571., at the northwest corner of Miller and Chiesa Roads, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

>> THANK YOU. >> WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 5-B CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST BY SAM LAURENS, NARROWPATH LLC ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER MILLER DEVELOPMENT LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION AND REDUCTION IN THE MITI MITI MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION. THE APPROXIMATE 25.42246 IS LOW EIGHTED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLER IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AND I BELIEVE MR. CONICK IS PRESENTING. ALEX, WE CAN NOT HEAR YOU. THAT IS A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION AND THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING IS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS APPLICATION. WHICH ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT FOR A REDUCTION IN THE MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION AS NOTED AND YOU COULD SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN THIS SITE IS 25.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLER AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, SOME CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCES AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL USES. THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR WHERE THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN AND HOW THE ENTITLEMENTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THIS SITE AND THE VARIOUS PLANS AND APPROVALS THAT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED OR APPROVED, THE CITY COUNCIL DID APPROVE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS NOTED FOR THE SIPPINGLE FAMILY, MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL USES FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

INCLUDING IN THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT WERE SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS AMONG OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD COMPLETE THE ENTIRE PACKAGE OF WHAT IS INCLUDED IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT RE-ZONING THROUGH THAT AND ALSO ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. ON JUNE 19TH OF THE PAST YEAR, 2020, THERE WAS A CONDITIONALLY APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH IS APPROVED BY THE STAFF SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF P TREE REMOVAL PERMIT WITH THAT. WE WOULD NOTE THAT THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS NOT A CONC CONCEPTION PLAN, THE DEVELOPMENT SHOWN IN THAT PLAN IS ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN DEVELOPMENT THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PLANS SET FORTH IN THE COLLECTION OF THOSE PLANS WITHIN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS WELL, THERE'LL BE A LANDSCAPE PLAN WHICH WAS INCLUDED WITHIN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH

[00:15:04]

REFLECTING LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT COORDINATES. THE APPLICANT HAS NOW COME FORWARD WITH A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION WITHIN THAT APPLICATION, THE THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD APPLICATION AND THE CHECK LIST THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT WOULD BE A LOCATION MAP SHOWING PROTECTED TREES AS WELL AS THE APPROVALED LANDSCAPE PLAN FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WHICH WAS INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IN IT'S INITIAL FORM AS WELL AS THROUGHOUT THE REVIEW PERIOD, WAS NOT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED IN EITHER THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. THE APPLICANT HERE WAS ASKED TO INCLUDE THESE PLANS AFTER THE INITIAL PLAN WAS SUBMITTED, SO THAT WAS ASKED FOR THOSE PLANS FOR THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO BE INCLUDED IN THEIR SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTALS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT BY STAFF WHICH WOULD ALSO, OF COURSE, INCLUDE ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE THROUGH THE PROCESS SO STAFF DID ISSUE COMMENTS DURING THIS PERIOD THAT ON THE REVIEW OF THIS REMOVAL PERMIT, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AS WELL AS THE LANDSCAPING WHICH WAS INCLUDED WITH THIS IDENTIFY DEFICIENCIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET AS WELL AS THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. STAFF VIA, THE APPLICANT, DID NOT ADDRESS STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING THE INSUFFICIENTSIES WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE REVIEW CRITERIA FROM THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT MAY RECOMMEND DENIAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT NUMBER ONE THE REMOVAL OF A TREE IS NOT REASONABLE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CONDUCT THE ANTICIPATED ACTIVITIES, SECONDLY, IF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS SOMEBODY MADE TO PRESERVE SPECIFIC TREES OR THIRDLY IF THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS SUBCHAPTER IS NOT BEING MET BY THE APPLICANT. SO, THIS IS BOTH ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE A SNIPPET OF THE PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL PLAN AND TO REMIND THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS OUR AUDIENCE THIS EVENING, PROTECT A TREE AS DEFINED IN THE RDC ARE ANY HEALTHY TREES WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 INCHES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HACK BERRY TREES WHICH ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE PROTECTED UNTIL THEY'RE AT LEAST 11 INCHES IN DBH. THE TREE SURVEY REFLECTING A TOTAL OF 313 TREES ON THE SITE OF WHICH ONE 47 OF THOSE ARE CLASSIFIED AS PROTECTED. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR 139 OF THE TREES TO BE REMOVED AND EIGHT TREES TO BE PRESERVED.

THIS SLIDE ALSO INCLUDES A GRAPHIC THAT WAS WITHIN THE APPLICATION PACT THAT DOES SHOW SCHEME MATTICLY THE SITE GRADE AS WOULD COME FROM THE SITE, IT DOES SLOPE TOWARD LAKE RAY HUBBARD WHICH IS TO THE WEST OF THIS SITE. PROTECTED TREES WOULD BE REMOVED DUE TO THE GRADING OF THE SITE PROPOSED AS WELL AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROTECTION WALL NEAR THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. AS YOU COULD SEE ON THE GRAPHIC BELOW ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE THE CONSTRUCTION AREA WOULD BE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, THOSE TREES THAT YOU COULD SEE IN RED WOULD BE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AND YOU COULD SEE IT RIGHT ABOUT THE PROPERTY LINE IS WHERE THERE WOULD BE A RETAINING WALL THAT WOULD BE PLACED TO RETAIN THE SITE, THE NEW GRADE THAT WOULD BE DONE DURING THE PRECONSTRUCTION PROCESS. AND THEN, THE TAKE AREA IS ALSO SEASON THERE AND THOSE TREES WOULD NOT BE ARE NOT ADDRESSED

[00:20:03]

IN THIS APPLICATION. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, LAURA. THE SPECIFIC SECTION, 77504 H 4.E GIVES A ONE TO ONE CREDIT FOR PRESERVING TREES. ONE. UNDER THE ORDINANCE IN THE RDC. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PRESERVE 170 INCHES OF PROTECTED TREES AND WOULD REMOVE 1,628 INCHES OF INCHES OF PROTECTED TREES. THE MAP RESULTS IN A 1,158 INCH MITIGATION REQUIREMENT. AND THAT'S PRIOR TO ASSESSING ANY OTHER MITIGATION TREES PROTOESED TO BE PLANTED. THE CHART BELOW THEYS THAT OUT A BIT MORE IN DETAIL THAT STARTS WITH THE CALLY PER INCHES ON THE SITE. SHOWING THE CREDIT OF 170 INCHES TO BE SAVED. THE REQUIREMENT FOR MITIGATION IS 1,458 INCHES.

MITIGATION MAYBE DONE EITHER THROUGH PLANTING TREES AS SPECIFIED IN THE RDC ON SITE, THERE MAYBE PROVISIONS MADE FOR PLANTING TREES OFF SITE THAT WOULD LAID OUT AS WELL AS ALSO MAKING PAYING IN LIEU OF REPLACEMENT PAYING INTO THE REFORESTATION FUND. AGAIN, STAFF WOULD NOTE THAT BECAUSE THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN WHICH WAS SUBMITTED WITH THIS TREE REMOVAL PERMIT WHICH IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE ADOPTED WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, OR THE SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WE'RE UNABLE TO ACCURATELY DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF MITIGATION EITHER TO BE PLANTED ON SITE OR OFF SITE OR FOR THE PAYMENT IN LIEU INTO THE REFORESTATION FUND. WOULD ALSO REMIND YOU THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO, AS WE STATED REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE TREE MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION. WOULD NOTE THAT THE LANDSCAPING DETAILING WHICH WERE APPROVED IN THE ORDINANCE AND THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WERE PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT IN THEIR PRESENTATION AND ALSO IN THEIR APPLICATIONS THAT WERE DONE WHEN THE PD WAS APPROVED, AS WELL AS THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED. THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE, WHICH WAS MOST RECENTLY ADOPTED IN THE YEAR 2020 DOES ESTABLISH THE RATE OF $121.67 PER REMOVED PROTECTED INCH TO BE PAID INTO THE REFORESTATION FUND. PER THE RDC, CITY COUNCIL MAY REDUCE THIS RATE AS THEY SEE FIT. STAFF HAS COMMITTED TO ALLOWING THE REQUIRED STREET TREES REFLECTED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, WHICH WAS INCLUDED WITH THAT ORDINANCE. AGAIN, WHICH THE APPLICANT AND THE DEVELOPER BROUGHT FORWARD WITH THEIR APPLICATION AT THE TIME THAT THE ZONING WAS ESTABLISHED ON THIS SITE. WE, AS STAFF, HAVE COMMITTED TO ALLOWING THOSE TREES TO BE THOSE REQUIRED STREET TREES TO COUNT AS MITIGATION TREES PROVIDED THAT THEY MEET THE MINIMUM AS WELL AS THE ORDINANCE. THIS CONSIDERATION WOULD DECREASE THE OVERALL REQUIRED PAYMENT INTO THE REFOR RESTATION FUND BY INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF MITIGATION ON THE SITE. STAFF WOULD ALSO SET FORWARD THAT THE $121.67 IS ESTABLISHED BY THE PROCESS LAID OUT IN THE RDC. IT IS INTENDED TO REFLECT THE MONETARY COST OF THE LOSS OF THE

[00:25:02]

ESTABLISHED MATURE TREE CANOPY GROWTH. AS WELL AS IT'S INTENDED TO PROVIDE THE COST OF THAT TO BE CONSISTENTLY AND EQUITABLY APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AGAIN, TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THE REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL WOULD BE IF A TREE IS NOT THE REMOVAL OF THE TREE IS NOT REASONABLY REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CONDUCT THE ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE, IF A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION CANNOT BE MADE TO PRESERVE THE TREE, OR IF THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS SUBCHAPTER IS NOT BEING MET BY THE APPLICANT. THE INTENTION OF THE TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE RDC ARE TO PROSPECTIVE HEALTHY QUALITY TREES, PROMOTE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND STAFF THAT WOULD ASSERT THAT THAT IS NOT BEING MET DUE TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN PROVIDED WITH THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION REFLECTS NONCANOPY TREES ALONG THE TREATS ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS, ALSO THE PLANTINGS PROPOSED IN THE BUFFERS AND OPEN SPACES ARE LESS FREQUENT THAN WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS WELL AS THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE WITH THE ZONING THAT ESTABLISHED THE ENTITLEMENT ON THIS SITE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THIS REMOVAL PERMIT AS WELL AS THE REQUESTED REDUCTION IN THE MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION. I WOULD RESTATE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED PLANS WHICH ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, AS WELL AS THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE REQUEST PRODUCTION AND THE MITIGATION CALCULATION IS BASED ON THE ASSERTION THAT THE TREES WERE APPROVED BY PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS.

THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARE NOW AN UNDUE BURDEN UPON THE APPLICANT. ALSO, THAT THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN, TO RESTATE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY BY THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH IS TO SET FORWARD THE INTENDED OUTCOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT THEREFORE, THE MITIGATION OF THE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF TREES PROTECTED TREES MAY NOT BE ACCURATELY CALCULATED. STAFF DOES INTEND FOR THE, SO THERE IS NO GOING BACK AND FORT TO THE COUNCIL MULTIPLE TIMES TO APPROVE TREE REMOVAL PERMITS, WE DON'T FEEL THAT'S EFFICIENT DOING THAT, THEREFORE WE WISH TO HAVE ALL OF THESE THINGS DONE WITH THAT.

AND I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT DURING THE REVIEW OF THIS PROCESS, THE REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION, WE HAVE FELT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN SUGGESTING THAT WE'RE DELAYING HIS REQUEST AS WELL AS, WE'VE BEEN ENCOURAGED OR PRESSURED TO APPROVE PLANS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE.

THERE ARE, OF COURSE, WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE DO HERE A PROCESS AND ORDER TO HOW THINGS HAPPEN WITH THAT AND ONCE PLANS ARE APPROVED, THAT IS THE EXPECTATION OF WHAT IS APPROVED AND THE PROCESSES FOR CHANGING THOSE THINGS ALSO ARE CLEAR AS TO WHAT THEY NEED TO BE WHETHER IT IS FOR EXAMPLE TO CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD REQUIRE A RESUBMITAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND ALSO, TO CHANGE A CONDITION OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WOULD REQUIRE GOING BACK THROUGH THAT HEARING PROCESS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL.

THEREFORE, BECAUSE WE'VE NOT MADE PROGRESS WITH THE APPLICANT AT THE CONCLUSION OF OUR STANDARD REVIEW TIME LINE WE'VE

[00:30:03]

BROUGHT THIS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THIS TIME. THAT WOULD CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION, I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT WE DO HAVE CARLOS, I'M CONNER ROBERTS, PLANNER TWO WHICH IS ALSO INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, HE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

WE ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE, MR. LAWRENCE FOR HIM TO ADDRESS THE CONDITION I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS A PRESENTATION OR NOT. BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS MYSELF OR CONNER THAT YOU MAY HAVE OF US. IN REGARD TO THAT, IF NOT, WE'LL LET MR. LAWRENCE MAKE HIS STATEMENT.

>> QUESTIONS? >> MR. COTE?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN PROVIDED WITH THIS PRESENTATION THAT YOU GAVE US IS NOT THE SAME AS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED AS EXHIBIT E ON THE CITY ORDINANCE, 32 32-19 IN

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THE FIRST ONE RELATES TO THE TREES AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. IS IT A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY?

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY TREES? >> LET ME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.

THE CITY SAID THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR

THE TREES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> OH, YOU'RE SPEAKING OF THE

STREET TREES. >> CAN YOU GO INTO A LITTLE

MORE DETAIL ABOUT THAT? >> CERTAINLY. SO, I WILL LET CONNER ADDRESS THAT SINCE HE'LL HAVE A BIT MORE OF THE BACKGROUND OF WHAT WAS APPROVED IN ALL OF THE PREVIOUS PLANS.

>> THANK YOU. VERY MUCH, THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSIONERS. I'LL HOP IN TO ANSWER THAT. SO, THE TREES APPROVED ALONG THOSE RESIDENTIAL STREETS IN THE ORDINANCE ARE CANOPY IN NATURE AND THEY WERE SEEMINGLY INTENDED TO PROVIDE A STREETSCAPE OF SORTS WITH A FREQUENT CANOPY PLANTINGS, NOT UNLIKE A FORM BASED CODE PROJECT. THIS IS A PD, IT'S GOVERNORED BY THE RDC, HOWEVER THESE STREETS WERE PROVIDED IN THE ORDINANCE. FAST FORWARD, DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, THOSE TREES WERE ALSO INCLUDED AND APPROVED, FAST FORWARD A LITTLE FURTHER, THE INITIAL SUBMITTALS WITH THIS TREE THE PLANTINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERMIT WERE NOT ON ANY APPROVED PLAN. I BELIEVE, THE VERSION OF SUBMITTAL THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACT IS THE MOST RECENT PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN. THERE ARE STREET TREES THERE.

THEY, HOWEVER, DO NOT MEET THE INTENT OF CANOPY STREET-SCAPE LIKE TREES THAT IS INTENDED IN THE PD ORDINANCE. FOR REFERENCE, A SPECIES SPECIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE. WE'RE LOOKING AT AN UNAPPROVED TREE BEING PROPOSED IN THE PACT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU. SO, I HOPE THAT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. I APOLOGIZE IF I MADE THAT MORE CONFUSING.

>> SO, NORMALLY YOU WOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM CREDIT FOR THEM, BUT THESE SPECIFIC, I WENT AND LOOKED AT THE TREES, THEY'RE NICE TREES BUT DON'T PROVIDE A CANOPY. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT PLANTING THE RIGHT TYPE OF TREES, YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM

THE CREDIT. >> THE STAFF IS REQUIRING THAT THE TREES MEET THE INTEND OF THE PD ORDINANCE, AND SO SINCE THESE TREES ARE NOT CANOPY IN NATURE AND NOT ON THE APPROVED LIST, WE CAN NOT CONSIDER THEM AND THOSE ARE COMMENTS ISSUED IN THE REVIEW. STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WE'RE COMFORTABLE ALLOWING MITIGATION TO BE COUNTED SHOULD A CANOPY TREE THAT IS ON OUR LIST BE PROVIDED ALONG THOSE RIGHTS OF WAY. NOW, THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENT IS A MINIMUM OF FOUR INCH.

[00:35:13]

>> AND IF THEY WERE TO PLANT THE CORRECT CALIPER INCH AND THE CORRECT TYPE OF TREE, DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THAT WOULD REDUCE

THEIR COST, ROUGHLY? >> WHEN YOU SAY, COST, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE APPOINTMENT IN LIEU OF REPLANTING?

>> RIGHT. YES. >> WE DO NOT, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO CALCULATE THAT NUMBER BECAUSE THAT NUMBER WAS NOT GIVEN TO US

IN THE TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION. >> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAD.

>> OKAY. AT THIS TIME, I GUESS WE'RE READY FOR THE APPLICANT TO

COME FORWARD. >> CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME OKAY?

>> YES. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS, WE WOULD LIKE TO START OFF THAT WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE DIRECTOR AN MORCH 4TH FOR A RESUBMIT APPLICATION REGARDING COMMENTS AND WE'RE STILL UNDER DISCUSSION AND NOT

COMPLETE. NO FINAL SUBMISSION. >> WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU. CAN YOU TURN UP SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT?

>> HOW'S THAT? IS THAT BETTER? LET ME GO STRAIGHT TO MY

COMPUTER. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. >> OKAY. IS THAT BETTER?

>> YES, THAT'S A LITTLE BETTER, THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. MY APOLOGIES. SO, WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AN MARCH 4TH TO RESUBMIT APPLICATION DOCUMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS STILL UNDER DISCUSSION AND NOT QUITE COMPLETED. NO FINAL SUBMITTAL WAS COMPLETED AND THE DEVELOPER WAS IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING FINAL CHANGES TO COMPLY. WE KNOW THAT THE TIME BETWEEN MARCH 4TH AND TODAY IS NOT SUFFICIENT TIME. ON THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. THE FINAL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED ON MARCH 8TH, ACT FULLY ON THE QUESTIONS. WE ASK THAT WE GET MORE TIME AND BETTER UNDERSTAND THE INTENT ON OUR DOCUMENT THAT ACCURATELY REFLECT OUR REQUEST FOR THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. THE CURRENT PLANS DO NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT OUR INTENT AND WE DO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL. BECAUSE OF THAT WE WOULD ENTER A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL OUR NEXT P & Z MEETING.

>> OKAY. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT WE TABLE THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO

DO THAT. >> YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO TABLE THIS ITEM, THE APPLICANT'S ASKING FOR TWO WEEKS, BUT MY QUESTION IS HOW LONG DOES STAFF NEED TO ADEQUATELY REVIEW THE NEW INFORMATION BEING PRESENTED TO THEM. WOULD SOMEONE FROM STAFF CARE TO COMMENT ON THAT?

>> SO, AT THIS STAGE, THE REQUESTED WE HAVE AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT HAS IT INCLUDED LANDSCAPE SET. I

[00:40:25]

BELIEVE OUR NEXT SCHEDULE WAS THE 22ND OF THIS MONTH TO GET ON A PREDETERMINED PATH TO REVIEW AND APPROVE ANY OF THE REQUESTED DEVATIONS. AND ALEX, PLEASE JUMP IN IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT TAKE, BUT ASSUMING THE REVISIONS TO THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT WERE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ALREADY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PERHAPS TWO MEETINGS OUT WOULD BE A SUFFICIENT TIME. BUT IF WE'RE CONSIDERING, AND I SEE MR. BURMAN HAS HIS HAND UP.

>> I JUST SWITCHED TO A DIFFERENT DEVICE. Y'ALL RECOGNIZE THAT THE AGENDA CONTAINS AND ALL OF THEM DO A PROVISION THAT SAYS, AS AUTHORIZED THE MEETING COULD BE CONVENED INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. I'M JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE.

YOU, THE COMMISSION MAY WANT TO DISCUSS THIS WITH ME IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING THE EFFECT OF RESCHEDULING AND THE REASONS WHY WE'RE HERE NOW AND WHAT THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF APPROVALS, DENIAL AND TABLING WOULD BE BUT THAT'S UP TO Y'ALL.

>> DO WE NEED TO DO THAT BY MOTION OR JUST?

>> NO, IF YOU GUYS WERE DOING SOMETHING THAT I WAS REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH, I WOULDN'T JUST RAISE MY P HAND, I WOULD CALL THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN CONVENING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO, AND I'M HERE FOR IT, YOU JUST SIMPLY MAKE SURE THAT YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONER ARE IN FAVOR OF DOING IT AND WE CAN DO THAT.

> I'VE GOT A SHOW OF HANDS FROM EVERYBODY HERE ARE YOU OKAY

WITH THAT? >> YEAH, THAT LOOKS LIKE A

MAJORITY TO ME IF NOT EVERYBODY. >> THERE'S A SECOND MEETING INVITE THAT SHOULD BE IN YOUR EMAIL INBOXES FOR A PRIVATE ZOOM INTERVIEW PROCESS. WHAT WE DO AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, IS YOU DON'T ADJOURN THE OPEN MEETING, YOU SIMPLY LEAVE THE MEETING AND LEAVE EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE OPEN MEETING. COMMISSIONERS AND SELECT STAFF WILL THEN LEAVE THIS MEETING AND THEN JOIN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION THROUGH THAT LINK TO A PRIVATE MEETING AND THEN WE'LL LEAVE THAT ONE AND COME BACK TO THIS ONE WHEN WE'RE

DONE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> IT DOES, LET'S MAKE IT SO.

>> OKAY. AT THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO CONVENE FOR A CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKED CONFIDENTIAL

>> WE'VE CLOSED THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THERE'S NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON THE DISCUSSION DURING THE CHECK SESSION. AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO TABLE THIS

ITEM. DISCUSSION? >> MADAM CHAIRMAN, I'M NOT SURE WITH ALL THE TIME AND ENERGY THAT HAS BEEN PUT INTO THIS APT INDICATION ALREADY THAT TABLING IT WILL MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE OR WILL BE ACTUALLY HELPFUL TO THE STAFF, SO I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR IN ENTERTAINING TABLING THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BY ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS?

[00:45:06]

>> OKAY. AT THIS TIME I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

>> MADAM CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION NOT TO

ENTERTAIN TABLING THIS ITEM. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THE TABLING BY THE APPLICANT DO I HAVE A SECOND IN

>> SECOND. >> WE'VE A SECOND BY MR. ENGEN.

SO WE'RE VOTING ON DENYING THE TABLING ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS, SO THIS ITEM WILL NOT BE TABLED. SO GO AHEAD AND CONSIDER THE ITEM AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. DO Y'ALL HAVE ANYMORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER

DISCUSSION? >> I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT AS A POINT OF DISCUSSION, THE FACT THAT STAFF CAN'T GIVE US BASED ON THESE DOCUMENTS, THE APPROPRIATE COST THE APPROPRIATE FUNDING THAT WOULD GO INTO OUR REFORESTATION PROGRAM AND THEY CAN'T DOCUMENT THAT BASED ON THIS AMOPPLICATION IS AN ISSUE

WITH THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> I CAN'T SIT HER AND SAY AYE OR NAY BASED ON THE INFORMATION

PROVIDED. >> LISTEN TO TO STAFF REPORT, A LOT OF IT NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL SITE OF THE APPROVAL PLAN WAS DEFINITELY REEMPHASIZED A NUMBER OF TIMES.

THE STAFF DID IDENTIFY A NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES WITH THE DEVELOPER, WE CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN WORK WITH STAFF SO IT'S ALWAYS DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER. AND ONE THING AS COMMISSIONERS HERE, WE NEED TO ALWAYS BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL DEVELOPERS AND HOW IT IS PRESENTED TO OUR STAFF AND THEN HOW IT'S GIVEN TO US AS INFORMATION. AND, MY ONLY ONE LAST COMMENT TO ADD TO THE DESIGN ON THE PLAN IS I HOPE THAT WE CAN KEEP MORE TREES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING OUT TOWARDS THE LAKE FRONT WHERE THE WALL WAS TO TRY TO KEEP MORE OF THE NATURAL BEAUTY CLOSER TO THE SHORE LINE.

>> WELL, I AGREE WITH ALL OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, AND IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION, I'M READY FOR A MOTION. MR. COTE?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE TREE

REMOVAL PERMIT PRESENTED TO US. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. COTE FOR DENIAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. DO I HAVE A

SECOND? >> BY MR. SWIFT. ANY

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? >> ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR FOR DENIAL PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 35 C CONDUCT A

[5C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation regarding a request by Nathan Schemm for the approval of a Special Use Permit to allow for an accessory structure exceeding 500 square-feet on property zoned Planned Development (PD) District for Single-Family Uses. The approximate 0.41-acre tract is located at 3413 Summer Solstice Court, Lot 15, Block F Magnolia Springs Phase 3A, approximately 260 feet northwest of the intersection of Palisade Falls and Summer Solstice Court, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A QUESTION ABOUT NATHAN SCHEMM FOR THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE AY STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 500 CARE-FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PD DISTRICT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USES. THE APPROXIMATE TACT IS LOCATED AT 3413 SUMMER SOLSTICE COURT.

APPROXIMATELY 2 HON 60 FEET NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF PALISADE FALSE AND THE SUMMER SOLSTICE COURT IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS. I'M NOT SURE WHOSE PRESENTING.

>> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU TO OUR COMMISSIONERS FOR BEING WITH US THIS EVENING. THANK YOU, LAUREN, NEXT SLIDE,

PLEASE. >> I'M HERE THIS EVENING TO DISCUSS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR AN ENCLOSED, JUST UNDER A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED DISTRICT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USES. THIS

[00:50:01]

STRUCTURE WILL BE MASONRY. SECTION 303 C OF THE RDC REQUIRES AN S AND P FOREIGN CLOSED STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF 500 FEET. APPROXIMATELY 144 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG SUMMER SOLSTICE COURT THAT IS TO THE EAST. THAT WOULD BE PLAN LEFT ON SCREEN. THERE IS AN EXISTING APPROXIMATELY 3,475 SQUARE-FOOT HOME AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 80 SQUARE FEET ON SITE. THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS IN ORANGE, THE EXISTING SHED IS MARKED FOR REMOVAL SHOULD THIS STRUCTURE BE APPROVED. YOU COULD SEE THE OVERLAP THERE BETWEEN THE GREEN AND RED. A QUICK NOTE ABOUT TREES, PROPERTIES THAT ARE LESS THAN 2 ACRES WITH AN EXISTING HOME ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PRESERVATION OF REMOVAL. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TREES ON SITE IN THE IMMEDIATE A 17 INCH AND A 9 INCH TREE WILL BE REMOVED. THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO SAVING TWO NEAR BY TREES AS WELL. A 10 INCH CEDAR ELM. AND A PEACH TREE. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO PLANTING AN ADDITIONAL OAK TREE IN THE FRONT YARD TO HELP MITIGATE THAT. IN CONSIDERING AN SUP, SECTION 77303 IT C OF THE RDC OUTLINES THE FOLLOWING POINTS. THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, SHALL BE LESSER THAN THE PLOT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR THE ZONING DISTRICT. AND WHEN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD, A MINIMUM 3 FOOT SIDE AND SET BACK IS REQUIRED. SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THOSE THREE POINTS OF CONSIDERATIONS HERE BRIEFLY.

THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THE LESSER OR THE 35% OF THE REAR YARD. IT DOES NOT HAVE A MAXIMUM STRUCTURE REQUIREMENT. THE BASE SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT WITH THAT PD DID NOT HAVE A MAXIMUM COVERAGE REQUIREMENT SO WE'LL LOOK FOR 35% OF THE REAR YARD WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 2,000 SQUARE FEET. THE LOT COVERAGE OF THE REAR YARD WITH THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TOTALLED SOMEWHERE IN THE 1,420 SQUARE FOOT RANGE THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE 2,000 SQUARE FOOT ALLOWABLE COVERAGE. AND IT WILL BE OVER AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY, THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN RED. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS IN BLUE, THE SHED TO BE REMOVED IS IN YELLOW AND THE ADDED IMPERVIOUS COVER IS IN STRIPES, IT IS LIMITED. IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 360 FEET OR SO OF COVER. BASED AND THESE TWO STRUCTURES SHALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR THE MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE IS 27.5 FEET AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IS 40 FEET, SO WE'LL LOOK AT THE 27.5 FEET AS THE LIMITATION. THIS STRUCTURE IS 21 FEET AND 11 INCHES HIGH, THEREFORE IT'S IN REQUIREMENT. THERE IS A FENCE IT WILL NOT FULLY SCREEN THE PROPOSE STRUCTURE, HOWEVER, THE ADJACENT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, THE ONE TO THE WEST IS ROUGHLY IT'S PRETTY COMPARABLE TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THAT STRUCTURE, REGARDLESS, SO JUST TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE FOR YOU. AND, LASTLY, WHEN AN ACCESSORY

[00:55:01]

STRUCTURE IS LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD THERE'S A MINUTE NUMB OF 3 FOOT SIDING SET BACK AND YOU COULD SEE ON THE SCREEN WE'RE LOOKING AT JUST UNDER 3 FEET AND ALMOST FOUR FEET TO THE NORTH AND THAT WOULD BE TO THE SIDE AND YOU COULD SEE IT'S SET BACK APPROXIMATELY 110 FEET FROM THE FRONT FROM SUMMER SOLSTICE COURT TO THE EAST AND APPROXIMATELY 83 TO 85 FEET FROM THE SOUTH WHICH IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED GUTTERS AND DOWN SPOUTS TO HELP MITIGATE ANY ACCELERATED RUNOFF WITH THIS STRUCTURE, YOU COULD SEE I CIRCLED THAT GUTTER FOR YOU ON THE SCREEN. IF NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT IS COMMITTED TO A DRY WELL OR FRENCH DRAIN TO FURTHER MITIGATE RUNOFF, AND THAT WILL BE AT THE TIME THE SURVEY THE APPLICANT WHICH WILL BE DONE PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT IN AN EFFORT TO ENSURE THERE'S NO ADVERSE WATER RUNOFF IMPACTS TO NEARBY PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. ON SCREEN YOU'LL SEE A CON CONCEPTRENDERING. THERE WERE 17200 FOOT NOTICED AND 24500 SINCE RECEIVED TWO NOTICES IN FAVOR WITHIN THE 200 FOOT AREA, YOU SEE THOSE IN GREEN ON THE MAP THERE. AND NO RESPONSES FROM THE 500 FOOT AREA NOTICE. WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SUP TO ALLOW ON ENCLOSED 988 STRUCTURE, THE PROPOSED SUP WOULD NOT COMPROMISE THE BECAUSE IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PATTERN BOTH WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES HAVE SIMILAR STRUCTURES OF SIMILAR SIZE AND FUNCTION. COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING BUILT ENVIRONMENT. AND WITH THAT, I WILL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS HERE, HE DOES NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT HE IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> YES, SIR, YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> JUST ONE QUESTION AND CLARIFICATION WITH REGARDS TO

THE GUTTER AND THE DOWN SPOUT. >> IS THIS TO STAFF OR THE

APPLICANT? >> THE STAFF. JUST CLARIFICATION, I DON'T KNOW IF I QUITE HEARD IT RIGHT, HE WAS OFFERING TO PUT A DRY WELL IN JUST SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY FLOODING ISSUING GOING THE OTHER WAY OR WOULD THIS BE REQUIRED?

>> SIR, THE DOWN SPOUTS AND GUTTERS WILL BE REQUIRED WITH THIS STRUCTURE, TO HELP DIRECT THAT FLOW AND THEN WITH THE SURVEY THAT WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING PERMIT, THAT WILL DETERMINE IF A DRY WELL OR THE FRENCH DRAIN WILL BE

REQUIRED IN EXCESS OF THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? >> NO QUESTIONS?

>> WELL, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING LAURA, HAVE YOU GOT ANY SPEAKERS?

>> WE HAVE NO CALLERS ON THE LINE AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY

COMMENTS VIA EMAIL. >> OKAY. WELL, THERE ARE NO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, SO WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IF THERE'S NO NO DISCUSSION, ON THIS ITEM, I

GUESS I'M READY FOR A MOTION. >> MR. COTE?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVAL THE SUP TO ALLOW FOR ON ENCLOSED 988 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, ONE, GUTTERS AND DOWN SPOUTS BE INSTALLED TO STOP RUNOFF AND 2, A 3 INCH CALIPER OAK TREE BE PLANTED IN THE

FRONT. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH TWO CONDITIONS, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> MR. SEGARS SECONDED IT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

[01:00:05]

>> I THINK IT WAS WELL STATED. >> OKAY. WELL, WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE THEN. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND SUSAN, THAT ONE IS UNANIMOUS AS WELL. AND

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.