[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:06]
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. IT IS 7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22. WELCOME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. WE ARE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. I HAVE 7:00 P.M., SUSAN? ARE YOU READY? THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZENS' INPUT. FIRST OFF, THOUGH, AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HERE IN. THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS, OR REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION OR CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. TO PROVIDE COMMENT FOR MEETING IF YOU'RE NOT ATTENDING IN PERSON, PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO CITIZEN INPUT @ ROWLETT.COM BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING. PLEASE SPECIFICALLY STATE WHETHER YOUR COMMENT IS REGARDING A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM OR A GENERAL COMMENT TO THE COMMISSION. YOUR COMMENT WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD DURING THE MEETING AND THERE WAS A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT. OR IN PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS UP THERE ON THE TABLE. IF YOU PLAN ON SPEAKING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THOSE CARDS. WE HAVE CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND WE
[3. CITIZENS’ INPUT]
HAVE HAD A WORK SESSION. WILL MOVE TO ITEM 3. CITIZENS INPUT, THIS TIME THREE MINUTE COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION DURING CITIZEN INPUT. THERE IS A MR. BART READER HERE TO SPEAK. PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS FORTHE MINUTES AND THERE WAS A THREE-MINUTE CLOCK. >> MALE SPEAKER: I APPRECIATE IT. APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS BART READER, A 6310 WINDMILL CIRCLE IN DALLAS, 75252. I AM A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER HERE IN ROLLA AND HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS CANTERBURY COVE AND MILLER AND SHE SAID, IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT A FEW YEARS, FINALLY HAVE OUR BUILDING PERMITS ALMOST COMPLETE NOW, STARTING CONSTRUCTION. I AM JUST HERE TO MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT Y'ALL DISCUSS IN THE WORK SESSION AND IN GENERAL IN SUPPORT OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING, WITH THE PROPOSAL IS, JUST A COUPLE OF AMBIGUITIES I THOUGHT I WOULD COMMENT ON FROM A BUILDER STANDPOINT. I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THE EXTERIORS, THE MATERIAL, THE PASSAT MATERIALS AS A BUILDER, I CAN TELL YOU THAT ONE REASON THAT I HAVE PROPOSED TO USE BRICK AND STONE AT THE FRONT OF THE HUSBAND ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE ON A RELATIVELY NARROW HOUSE WHERE BUILDING IS FORM-BASED CODE, BUILDING THE ONES THAT WERE BUILDING ON OUR 35 FOOT WIDE LOTS THE FIVE FOOT WIDE HOUSES, 10 FOOT SIDE YARDS. AND SO, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING, BRICK AND STONE REQUIRES ANOTHER FIVE INCHES OVER AND ABOVE THE FRAMING OF THE HOUSE. AND ADDING THAT ON FIVE INCHES OF EACH SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS 10 INCHES ON THE LENGTH OF THE HOUSE. TALKING ABOUT OVER 50 SQUARE FEET, 70 FOOT LONGHOUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, NOTHING BUT OVER 50 SQUARE FEET OF HOUSE THAT'S NOW EXTERIOR OF USABLE SPACE. AND FOR FOLKS LOOKING AT A 25 FOOT WHITE HOUSE, LOSING WAS TO PUT UP WITH THE WHOLE LENGTH, THEY PREFER TO HAVE STUCCO OR HARDY PLANK OR HEARTY STUCCO MATERIAL ON THE OUTSIDE AND SAVE 424 AND A HALF INCHES OF WITH ON THE SIDE, NINE INCHES ON MOREHOUSE BASICALLY. AGAIN, THAT'S JUST A REASON, JUST SOME BACKGROUND FOR Y'ALL. ALSO, YOU ARE TO ME ABOUT THE STATED WIDTHS OF GARAGES, GARAGE DOOR STANDARD WITH THE 16 FOOT. 18 FOOT. STANDARD GARAGE DOOR AFFORDABLE IS 16 FOOT. IN THE MAIN, LAST THING I WOULD MENTION IS WANTING TO GET IT I SAW IN -- THAT IT DON'T THINK IT'S RESOLVED IN THE BUILDING CODE AND WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES THE DEPTH, MINIMUM DEPTH THAT'S GOOD THE RUSH IS 20 FEET, WHICH IS FINE. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. PROBLEM I SEE IS THAT SNOW AND OUTSIDE -- NOT SPECIFIED WHETHER IT'S OUTSIDE OR INTO THE SIDE DEPTH. I'M ACTUALLY RUNNING INTO THE SNOW WITH THE CITY AND GETTING PERMIT. WE HAD 20 FOOT OUTSIDE DEATH, FOUND OUT THE WAY THE CITY PLANNED TO VIEW AND INTERPRET IT, THAT'S INSIDE DEPTH. NOT A BIG DEAL, JUST A LITTLE BIT TO SEE IT MADE CLEAR, INSIDE DEPTH VERSUS
[00:05:01]
OUTSIDE DEPTH. BUT THAT IS ALL. I THINK THE PROPOSALS ARE GOOD, I THINK THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY -- COULD SPEND A LOT OF TIME SUGGESTING OTHER CHANGES, NO LONGER HERE FOR[4. CONSENT AGENDA]
TODAY. PRECEDED. THANK YOU. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 4, THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE JUST HAVE ONE ITEM, ITEM 4A: CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 8, 2022 REGULAR MEETING. COMMISSIONERS, EVERYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? ANY CHANGES, COMMENTS? YES, SIR.
>> MALE SPEAKER: YES, MA'AM. ON ITEM 5D, PARAGRAPH 3, AND I MENTIONED THIS ALREADY, OR COMMISSIONER VICE CHAIR DAY ASKED THE STAFF IF THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD BEEN CONTRACTED AND
IT WAS ACTUALLY THE ICEHOUSE PROPERTY OWNER CONTACTED. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: OKAY.
COULD CATCH. SUSAN, YOU GOT THAT. THANK YOU, MR. CONTE. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER CHANGES? WELL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GET THIS APPROVED AS AMENDED. MR. ENGLAND, GO
AHEAD. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. CONTE, SECOND BY MR. INGRAM. ALL IN FAVOR? AND WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION AND EVERYONE ELSE VOTED IN FAVOR, SO THAT ITEM CARRIES. I WILL MOVE ON TO
[5A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by the City of Rowlett to: 1) Rezone the subject property from Planned Development (PD) District for Limited Commercial (C-1) Uses to Single-Family Residential (SF-8) District; 2) Amend the Comprehensive Plan; and 3) Amend the Zoning Map of the City of Rowlett. The approximately 2.32-acre property is located approximately 140 feet west of the intersection Navigation Drive and Miller Road, situated in the Charles D. Merrell Survey, Abstract Number 957, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas]
ITEM 5, INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AND WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS AS I MENTIONED BEFORE IN THE FRONT OF THE ROOM. ITEM 5A, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY THE CITY OF RULE OUT TO, ONE, RESUME THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM PLAN DEVELOPMENT PD DISTRICT FOR LIMITED COMMERCIAL C LETTER ONE USE TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SFH DISTRICT; TWO, CAN'T AMANDA CONFERENCE OF PLAN; AND THREE, AMEND THE ZONING IMPORTANT MAP OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT. APPROXIMATELY 2.32 ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 140 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF NAVIGATION DRIVE AND MILLER ROAD. SITUATED IN THE CHARLESTON MARROW SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 957 IN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. YES, SIR.>> FEMALE SPEAKER: THANK YOU FOR READING THAT CAPTION INTO THE RECORD. SO THE REQUEST HERE IS TO -- FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON WHETHER TO RESUME THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ILLUSTRATED IN RED ON THE DIAGRAM ON THE RIGHT FROM THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR LIMITED C1 USES TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SFH IS WHAT IT SHOULD READ. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE MISSED THAT.
SECONDLY, TO AMANDA CONFERENCE OF PLAN AND, THIRDLY, TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP. THE RALLY DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS A SECTION IN THESE -- SECTION 805 D6, WHICH REQUIRES THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO INITIATE A REZONING PROCESS FOR ANY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHICH IS NOT COMMENCED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE APPROVAL. THAT IS, THE SITUATION WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT WAS REZONED FROM THE SF EIGHT DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR LIVING FACILITY. THE PEE DEE WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED INCLUDES THE CONCEPT PLAN AS WELL AS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SENIOR LIVING FACILITY. AS A REMINDER, THE SF SINGLE-FAMILY EIGHT DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON LOTS OF 8000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE. ALSO, THE DISTRICT DOES ALLOW FOR SOME LIMITED NONRESIDENTIAL USES, SPECIFICALLY NOTE THAT THE SINGULAR -- SENIOR LIVING FACILITY IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE IN THE SF EIGHT DISTRICT, EITHER BY RIGHT OR WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THE SITE IS, AS NOTED, ABOUT 2.32 ACRES, LOCATED SOUTH OF MILLER ROAD, ABOUT A QUARTER-MILE WEST OF DELL ROCK ROAD, ACCESS OF COURSE IS FROM MILLER ROAD. YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY IS VERY NARROW AND WIDE, PROXIMALLY 144 FEET FRONTAGE ALONG MILLER ROAD IN ABOUT 700 FEET IN DEPTH. THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL ALLEYS WHICH
[00:10:02]
ARE ON THE EAST SIDE AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL. THE CONCEPT PLAN WHICH WAS APPROVED WITH THIS OTHER PD DOES HAVE A SINGLE-STORY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD HAVE -- WHICH PROVES TO HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35 FEET. THERE WERE UP TO 48 BEDS APPROVED, 75 PARKING SPACES WERE TO BE PROVIDED, WHICH DOES EXCEED THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE RALLY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE USE AS IT'S DEFINED, 72 SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED. IN THE WAY OF BUFFERING FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, ABUTTING PROPERTIES, THERE WOULD BE A SIX FOOT WOOD FENCE THAT WAS REQUIRED TO BUFFER TO THE DAYCARE WHICH IS ON THE WEST OR ON THE PLAN THE SIDE, LEFT-HAND SIDE, THEN ALSO SIX FOOT MASONRY WALLS TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS LOCATED EAST AND SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY. A BIT MORE INFORMATION ON THE SF EIGHT ZONING, AGAIN, MINIMUM HOME SIZE THERE IS 1800 SQUARE FEET, AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 8000 SQUARE FEET. THE SF EIGHT IS THE PREDOMINANT ZONING AND LAND USE IN THE VICINITY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS PREDOMINANTLY AND USE OF OF THE CITY FACILITY. YOU HAVE THE SF EIGHT ZONING SPECIFICALLY LOCATED TO THE WEST. THAT DAYCARE DOES HAVE AN SF EIGHT BASED ZONE WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR THE OPERATION OF THE DAYCARE, SIMILARLY TO THE SOUTH IS SF EIGHT ZONING. THEN YOU HAVE THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHICH HAS MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 7200 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS LARGELY COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT THE SF EIGHT ZONE REQUIRES. BECAUSE OF HANDS OF PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY, IT IS ZONED -- SORRY, NOT ZONE, BUT DESIGNATED THAT IS A MULTIFAMILY ONLY FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THAT, WHICH IS A BROWN COLOR ON THE PLAN, ALSO THE DAYCARE WAS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE MULTIFAMILY DESIGNATION AS WELL. MULTIFAMILY DOES INCLUDE THE TRADITIONAL TYPE OF APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT AND PER HOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DOES HAVE A DENSITY OF MORE THAN 10 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR 20 BEDROOMS. THE CURRENT PD FOR THAT SENIOR LIVING FACILITY IS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT EXULTATION, BUT WE WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED WITH OUR 2019 UPDATE TO THE COMP PLANT, IT LARGELY IS REFLECTIVE OF WHAT IS ON THE GROUND IN THE EXISTING USES AND ALSO THOSE USES THAT WERE ENTITLED TO BE DEVELOPED. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE YELLOW IS THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION, AND THAT'S THE DOMINANT LAND-USE IN THE VICINITY. THEREFORE, THE SF EIGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING USES, AND IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO AMEND THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN IN THIS CASE TO REFLECT THAT CHANGE AND AS WELL TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THAT CHANGE. IN THE WAY OF NOTIFICATIONS, THE PERCENT OUT, THERE WERE 37 NOTICES SENT OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET AND ALSO 500 NOTICES SENT OUT AS A COURTESY TO THIS PROPERTY -- I'M SORRY. OTHER WAY, 85, 85 NOTICES SENT OUT AS A COURTESY TO PEOPLE -- PEOPLE OWNING THE HOMES, THE PROPERTIES WITHIN 500 FEET. WE RECEIVED FOR BOTH THE 200 FOOT REQUIREMENT IN THE COURTESY NOTICES, TWO NOTICES THAT WERE RESPONSES THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST AND ONE, I GOT THAT BACKWARDS. IT'S TWO IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION ON THERE. TIME ALL OVER THE PLACE HERE. AND THEN THE GENERAL REASONS WHY PEOPLE HAD ISSUES, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC, PARTICULARLY ON MILLER ROAD, WHAT IMPACT EITHER THE SENIOR LIVING FACILITY WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WOULD HAVE ALONG THE PROPERTY VALUES AS WELL AS WHAT WAS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THE ACTION HERE WOULD BE TO APPROVE REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES WITH THAT C1 BASE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 48 BED SENIOR LIVING FACILITY TO REZONE THAT BACK TO TO RESTORE THE SINGLE-FAMILY EIGHT DISTRICT, WHICH IS ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PEE DEE. WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTIVE GIVEN UNDER SECTION 70 7805D6, THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS WERE DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT OCCURRED WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE ADOPTION. WITH THAT, I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES HERE THIS EVENING.[00:15:04]
SHE IS GOING TO BE ADDRESSING YOU AS WELL AND ALSO BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAYHAVE OF HER. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: THANK YOU, ALEX! ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
YES? >> THIS MAY BE ADDRESSED BY THE OWNER, I DON'T KNOW, BUT DO WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, WHETHER DEVELOPMENT DID NOT GO THERE?
>> MALE SPEAKER: SHE AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THAT SHE WILL BE PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT.
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. I GUESS IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO, OR THE OWNER WANTS TO COME UP, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR
THE RECORD. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN AND THE COMMISSION PAID MY NAME IS CARMELITA DOLORES, 1329 BREMER DRIVE, CARROLLTON, TEXAS, 75007. SO I BELIEVE THAT THE TWO YEARS OR MORE HAVE LAPSED AND I WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION, REASON BEING, AS WE KNOW, THEN PANDEMIC HAD HIT THE LONG-TERM CARE INDUSTRY. WE HAVE HELD A BIT, WAITING FOR WHAT HAPPENED. SIMPLY BECAUSE WE ARE IN AN INDUSTRY AND WE SAW THE DECLINE IN ADMISSIONS AND ALSO THE LOSS OF MANPOWER, PLUS THE DEMAND FOR WHO WILL DO THE CONSTRUCTION. SO WE HAVE DIFFERENT ISSUES WHY WE ARE HOLDING OFF ON THE PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. WHEN WE RECEIVE THIS LETTER OR WHEN WE APPROACH MR. ALEX, CONNECT, THANK YOU SO MUCH, OUR ARCHITECTURAL FIRM AND OUR CIVIL ENGINEERING HAD DISCUSSED WITH ME WHAT ARE OTHER OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THE LAND IS VERY NARROW AND VERY DEEP, TO DO SENIOR HOUSING SF WITH EIGHT PROBABLY WILL BE MORE OF A CHALLENGE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOCKS AND HOW TO, YOU KNOW, COME BACK WITH THE FIRE TRUCK AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND I KNOW THAT FOR A FACT, BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE THAT WITH THE SENIOR FACILITY. SO I AM HERE TO ASK FOR A GRACE PERIOD OF PLEASE 90 DAYS BEFORE THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY, THE POP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE ORIGINAL F LETTER EIGHT TO BE REVERTED BACK TO GIVE US THE 90 DAYS TO WORK WITH, OUR ENGINEERS AND THEIR ARCHITECT TO SEE WHAT OTHER PROJECT WE COULD BRING IN TO THE PIECE OF LAND IN ORDER FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD. SO WE ARE ASKING FOR
-- I AM ASKING FOR 90 DAYS. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER? COMMISSIONERS? NO? OKAY. MR. COTATI? WITHIN THIS 90 DAYS, YOU WILL ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THIS PROPERTY ASIDE FROM WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY?
>> YES, SIR. >> ZONE FOR? >> YEAH, WE ARE GOING TO
ENTERTAIN BOTH POSSIBILITIES. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: DID THE CITY PROVIDE -- THIS WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR MR. KONY. DOES THE CITY PROVIDE THE OWNER OR THE APPLICANT OF A NOTICE THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE IT HAPPENS, OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS JUST ON YOUR
DESK AND SAY, OKAY, TWO YEARS IS UP AND WE DO THIS? >> MALE SPEAKER: SO WE HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATION WITH THE OWNER AND HER DESIGNED PROFESSIONAL PRIOR TO INITIATING THIS. THEN WE DID SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS, WE LET THEM KNOW AND WE SENT OUT THE NOTICE OF THIS ZONING CHANGE WHEN WE DID THE CHANGE.
[00:20:01]
>> MALE SPEAKER: WHAT'S THE TIME PERIOD FROM THE TIME HE STARTED TALKING TO HER TO NOW?
>> MALE SPEAKER: >> FEMALE SPEAKER: WE ONLY START TALKING FIRST OF THE
YEAR >> MALE SPEAKER: SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. SO NOT TOO MUCH.
>> MALE SPEAKER: SO ABOUT 50 DAYS? >> FEMALE SPEAKER: THE FIRST OF THE YEAR WOULD BE ABOUT SIX WEEKS. SO I AM GATHERING THAT YOU ARE, AND I THINK WHAT MR. CONTE IS TRYING TO SORT OUT AS WELL IS THAT YOU ARE OKAY WITH NOT DOING THE SENIOR LIVING, BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE EQUITABLE RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS THE ECONOMY AND WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THE WORLD. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I THINK YOU ARE HAPPY WITH THE
SF EIGHT EITHER. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: CORRECT, BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE --
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: BUT WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER IF WE GET THE PROPERTY IS OWNED, AND IF SHE WANTS TO COME BACK AND REZONE IT, THAT COMES BEFORE US?
>> MALE SPEAKER: CORRECT. IT WOULD WIPE THE SLATE CLEAN FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE AND THEN IT BECOMES NOT AMENDING THE CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, IT BECOMES AN
ENTIRELY NEW CONSIDERATION. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: BUT EITHER WAY, SHE WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT AND I THINK THAT -- OKAY. THAT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS. DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR PROPERTY OWNER? OKAY. THANK YOU BOTH. COMMISSIONERS,
DISCUSSION. >> MALE SPEAKER: REMINDER THAT IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: RIGHT. OKAY. WE WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM THAT HAS NOT FILLED OUT A CARD? SUSAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY? OKAY. SAYING NONE, I WILL OFFICIALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOW, COMMISSIONERS.
>> MALE SPEAKER: YES. I THINK WE HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE. SHE WAS -- THE OWNER WAS PROVIDED AMPLE TIME TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION. IN EITHER CASE, LIKE SHE SAYS, SHE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED. SHE WANTS TO EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS, BUT OTHER OPTIONS WOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE IN ZONING ANYWAY. AND SO, THE PROCESS IS A PROCESS. LET'S GO AHEAD AND REVERT BACK TO WHAT IS ORIGINAL AND THEN SHE CAN
BRING FORWARD WHAT SHE WANTS TO COME IS MY STAND. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: POSTPONING IT WILL COST HER TIME. IS THAT HOW YOU SEE IT? [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: MR. FRISBY, YES, SIR? >> MALE SPEAKER: WHAT ABOUT THE FEES THAT THE OWNER MAY HAVE TO INCUR? IF THEY HAVE TO COME FORWARD?
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT FOR US? >> FEMALE SPEAKER: I CAN ADJUST THAT. THE CASES THE CITY INITIATIVE KASUNIC US TO PER THE ROWLETT DEVELOPING CODE. ANY CHANGES TO A ZONING WOULD REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE, SO THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY ZONING PAY CHANGE FEE. THIS PROCESS IS -- NOT THE SAME AS
SOMEONE COMING INTO REZONE THE PROPERTY. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: GOT YOU
ANSWERED, MR. [INAUDIBLE] >> MALE SPEAKER: THAT WILL BE DIFFERENT THAN THE COST TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING OTHER THAN THIS PD, CORRECT? SO, OKAY. NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE
APPLICANT. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. WELL, I THINK WE
ARE READY FOR A MOTION. MR. CHO DAY? >> MALE SPEAKER: I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE CURRENT TO THE ASSOCIATE.
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY MR. CONTE FOR APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM, FIVE
[00:25:07]
DAY. TOI HAVE A SECOND? >> MALE SPEAKER: SECOND. > FEMALE SPEAKER: CANNOT MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? I DON'T WANT A BUTTON, COMMISSIONERS, BUT KEEP IN MIND THE REQUEST IS THREEFOLD WHICH IS ALSO AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP.
>> MALE SPEAKER: I APOLOGIZE. I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION AS STATED.
>> FEMALE SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >> CHAIRPERSON: A SECOND? OKAY. OKAY. AND AND EVERYBODY READY TO VOTE? SUSAN, ARE YOU READY? OKAY. LET'S VOTE. THAT PASSED
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.