[1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:11] >> GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND WELCOME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AND WE HAVE A QUORUM. WE HAVE ALREADY HAD OUR WORK SESSION AND OUR APPRECIATION DINNER AND VIDEO. WE'LL MOVE IN TO ITEM 3. CITIZEN'S INPUT. AT THIS TIME WE'LL TAKE THREE MINUTE COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION DURING CITIZEN INPUT AND IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM YOU MAY WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THAT ITEM COMES UP ON THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FOR CITIZEN'S INPUT? SUSAN? OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON. [4. CONSENT AGENDA] THE NEXT ITEM IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND THAT IS WHAT WE USUALLY DO. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER OR CITIZEN MAY REQUEST ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND MOVED INTO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ARE WE OKAY WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA? >> YES, SIR. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STEPH REGARDING 4B. COULD SOMEBODY FROM STAFF GIVE US MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE REPLATTE AND THE NUMBER OF LOTS AND THE TYPE OF LOTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. >> CERTAINLY, DOES THIS NEED TO BE PULLED OR CAN I JUST PROVIDE INFORMATION? >> YOU CAN PROVIDE THE INFORMATION. >> SOUNDS GOOD. SO THIS IS A REPLATTE FOR JUST FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF THE LOTS IN SAPPHIRE BAY. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS A LARGE LOT CURRENTLY PLATTED AT THE NORTH PORTION OF THE SITE. NOW THAT WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION IN REGARDS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND ACCESS DRIVES AND EASEMENTS WE WERE ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE THAT INTO A BELIEVE FOUR PARCELS. THAT WILL BE -- FOR DEVELOPMENT. SO, THAT IS ONE OF THE EXAMPLES. THERE IS ANOTHER SET OF TOWNHOMES WHICH WE WILL BE SPEAKING TO LATER TODAY AS WELL. A SERIES OF 22 TOWNHOMES THAT ARE SUBDIVIDED. ON THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE SITE. THERE IS A PART OF THE SAME LOT 52 OR 54A I BELIEVE IT IS THERE IS ALSO ALMOST AN ACRE SIZE LOT THAT IS BEING DEDICATED FOR THE CITY'S EMERGENCY -- FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND SO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS IS ACHIEVING. DOING ADDITIONAL SUBDIVISION OF THE LOTS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN THE INITIAL PLATTE >> SO WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THIS REPLATTING THAT ALLOWED THEM TO COME IN UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA RATHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL ITEM? >> YES AND DID YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT >> ABSOLUTELY. THE PROCESS IS A MINISTERIAL ONE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND AS A RESULT THESE ITEMS ARE REVIEWED AS CONCEPT SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO REMOVE THE ITEM FROM CONSENT IT CAN BE BUT IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. THE SITE IS BEING PREPARED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR USES AND THE USES AND THAT IS WHY YOU'LL SEE NUMEROUS REPLATTES THIS PROPERTY ALONG THE COURSE OF THE YEAR. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. SO ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WE HAVE 4A -- CONSIDER APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 22, 2022 REGULAR MEETING AND ITEM 4B CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE SAPPHIRE BAY REPLATTE WHICH IS CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION -- OF SAPPHIRE BAY AND I'M READY FOR A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR APPROVAL. >> WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AND THAT WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE AND IT IS APPROVED. NOW WE WILL BE MOVING TO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. [00:05:03] I'D LIKE TO NOTE PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AND WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES THIS EVENING AS ALWAYS. REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IN THE RIGHT HAND CORNER. NEW PLAN TO SPEAK TONIGHT AND HAVE NOT FILLED OUT ONE OF THESE FORMS PLEASE DO SO AND HAND IT OVER HERE TO MS. KNICKS BEFORE YOU SPEAK. [5A. Consider and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Danny Giesbrecht, 151 Coffee, on behalf of property owner Lakeview Parkway Ventures, LLC., regarding a Special Use Permit to allow a restaurant with a drive-thru on a portion of an approximately 5.52-acre property zoned General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District. The subject property is located approximately 360 feet east of the intersection of Lakeview Parkway and Rowlett Road, being a portion of Lot 2, Block 1 of the A.S.P.I Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.] ITEM 5A. CONSIDER TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY DANNY PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1 OF THE A.S.P.I ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. GOING OVER THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WAS -- -- ICE DISPENSER LOCATED ON THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN IN THE RIGHT HERE. AND ON APRIL 5 OF THIS YEAR THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT ON A PORTION OF THE COMMERCIAL LOT ZONED AS GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL C2. AS FOR CONSIDERATION -- IT STATES THE PRESERVATIONS OF LONG ESTABLISHED -- AND SITE OUT REGULATION GOVERNING AND REMOVAL OF ANY PROTECTED TREES. ALSO REQUIRES A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF -- COUNCIL IF THREE OR MORE PROTECTIVE TREES ARE REMOVED. PROTECTED TREES ARE DEFINED AS ANY TREES THAT ARE WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 INCHES CALIBER DBH FOR -- HACK BARRY TREES. 11 INCHES DBH. THAT IS NOT LISTED ON THE PROHIBITED PLANT LIST. FOR DBH OR DIAMETER OR AT BREAST HEIGHT IS MEASUREMENT OF TRUNKS DIAMETER AT 4.5 FEET ABOVE GRADE. SO OUT OF THE NINE PROTECTED TREES ON THE SITE SEVEN ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED FOR THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE PARKING LOT TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW RESTAURANT. HERE ARE SOME OF THE TREES. SO SECTION 504 OF THE REC GIVES -- ONE TO ONE CREDIT FOR PRESERVING PROTECTED TREES. THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REMOVING 69 PROTECTED CALIBER INCHES AND PRESERVE 24 CALIBER INCHES RESULTING IN TOTAL OF 45 INCHES REQUIRED TO BE MITIGATED. THERE ARE ABOUT SIX UNPROTECTED TREES ON THE PROPERTY. UNPROTECTED TREES MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT MITIGATION. 41 CALIBER TREES INCHES TOTAL. THREE TREES TO BE PRESERVED TOTALING 24 CALBER INCHES. THE FOLLOWING MITIGATION AS PROPOSED PLANTING OF 30 CALIBER INCHES WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. -- SORRY. I CANNOT TALK TODAY. REFOREST STATION FOR THE REMAINING OF 15 INCHES AND TOTALING IN $1825 AT 121.67 PER CALIBER INCH. SO CITY STAFF WOULD APPROVE OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT CONDITIONAL UPON APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SITE PLAN [00:10:05] CONSISTENT WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT. -- PLAN GRANTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 5 OF THIS YEAR. ANY QUESTIONS? >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND GOING TO PRESENT? >> THE APPLICANT IS HERE. HE DOES NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION. >> I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING? >> I THINK WE'RE OKAY. THANK YOU FOR COMING. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT -- I'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE A MOTION. Y'ALL HAVE A QUESTION? >> I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION >> GO AHEAD. MR. FRISBEE. GO. >> I'LL SECOND. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION WAS THAT FOR APPROVAL. I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. OKAY. >> YES, MA'AM, MOTION TO APPROVE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. FRISBEE. WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. SEEINGERS. ALL IN FAVOR. ARE YOU READY FOR US, SUSAN? I DON'T SEE IT. LET'S VOTE AGAIN. THERE WE GO AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS VOTE AND IT PASSES. OKAY. >> THANK YOU, CHRISSERS IN. >> MOVING TO ITEM 5B. [5B. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request by Suzy Yanger, 234 Outdoor, on behalf of property owners Shelly Bland and Patrick Boux, to: 1) Consider a Special Use Permit for an accessory structure that covers more than 35 percent of the rear yard, and; 2) Amend the Comprehensive Plan; and 3) Amend the Zoning Map of the City of Rowlett. The approximately 0.17-acre site is located at 8110 Columbia Drive, in the City of Rowlett, Rockwall County, Texas.] CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST BY SUZY YANGER, 234 OUTDOOR, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS SHELLY BLAND AND PATRICK BOUX, TO: 1) CONSIDER A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT COVERS MORE THAN 35 PERCENT OF THE REAR YARD, AND; 2) AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND 3) AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT. THE APPROXIMATELY 0.17-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT 8110 COLUMBIA DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, ROCKWALL COUNTY, TEXAS. >> A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. THE REASON IS NOT YOUR TYPICAL STRUCTURE EXTENDING OVER 500 FEET. THIS IS REGARDING HOW MUCH ARREARS OF THE -- OF THE YARD IT TAKES. IN TERMS OF LOT COVERAGE. THIS APPROVAL WOULD ALSO BE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AS IT'S A ZONING ACTION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SFH. IT HAS A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 8,000 SQUARE FEET. AS I MENTIONED THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS A FORMAL ZONING ACTION THAT ENCOURAGES PUBLIC REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES AND INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT PROPOSED USES WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST -- IS FOR A -- ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT WILL BE PLACED OVER AN EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB. AND SO THE SF8 REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR EITHER A STRUCTURE THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OR 35% OF THE REAR YARD AND IN THIS CASE WE HAVE A LOT WITH A CONCRETE SLAB THAT HAS A TOTAL DOES EXCEED WELL AT OUT TO APPROXIMATELY 80% OF THE SITE SO IT IS WELL IN EXCESS OF THE 45% ALREADY ALLOWED AND EXCEEDS THE 35% OF THAT REAR LOT COVERAGE. HOWEVER IT IS AN EXISTING SLAB AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF THIS COVERED PATIO WOULD NOT BE ADDING ON ANY LOT COVERAGE SO ESSENTIALLY EVEN THOUGH WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS LOT COVERAGE OF THE REAR YARD THIS IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE EXISTING LOT COVERAGE CONDITION OF THE YARD. [00:15:04] AND SO THIS PROPERTY DOES BACK ON TO THE LEASED AREA AFTER LONG LAKE RAY HUBBARD SO THAT ALSO HELPS TO MINIMIZE ANY IMPACT TO ADJOINING NEIGHBORS. THE PROPOSED HEIGHT IS 12 FEET AND THAT IS A CORRECTION. FROM THE STAFF REPORT AND IT IS LESS THAN THE PEAK HIGH OF THE RESIDENTS WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SITE LINE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. YOU CAN SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED RED PORTION WOULD BE THE PROXIMATE LOCATION. NO IMPACT ON PROPERTIES HOWEVER SHOULD THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED GUTTERS SHOULD BE INSTALLED TO CONTROL STORM WATER RUN OFF. NOTICES WERE SENT AT A 200 AND 500-FOOT RADIUS AND TWO RECEIVED IN FAVOR WITHIN THAT 200-FOOT RADIUS. AND THOSE ARE MARKED ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE MAP. STAFF ACCOMMODATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST. FOR THIS STRUCTURE THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 1,000 SQUARE FEET AS INDICATED IN THE CONCEPT SITE PLAN WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL INSTALL GUTTERS FOR STORM WATER RUN OFF. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS? >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE PATIO COVER IS? AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION. A FOLLOW-UP. IS IT A WOOD BUILT? >> IT'S A WOOD BUILDING STRUCTURE. IT DOES HAVE SEVERAL COLUMN US DISPERSED BUT IT IS COMPLETELY. THERE ARE NO WALLS TO IT. IT IS TECHNICALLY ALSO A DETACHED STRUCTURE AS IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY TOUCH THE EXISTING BUILDING. BUT IT IS -- >> IS IT A CANVAS COVER? >> NO. A FULL WOOD FRAME ROOF. AND SO IT FOLLOWS THE TYPICAL REAR PATIO STANDARDS FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> YES, SIR >> THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THE PATIO -- THE CONCRETE SLAB. >> RIGHT. SO THE CONCRETE SLAB IS EXISTING. WHEN I REFER TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE I REFER TO THE EXIST BE HOME. SO IT IS DETACHED FROM THE HOME THOUGH IT DOES VERY CLOSELY ABUT. AND ON PLANET WILL SEEM AS IT DOES ABUT. >> ANYBODY ELSE? >> WOULD THE PATIO COVER BE VISIBLE AT ALL FROM THE STREET? FROM THE FRONT? >> NO. OKAY. >> OUR VISUAL STUDIES OF THIS PROPERTY SHOW THAT BECAUSE IT IS BEING MAINTAINED WITHIN THE EXISTING SET BACKS OF THE EXISTING HOME THERE WOULD BE LITTLE TO NO VISIBILITY OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE STREET. >> IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? >> I'M NOT AWARE THAT THEY ARE. >> OKAY. THAT'S FINE. >> ALL RIGHT. WELL THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FOR THIS ITEM. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. SUSAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE -- OKAY. YOU WILL BE READING. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO HANDS WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? THEN I'M READY FOR A MOTION. >> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ATTACHED TO THAT? ALONG WITH THE GUTTERS BEING INSTALLED TOO. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 5B FOR THE SUP AND GUTTERS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND BY [00:20:04] MS. WILLIAMS. ALL IN FAVOR. AND AGAIN WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS DECISION. [5C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request by Maxwell Fisher, Masterplan, on behalf of property owner Don Valk, to: 1) Rezone the subject property from Limited Commercial/Retail (C-1) District, to Planned Development (PD) District for Limited Commercial/Retail (C-1) and Self-Storage Uses, and approval of a Concept Plan to construct approximately 17,000 square feet of Retail Commercial space and 115,000 of self-storage space; 2) Amend the Comprehensive Plan; and 3) Amend the Zoning Map of the City of Rowlett. The approximately 6.94-acre site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Miller Road and Rowlett Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.] THAT ONE IS APPROVED. MOVING ON TO ITEM 5C. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST BY MAXWELL FISHER, MASTERPLAN, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER DON VALK, TO: 1) REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM LIMITED COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (C-1) DISTRICT, TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT FOR LIMITED COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (C-1) AND SELF-STORAGE USES, AND APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 17,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 115,000 OF SELFSTORAGE SPACE; 2) AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND 3) AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT. THE APPROXIMATELY 6.94-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF MILLER ROAD AND ROWLETT ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. MR. -- MONSOLV >>> THANK YOU. COULD YOU PLEASE PUT THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION AS OPPOSED TO THE APPLICANTS. >> THIS IS NOT A BIG REZONING IN THE SENSE THAT WE'RE CHANGING THE BASE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY. WE'RE MOVING FROM A PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL C1 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT IS STILL MAINTAINS THAT SAME BASE ZONING OF LIMITED COMMERCIAL C1. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THEY ARE ADDING A USE FOR SELF-STORAGE. AND IT'S TYPICALLY ALSO SEEN AS PART OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. SO AS YOU HAVE ALREADY READ THIS WOULD APPROVE A CONCEPT PLAN FOR 17,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 115,000 OF SELF-STORAGE SPACE AS WELL AS AMEND OR APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ZONING MAP. THE LOCATIONS THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROWLETT AND MILLER WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE EXISTING GAS STATION. AS A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND AND YOU'LL SEE THIS FREQUENTLY CORNERS OF MAJOR INTERSECTIONS ARE OFTEN RESERVED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE SAW THIS AT THE CORNER OF MILLER IN THE PASTAS WELL AS OTHER NEARBY DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY RESERVED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. THIS SITE CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 6.94 ACRES AND THEY ARE LOOKING TO DO RETAIL ALONG WITH SELF-STORAGE. THE C1 DISTRICT DOES NOT PERMIT SELF-STORAGE USES. THIS APPLICANT WOULD BE PROPOSING A CLUSTER OF SEVEN SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS THAT ARE INTERNALLY TUCKED TO THE SIDE. YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE DASHED AREA ON THE GRAPHIC AND THE RETAIL PORTION WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY SIX BUILDINGS TOTALLY UNDER 17,000 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN ALTERNATIVE PARKING RATIO FOR THE SELF-STORAGE USE. THE CODE STIPULATES ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY 1500 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE SPACE WHICH WOULD PROXIMATE TO 77 SPACES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE FOR ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY 8,000 SQUARE FEET OR APPROXIMATELY 18 SPACES. THE APPLICANT HAS JUSTIFIED THIS PARKING RATIO BASED ON OTHER DATA FROM OTHER STORAGE FACILITY CITING ONLY TWO OR THREE VISITORS HOURLY. SO NOT TYPICALLY USING EVEN THE PROVIDED PARKING. THE REDUCED COUNTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE LESSER REQUIREMENTS FOR SELF-STORAGE USES. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES A 15-FOOT IN COMPATIBILITY BELT AS WELL. [00:25:05] THIS IS TYPICALLY REFLECTED AS PART OF A SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL AND TREE SPACE NO MORE THAN 35 FEET APART. WE'VE SEEN THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. INSTEAD THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INCREASE TO SIX-FOOT TO AN 8-FOOT MASONRY WALL BY INTEGRATING IT WITH THE REAR OF THE WALLS OF THE SELF-STORAGE UNITS WHICH ARE CONSTRUCTED OF THE SAME MATERIAL. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO INCREASE SET BACKS FOR THOSE SELF-STORAGE UNITS ALONG THE WEST FROM THE REQUIRED 30-40 FEET ALONG THE WEST AND ALSO TO INCREASE FROM 30-50 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE SITE PLAN REFLECTED HERE. WHAT THAT DOES IT DOES INCREASE THE SPACE BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. IT ALLOWS FOR A GREATER GREEN SPACE THAT OPENS TO THE RESIDENTS AND A PARK WITH A TRAIL ALONG THE SOUTHEAST EDGE OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT IS REFLECTED -- THAT PARK IS REFLECTED ALONG THIS EDGE HERE. SO JUST FOR REFERENCE NORTH WOULD BE YOUR LEFT. THEY DID PROVIDE CONCEPT ELEVATIONS. SO KEEP IN MIND THAT THESE ARE NOT APPROVED AS PART OF THE SUP BUT WE WOULD MAINTAIN LANGUAGE THAT DOES STATE THAT THE ELEVATIONS AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESENTATIONS OF THE SUP. WE STILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT TO DO IN THIS PROPERTY AND THESE ELEVATIONS COULD CHANGE BUT THEY SHOULD BE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT IS BEING SHOWN HERE WHICH IS CONCRETE MASONRY. THE UNIT BLOCK -- FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE FACADES. THERE WOULD BE STUCCO STONE VENEERS AND MAINTAINED MOSTLY FOR THE METAL ROOF. BUT ALSO REFLECTED IN THE DOORS OF THE ACTUAL SELF-STORAGE UNITS WHICH ARE SLIGHTLY VISIBLE AT THE ENTRIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ESPECIALLY ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE OF ROWLETT ROAD. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS I MENTIONED EARLIER DOES SHOW COMMERCIAL USE AS PART OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. AND THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WOULD MAINTAIN THE BASE ZONING OF C1 MAINTAINING THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES OF THIS YEAR. -- USE. IT IS STAFF'S OR BASED ON STAFF'S ANALYSIS THIS WOULD BE A COMPATIBLE USE ESPECIALLY DUE TO THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT HELP PROTECT THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT -- OUT OF 200 AND 500-FOOT RADIUS. FOUR OF THOSE WERE IN OPPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE PRESENTATION. ADDITIONAL LETTERS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AT THE -- FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR LIMITED C1 USES AND SELF-STORAGE USES. AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEMANDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND HAS A PRESENTATION IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS MOMENT. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTION FOR STAFF? >> HI. >> WE HAVE A NUMBER OF STORAGE FACILITIES HERE IN TOWN AND AT WHAT PERCENT ARE THESE STORAGE FACILITIES ARE THEY AT FULL CAPACITY? I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAVE ANY STATISTICS AS TO WHERE WE'RE AT WITHIN THE CITY? >> STAFF DOES NOT HAVE AN ACTUAL STUDY SHOWING THE PERCENTAGE OF THE CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING SELF-STORAGE USES. [00:30:06] PERHAPS THE APPLICANT CAN FURTHER GO INTO THAT AS THEY DID PROVIDE THAT -- OR SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE IN REGARDS TO THE DEMAND HERE IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT. AND SO PERHAPS THEY CAN SPEAK MORE INTO THAT. BUT NO. WE DO NOT HAVE ACTUAL STATISTICS THAT TELL US AT WHAT CAPACITY STORAGE SELF-STORAGE IS BEING UTILIZED IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FOR STAFF? WE CAN ASK MORE QUESTIONS IF WE NEED TO. LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS MAXWELL FISHER WITH MASTER PLAN. I REPRESENT STORAGE 365. THANK YOU. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE GET ASKED IS WHY SO MUCH STORAGE IN THE COMMUNITY AND THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD REASONS WHY PEOPLE NEED STORAGE AND WHY THE FACILITIES ARE FULL TODAY. OUTSIDE OF A LOT OF PEOPLE MOVING TO DFW AND THE DEMAND OF HOUSING IN THE AREA PEOPLE HAVE MORE MONEY AND MORE STUFF. AND SO THEY NEED A PLACE TO KEEP THAT STUFF. THERE IS A RISE IN HOA RULES IN THAT YOU CANNOT KEEP STORAGE -- RVS AND BOATS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND ITEMS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION. SO THERE IS A NEED TO KEEP IT SOMEWHERE. OTHER TEMPORARY ITEMS SUCH AS REMODELS AND FORECLOSURES AND EMPTY NESTERS THAT ARE DOWNSIZING. A LOT OF REASONS WHY PEOPLE NEED STORAGE AND ONE OF OUR BIGGEST CUSTOMERS IS COMMERCIAL SPACE. RETAIL OR OFFICES USE AND IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE TO KEEP THE ITEMS AT THE RETAIL LOCATION SO THEY RENT A SMALL RENTAL SPACE TO KEEP THEIR ITEMS. I WANT TO SHOW YOU WHAT WE'RE NOT. NO SCREENING. YOU SEE THE ROLL UP DOORS FACING THE STREET. YOU'VE SEEN THE STORAGE INDUSTRY CHANGE OVER THE LAST 5-10 YEARS. CUSTOMERS WANT TO BE CLOSE TO THEIR STORAGE UNIT WITHIN A MILE OR TWO AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO GET OUTSIDE OF INDUSTRIAL AREAS AND CREATE A MORE NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY STORAGE DEVELOPMENT AND YOU HAVE SEEN THAT THAT LOOK LIKE OFFICE TOWERS OR THAT IT IS HIDDEN AND IT'S CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. STAFF DID A GOOD JOB OF SHARING WHERE THE SITE IS. THERE ARE THREE RETAIL BUILDINGS NOT SIX. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS CORRECT. THERE ARE THREE BUILDINGS AND A FEW MORE STORAGE. WE ARE PROGRAMMING IN A LITTLE MORE PARKING FOR OUR RETAIL AREA. ABOUT 91 PARKING SPACES. IF WE GET A RESTAURANT OR TWO WE WILL HAVE ENOUGH PARKING TO PROGRAM THAT IN. AND THEN ASKING FOR'S REDUCTION ON OUR SELF-STORAGE PARKING. SOME CITIES REQUIRE PARKING FOR MORE ON A WAREHOUSE BASIC WHEN WE ONLY HAVE FOUR OR FIVE VISITORS PER HOUR. WE'RE ONE OF THE LOWEST TRIP GENERATORS IN THE BOOKS. AND THE REASON WHY WE KNOW IS WE HAVE GATE LOGS. WE KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE COME IN AND OUT. AND THERE ARE ONLY A FEW VISITORS THAT GO INTO THE OFFICE THAT DON'T GO THROUGH THE GATE. SO AS FAR AS OUR RETAIL OFFICE BECAUSE THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS A LARGER SCALE RETAIL AND IT'S BEEN VACANT IT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THE MARKET DEMAND FOR A LARGER RETAIL AND EVEN IF YOU DID THAT IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF TRAFFIC IN THE AREA SO WE THINK WE'RE RIGHT SIZING THE AM A -- AMOUNTF RETAIL. 8 AND THE STORAGE IS A LOW TRAFFIC GENERATOR. SORT OF COMPENSATES. SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE USES THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT FOR THE SPACE. WE HAVE A SPECIAL RETAIL BROKER THAT WE WORK WITH IN OUR STORAGE DEVELOPER. I'VE COLOR CODE THEY HAD AND A FEW THINGS GOING ON BUT THE BUILDINGS IN PURPLE ARE SELF-STORAGE. THE BLUE BUILDINGS ARE RETAIL OFFICE. THAT IS WHAT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. IF YOU'RE GOING DOWN ROWLETT OR [00:35:02] MILLER ROAD IT'S GOING TO READ AND SPEAK RETAIL AND OFFICE. THERE IS A GATE WITH ACCESS. OTHER THAN THAT WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO SEAL THIS STORAGE DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE A LEFT TURN BAY THAT WE'RE ADDING ON ROWLETT ROAD THAT ALIGN WET MEDIAN CUT TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF THE SITE. THIS IS OUR LANDSCAPE PLAN. PROPOSING ABOUT 25,000 SQUARE FEET OF MORE LANDSCAPING THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED. WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ACKER. WE'RE PROPOSING 1.6 ACRES. AND WE'RE PROPOSING A POCKET PARK. AND WE'VE GOT LARGE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ALONG WITH TREES SO THE BACK OF OUR ONE STORY BUILDING ARE 40 AND 50 FEET AWAY FROM THE ALLEY WHICH IS MUCH MORE PALATABLE THAN WHAT YOU COULD GET THERE WITH THE RETAIL. YOU HAVE A BUILDING CLOSER AND TALLER. OUR PD IS GOING TO SUBJECT THIS TO ADHERE. THAT MEANS ONE STORY AND LOW PROFILE AND SET BACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HERE IS MORE DETAILS IN OUR POCKET PARK THAT WE WOULD BE MAINTAINING. DEDICATING IT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY COULD USE IT BUT WE WOULD MAINTAIN IT AS PROPERTY OWNERS. WALKING TRAIL, PICNIC TABLE, BENCHES. DOG STATION. TRASH RECEPTACLE. 16 TREES AND PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING FOR SAFETY SECURITY. IT WON'T SHINE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WILL BE LOW LEVEL AND WILL ADD AS AN AMBIENCE TO THE PARK. STREET FACING ELEVATIONS. OFFICE AND RETAIL. TYPICAL ONE STORY. SHORT IN PROFILE. THEY WON'T BE LOOKING OVER THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HERE IS OUR RENDERINGS. A COUPLE THAT ARE NOT IN THE PACKET. THIS IS LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM ROWLETT ROAD. YOU SEE THE POCKET PARK WITH THE WALKING TRAIL AND THE RETAIL -- THAT IS THE STORAGE OFFICE THAT YOU SEE THERE WITH THE AWNING. STORAGE TO THE LEFT. THIS IS THE WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM THE SOUTH ALLEY. YOU CAN SEE 40-FOOT BUFFER WITH A ROW OF TREES AND THEN OUR BUILDING IS LESS THAN 213 FEET TALL. WHERE STORAGE BUILDING STOPS WE'LL HAVE 8-FOOT-TALL MASONRY WALL. A CONSTANT WALL TO SCREEN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS A RENDERING TAKEN FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE ALLEY. LOOKING NORTHEAST TOWARD THINGS SECTION BACK AT THE ALLEY. THIS IS WHAT IF YOU LIVE BACK THERE THIS IS WHAT YOU'LL SEE WITH OUR LARGE BUFFERS AND TREES AND THE ONE STORY BUILDING. IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE STORAGE. YOU WON'T KNOW IT'S THERE. THAT IS HOW QUIET IT IS. PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS DESIGNED TO ADHERE TO THE EXHIBITS THAT WE HAVE TO BUILD WHAT WE'RE SAYING WE WILL BUILD. THERE IS A LARGE PERIMETER BUFFER WHICH TRANSITIONS FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL AND THIS PROHIBITS OUTSIDE STORAGE. NO BOATS OR RVS. ALL INTERIOR STORAGE. THE LARGE CLIMATE CONTROL BUILDING WILL BE ONE STORY AS WELL. AND THERE WILL BE AN ELEVATOR BASEMENT FOR STORAGE. YOU ASK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF STORAGE FACILITIES. SOME NORTH OF HERE. WE'RE CAREFUL IN STUDYING THE SUB MARKET. THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF STORAGE IN THE 3-MILE RADIUS. THE STORAGE THAT IS AVAILABLE IS 97% FULL. WHEN YOU GET TO 95% IT SCREAMS YOU NEED ANOTHER FACILITY. RATES ARE GOING UP AND A COUPLE OF OTHER PRESENTATIONS I DID LAST NIGHT YOU SAW AN INCREASE IN CLIMATE CONTROL STORAGE RENTS BY 19% LAST YEAR. BECAUSE THERE IS SUCH A DEMAND FOR STORAGE AND THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SUPPLY. DFW AVERAGE IS ABOUT 8-9.5 SQUARE FEET PER PERSON. RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT 7.95. YOU ARE NOT OVER SATURATED. THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS STORAGE AND WE WOULD NOT BUILD IT IF WE KNEW WE COULDN'T FILL IT UP. WE ENGAGE THE NATIONS AROUND OUR [00:40:05] PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET. WE INITIALLY SENT A LETTER OUT IN OCTOBER AND THEN HELD A MEETING AT BANQUET BREWERY. THERE WERE A FEW COUNCILMEMBERS THERE AND A FEW NEIGHBORS. IT GENERALLY WENT WELL. THERE ARE MISCONCEPTIONSES WITH STORAGE. THE NATURE IS THAT IT'S SAFE AND SECURE AND CLIENTS DEMAND THAT IT'S SAFE AND SECURE SO THERE IS NOT LIMITS OF CRIME OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S THE OPPOSITE AND THEN IT DOESN'T DECREASE PROPERTY VALUES. WHEN APPRAISERS COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES -- YOU MAY HAVE SOME VERY OBJECTAL USE -- * THAT TYPE OF USE COULD LOWER PROPERTY VALUE BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE. AND WE ALSO FOLLOWED UP AND WALKED DOOR-TO-DOOR. THERE WERE A FEW PEOPLE THAT STILL HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. WALKED DOOR-TO-DOOR RECENTLY. GOT A COUPLE OF LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD THAT I CAN SHARE WITH YOU AS WELL AFTER WE HAVE EXPLAINED WHAT WE WERE WITH DOING. HERE ARE THE GATE LOGS. WE HAVE ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE -- I CUT OFF THE NAMES ON PERSON BUT WE HAVE FOUR OR FIVE VISITORS PER HOUR DURING PEAK HOUR. WE'RE TALKING 3-5 VISITORS PER HOUR BUT A HIGH VALUE FOR THE CITY. THIS IS MORE OF A CITY COUNCIL SLIDE BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO MENTION THAT IS THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS SHOWN AT $15,000. WE'LL HAVE A 23 TIMES INCREASE. IT WILL BE A $14 MILLION TAXABLE VALUE. LOOKING AT OVER $100,000 TO THE CITY IN TAXES AND THEN YOU COUNT THE OTHER LOCAL ENTITIES IN THE COUNTY LOOKING AT $3656,000 COMPARED TO $15,000. NOT COUNTING THE RETAIL SALES TAX. *. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THE SELF-STORAGE OFFSETS THE OVER-ALL TRAFFIC THAT COULD COME OUT BY 60%. SO WE THINK THE SELF-STORAGE IS NEEDED AND WILL PROVIDE A NICE BUFFER AND WE'VE WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND PROVIDED A NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT WITH THE POCKET PARK AND WE ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT WAS VERY THOROUGH. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE. SO CAN YOU SHOW ME THE INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR NOT ONLY THE RETAIL BUT THE STORAGE AREA. >> YES. I'LL START ON MILLER ROAD. A RETAIL OFFICE BUILDING ONLY. SO THE ACCESS IS SLOWLY TO THE BUILDING ON MILLER. THERE IS ONE MAIN ACCESS POINT. SO THAT BUILDING WILL FUNCTION ON ITS OWN SO TO SPEAK. THE BUILDING ON ROWLETT IS A SHARED ACCESS. AND SO, THAT IS WHERE YOU SHARE RETAIL OFFICE OR STORAGE OFFICES THAT BLUE BOX AND THEN YOU MAKE YOUR WAY PAST THE RETAIL TO WHERE THE STORAGE GATE WOULD BE AND YOU HIT THE KEY CODE AND GO INTO THE SECURE AREA BETWEEN THE PURPLE BUILDINGS. SO, ITS INTEGRATED BUT THERE ARE SEPARATE USES BECAUSE THE STORAGE NEEDS TO BE SAFE AND SECURE WHEREAS THE RETAIL AND OFFICE IS MORE OF A PUBLIC USE. >> CAN YOU SHOW ME -- ON ROWLETT YOU WOULD ENTER THE PROPERTY? >> DOES THIS THING HAVE A POINTER? OKAY. >> IS THERE AN OPENING IN THE MEDIAN? >> I THINK WE'RE MOVING THAT MEDIAN CUT WITH THE DRIVE AND THEN WE ALSO PUT IN A LEFT TURN LANE SO WE DON'T DISRUPT TRAFFIC. >> OKAY AND ON THE NORTH END SO WOULD YOU SHARON OPENING THERE WITH THE FILLING STATION. >> THE FILLING STATION HAS THEIR OWN POINTS OF ACCESS. WE HAVE -- YES AND NO. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN POINTS OF [00:45:02] ACCESS TO WHERE THEY DON'T NEED TO USE OURS BUT WE HAVE A CROSS AXE SESSION POINT HERE AND HERE AND THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS FOR FLOW OF TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF OUR SITE AND IN AND OUT OF THE GAS STATION. >> OKAY. SO EVERYTHING IS ONE STORY INCLUDING THE STORAGE. AND IS ALL THE STORAGE CLIMATE CONTROLLED? >> SOME IS CLIMATE CONTROLLED. THE LARGE BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE. THE ONE STORY AND WITH A BASEMENT IS A CLIMATE CONTROLLED BUILDING. WE HAVE SOME OF THE DRIVE UP IS THE SMALLER BUILDINGS BUT IT ALL FACES IN SO YOU WON'T -- YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IT'S THERE. BUT WE LIKE TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION. A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE CLIMATE CONTROL AND SOME PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIKE THE CLIMATE CONTROL. IT'S LESS EXPENSIVE AND A LITTLE LARGER. >> AND THE WALL SEPARATING THIS DEVELOPMENT OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ON THE WEST SIDE IS AN 8-FOOT MASONRY WALL. >> CORRECT. WE HAVE ROUGHLY 12 FEET 8-INCH TALL BUILDINGS THAT ACT AS OUR WALL HERE AND THEN BETWEEN WHERE YOU SEE THESE PARKING SPACES WE WOULD CONNECT THESE TWO BUILDINGS WITH AN 8-FOOT-TALL MASONRY WALL. FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD IT READS ALL ONE WALL. IT'S BETTER THAN A 6 FOOTBALL. IT'S MUCH TALLER AT 8 FEET AND THE STORAGE BUILDINGS ARE A LITTLE TALLER. AND THEN WE HAVE A GREATER BUFFER WITH TREES ALONG HERE. SO WE'VE TRIED TO MAKE IT A COME PADDABLE DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD RATHER LIVE NEXT TO THINK THAN A GROCERY STORE WHERE YOU HAVE SEMIS COMING OUT. PEOPLE HAVE SUVS -- EVERY NOW AND AGAIN A BOX TRUCK. MINIMAL SIZE VEHICLES. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. SWIFT. >> WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED HOURS? >> THE HOURS ARE 6:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. SO IT SHUTS DOWN. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ACCESS THE FACILITIES AFTER THOSE HOURS. OFFICE HOURS ARE OPEN DURING REGULAR OFFICE HOURS. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? GO AHEAD TAMARA. >> I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. >> IT'S BASED ON MARKET DEMAND. THESE ARE BUILT TO WHERE YOU CAN CHANGE THE INSIDE OF THEM AND MAKE THEM SMALLER LIKE MORE 5X5 AS YOU NEED IT. BUT WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY MORE -- 800 UNITS. BUT IT FLUCTUATES. BUT THE NUMBER OF UN UNITS NOT E MULTI-FAMILY WHERE THE SIZE INCREASES THE TRAFFIC BECAUSE WE HAVE FOUR OR FIVE VISITORS PER DAY BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T VISIT THEIR STORAGE FACILITY VERY MUCH SO THE NUMBER DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME IMPACT LIKE IT WOULD HAVE A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. WHETHER YOU HAVE 700 UNITS OR 900 IT DOES NOT MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE TRAFFIC. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> ALMOST ALL OF OUR CUSTOMERS WILL GO DIRECTLY TO THEIR LOADING AREA UNIT SO THE ONLY TIME -- SOMETIMES WE HAVE A CUSTOMER THAT MIGHT PULL INTO A SPACE. OTHERWISE THE ONLY CONVENTION, SPARKING SPACE IS IN THE FRONT AT THE OFFICE. MAYBE THEY ARE PAYING A BILL WHICH MOST OF THAT IS PAID ON-LINE THESE DAYS. MAYBE THEY ARE RENTING FOR THE FIRST TIME. MAYBE BUYING SOME OF BOXES. WE DON'T HAVE A NEED. THE CITY OF DALLAS REQUIRES SIX PARKING SPACES FOR ANY SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AND THERE HAS BEEN A NUMBER APPROVED WITH ALMOST NONE AND IT WORKS BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE OR FOUR VISITORS AN HOUR. NOW WE'RE PROPOSING 18 BUT THAT IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO COVER OUR NEEDS WITH WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED. >> THE CITY, MANY CITIES, SOME CITIES HAVE UPDATED THEIR CODE TO ALIGN WITH THE ACTUAL DEMAND FOR SELF-STORAGE. BUT MANY CITIES USE MORE OF A GENERAL WAREHOUSE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR STORAGE WHICH IS MORE LIKE ONE SPACE FOR EVERY SO MANY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. ONE PER ONE THOUSAND. [00:50:01] SOME ARE LESS THAN THAT AND IT CREATES THIS PARKING THAT IS JUST NOT NEEDED. IT'S MORE SUITED TO YOUR TYPICAL WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF EMPLOYEES' YOU MAY HAVE MANUFACTURING OR OTHER THINGS GOING ON THAT DOES GENERATE MORE PARKING. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO A STORAGE FACILITY. >> CORRECT. WHAT WE WANT TO DO WE DON'T WANT TO OVER PARK PARTS OF THE STORAGE SITES THAT NEVER GET USED BY PROVIDE MORE FOR RETAIL AND OFFICE THAT COULD HAVE FLUCTUATING DEMAND AND WE WOULD LIKE TO GET A RESTAURANT. AND THE NEIGHBORS WOULD DO. AND THAT GIVES US SOME FLEXIBILITY WITH WHAT WE CAN DO TO THE RETAIL. CITY'S STANDARD. 3-4-INCH CALIBER TYPICALLY IS WHAT IT IS AND WE WOULD PLANT SEVERAL TREES ABOVE THE MINIMUM STANDARDS IN OUR BUFFER BECAUSE OUR BUFFER IS LARGE IN ADDITION TO MEETING THE STREET BUFFER AND TREE REQUIREMENTS. IF I HAD TO GUESS HOW TALL IF YOU WENT TO BUY A 4-INCH CALIBER TREE MAYBE 10 FEET. DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? I HAVE TWO LETTERS AND THESE ARE NEIGHBOR THAT'S LIVE ON SARA LANE BEHIND THE DEVELOPMENT. >> YOU CAN PASS THEM AROUND. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FOR THE APPLICANT? >> JUST WANT YOU TO COMMENT ON THIS. ONLY BECAUSE SOMEBODY WROTE IN ABOUT IT. THEY MADE A COMMENT THAT THERE ENDS UP BEING TOO MUCH CONCRETE IN THE AREA AND COULD CAUSE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. I DON'T LIVE IN THE AREA. BUT IN YOUR PLANS DID YOU SEE ANY ISSUES OF DRAINAGE? >> THIS SITE DOESN'T REQUIRE A LARGE DETENTION POND. THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ALMOST TWICE AS MUCH PERVIOUS AREA WITH OUR POCKET PARK WE HAVE LESS RUN OFF THAN WE WOULD BY RIGHT BUT WE WILL BE CAPTURING THAT WATER AND RUNNING IT TO THE APPROPRIATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS. 8 THE CITY WOULDN'T LET US FLOOD ANYBODY ELSE. >> OKAY. GO AHEAD. >> YOU KIND OF STOLE MY THUNDER. I WAS GOING TO BRING UP THE DETENTION. I DIDN'T SEE ANY PROVISIONS FOR DETENTION ON THE SITE AND I SEE A LOT OF CONCRETE AND ROOFTOP COVERAGE. SO I WOULD BE VERY HESITANT TO APPROVE THIS WITHOUT PROVISIONS FOR DETENTION. FOR VARIOUS REASONS. CAN YOU PLEASE ELABORATE FURTHER ON WHY NO PROVISIONS WERE MADE FOR DETENTION? >> IS THAT A QUESTION FOR ME OR STAFF? WELL IF IN THE EVENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PUT DETENTION IN WHICH IT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP BY THE CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WE CAN DO IT UNDERGROUND IN THE PARKING LOT. WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CREATE RUN OFF OR FLOOD ANYBODY ELSE. THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN IN FILL SITE AS OPPOSED TO A GREEN FILL SITE THE CITY, WE HAVE THE EXHIBITING STREET SYSTEM AND AREAS WHERE WE CAN DRAIN INTO THE PUBLIC SYSTEM WITHOUT CREATING ANY RUN OFF FOR OUR NEIGHBORS AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE GRASS AROUND OUR PERIMETER AND IT WILL BE GRADED AS SUCH WHERE WE WILL NOT BE FLOODING ON THE ALLEY AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS NOT GOING TO ALLOW US TO VIOLATE THEIR ORDINANCE IF DETENTION IS REQUIRED WE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IT >> IF YOU WANT TO CHIME IN ON THAT. >> I CONCUR EXACTLY WITH THAT. >> WE WILL NOT LET THEM DRAIN WITHOUT DETENTION IF DETENTION WILL BE REQUIRED. AND UNDERGROUND SEEMS VERY FEASIBLE IN THIS CASE. [00:55:04] >> THANK YOU. JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT NO ADDITIONAL RUN OFF IS A TYPICAL STANDARD. >> YEAH. IT IS IN OUR ORDINANCE. >> THANK YOU. I ALSO HAD A QUESTION PERTAINING TO AND THE LANDSCAPING COVERAGE. IT JUST -- THE THREE TO FOUR INCH CALIBER TREE PLANTINGS -- MAYBE 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THESE CANOPIES ARE FULLY MATURE YOU MIGHT GET THE KIND OF SCREENING THAT I KNOW IF I LIVED BEHIND THAT -- DEVELOPMENT AND THAT SUBDIVISION I MIGHT BE CONCERNED ABOUT BUT I KNOW THAT AND THIS MAY BE ALSO FOR STAFF -- IS THERE AND I GET THAT YOU HAVE AN 8-FOOT CONCRETE OR MASONRY SCREENING WALL. BUT 8-FOOT IS NOT AS TALL AS IT SEEMS. AND YOU WILL HAVE A LOT OF -- YOU WILL STILL SEE ENOUGH OF THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM THOSE FROM THAT BACK RESIDENTIAL AREA SO THAT WOULD BE JUST ANOTHER CONCERN FOR ME. >> WAS THAT A QUESTION? >> NO, SIR. JUST A COMMENT. UNLESS YOU HAVE -- >> I WAS NOT TRYING TO BE FLIPPANT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I COULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. THE ONLY PORTION IS ONLY BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS. ALMOST THE ENTIRE WHAT I WILL CALL -- IN THE 80% TO 90% OF WHERE THE STORAGE BUILDINGS -- THE NEIGHBORS ARE GETTING A NEARLY A 13-FOOT-TALL MASONRY WALL AND IT'S NOT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. IT'S OFF 40-50 FEET. THEY ARE GETTING A HUGE LANDSCAPING BUFFER. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING I FEEL IS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY RIGHT. IN TERMS OF OUR A JASON SEE. *. THANKS. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> YES. I HAD A QUESTION. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE SAFETY AND SECURITY ASPECT AND YOU SAID THAT THE SELF-STORAGE ELEMENT PART OF IT WAS GOING TO BE ACCESS CONTROLLED. CORRECT? SO COULD YOU SHOW ME ON THE MAP EXACTLY WHERE THE PERIMETER OF THAT WOULD BE. >> WE'LL HAVE A GATE RIGHT HERE. SO THAT WAY PEOPLE AS THEY COME IN AND THEY WANT TO LOOP AROUND. A LOT OF THEM WILL GO INTO THE RETAIL SPACE IN THE FRONT. BUT IF THEY WANT TO LOOP AROUND HERE THEY CAN AND LOOP BACK OUT WITHOUT AND THAT WAY OUR SECURED GATED AREA IS SOUTH -- WEST OF THERE. AND IT DOESN'T INTEREST FEAR WITH THE SELF-STORAGE SECURITY. >> IS THERE FENCING OR HOW -- THAT PERIMETER IS COMPLETELY CONTROLLED? >> WHICH PERIMETER? >> THE WELL I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS IS THE PURPLE THE PURPLE BUILDINGS. SO LIKE DOWN HERE THERE IS NO WAY TO GET IN FROM ANY OF THE OTHER AREAS? RIGHT? >> CORRECT. BASICALLY AROUND THE ENTIRE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN PERIMETER IT'S GOING TO BE BUILDING AND SCREENING WALL. SO THERE IS NO OPEN -- AND THEN OVER HERE THE WALL. WE'RE SCREENING COMPLETELY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN ADDITION TO THE POCKET PARK DEDICATION. >> THAT IS THE QUESTION. THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> APPRECIATE IT. THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM 5C AND YOU HAVE NOT FILLED OUT A REQUEST TO SPEAK CARD PLEASE DO THAT AT THIS TIME. IF YOU ARE HERE TO -- I DON'T HAVE -- I HAVE ONE CARD. A BEVERLY -- RALPH. ON SARA DRIVE. [01:00:01] ARE YOU HERE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME ON UP AND TAKE THE PODIUM, MA'AM. 7 AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND WE ARE -- OUR LIMIT IS THREE MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS BEVERLY RALPH AND I LIVE ON SARA DRIVE. AND THIS IS NOW THE THIRD TIME THEY ARE TRYING TO PUT STORAGE UNITS ON THAT VACANT LOT. I'VE BEEN THERE 18 YEARS. IT'S A NICE, QUIET RESIDENTIAL AREA. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS WITH THE STORAGE UNITS. WE STILL COMPETENT FIGURE THAT OUT. BUT PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN TWO STORY HOMES THAT DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT THEIR WALL. WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR WALL. ONE STORY MAYBE. BUT WE JUST ARE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH STORAGE UNITS. ONCE BEFORE WE WANTED HOMES BUILT IN THERE. EVIDENTLY YOU TURNED THAT DOWN AND YOU SAID MAYBE WE'LL PUT IN AN OFFICE BUILDING OR MEDICAL BUILDING. BUT IT ALWAYS SEEMS TO COME BACK TO THE STORAGE. AND I HAVE GONE A COUPLE OF TEAMS AND OF COURSE I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE THE E DECIDED ON MAY 17TH WHICH OF COURSE I CAN DEFINITELY GET MY PETITION TOGETHER AND LET YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEELS ABOUT STORAGE UNITS. AND THEY DO NOT WANT IT. WE WALK OUR DOGS. THE CHILDREN PLAY. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WANT THERE. IF THEY REALLY WANT TO PUT THEM OUT THERE PUT THEM ON THE LOT NEXT TO THE POLICE STATION. A BIG LOT RIGHT THERE. IF YOU WANT TO STICK MORE STORAGE UNITS AND WE DON'T THINK WE NEED MORE. IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO CAN'T PUT WHAT THEY'VE GOT IN THEIR HOUSE THEN I'M SORRY. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'VE GOT TO DUMP IT INTO A STORAGE UNIT. PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE HOMES WE HAVE WHAT WE NEED. IT'S A NICE AREA. AND I DON'T CARE HOW PRETTY THEY MAKE THE STORAGE UNITS. WE'RE GOING TO BUILD TREES. WE'LL PUT IN GRASS. ALL OF IT IS LIKE SOMETHING TO SAY THEY ARE STILL NOT GOING TO BE STORAGE UNITS. YES. THEY ARE. I DON'T CARE HOW PRETTY YOU MAKE IT. AND THEY TALK ABOUT RUN OFF. I LIVE THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHO MENTIONED THAT UP HERE BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. I HAVE ENOUGH TROUBLE IN MY REGARD OFF THE ANGEL THAT IT RUNS AND IT RUNS TOWARD ROWLETT ROAD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT DIRECTION HE WAS THINKING SO I HAVE TO ASSUME THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME KIND OF RUN OFF AND I'M SURE IF HE PUTS ONE IN IT WILL GO TO THE PARK. NOT TO HIS UNITS. TO THE PLACE WHERE SUPPOSEDLY WE'RE ALLOWED TO TAKE OUR DOGS. BUT IT'S JUST FOR US THERE -- NO. THAT AREA IS NOT COMMERCIAL. LITTLE BIT FURTHER UP TOWARDS 66, YES. AND ALL OF US KNOW ANYTHING -- THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM 5C? ALEX. ARE YOU GOING TO READ SOME CARDS FOR US? >> I HAVE ONE COMMENT. THIS MESSAGE IS FROM KEVIN HOPPER AT 3306 WESTWOOD CIRCLE. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REQUEST. STORAGE UNITS ARE EYESORES AND MANY PEOPLE RUN THEIR BUSINESSES OUT OF THESE UNITS PARTICULARLY LAWN MAINTENANCE AND OTHER HIGH USAGE OF TRAILER BUSINESSES. THIS WOULD CREATE MASSIVE TRAFFIC IN AN UNDER UNDER DEVELOPED INTERSECTION. THIS IS ALSO ADDING A LOT OF TRAFFIC VERY CLOSE TO AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MAKING IT VERY UNSAFE FOR CHILDREN WALKING HOME. ROWLETT NEEDS TO FOCUS ON BRINGING MORE TAX REVENUE INTO THE CITY RATHER THAN GROSS MISUSE OF THE LAND WE HAVE LEFT IN THE CITY. >> THANK YOU, ALEX. IF THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS AT THIS TIME I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC -- [01:05:02] >> COME ON UP. BUT LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK UP TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP AND IF WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS THAT IS GREAT >> APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBOR'S COMMENTS. -- PROPERTY IS ZONED AND EVENTUALLY WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH SOMETHING. WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE PROVIDED A POCKET PARK TO HAVE A BETTER DOG WALKING AREA THAN WHAT IS THERE TODAY. ANOTHER THING IS THE DRAINAGE TODAY ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY IS UP HIGHER AND SLOPES DOWN TOWARDS THE ALLEY. SO I BET THERE IS RUN OFF TODAY. WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT WE WOULD BE ADDRESSING THAT AND HAVING TO COMPLY WITH THE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS. THOSE ARE THINGS WE WOULD IMPROVE ON. IT'S A RETAIL ZONE SITE. IT'S NOT ZONED RESIDENTIAL AND THE PRICE OF THE LAND IS FAIRLY HIGH. AND A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU TRY TO PUT RESIDENTIAL IN AN INTERSECTION OR A SMALLER PIECE OF PROPERTY YOU HAE GET AN INFERIOR PROPERTY AND THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES BEING AFFECTED. BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO CARVE IN A TOWNHOUSE AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY COME OUTRIGHT. IT'S ZONED RETAIL. WE'VE PUT TOGETHER A PLAN THAT WORKS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL MEET THE STORAGE NEEDS 7 WITHOUT IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. TAX REVENUE I THINK A COUPLE OF COMMENTS MADE -- BY THE CARD THAT WAS READ. IF IT WAS ALL RETAIL THERE WOULD BE TONS OF TRAFFIC. WE'RE OFFSETTING THE TRAFFIC BY 60%. 7 AND THE TAX SLIDE. THIS IS A MAJOR TAX REVENUE GENERATOR AND THE STORAGE IS LOW IMPACT. WE DON'T PUT A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON THE ROADS BUT PRODUCES A HIGH TAX NUMBER IN ADDITION TO THE RETAIL. SO THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME ADDRESS THE COMMENTS. 7 >> THANK YOU. >> DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I'VE SEEN SOME THINGS IN THE YEARS I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH PLANNING AND ZONING COME THROUGH FOR THAT PROPERTY. I DON'T LIVE VERY FAR FROM THERE. I DON'T LIVE RIGHT BEHIND IT BUT FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN THE ZONING IS IT'S COMMERCIAL AND THERE IS A LOT OF OTHER COMMERCIAL THINGS THAT COULD GO INTO THAT PROPERTY THAT WOULD GENERATE MORE TRAFFIC AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC OVER THERE. BECAUSE I'M AT THAT INTERSECTION MANY TIMES A WEEK. THIS IS A GOOD LOOKING DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THEY PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO IT. I LIKE THE FACT THAT THE STORAGE IS HIDDEN. I LIKE THE FACT THAT IT'S ALL ONE STORY. I THINK IT'S A GOOD USE FOR THIS PROPERTY. LOW KEY. IT'S GOING TO GET MY APPROVAL TONIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? >> YEAH. AND I AGREE WITH YOU. IT'S A COMMERCIAL SPOT. YOU HAVE TO THINK THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THESE PROPERTIES. THIS IS NOT JUST FOR THIS ONE BUT WHEN UH-HO POSE SOMETHING GIVE US A RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT YOU FEEL WOULD BEST REPRESENT A SPACE ON THAT LOT. *. THERE IS QUITE A FEW PLACES LIKE THIS BUT THIS IS A WELL THOUGHT OUT PRESENTATION. IT HAS RETAIL INVOLVED. I THINK IT'S WORTH A SECOND LOOK FROM COUNCIL. AND I FEEL IT'S DEFINITELY A RECOMMENDATION FOR ME. >> MR. FRISBEE. ANY COMMENTS. MR. -- INGRAM. >> I AGREE THAT THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION. AND I'M NOT ALWAYS BIG ON STORAGE FACILITIES BUT THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE RETAIL CENTERS THAT ARE OUT FRONT. AND I THINK WE NEED MORE RETAIL BUSINESS IN THAT AREA. AND I THINK THAT WILL HELP OUT WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA. I LIKE THE CONCEPT BECAUSE IT'S A LOT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I'VE SEEN WITH OTHER STORAGE FACILITIES AND I LIKE THE HOURS TOO. AT LEAST IT'S 6:00-10:00 AND NOBODY CAN COME IN AT NIGHT AND THAT IS GOOD FOR SECURITY REASONS. . -- >> ANY COMMENTS? >> THAT IS OKAY. [01:10:08] EVERYONE ELSE DOES TOO. NO. I UNDERSTAND AND I SYMPATHIZE WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE RESIDENCES WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE RESIDENTIAL THERE. BUT THE FACT IS THAT IT'S ALREADY ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL SO, THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I LINE THE WAY THAT THIS IS PRESENTED. I LIKE THE POCKET PARK. THAT IS REALLY A NICE THING THAT THEY ARE DOING THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIKE THE EXTRA SCREENING AND THE WAY THAT THEY'VE SECURED THAT SELF-STORAGE AREA AND MADE IT A SEPARATE AREA WITH THE PERIMETER SEPARATED FROM THE RETAIL. I THINK THE RETAIL ESPECIALLY IF THEY COULD GET A RESTAURANT THERE WOULD BE REALLY GREAT. SO I WOULD AGREE WITH THE REST OF YOU THAT THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING FOR COUNCIL TO LOOK AT. >> ALL RIGHT. IT LOOKS LIKE I'M READY FOR A MOTION. MR. INGRAM. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR APPROVAL BY MR. SWIFT. AND A SECOND BY MR. SEAGERS. ALL IN FAVOR. AND WE HAVE FIVE APPROVAL AND TWO NONAPPROVAL SO THAT MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE MOVING -- DOES ANYONE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK. >> IT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO TAKE A BREAK. >> WHAT TIME IS IT? I HAVE 8:12. LET'S COME BACK AT 8:20. LET'S TAKE A QUICK BREAK AND I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF FOR ITEM 5D. AND MR. ROBERT SWIFT WILL BE CHAIRING THAT ITEM FOR ME. >> ALL RIGHT. I HAVE 8:21. WE'LL RESUME. MY NAME IS ROBERT SWIFT. I'M A COMMISSIONER. GENERALLY THIS POSITION GOES TO OUR VICE CHAIR WHO'S NOT HERE SO THIS IS MY FIRST TIME DOING THIS SO BE NICE TO ME. I'LL DO MY BEST BUT I ALSO ASK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IF I MISS ANYTHING THAT THEY MAKE SURE THIS IS DIRECTOR THE PROCESSING AND THOSE OF US IN [5D. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request by Bill Dahlstrom, Jackson Walker, LLP, on behalf of property owners The Crawford Trust, Marilyn Wyrick Ingram, and Phyllis Wyrick Patterson, to: 1) Rezone the subject property from General Commercial/Retail (C-2), General Manufacturing (M-2) District, and General Manufacturing (M-2)/Industrial Overlay (IO) to Planned Development (PD) District for General Manufacturing (M-2) Uses and approval of a Concept Plan to construct approximately 364,500 square feet of office/industrial space; 2) Amend the Comprehensive Plan; and 3) Amend the Zoning Map of the City of Rowlett. The approximately 24.5-acre site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Dexham Road and Lakeview Parkway, situated in the Reason Crist Survey, Abstract Number 225, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.] THE CROWD. SO WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME IS ITEM 5D. AND THAT IS -- CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST BY BILL DAHLSTROM, JACKSON WALKER, LLP, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS THE CRAWFORD TRUST, MARILYN WYRICK INGRAM, AND PHYLLIS WYRICK PATTERSON, TO: 1) REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (C-2), GENERAL MANUFACTURING (M-2) DISTRICT, AND GENERAL MANUFACTURING (M2)/INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY (IO) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT FOR GENERAL MANUFACTURING (M2) USES AND APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 364,500 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL SPACE; 2) AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND 3) AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT. THE APPROXIMATELY 24.5-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DEXHAM ROAD AND LAKEVIEW PARKWAY, SITUATED IN THE REASON CRIST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 225, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. THIS IS A 24.5-ACRE SITE. GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEX AM ROAD AND LAKE VIEW PARKWAY. THE DART LIGHT RAILS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY. PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN, THEY ARE PROPOSING FOR TWO BUILDINGS, BUILDING ONE WHICH WOULD BE FRONTING ALONG LAKE VIEW PARKWAY. 202,000 SQUARE FEET. BUILDING TWO OF 164,500 SQUARE [01:15:02] FEET LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST A LITTLE BIT OF THAT. GENERALLY NOT VISIBLE FROM LAKE VIEW PARKWAY. WOULD ALSO POINT OUT ON THIS SITE THERE IS A PROPOSAL FOR A TRUCK PARKING AREA OVER IN THIS AREA. WHICH WOULD BE AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE TENANTS OF THIS SITE. THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THEM TO HAVE SPACE FOR AGAIN PARKING TRUCKS AND TRAILERS THAT WOULD NOT BE IN USE TEMPORARY. AND THEN ALSO WOULD POINT OUT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS PROPOSAL OVER HERE THERE IS A PROPOSED TRAIL THAT WINDS ITS WAY THROUGH THE WESTERN SIDE AND PROPOSAL OF 4,000 POLLINATE OR AND BUTTERFLY GARDEN SPACE WHICH IS GENERALLY LEFT OPEN AS A LANDSCAPED SPACE. THE PROPOSED BASE ZONING AS NOTED WAS THE M2 DISTRICT. WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION BUT THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WOULD BE INCREASE FRED 36 FEET TO 45 FEET. IN KEEPING WITH THE INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR THE CLEAR HEIGHT OF THE INTERIOR SPACE AS WELL AS TO ALLOW FOR SCREENING OF ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT. ALSO REQUESTING AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE PORTION OF THE SITE. WOULD NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD HAVE OPTION COMPONENT AS WELL AS THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE. THE OFFICE PARK WOULD BE ONE SPACE FOR EVERY -- SQUARE FEET OF THE OFFICE. TO MODIFY THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE FOR ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF THAT USE. ON THE SITE. ALSO THERE IS ANOTHER REQUEST TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND PARKING AREA FROM 10 FEET AS IT IS SET FORTH IN THE ORDINANCE TO SIX FEET TO ALLOW FOR THE BUILDING PROGRAM AS THEY PROPOSED TO FIT IT ON TO THE SITE. THE ALONG THOSE LINES ALSO WOULD BE REDUCING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUFFER FOR A SMALL PORTION OF THE DISTANCE ACROSS LAKE VIEW PARKWAY AND LET ME GO BACK ONE SLIDE HERE. I BELIEVE MR. -- WILL SPEAK MORE TO THIS. THERE IS A PORTION OF LAKE VIEW PARKWAY WHERE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WOULD NARROW TO BE 10 FEET RATHER THAN THE 20 FEET THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE ORDINANCE. THEY WOULD BE SUPPLEMENTING THE AREA THAT WOULD BE REDUCED IN THIS AREA AROUND IN HERE. WITH ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING OVER HERE THAT MORE THAN MAKES UP FOR THAT REDUCTION IN AREA IN THIS LOCATION. WE ALSO TALK ABOUT HERE AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD IT BE APPROVED THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO COMPLETELY RECONSTRUCT DEX AM ROAD FOR APPROXIMATELY 463 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKE VIEW PARKWAY IN ADDITION TO POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE INTERSECTION ITSELF. LET ME GO BACK A COUPLE OF SLIDES AND I'LL SHOW YOU THAT. RIGHT HERE. THIS IS IS THE BLUE PORTION. TYPICALLY ANY SUBSTANDARD ROAD BASED UPON OUR MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN AS WELL AS CITY STANDARDS IS REQUIRED TO BE IMPROVED SORT OF HALFWAY. THE ADJACENT IMMEDIATELY TO THE SITE. SO IN THIS CASE IF WE WERE TO FOLLOW IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED OR ANY OTHER APPLICANT WERE TO COME FORWARD THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE FOR DEX AM ROAD TO BE UPGRADED ON THEIR HALF OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AS REQUIRED. UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TYPE OF USE THAT WOULD HAVE SOME TRAFFIC SOME VEHICLES THAT ARE NOT -- THAT WOULD NOT WORK WELL ON THE ROAD AS IT IS CURRENTLY CONFIGURED THE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT FORTH A PROPOSAL BY WHICH SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS. WORK THROUGH THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND COME UP WITH WHAT THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS MIGHT BE NECESSARY BASED UPON THE TRAFFIC LOADS THAT WOULD BE GENERATED. THE VEHICLE TYPES AND IMPROVE THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THAT DISTANCE BETWEEN LAKE VIEW PARKWAY DOWN THROUGH THEIR ENTRY WAY. IN TO THIS PROJECT AND AGAIN THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE WORKED THROUGH DURING [01:20:02] THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS WELL AS THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS. THEY DO SHOW ON THEIR CONCEPT PLAN A DEDICATED RIGHT TURN LANE AND DESELL LANE. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE AREA OF THIS PROPERTY IS BOTH WITHIN TWO DIFFERENT LAND USE CATEGORIES. THE RED FRONT STAGE IS RETAIL OFFICE COMMERCIAL. INTENDED FOR PROVISIONS AND GOODS AND SERVICES FOR NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE TRAVELING PUBLIC. AND THEN SECONDLY YOU HAVE THE REAR PORTION WHICH IS SET ASIDE FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES WHICH WOULD BE TYPICALLY PROCESSING STORAGE. ASSEMBLY AND/OR REPAIR OF MATERIALS. OPERATIONS WOULD BE CONDUCTED INSIDE OF BUILDINGS AND WOULD ALSO THAT THESE USES WOULD NOT TYPICALLY -- WOULD NOT GENERATE NOISE AND ODDORS AND OTHER HAZARD TYPICALLY ASSOCITE WITH INDUSTRIAL USES. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS CAM POTABLE WITH THE EXHIBITING LAND USE PATTERN. YOU HAVE THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE TO THE EAST. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE VEHICLE AMOUNT COMMERCIAL ACROSS THE WAY. THIS IS ALSO THE COMMERCIAL NURSERY WHICH IS LOCATED HERE. AS WELL AS IT IS SEPARATED FROM RESIDENTIAL USES. IN THE WAY OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS WE DID SEND OUT 24 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET AND 25 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET. WITHIN THE 200-FOOT RADIUS THERE WAS ONE RESPONSE RECEIVED IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST. 0 IN OPPOSITION. WITHIN THE 500-FOOT COURTESY NOTICE TWO RECEIVED IN FAVOR. ONE IN OPPOSITION AND THEN WE ALSO INCLUDED WITH YOUR PACKET TWO LETTERS THAT WE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION FROM PROPERTIES THAT ARE BEYOND 500 FEET. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT GOES WITH THAT AS WELL AS TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AS APPROPRIATE. THE APPLICANT ALSO HERE WITH A PREPARED PRESENTATION AS WELL. >> OKAY. OR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WAITING FOR QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER THE PRESENTATION. OKAY. COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M JEFF STRINGER. 17304 CRESTED ROAD SUITE 550, DALLAS TEXAS. 775202. JUST REAL QUICK. WHO'S DOLPHIN INDUSTRIAL? WE ARE A NATIONWIDE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FIRM, DEVELOPMENT FIRM. WE HAVE ONLY FOCUS ON LAST MILE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT. >> WE HAVE OFFICES ACROSS THE U.S. WE ARE HEAD QUARTERED IN THE DFW MARKETPLACE AND WE HAVE -- SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE -- ZAPPER. I WOULD LIKE TO STAY ON THIS PAGE PLEASE. WE DEVELOPED INSTITUTIONAL ASSETS AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN MEANING CLASS A PROJECTS. WE PRIDE OURSELVES WITH MAKING OUR BUILDINGS NOT JUST FUNCTIONAL BUT VERY PRETTY. I HAVE NO IDEA. CAN YOU CONTROL IT FROM THERE? >> AGAIN AS DALFEN WHAT DOZEN FILL MEAN. WE WANT TO BE THE LAST STOP BEFORE SOMETHING IS EITHER A LOCAL SERVICE PROVIDER -- LOCAL TO REGIONAL -- OR IT'S A A PLACE THAT YOU GO FOR PERHAPS HOME GOODS. A SHOWROOM. STONE FLOORING. WHATEVER. THIS IS -- THIS DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT WE FOCUS ON IS A PLACE THAT IS A COMMUNITY SOURCE THAT [01:25:09] EVERYONE IN ROWLETT OR IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA WITHIN 5-10 MILES THIS IS A PLACE THAT THEY COME BY THEIR CARPET, TILE OR IT'S SOME SORT OF AN ACCESSORY WHETHER IT'S HOME GOODS OR CONSUMER PROPERTIES. ETC. WE DON'T JUST -- THIS PROJECT IS PRETTY EXPENSIVE -- WE DON'T JUST GO AND SAY HEY THERE IS A PIECE OF LAND ON THE CORNER. LET'S DEVELOP IT. WE DO A TON OF RESEARCH. A TON OF MARKET DEMAND STUDIES TO DETERMINE WILL THIS BE A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT? AND SO WITH THAT -- I DON'T HAVE THE ZAPPER. CAN WE GO TO THE LAST SLIDE? THE VERY LAST SLIDE. THE SITE PLAN. PERFECT. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS OUR SITE PLAN. AND WE HAVE NAMED THE PROJECT LAKE VIEW LOGISTIC CENTER. THUS IT IS ON LAKE VIEW. AVENUE IT'S 24.5 ACRES. CURRENTLY HAS MULTIPLE ZONING AND SO WHAT WE'RE WANTING TO DO IS AND PART OF THE ZONING IS M2 CURRENTLY. WE WANT TO PUT IT PD WITH AN M2 ZONING BUT IN OUR PACKAGE WE HAVE ADDED PROHIBITIONS TO THAT M2 ZONING THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED. AS WAS PREVIOUSLY SAID WE HAVE TWO OF BUILDINGS. THE FRONT BUILDING IS 202,000 SQUARE FEET AND BACK BUILDING IS 162,500 AND AGAIN WE ARE FOCUSED ON ATTRACTING LOCAL TENANTS THAT PERHAPS HAVE GROWN OUT OF THE CURRENT SPACE. INTO OUR BUILDINGS AND/OR REGIONAL TENANTS. THIS IS NOT A MASSIVE BULK DISTRIBUTION TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. AND WE ESTIMATE THAT IN THIS PROJECT THERE WILL BE PLUS OR MINUS 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE. WE'RE ANTICIPATING FOUR TO FIVE TENANTS. SO WE REACHED OUT TO OUR COMMUNITY AS WAS SHOWN IN THE 250 AND 500. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL AROUND US. IT'S MOSTLY BUSINESSES. THE QT MART. THE OTHER RETAIL AND SOME HEAVIER RETAIL BEHIND US AND WE'RE BUFFERED WITH THE NURSERY. SO WE HELD ON MARCH 9 AT THE ROWLETT COMMUNITY CENTER WE HELD A COMMUNITY MEETING. WE SENT LETTERS OUT TO EVERYONE EVEN OUTSIDE OUR 250 AND 500 BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. WE HAD 17-20 PEOPLE ATTEND. WE HAD PLANNING STAFF AND THE EDC. AND THEN WE HAD A FEW E-MAILS AFTER THE FACT ASKING QUESTIONS THAT WE ANSWERED AND WITH FOLLOW-UPS. ONE THING THAT WAS STATED IS THE IMPROVEMENT OF DEX AM ROAD. WE WILL IMPROVE THAT FROM THE INTERSECTION OF LAKE VIEW. TO THE BACKSIDE OF OUR DRIVE. AND AGAIN WE'RE NOT JUST IMPROVING OUR HALF OF THE ROAD WHICH IS BY CODE WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO. WE'RE IMPROVING THE ENTIRE ROAD. AND THAT IS AT OUR COST. WE'RE PUTTING ENHANCED SCREENING AROUND OUR SITE. AND WE TO RESTATE WE'VE REMOVED CERTAIN PERMITTED USES IN THE M2 THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY. WE'VE PROHIBITED QUITE A FEW OF THOSE AND THAT IS IN OUR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. AND IN OUR BIGGEST TAKE AWAY FROM OUR MARCH 9TH MEETING WAS THE CONGESTION AT DEX AM AND LAKE VIEW PARKWAY BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A DESIGNATED RIGHT TURN LANE. WE HEARD THAT QUITE A FEW TIMES. AND WE IMMEDIATELY STARTED TALKING WITH THE CITY AND WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FROM THAT EVENING ON WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PUT A RIGHT TURN LANE OFF OF DEX AM ON TO LAKE VIEW PARKWAY. SO WE LISTENED TO CONCERNS AND WE IMMEDIATELY ADDRESSED THEM. [01:30:01] SO WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LIBBY IS ACTUALLY HERE THIS EVENING IN THE CROWD. SO THAT WAY WE DON'T WANT THE CONGESTION THAT CURRENTLY EXIST AND WE WILL HAVE OUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TO PROVE UP THE FACT THAT WHAT WE'RE PUTTING HERE DOESN'T BRING THE SAME TRAFFIC CONGESTION THAT A HEAVY RETAIL WITH A LOT OF CURB CUTS WOULD. WE'RE TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. AND AT THIS TIME I'LL TURN IT OVER TO BILL. >> MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MY NAMING BILL -- 2323 ROSS AVENUE. I'D LIKE TO THANK -- FOR HELPING US THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THERE WERE A LOT OF ISSUES THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED. A LOT OF ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND IT'S BEEN A VERY GOOD PROCESS AND WE THINK WE DO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS BENEFICIAL FOR THE COMMUNITY, THE CITY AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPER. I'D LIKE TO GO BACK. AND AGAIN YOU'VE SEEN THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES. WE'RE REQUESTING -- CONSOLIDATE AGAIN. THERE ARE SEVERAL TRACTS AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE MAP THAT ALEX SHOWED EARLIER. WE'RE TRYING TO CONSOLIDATE THOSE SO THERE ARE NOT SEVEN DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. WE TALKED ABOUT THE TWO DIFFERENT -- BUILDINGS -- AND THE OFFICE AND THE IMPROVEMENTS WHICH JEFF ADDRESSED QUITE WELL. THE STAFF REPORT SHOWS HOW WE HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE REZONING CRITERIA. THE 10 DIFFERENT CRITERIA AND IT'S SET FORTH IN THERE EXTREMELY WELL. THE CURRENT ZONING AGAIN -- SUBSTANTIAL PORTION IS ZONED M2. YOU CAN SEE THE M2 IN GRAY BUT IT GOES ALL THE WAY OVER TO DEX HAM. WITH THE OVERLAY. SO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION ALREADY HAS M2 ZONING ON IT. SO IT ALLOWS A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF INTE INTENSIVE USES. AND I WOULD SUBMIT THAT IS SIMILAR TO A COMMERCIAL USE BUT AS YOU CAN SEE -- WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LAKE VIEW AND EAST OF US. AGAIN HERE IS THE AERIAL. YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY IS DIVIDED BY THE DART RAIL LINE SUBSTANTIAL WITH SEPARATION FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL AND YOU CAN SEE THE CONSISTENCY GOING EAST WITH THE INDUSTRIAL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE VIEW PARKWAY. THIS IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AGAIN SHOWING COMMERCIAL ALONG LAKE VIEW AND INDUSTRIAL AND ALEX SHOWED THIS EARLIER. BUT AGAIN AS YOU CAN SEE THE MAJORITY OF OUR PROPERTY IS DESIGNATE AS INDUSTRIAL OTICON' PLAN AND THE COMMERCIAL ALONG THE FRONT AGE AGAIN SOME OF OUR TARGET USES ARE COMPATIBLE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCIAL ON THE FRONT END. THIS AGAIN IS THE PERSPECTIVE. THE BIRD'S EYE LOOKING INTO THE SITE LOOKING SOUTHWEST. THIS IS LOOKING FROM THE STREET BASICALLY AT STREET LEVEL. THE SAME VIEW. 7 AND THIS IS -- THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE ABOUT THE VIEW COMING INTO THE CITY FROM GARLAND GOING DOWN LAKE VIEW. THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD SEE GOING DOWN LAKE VIEW. YOU GO PAST THE TREES AND YOU SEE OUR BUILDING WITH OUR LANDSCAPING. THIS DOES NOT OBVIOUSLY SHOW ALL OF THE LANDSCAPING BUT IT DOES SHOW THE BUILDING AND THE PROPOSED TREES. A COUPLE OF THINGS TO NOTE HERE. SOME DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS. [01:35:06] YOU CAN SEE THE TRUCK DOCKS ARE FACING IN. THEY ARE NOT FACING THE STREET. NOT FACING OUT. THAT WAS INTENTIONAL. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE TRUCKS ARE FACING IN. THEY ARE SINGLE LOADED. THE DOCK DOORS ARE ON THE INSIDE. YOU CAN SEE THE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE BENEFITS TO THE CITY. I THINK ONE OF THE KEY BENEFITS IS WE'RE TAKING A TRACT -- SEVEN TRACTS OF LAND AND COMBINING THEM INTO ONE. WE HAVE ONE DEVELOPMENT. TWO CURB CUTS ON LAKE VIEW. IT'S CURRENTLY LAID OUT -- THERE COULD BE NUMEROUS FOUR OR FIVE CURB CUTS ON DEXHAM AND THERE COULD BE SEVERAL ON LAKE VIEW THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT TODAY. WE'RE PROPOSING ONE EXIT, ONE ENTRANCE OFF OF DEX AM AND ONE OFF OF LAKE VIEW. WE'RE COMMITTED TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON FIXING THAT ISSUE. WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS BEING AN AMENITY TO THE COMMUNITY WHERE BUSINESSES WOULD COME AND RELOCATE TO THIS FACILITY. WITH REGARD TO TRAFFIC I MENTIONED THE ONLY TWO CURB CUTS WITH COMMERCIAL ZONING THE WAY IT IS TODAY ON THE PROPERTY THAT PRE MOTES A STRIP DEPARTMENT OF RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS. YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE ENTRANCES AND EXITS ON TO LAKE VIEW WHICH CREATES MORE OF A CONGESTION ISSUE. WE HAVE TWO. FROM AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE WE'RE BRINGING IN JOBS. VALUES IS QUITE STAGGERING. AN AG EXEMPTION SO THE TAX TO THE CITY IS NOMINAL. AT BUILD OUT WE ANTICIPATE $700,000 IN DOLLARS. I KNOW THAT IS AN ECONOMIC ISSUE. THIS IS A GREAT LAND USE FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT USES. IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING THAT IS THERE. MUCH OF THE ZONING THAT IS THERE IN TERMS OF THE M2 WHICH ALLOWS SIGNIFICANT INTENSIVE USES LIKE HEAVY MANUFACTURING THAT IS PERMITTED THERE TODAY. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE TRAIL AND THE OPEN SPACE. BUT AGAIN FROM A CIRCULATION PERSPECTIVE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC AND WORK WITH THE CITY ON ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION OUT OF GOING NORTHBOUND ON DEXHAM TO BE ABLE TO GO EASTBOUND ON 66. WE'RE COMMITTED TO DO THAT TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO RESOLVE THAT. I THINK IT'S TO EVERYBODY'S BENEFIT. WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. DAN GRANT, OUR ENGINEER IS HERE TO HELP US ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND AGAIN WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE STAFF. WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE TIME THEY'VE PUT IN THERE AND CONTINUING DIALOGUE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL. AND WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. I SAW A LOT OF COPIOUS NOTES. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS. DOES EVERYBODY HAVE A QUESTION. SHOULD I START DOWN THE LINE? >> WE'LL START REQUEST COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. THAT TO DAN GRANT OUR ENGINEER. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. DAN GRANT -- WE CONDUCTED A TRAFFIC GENERATION STUDY AT BUILD OUT. WE'RE ESTIMATING AROUND 660 TRIPS OF WHICH 10% ARE ESTIMATED TO BE TRUCKS. THAT IS A DAILY TRIP COUNT. WE CAN DIVE INTO THE DISTRIBUTION OF TRUCKS AND INCREASING THEM BUT THAT IS THROUGHOUT A 24 HOUR PERIOD TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. >> SO ANY OTHER VEHICLES ARE WHAT ? >> THEY ARE GOING TO BE BOX TRUCKS AND AUTOS. EMPLOYEES AND SMALLER VEHICLES. >> WHAT PERCENTAGE ARE YOU ESTIMATING WILL BE BOX TRUCKS? >> WE DON'T GET INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL AT ANY LEVEL. I COULD FORECAST USERS OF THIS [01:40:06] TYPE OF FACILITY ARE GOING TO BE IN THE 20% TO 30% AND THE REMAINING 60% WOULD BE AUTOS. >> SO THE TOTAL INCREASE IN VEHICULAR TRAFFIC DAILY IS 660 -- JUST AN ESTIMATE >> YES, MA'AM. >> AND HOW MANY DIFFERENT TENANTS ARE YOU ANTICIPATING? >> SO AS MR. STRINGER SAID THERE ARE LIKELY TO BE FIVE TO SIX DIFFERENT TENANTS AT MOST IN THE BUILDING. THAT IS -- THOSE TRIPS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED OVER-ALL OF THE TENANTS. IT'S NOT A MULTIPLICATION OF SIX TIMES 600. IT'S 600 TRIPS FOR ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT. >> AND HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE FOR THESE 18 WHEELERS. >> SO DOCK POSITIONS ARE SET ASIDE FOR 18 WHEELERS ALONG WITH THE TRAILER SPACES THAT YOU SEE AND I'M AFRAID TO USE THIS: WHERE IS MY SPOTLIGHT. SO THE SITE PLAN ACCOMMODATES AND PROVIDES A BENEFIT OF 18 WHEELER TRAILER SPOTS IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE AND THEN TRUCKS WILL BE PARKING INTERIOR FACING. >> THAT IS A LOT OF SPOTS. HOW MANY SPOTS IS THAT? >> I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD >> 60. >> 66. >> 66 PARKING SPOTS FOR 18 WHEELERS. AND HOW MANY DOCK LOADING AREAS ARE THERE? >> I DIDN'T BRING TO SHOW YOU A PERFECT COUNT. >> ABOUT. GIVE ME AN ESTIMATE. >> AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT USING THIS THING TO GO BACKYARDS. THE STAFF REPORT HAS A DETAILED VERSE OF THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT SHOWS A NUMBER OF TRAILER SPACES, THE NUMBER OF DOCK POSITIONS. I JUST NEED TO PUT IT ON THE BOARD FOR YOU BUT IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT. THIS DOESN'T HAVE -- >> WHILE HE IS LOOKING AT THAT COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER YOU'RE UP NEXT. >> THIS IS NOT READABLE. IT'S IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. PROBABLY 150 DOCK POSITIONS AND USES. THE USERS OF THE BUILDING DETERMINES THE USE OF THE DOCK POSITIONS. A TRUCK COULD BE BROUGHT AND UNLOADED OVER THE COURSE OF DAYS OR THE COURSE OF HOURS. IT VARIES. ONE THING A POINT I DO WANT TO MAKE -- IS AS WE LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN THEY ARE BACK TO IT HERE AND IT DOESN'T HAVE THE DETAIL. THERE IS A SUMMARY TABLE IN THE STAFF PACKAGE THAT IS CUT OFF ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE CONCEPT PLAN. THIS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL USE AS WAS DESCRIBED. AND THEN HAVING A MANUFACTURING TO THE SOUTH WOULD GENERATE FOUR TIMES THE NUMBER OF TRIPS. SO WE MULTIPLY AND ADD MANY MORE TRIPS IF IT DEVELOPED ZONED. CHANGING IT REDUCES -- THANK YOU -- ACTUALLY REDUCES THE NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED FOR THE SITE. >> AND WILL THESE TRUCKS BE COMING AND GOING 2 2 -- 4 HOURA DAY. >> YES. WHICH TAKES AWAY FROM TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON THE ROADWAYS. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT USED AT THE PEAK HOURS WHEN OTHERS ARE MOVING. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ROADWAY [01:45:04] IMPROVEMENTS ARE DESIGNED FOR PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT WHEN EVERYONE IS GOING TO WORK AND SCHOOL. TRUCK TRIPS ARE SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT THE 24 HOUR PERIOD >> WHAT ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS NEARBY. HOW ARE THOSE PEOPLE GOING TO SLEEP WITH ALL OF THESE TRUCKS COMING AND GOING ALL NIGHT LONG? >> THAT IS A SEPARATE ITEM AND PROXIMITY. WE DON'T ABUT RESIDENTIAL USES OF ANY KIND >> HAVE YOU DONE NOISE POLLUTION STUDIES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS NEARBY. >> AS A REPORT -- WE'LL HAVE TO DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY WITH OUR SITE PLAN AND THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS ARE SEPARATED TO THE SOUTH BY THE DART LINE AND 750 FEET OUT -- THEY ARE SIGNIFICANTLY SEPARATED FROM THE SITE AND FROM THE NORTH BY LAKE VIEW AND THAT RETAIL TRACT LAND SO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS ARE NOT NEARBY. THEY ARE A COUPLE OF FOOTBALL FEEDS AWAY. THEY ARE PRETTY FAR. NOT CLOSE AND THERE ARE PHYSICAL SEPARATIONS BETWEEN THIS SITE AND THE RESIDENTIAL >> BUT YOU WILL BE DOING A NOISE POLLUTION. >> IT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED OF US. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER. >> YES. IF YOU -- COULD COME BACK. JOBS. DO YOU HAVE AN ES OF HOW MANY? >> WE WOULD BE MARKETING TO DIFFERENT USERS. WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC NUMBER. THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF USERS WHO WOULD USE THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES. WE TALKED ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE SPACES PER BUILDING. FOUR TO SIX SPACES FOR EMPLOYEES. >> THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES DEPENDING ON WHAT THE TENANT -- MAKES AS A SHOWROOM, A TILE, CARPET. PAINT STORE. DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT IS IF IT'S TRULY FOR COMMERCIAL USE -- FOLKS COULD HAVE ONE TO FIVE EMPLOYEES IN THE OFFICE. AND THEN MAYBE 5-10 IN THE WAREHOUSE. IT'S NOT I'VE HEAVY PARKING USE. 7 >> OKAY. AND LET'S SEE. ALSO MENTIONED PROHIBITED USES. PROHIBITED MANY OF THESE IN THE M2. WHAT WERE SOME OF THOSE THAT WERE PROHIBITED. >> I'LL GO TO THE STAFF REPORT. LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT UNDER OUR PROPOSED -- WE'VE GOT 32 USES OUT OF THE M2. THEY INCLUDE WHAT ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT ON THE M2. CAR WASHES. SELF-SERVICE COMMERCIAL WAR WASHES. DRY CLEANING PLANTS ARE PRESENTER MID. RETAIL VEHICLE FUELING STATIONS. THE MANY WAREHOUSE SELF-STORAGE. EVEN THOUGH IT'S REQUIRED . WE'RE TAKING THAT OUT. SO WE'VE GOT 32 USES LISTED. ON EXHIBIT D. >> I'LL LOOK THAT UP. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER ELGIN. QUESTIONS? >> I'M STILL CONFUSED ON I WAS WRITING DOWN WHAT SAID. FOUR TO FIVE TENANTS. DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE GETTING 60,000 SQUARE FEET. OKAY. AND I KNOW THESE ARE DIAGRAMS OF WHAT THE FACILITY WOULD LOOK LIKE. BUT IS IT MORE THAN A BASIC WHITE CONCRETE BUILDING? >> WE HAVE COLOR RENDERINGS. IF WE GO BACK TO OUR PACKAGE -- WE ARE -- SO, THAT IS WHAT THE [01:50:18] CORNER WILL LOOK LIKE. 7 WE WANT IT TO BE PRETTY. WE HAVE AND THIS PHOTO WASHES OUT. THESE ARE MORE OF THE EARTH TONES. OKAY. SO I'LL HOLD THAT UP. SO THESE ARE EARTH TONES. THE PANELS ARE -- IT'S NOT JUST A PLAT -- THEY HAVE SET BACKS. THEY HAVE REVEALS GOING THROUGH ALL OF THEM. AGAIN WE TRY TO MAKE THESE BUILDINGS LOOK VERY PRETTY. AND WE DON'T WANT JUST SOME SORT OF -- BLAH BUILDING. WE WANT IT TO BE AN ATTRACTIVE BENEFIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FOR ROWLETT. >> DO YOU HAVE A SLIDE OF AN ATTRACTIVE ONE BECAUSE THAT LOOKS PRETTY B LAH TO ME >> IF WE HAD GOOGLE EARTH I COULD SHOW YOU THE METAL BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET AS AN UNATTRACTIVE. THIS IS -- THAT IS PRETTY SHARP TO ME. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR NOW? >> DO THE TENANTS HAVE THE OPTION TO INCREASE THEIR OFFICE SPACE. TO GO OFF THE 5%? >> TYPICALLY THE OFFICE SPACE WILL BE 3% TO 5%. IT'S A RARE -- BECAUSE AGAIN IF YOU'RE IN A 50,000 FEET AND YOU'RE AT SIMPLE MATH 5% OF YOUR OFFICE THE BULK OF YOUR BUSINESS IS IF IT'S A SHOW ROOM -- PEOPLE COMING IN AND WHATEVER. PAINT STORE OR SOMETHING. OR FLOORING AND THEN YOU HAVE IT IN THE WAREHOUSE TO QUICKLY -- SELL. SO THESE ARE NOT HEAVY OFFICE USERS. >> DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE IN OTHER CITIES THAT MAYBE WE CAN REFER BACK TO THE COUNCIL CAN REFER BACK TO AND WATCH THE VIDEO? >> YES. WE HAD A VIDEO AT OUR OPEN HOUSE OF MULTIPLE -- PROJECTS. WE HAVE PROJECTS ALL OVER THE DFW AREA AND ALL OF THEM ARE DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURES. WE HAVE TWO BUILDINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN MESQUITE. THAT IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF STRUCTURE. A MUCH LARGER STRUCTURE BUILDING. THIS IS AGAIN MORE FOR SUPER IN FILL CLOSE. THAT IS MORE OF A DISTRIBUTION TYPE OF IN FILL. >> THIS IS NOT A DISTRIBUTION -- CLIENTS CAN USE IT AS THEY WISH >> TYPICALLY IN A BUILDING LIKE THIS SO YOUR WAREHOUSE -- IF YOU'RE A CONSUMER PRODUCTS IF THAT IS WHAT YOU SELL -- TYPICALLY YOU WILL HAVE A COUPLE THOUSAND FEET OF OFFICE AND 50,000 FEET OF SPACE AND THE BALANCE IS THE WAREHOUSE. >> AMAZON CLIENT? >> BUT THESE ARE TOO SMALL FOR AMAZON. WE'RE LOOKING AT -- >> TALKING ABOUT ARE AMAZON SELLERS. >> COULD BE. BUT THAT IS NOT OUR TYPICAL. OUR TYPICAL FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE AN EXISTING OR A REGIONAL BUSINESS THAT IS OUTGROWN THEIR CURRENT SPACE >> LOOK A LONG-STANDING. SOMEONE THAT CAN BE THERE FOR 10-15-20 YEARS. STRONG HISTORY OF BUSINESS >> TYPICALLY DO FIVE-YEAR LEASES >> I WAS RECOMMENDING OTHER EXAMPLES BECAUSE I'VE NOTICED -- CITIES ARE ADOPTING THESE DESIGNS MORE OFTEN. I SEE A LOT OF THIS IN BIG CITIES. SO I'M JUST I THINK THE CITIZENS WOULD NEED TO SEE TO BELIEVE IT TO UNDERSTAND IT. AND THE FUTURE OF IT AND IT MAY HELP YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. I WILL MOVE TO COMMISSIONER FRISBEE AND THEN IF ANYONE ELSE HAS OTHER QUESTIONS WE CAN GO [01:55:02] THEREAFTER WARDS. >> I'M JUST GOING TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND WE'LL GO INTO THE PUBLIC MEETING AND THEN WE CAN FOLLOW-UP WITH ADDITIONAL DIALOGUE AND QUESTIONS OF OUR OWN. ONCE WE HAVE OUR DISCUSSION. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF DEXHAM ROAD ON OUR MASTER THOROUGHFARE ROAD. A MAJOR ARTERIAL OR MINOR ARTERIAL. WHAT IS THE DESIGNATION? >> I BELIEVE I KNOW THE ANSWER BUT WE'RE CONFIRMING THAT SO I DON'T GIVE THE WRONG ANSWER >> I WAS GOING TO ENCOURAGE THE SPEAKERS -- WE CAN HEAR YOU JUST FINE BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO SPEAK INTO YOUR MICROPHONE SO IT CAN BE CLEAR ON THE RECORD WHEN COUNCIL REVIEWS THIS. IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THEM TO HEAR CLEARLY WHAT YOU'RE STATING. >> SO SOUTH OF LAKE VIEW PARKWAY DEXHAM IS A SECONDARY COLLECTOR. TYPE C COLLECTOR. NORTH IS A SECONDARY THOROUGHFARE. 3 PLUS. NORTH OF LAKE VIEW PARKWAY. >> THANK YOU. BECAUSE I NOTICED THAT NORTH OF 66 WE HAVE A SIX LANE DIVIDED CONFIGURATION AND THAT MEDIAN IS FAIRLY WEIGHED AND I UNDERSTAND THE EXHIBITING CONDITIONS SOUTH ARE JUST A TWO LANE NOT VERY APPROVED -- >> TYPE C COLLECTOR. >> YEAH. TYPE C. SO WHAT IS THE PLANNED DESIGNATION FOR THE AREA. DOES THIS NEED TO BE A FOUR LANE DIVIDED OR IS A TWO LANE WITH A MEDIAN GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT IN TERMS OF THE MASTER PLAN? >> THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN SAID THIS IS A TYPE C COLLECTOR. SOUTH OF LAKE VIEW PARKWAY >> MEANING TWO LANES IS ACCEPTABLE. >> YES AND -- >> AS A MINIMUM >> RIGHT. >> BUT WITH THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS COULD BE LARGER. >> PENDING A LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS AT THE INTERSECTION BECAUSED ON THE TRAFFIC PERSONPERSONAL-- PERCENTAGES AN. THAT IS WHERE I'M GOING. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY LANES NEED TO BE AND TO FOLLOW-UP WITH THAT YOUR ENGINEER MENTIONED THAT A PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WAS DONE WAS THIS A FORMAL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY? >> NO. >> THAT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FORMALLY TO THE CITY. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS >> IT WAS A TRIP GENERATION. >> SIMPLE. GOT IT. ORIGIN TO DESTINATION STUDY. GOT IT >> WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO THE DETAIL YET. AND >> AND THE REASON I'M ASKING ABOUT THIS IS WE RAN INTO THIS ON A PREVIOUS CASE WHERE IT MAKES IT HARDER AND I'M NOT ASKING A QUESTION. I'M MAKING A STATEMENT. IT MAKES IT HARD TO MAKE AN EVALUATION NOT HAVING THE FULL SPECTRUM OF INFORMTION BEFORE US. 7 SO THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONERS IF I CAN INTERJECT. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER IS IN TERMS OF THIS REQUEST IT'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE PRELIMINARY NUMBERS TO A BASIC STUDY IS WHAT WE'RE CALLING IT RYE NOW. A FULL BLOWN TIA WOULD BE REQUIRED. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PACKET IT IS ARTICULATED THAT INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE. ONE OPTION THAT IS PLANNING AND ZONING MISSION HAS SHOULD THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST YOU COULD FURTHER -- -- THE TURNING MOVEMENTS AS WELL AND THAT THE TIA COULD DICTATE THAT. THAT'S AN OPTION AVAILABLE TO YOU. A TIA IS WARRANTED POST ENTIGHT ITMENTS AND NOT PRIOR TO AND * AND I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT FOR OUR AUDIENCE AS WELL AS WELL AS YOURSELVES SO YOU COULD HAVE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION RELATED TO THIS MATTER. >> TO FOLLOW-UP WITH THAT -- AND [02:00:03] I APOLOGIZE WE'RE MIXING QUESTIONS WITH COMMENTS. 7 BUT TO FOLLOW-UP WITH WHAT YOU JUST STATED. THERE ARE THE IMPACTS ARE NOT JUST IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT TO PAVEMENT AND LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE ON THIS LEG SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE ESPECIALLY IN A LAND USE A PROPOSED LAND USE THAT GENERATES SIGNIFICANT HEAVY TRAFFIC WHICH 18 WHEELERS ARE CLEARLY A HEAVY TRAFFIC USE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AS WELL. >> ABSOLUTELY AGREE. I CONCUR AND THAT IS WHY I MADE THAT PRIOR STATEMENT THAT IT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO THEN BUNDLE THAT DISCUSSION. >> ALL RIGHT. I KNOW WE HAVE A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS SO IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO SPEAK AND YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY FILLED OUT THE CARD FILL IT OUT IN THE BACK AND HAND IT TO SUSAN. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. AND AT THAT POINT THE MICROPHONE SHUTS OFF. THE FIRST IS BRENT WILLIAMS. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD >> BRENT WILLIAMS AND I LIVE IN DEXHAM ESTATES. I'M CURRENTLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE DEXHAM STATES HOA. WE HAVE SEVERAL OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS THAT ARE GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT. AS THE DALFEN GROUP HAS SUGGESTED THEY DID HAVE A MEETING ON MARCH 9TH. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS RAISED. MANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE RAISING TONIGHT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT TRAFFIC FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD US KNOWING THE DEXHAM ROAD HIGHWAY 66 INTERSECTION VERY WELL. FROM THAT POINT THEY HAD SOME OF ANSWERS BUT THEY STILL HAD SOME OF -- WE STILL HAD SOME QUESTIONS. I COMMUNICATED WITH TIM CRAFTSMAN. A PROJECT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER. HE WAS VERY GENEROUS AND SHARING INFORMATION. THE BEST THAT HE HAD WITH US AND SO I WILL SAY THEY'VE COMMUNICATED WITH US WITH EVERY QUESTION THAT WE'VE HAD BUT THE PROBLEM IS THERE ARE STILL QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AND THAT IS OUR CONCERN. I JUST WANT TO SHARE MOST OF OUR CONCERNS DEAL WITH TRAFFIC. WE'RE CONCERNED HOWEVER ABOUT THE SIDES OF THAT DEVELOPMENT ON THAT LOT IN THAT SPECIFIC PLACE. WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT. OBVIOUSLY THERE IS DEVELOPMENT ALL AROUND US AND WE AGREE WITH THAT ZONING AND THAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS MUCH SMALLER BUSINESSES THAT HAVE LESS IMPACT NOT ONLY ON THE THOROUGHFARES BUT THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OF TRAFFIC EGRESSING AND GOING BACK AND FORTH. SO WE WOULD -- SUGGEST THAT THE ZONING REMAIN THE SAME SO THAT SMALLER BUSINESSES COULD STILL HAVE ACCESS TO SOME OF THE TRACTS THAT MIGHT BE DEVELOPED AS OPPOSED TO A LARGER DEVELOPMENT. THE MOST PRESSING ISSUE IS THE ADDITIONAL VEHICLE AND TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE CAUSED BY DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SIZE AT LAKE VIEW PARKWAY AND DEXHAM ROAD. ESPECIALLY AT THAT INTERSECTION. WE ALL KNOW THAT INTERSECTION IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH. IT WAS NO DEVELOPED WITH A RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE. ISSUES FOR PEOPLE CROSSING DEXHAM OVER TO THE LAKES AND SPRINGFIELD ADDITION. IT'S ALREADY A CONGESTED AREA. ALSO FOR TRUCKS MAKING A RIGHT-HAND TURN, THOSE TRUCKS ALWAYS GO UP OVER THE CURB AND IF YOU'RE IN THE LEFT HAND LANE YOU BETTER HAVE ROOM TO BACK UP IN ORDER TO ALLOW TRUCKS TO COME. SO IT'S A VERY TIGHT INTERSECTION AS IT IS. BECAUSE OF THAT ONE OF OUR CONCERNS IS EXITING AND ENTERING THE -- PROJECT -- OFF OF DEXHAM AT ALL BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT IS IN THAT SPECIFIC AREA. AND AS THE ORIGINAL ANALYSIS THAT THEY SUGGESTED SAID IT'S OVER 600 CARS COMING AND GOING. 10% OF THOSE WOULD BE LARGE TRUCKS OR SEMIS. CAN YOU IMAGINE 60 SEMIS EVERY SINGLE DAY IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR CITY. SO OUR QUESTION WOULD BE WOULD THAT BE A PROJECT BETTER SUITED -- >> MR. WILLIAMS YOUR TIME IS UP. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. [02:05:02] NEXT CARD IS FOR MARK HEMPKINS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> I'M MARK -- 1613 PALOMINO DRIVE IN ROWLETT. BRENT MENTIONED THAT HE REALLY TOOK MY THUNDER AWAY BECAUSE I HAD A LOT OF THESE THINGS AND HE COVERED EVERYTHING REALLY WELL. SO I SECOND EVERYTHING THAT HE SAID. IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN GET THE MAIN PICTURE UP THERE. IS IT HERE. >> WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO GET IT >> THE MAIN ISSUE IS THE TRAFFIC. ONE I'M FIRST OF ALL I'M OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THIS. WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE GOING TO GET WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR HOMES. THEY DIDN'T MENTION ABOUT THE COMMUNITIES AROUND THEM. WE'VE GOT DEXHAM STATE COMMUNITY. WE'VE GOT HOMES BEING BUILT AND SOME PROPERTIES THERE ON DEXHAM ROAD. NOBODY MENTIONED THE BIG WHAT WE'VE GOT OVER THERE WITH 9 WALKING AROUND AND THE BIKE TRAILS AND THE OTHER SIDE OF DEXHAM. SO NONE OF THESE COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN STUDIED AND WITH THIS MUCH TRAFFIC LITERALLY GOING AND HEADING TO NOT ONLY THE LAKEWOOD PARKWAY -- THE 66 AND ALSO ESPECIALLY DEXHAM ROAD THEY SHOULD NOT BE EXITING ON DEXHAM ROAD. NOT THIS ONE BUT RIGHT BEHIND IN THE BACK THERE THAT IS A TRUCK YARD ALREADY THERE. OKAY AND SO TO ADD AND THEY ARE NOT SHOWING ENOUGH 18 WHEELERS. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TRAFFIC ON 66 TO SHOW WHAT IS ACTUALLY THERE. AND FOR ANOTHER STOP LINE OR A TURN LANE THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE AN ANSWER. THAT IS MORE LIGHTS ON 66. SO AND THERE IS A LOT OF UTILITIES THERE AT DEXHAM ROAD. IN THE INTERSECTION. SO I DO OPPOSE THAT. AND IS THIS REALLY WHAT WE WANT TO SEE WHEN WE'RE ENTERING FROM THE EAST. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CRAIG WILLIAMS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTE >> CRAIG WILLIAMS 1709 PAL MEAN OH DRIVE. DEXHAM ESTATES. IT'S REALLY AN OASIS IN OUR CITY. VERY UNIQUE AREA. AND I'M PLEASED TO BE THERE. I DID PURCHASE MY HOME AS OTHERS MENTIONED UNDER A SPECIFIC ZONING UP IN THIS AREA. I AM EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC. 66 PARKING SPOTS FOR 18 WHEELERS. THAT IGNORES THE BAYS. I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS IS THAT THIRD PARTY PARKING? SO TRUCKERS CAN RENT THOSE SPACES? THEY TALKED ABOUT OPEN 24 HOURS WHICH IS CONCERNING. BUT IN REALITY THERE IS GOING TO BE A CONCENTRATION OF CERTAIN HOURS AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AT 2:00 A.M. IT'S GOING TO BE THE TRADITIONAL BUSINESS HOURS. WHERE PEOPLE WORK AND MOST WAREHOUSES OPERATE. THE INTERSECTION OBVIOUSLY IS PROBLEMATIC. I CANNOT IMAGINE HOW MANY WHAT THE -- EVEN WITH THE RIGHT TURN LANE -- WHAT KIND OF BACK UP WE'LL EXPERIENCE DURING THE PEAK HOURS. THAT IS EXTREMELY TROUBLING. SO I'M OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS AND ADMITTEDLY IT DOES BRING IN TAX REVENUE BUT I THINK THERE ARE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE -- WON'T HAVE TE IMPACT THAT WE'RE LOOKING -- AND FEARING AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LARRY PERKINS. NAME AND ADDRESS AND THREE MINUTES >> LARRY PERKINS. 4545 DEXHAM ROAD. WE TALKED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC ON [02:10:01] 66. I GUARANTEE YOU I HEAR TRAFFIC NOISE DAY AND NIGHT AT MY HOUSE SO THE BUFFER THAT WAS DISCUSSED BEFORE IS NOT A BUFFER TO THE NOISE FROM THE HIGHWAY. ONE THING IS THE AIR QUALITY. YOU'RE GETTING READY TO INTRODUCE A LARGE AMOUNT OF TRUCKS AND VAN WAGONS COMING AND GOING OUT OF THE AREA AND BASICALLY DIESEL TRUCKS EMANATE ABOUT 22 POUNDS OF CO2 EMISSIONS AN HOUR IF THEY ARE IDLING SO IMAGINE 36 TRUCKS MAYBE 100 VANS COMING AND GOING. BUT BASICALLY WE CAN SEE A SERIOUS INCREASE OF C02 EMISSIONS. IN THAT INTERSECTION JUST FROM THIS BUSINESS ALONE. THAT IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF AIR POLLUTION. AND BY THE WAY NOISE POLLUTION -- IS ONE OF THE MAJOR HAZARDS IN A COMMUNITY. AND BASICALLY IT'S ABOUT A QUALITY OF LIFE. BUT IF WE DON'T CONTROL NOISE POLLUTION AND WE HAVE AN INCREASE IN HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, DIZZINESS, INDUCED HEARING LOSS. AND THEY MENTIONED THEY ARE GOING TO OPERATE 24/7. WE HAVE A MILL PLANT THAT WAS BEHIND DEXHAM ESTATES THAT OPERATED LATE INTO THE NIGHT AND WE HEARD IT CONSTANTLY. IT WAS A CONSTANT BATTLE OF TRYING TO CONTROL THAT PLACE. AND GET THE NOISE DOWN SO WE COULD SLEEP AT NIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BE HERE MAKING MONEY BUT IT'S GOING TO BE SOLD AND IT'S GOING TO BE GONE AND WE HAVE NO KIND OF CLUE WHAT TYPE OF OPERATIONS ARE GOING TO BE RUNNING. 7 AND MY POINT IS THAT THE PLACE FOR THIS IS NOT AT 66 AND DEXHAM ROAD. IT'S OUT ON II 30 OR GEORGE BUSH. BECAUSE HALF OF THAT TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF THAT PLACE IS GOING TO GO DOWN DEXHAM ROAD. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. I HAVE ONE MORE CARD. OUR LAST SPEAKER IS MIRANDA SCANNING. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES >> HELLO, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS MIRANDA. -- I HAVE SEVEN TOPICS OF CONCERN. THE FIRST ONE IS THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND THE AMOUNT OF RUN OFF DURING PERIOD OF-RAINFALL. THERE ARE DETENTION PONDS PLANNED FOR THIS BUT I HAVE QUITE A FEW CONCERNS RELATED TO THAT ALSO. ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASE AMOUNT OF AIR POLLUTION DUE TO THE LARGE VEHICLES AND THEIR RELATED HEALTH AFFECTS AS LARRY JUST TALKED ABOUT. ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIGHT POLLUTION FROM THIS TYPE OF FACILITY. TYPICALLY WITH THESE TYPE OF FACILITIES WE SEE LARGE LIGHTING. AND I DID NOT HEAR ANYTHING TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS THAT. AS FAR AS -- DOWN LIGHTING AND WILL ALSO CAUSE EFFECTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. ALSO I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE POLLUTION AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER. AND THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC. ESPECIALLY THE LARGE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ALONG DEXHAM ROAD THAT HAS BEEN COVERED PRETTY WELL SO FAR. I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASE IN THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT IN ROWLETT. THIS IS A PROBLEM IN DALLAS. AND I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THIS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I DID NOTICE IN THE RENDER RINSE THAT THE PAVEMENT IS A BLACK SURFACE. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING TO PUT IN. BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND IF YOU GUYS DO DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS LOOKING AT THE VALUES OF THE REFLECTIVITY -- OF THOSE SURFACES SO THAT WE DO NOT INCREASE OUR HEAT ISLAND. ALSO AS MENTIONED EARLIER THE IMPRESSION THIS THIS PROJECT GIVES AS PEOPLE ARE ENTERING OUR CITY. I PERMANENTLY DON'T WANT TO DRIVE-BY THIS EVERY DAY AND I'M SURE THAT OTHER PEOPLE DRIVING INTO THE CITY DON'T WANT TO BE LOOKING AT A VERY LARGE BLAND BUILDING AND WOULD PREFER TO SEE SOMETHING THAT IS MORE PLEASING TO THE EYE. TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL -- ON SOME OF THESE -- ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I WANTED TO MENTION WAS THE BUTTERFLY GARDEN THAT THEY ARE PUTTING IN THERE [02:15:02] -- THERE IS A TRAIL BUT IT LEADS TO NOWHERE. CURRENTLY NO SIDEWALKS IN THE AREA. NO WAY FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO EVEN WALK THERE TO ENJOY SUCH A TRAIL. THERE IS ALSO NO CONNECTIONS TO THE ADJACENT PARK. WHICH WILL ALSO BE AFFECTED BY THE AIR POLLUTION IN THE AREA. SO THOSE ARE MY MAIN CONCERNS. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU AND I WAS INCORRECT. I HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER'S CARD. BETTY LITTLE JOHN. 7 >> I'M BETTY LITTLEJOHN AND I LIVE AT 4418 DEXHAM ROAD. RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF DEXHAM ESTATES. AND MY WHOLE SPEECH HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THESE OTHER GUYS. BUT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT. AND YOU CAN GO INTO GARLAND AND YOU CAN SEE THE EYESORES THAT SOME OF THESE WAREHOUSES HAVE CAUSED IN SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THEY'VE PUT THEM IN. WE HAVE TWO NEIGHBORHOODS AFFECTED. SPRINGFIELD ESTATES AND DEXHAM ESTATES. WE HAVE A NEWSING HOME. THE NOISE POLLUTION AND THE AIR QUALITY AND THE PARKS AND ALL OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS IS GOING TO BE GREATLY AFFECTED BY THIS -- ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS WHEN HIGHWAY 66 GETS BEAT UP BY ALL OF THESE 60 SOMETHING TRUCKS COMING DOWN 66 EVERY DAY WHO'S GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THAT? DO WE HAVE TO GO TO THE STATE? OR WILL THE CITY HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT? BECAUSE IF WE'RE ONLY GETTINGS $200,000 A YEAR YOU'RE GOING TO OFFSET THAT WITH THE REPAIRS THAT YOU'LL HAVE TO MAKE WITH THE TRUCKS. * AND THERE IS NO WAY THAT DEXHAM ROAD CAN BE WIDENED ENOUGH UNLESS THESE GENTLEMAN WANT TO TAKE A LOT MORE OF THEIR PROPERTY AND MAKE DEXHAM -- MORE OF AN "S" CURVE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO GO A CERTAIN WAY OVER THE RAILROAD TRACK THERE IS STILL NOT ENOUGH ROOM. BECAUSE WE DEAL WITH THAT EVERY DAY. AND LIKE BRENT SAID I THINK IT WAS IF YOU'RE IN THAT LEFT TURN LANE YOU'VE GOT TO BACK UP TO LET A TRUCK COME IN AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED BOTH SIDES OF THAT ROAD. ANY WAY THIS IS JUST NOT THE PROJECT. AND I WAS TOLD THAT WE HAVE OVER 301 ACRES THAT IS NOW ZONED -- THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. AND WHY CAN'T THIS PROJECT BE MOVED TO ONE OF THOSE AREAS? THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. 7 THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY E-MAILS THAT CAME IN ALEX? >> YES. I HAVE TWO E-MAILS. >> I'M WRITING TO PROTEST THE PROPOSED REZONING OF AN APPROXIMATELY 24.5-ACRE SITE. PROTESTING FOR THESE REASONS. THE PLANNING DOCUMENTS INDICATE THAT 636 DAILY TRIPS ON DEXHAM ROAD AND/OR HIGHWAY 66 WOULD BE GENERATED. YET THE DOCUMENTS ONLY ASSUME 10% WOULD BE GENERATED BY TRACTOR-TRAILER TRUCKS. THE 10% ESTIMATE APPEARS TO BE A GROSS UNDERESTIMATE. AND 18 BAYS FOR TRUCK UNLOADING. THIS IS AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. THERE IS NO PROHIBITION ON SMALLER BOX TRUCKS AND VAN TRUCKS. THE IMPACTS ON THE DEXHAM ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED. THE INTERSECTION AT LAKE VIEW PARKWAY IS ACCIDENT PRONE DUE TO THE LARGE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC. THEY MAY BE REQUIRED -- PER [02:20:04] TEX-DOT CONFIRMATION. CONSTRUCTION OF A DECELERATION LANE AT THIS TIME WILL FURTHER FRUSTRATE COMMUTERS AND FURTHER IMPEDE TRAFFIC. THE NOISE IMPACT -- HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. A NEWSING HOME IS LOCATED DIRECTLY ACROSS. THE ONGOING CONSTANT NOISE -- -- WILL CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE AT BEST AND A POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARDS. THE IMPACTS OF DIESEL EXHAUST -- TO ENTER AND LEAVE THE FACILITY HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. >> YOUR TIME IS UP. >> VERY FAST READING THOUGH. >> ALMOST GOT THERE. AND THEN I ALSO HAVE ONE COMMENT FROM NEXT -- FROM BRIAN -- GALARDY. I RECOMMEND THIS ZONING REQUEST BE TABLED UNTIL THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS COMPLETED AND STAFF COMPLETES THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS. THE 636 TRIPS PER DAY -- THIS SEEMS OUT OF LINE WITH THE PLANNED USED AS A LAST MILE WAREHOUSE OPERATION. WHAT ARE THE OTHER 400 PLUS TRIPS PER DAY. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE CITY'S PUBLIC OFFICIALS WEIGH IN. THE BUDGET FINANCIAL ANALYSIS SECTION SHOULD INCLUDE A COMPARISON OF COST ESTIMATES. VERSUS WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD IMPLY. I FURTHER REQUEST THAT STAFF ADD CLARITY IN THE LAND USE AND CRITERIA. IS THERE SOME COMPELLING REASON WHY THIS LOCATION IS NEEDED FOR WAREHOUSE OPERATIONS AS COMPARED TO OTHER OPERATIONS SUCH AS THE OTHER BUSINESSES ON THIS PORTION OF DEXHAM ROAD AND THEN LASTLY THIS COMES FROM MARY BETH. WE'RE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER -- MY EMPLOYER STEPHEN MAY CLUNG STRONGLY OPPOSES THIS. HE OWNS TWO BUILDINGS OGRISH HAMAS HAM-- -- -- OUR MAIN CONCS TRAFFIC CONGESTION WHICH IS ALREADY A PROBLEM IN THIS AREA WITH ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES. THE END OF OUR STREET WAS THE RECENT FATAL HELICOPTER CRASH THAT YOU CAN CHECK WITH ROWLETT POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY COULD NOT REROUTE TRAFFIC DOWN OUR STREET. WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS A WISE DECISION FOR THE CITY AND THAT IS THE END OF THE E-MAIL COMMENTS. >> AT THIS POINT I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. I THINK WE HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS AS WELL. I KNOW I MAY. COMMISSIONER FRISBEE I'M GOING TO START WITH YOU. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. THERE ARE TWO PORTIONS OF THE PETITION THAT I'M RATHER CONCERNED B. ONE OF THEM BEING -- THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUFFER FROM 20 FEET TO 10 FEET. ALONG 350 FEET OF THE FRONT TABLE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPED AREAS ON THE SIDES. MAYBE ON THE BACK. BUT WAS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY STATE HEY 66 OR LAKE VIEW PARKWAY IS KIND OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE IN THIS PART OF THE CITY TO ROWLETT AND WHEN YOU START -- PUTTING BUILDINGS OR REDUCING SET BACKS OR AFFECTING -- THE LANDSCAPE AREAS IT [02:25:04] AFFECTS THE AESTHETICS OF THE AREA AND SO I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THAT REDUCTION I THINK THERE IS PLENTY OF ROOM TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO ALLOCATE OR JUST TO STICK WITH THE REGULAR 20 FEET THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE. THE SECOND REQUEST THAT IS OF CONCERN TO ME IS TO REDUCE THE SEPARATION OF FOR THE PARKING AREAS FROM 10 FEET TO SIX FEET. ESPECIALLY WITH LARGE TRUCKS AND GRANTED WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY TALKING ABOUT SEMI RIGS BUT IF YOU HAVE MEDIUM SIZE TRUCKS OR DELIVERY TRUCKS BACKING INTO THESE AREAS THAT THAT SIX FEET IS NOT GOING TO GO VERY FAR. SO UNLESS I'M MISUNDERSTANDING SOMETHING I WOULD ALSO NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THAT VARIANCE EITHER. THAT IS ALL I HAVE AT THIS POINT. >> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER SEAGERS. >> YEAH. QUESTION FOR THE CITY. ON THE DEXHAM ROAD -- AND 66. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS IF ANY TO DEXHAM ROAD WILL BE THERE AND THE DAMAGE -- THESE TRUCKS DO CAUSE DAMAGE. THERE IS USUALLY A SPECIFIC THICKNESS OF CONCRETE NEEDED. HOW FAR DOES DEXHAM MATCH UP WITH THAT? THAT MAKES SENSE. I THINK THE CITIZENS WERE AFRAID. THEY WANT EVERYTHING NOW BUT A LOT OF THESE AS NEEDED WILL BE DONE IF REQUIRED BY -- AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. THE QUESTION WILL BE ABOUT THE LIGHTS. HOW TALL ARE THESE BUILDINGS AND THE LIGHTS AND -- DO YOU REQUIRE BIG BRIGHT LIGHTS 24 HOURS A DAY. [02:31:09] CONCRETE AND THE COLORING. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER -- >> I LIKE THE CONCEPT THAT YOU HAVE HERE. BUT UNFORTUNATELY I TRULY BELIEVE THAT MAYBE THIS WHOLE CONCEPT SHOULD BE OVER BY THE NORTHSHORE. WHERE WE'RE BEGINNING TO DEVELOP IN THAT AREA. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS THAT IT JUST DOESN'T FIT IN TO -- WHEN YOU'RE COME INTO THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND I WOULD PREFER TO SEE IT REMAIN AS COMMERCIAL RETAIL. WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE ON ROUTE 66. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE STILL HAVE SOME AVAILABLE SPACE THAT IS THERE SO THAT WE CAN GROW. YEAH. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS -- SOME OF THE PROPERTY CAN BE FOR LIGHT MANUFACTURING BUT TRAFFIC IS A BIG CONCERN. I KNOW THAT YOU DIDN'T TALK MUCH ABOUT THE LOGISTICS OF TRUCK TIME FOR WHEN THEY ARE COMING IN BECAUSE ROUTE 66 LAKE VIEW IS HIGHLY TRAVELED. FORGET IT BETWEEN 7:00 AND 9:00. IT'S JUST BUMPER TO BUMPER AND THE SAME IN THE EVENING. WE JUST HAD 660 TRIPS OR 330 VEHICLES GOING IN AND COMING OUT THAT IS QUITE AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNTED OF TRAFFIC COMING IN. NOW GETTING TO DEXHAM ROAD IF THIS WERE TO PASS I BELIEVE DEXHAM ROAD WAS JUST BLACK TOPPED AND THAT COULD NEVER HANDLE THE HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK TRAFFIC. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A WEIGHT LIMIT SIGN. BUT THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. I WOULD RATHER SEE THE PROPERTY ALONG -- LAKE VIEW TO BE USED MORE FOR COMMERCIAL RETAIL USE. 7 >> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER SCHINDLER. >> I BASICALLY HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS THAT LEWIS AND MARK HAVE. THE TRAFFIC -- REALLY BIG PROBLEM. AND ALSO THE LOCATION. THE COMING IN TO THE CITY. YOU REALLY KIND OF STOLE MY THOUGHTS THERE. THOSE WOULD BE MY SAME THOUGHTS REALLY. >> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. >> I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONERS -- AND SHINGLIER. I LIKE THE CONCEPT BUT NOT IN THIS LOCATION. I THINK THE TRAFFIC IS ALREADY A NIGHTMARE. 8 AND PUTTING THIS IN THAT LOCATION WITH ALL OF THOSE TRUCKS AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OVERNIGHT TRUCK AND TRAILER PARKING. ALSO. IT'S JUST NOT THE RIGHT LOCATION FOR THAT. SO I HOPE YOU FIND ANOTHER LOCATION. >> ALL RIGHT. AND I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS ACTUALLY FOR THE DEVELOPERS AND [02:35:02] POTENTIALLY STAFF. WE'VE HEARD THIS -- THIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. TRAFFIC WAS THE MOST REPEATED WORD OUT THERE. SO I'LL GO TO YOU GUYS FIRST. BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR PLAN. THE STUDY HASN'T BEEN DONE AND I UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT TO THAT POINT YET. DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A SOLUTION FOR TRAFFIC HERE ON THIS LOCATION? AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK THE CITY STAFF THE SAME QUESTION. FRACTURED ZONING WOULD ONLY ACCESS DEX HAMAS. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE MOVE OUT TO THE RIGHT. AND AS CURRENTLY ZONED AND PARCELLED. THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD GENERATE MORE TRIPS UPON BUILD OUT THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE. WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL ZONING. HIGHER TRIP GENERATION. MORE TRIPS IN THE PEAK HOURS. THOSE ARE SIMPLE TRAFFIC COUNTING FACTS. I UNDERSTAND THE PERCEPTIONS COMPLETELY. 8 THE OTHER ELEMENT THAT I WILL DESCRIBE IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC THE ONLY REASON WE'RE REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE BARRIER IN THIS SPACE IS TO PROVIDE FOR AN EASTBOUND RIGHT-HAND TURN MOVEMENT ON TO DEXHAM TO FACILITATE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS. IT'S JUST 10 FEET. WITHIN -- -- THAT IS THE SHORT ANSWERS TO A TRAFFIC SOLUTION FOR THIS USE ON THIS PARCEL. >> I WAS GOING TO ASK STAFF TOO AS WELL. JEFF, YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. >> COMMISSIONER YOU ASKED IF THERE IS A TRAFFIC SOLUTION AND I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN FIND A SOLUTION FOR THIS. I TOTALLY CONCUR WITH WHAT THE ENGINEER SAID ABOUT THE HIGHER TRAFFIC GENERATION IF THE FRONT OF THIS PARCEL WERE TO REPLAIN COMMERCIAL. AND SO I THINK THERE WOULD BE A SOLUTION FOR THE TRAFFIC ISSUE AT HAND. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> I DON'T -- OFTEN DIFFER WITH MY COMMISSIONERS TOO MUCH ON THIS ONE. I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS. BUT MY BIGGER CONCERNS IS SOMEBODY BUILD EXACTLY WHAT ETC. ZO-- IT'S ZONED FOR. LIKE I SAID I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL GO THIS EVENING BUT I TEND TO FAVOR THE DESIGN VERSUS WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE THERE AS WELL WHICH MAY BE WORSE. THAT BEING SAID, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> YEAH. I JUST WANT TO -- I DIDN'T HAVE ANY DISCUSSION EARLIER. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SMALL BUSINESS AND RETAIL HAS A TON OF TURN OVER. AND I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHAT JUST SAID. THAT MAKES ME NERVOUS BECAUSE THAT LOOKS RUNDOWN. SO LONG TERM SOLUTIONS HERE. -- TRYING TO THINK HOW TO SAY THIS. TRAFFIC IN ROWLETT IS A BIG TOPIC AND I FEEL LIKE WE'RE STUCK BECAUSE WE'RE A PASS THROUGH CITY. A LOT OF OUR TRAFFIC IS ROCKWALL AND FORNEY AND HEATH. AND SO OUR ENTIRE CITY IS CONTROLLED BY ANOTHER CITY. AND I FEEL LIKE IT'S UNFAIR. THEY ARE CONTROLLING OUR FUTURE FOR DEVELOPMENT. [02:40:03] AND I FEEL LIKE THIS DESERVES A SECOND LOOK FROM CITY COUNCIL. YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT BUT TO RUBBER-STAMP IT IT'S A BAD IDEA WE NEED TO OPEN OUR MINDS TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. AGAIN RETAIL IS -- THESE SHOPS. WE CANNOT FILL THE SHOPS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR TWO YEARS. THEY'VE BEEN VACANT FOR TWO YEARS. YOU THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE ANY DIFFERENT. HOW MANY RESTAURANTS COME IN AND OUT. YOU WANT ANOTHER MAINSTREAM RESTAURANT. I'M ASKING FOR A SECOND LOOK FROM CITY COUNCIL. THEY ARE GOING TO LISTEN TO US AND THE CITIZENS AND MAYBE THEY COME UP WITH A PLAN OF ACTION TO HELP EVERYBODY COME TO AN AGREEMENT. I WILL BE APPROVING THIS FOR RECOMMENDATION. >> ALL RIGHT. ONE MORE COMMENT AND THEN -- >> CAN WE ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP. >> ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS IT WAS QUESTIONED ON DRIVE TIME FROM A COMMERCIAL DRIVER. FEDERAL LAW RESTRICTS THEM TO 10 HOURS A DAY. SO THEY DO NOT WANT TO DRIVE -- THE BIGGEST COST TO A BUSINESS THAT IS -- BRINGING PRODUCT INTO ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS AND LEAVING IS THE COST OF TRUCK DRIVERS AND EMPLOYEES. THAT IS THEIR BIGGEST COST WHEN YOU LOOK AT AN INDUSTRIAL BREAK DOWN. THAT IS LIKE OF THE BUDGET OF A BUSINESS OPERATING. THAT IS ABOUT 70%. SO A COMMERCIAL DRIVER BY FEDERAL LAW CAN ONLY DRIVE 10 HOURS A DAY. SO YOU WANT THAT PERSON BEHIND THAT WHEEL BEING PRODUCTIVE NOT SITTING. SO THEREFORE IF SEVEN TO NINE IS TRAFFIC HOUR -- GUESS WHERE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE 7:00 TO 9:00. THEY ARE GOING TO BE AVOIDING THAT BECAUSE THAT INDIVIDUAL THAT IS BEHIND THE WHEEL CAN ONLY DRIVE 10 HOURS. NOW IN THE REGION OKAY 10 HOURS THAT SEEMS LIKE A LOT BUT IF YOU'RE IN THE GREATER DFW AND SITTING THROUGH TRAFFIC -- YOU'RE NOT MAKING MANY TRIPS A DAY. SO THAT IS ONE THING TO REMEMBER AND DAN TOUCHED ON THE TEN-FOOT BECAUSE WE'RE WIDENING THE LANE FOR A RIGHT TURN SO THAT WAY ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IF YOU WERE'S SITTING ON DEXHAM COMING TO 66 AND A TRUCK WANTS TO TURN RIGHT WATCH OUT. THOSE DAYS ARE OVER. THAT TURN LANE PREVENTS THAT. WHICH I DO BELIEVE THERE IS A RESTRICTION CURRENTLY ON DEXHAM FOR TRUCK TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT'S NOT A TRUCK SUPPORTED ROAD AND BY THE TIME WE GET THROUGH UPGRADING IT WILL BE -- BUT THERE IS A TRUCK FACILITY BEHIND US THAT IS USING A NONTRUCK RATED ROAD CURRENTLY. WE'RE AT LEAST -- WOULD BE BUILDING AN IMPROVED ROAD SO THAT ROAD WON'T GET BEAT UP THE WAY IT IS NOW. AND THEN THE QUESTION WAS ON THIRD PARTY OVERNIGHT PARKING THERE IS NO THIRD PARTY OVERNIGHT PARKING. SO WHAT THE TRAILER PARKING AND I KNOW IT GETS INTEREST MINGLED. IT'S * REALLY TRAILER PARKING. THAT MAY BE AN EMPTY BOX TRUCK: IT MAY BE AN EMPTY CONTAINER THAT WAS UNLOADED. BUT THE TRUCK DRIVER HAS TIMED OUT. HIS 10 HOURS ARE DONE. DOESN'T MEAN THE TRUCK IS GOING TO SIT THERE IDLING. THAT TRUCK MAY BE SITTING AT THE DOCK DOORS BUT THAT TRAILER IS GOING TO BE PARKED OVER IN THE TRAILER PARK AND ALSO SOME BUSINESSES WILL LOAD THE TRAILER THE NIGHT BEFORE BECAUSE THE DRIVER HAS ALREADY TIMED OUT AND SO IF THEY UNTIME IT 6:00 IN THE MORNING WHETHER IT'S A BOX TRUCK OR VAN OR WHATEVER INCH THAT IS PROBABLY MORE LIKELY IN THIS LOCATION BECAUSE THE BUILD INTERESTS ARE SMALLER. THEY ARE GOING TO GET OUT AHEAD OF TRAFFIC. IT'S SMART BUSINESS AND THAT IS JUST WHAT DO. AND THEN -- ANOTHER COMMENT WAS WE DON'T KNOW THE NEXT OWNER -- [02:45:01] THAT IT WILL BE LEASED UP AND SOLD. THAT IS A MERCHANT DEVELOPER. WE'RE NOT MERCHANT DEVELOPERS. WE DEVELOP. WE HAVE IN-HOUSE ASSET MANAGEMENT. IN-HOUSE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. WE DO HIRE OUTSIDE THIRD PARTY BROKERS TO LEES UP OUR PROJECTS BECAUSE THEIR HANDS ARE ON THE PULSE OF THE MARKET AND THEIR CONTACTS -- BUT WE DO EVERYTHING IN-HOUSE. AND WE OWN OUR ASSETS. WE DON'T FLIP THEM. SO WE TAKE PRIDE IN HOW HOW MUCH GLASS IS ON THE CORNER. HOW GOOD THE LANDSCAPE LOOKS. NOT JUST DAY ONE. BUT YEAR SIX. THERE WAS THE TRAIL TO NOWHERE. THAT IS TRUE. THE TRAIL STOPS AT THE DART TRACK BUT WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT BUT IT COMES OUT AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE RENDERING WE'RE REQUIRED TO PUT SIDEWALKS. THAT IS CODE. WE'RE PUTTING SIDEWALKS IN. SO IF YOU WANT TO WALK THE TRAIL AND COME BACK AROUND YOU LIVE IN DEXHAM ESTATES YOU CAN SEE THE SIDEWALK AND WALK ALL THE WAY BACK OR BIKE OR WHATEVER. AGAIN WE WANT TO BE THE GOOD NEIGHBOR. JUST THROWING SOMETHING UP TO LEES IT AND FLIP IT OUT AND SELL IT TO THE NEXT GUY AND THEN GOOD-BYE ROWLETT THAT IS NOT US. THAT IS NOT HOW WE OPERATE OUR BUSINESS. THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION. ON THE TEN-FOOT REDUCED DOWN TO 6 FEET THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. THAT IS -- I DON'T WANT TO TOUCH THE REMOTE BECAUSE IT'S NOT DANCING ON ME RIGHT NOW. BUT WHERE THE CAR PARKS ARE ON THE FRONT OF BUILDING ONE THE SIDEWALK OFF OF THE BUILDING THAT IS WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO INSTEAD OF HAVING A TEN-FOOT SIDEWALK OFF OF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING WE'RE ASKING FOR SIX FEET. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUCK TRAFFIC OR VAN TRAFFIC OR BOX TRUCK TRAFFIC OR ANYTHING. THAT IS MERELY A FUNCTION OF -- UNLESS THERE IS A SHOWROOM THERE IS NOT A LOT OF VISITORS THAT COME. SO, THAT IS WHAT THAT REQUEST IS FOREIGN THAT FOUR FEET. AND THEN -- DEXHAM ROAD UPGRADES. THAT IS AGAIN THE TIA AND THE STUDIES WILL BRING THAT UP TO -- CITY REQUIREMENT AND THE SAME WITH THE INTERSECTION WITH TEX-DOT. AND THE LAST COMMENT -- MS. WILLIAMS, THERE WON'T BE TRUCKS IDLING OVERNIGHT. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. WE DON'T ALLOW THAT. WE DON'T ALLOW THAT IN OUR LEASES WITH OUR TENANTS. SO WE -- >> IT SAYS OVERNIGHT TRUCK AND TRAILER PARKING WOULD BE ADDED. >> THEY MAY BE IN THERE BUT THE TRUCK IS NOT SITTING THERE IDLING ALL NIGHT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THE TRUCK MAY BE PARKED AT THE DOOR OR SOMETHING BECAUSE THE DRIVER HAS TIMED OUT. AND WHENEVER -- THEY ARE ABLE TO DRIVE THEY WILL BE GONE. BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE LIKE A TRAILER TRUCK -- OR WHATEVER VAN OR BOX TRUCK -- >> WILL THE DRIVER BE SLEEPING IN THE TRUCK? >> NO. WE DON'T ALLOW THAT ON OUR SITES. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'LL ASK ONE MORE TIME ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I'M OPEN FOR A MOTION. >> I'LL STAND UP. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE THIS PROJECT. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ELGIN TO DISAPPROVE. SO YES MEANS NO. >> WE HAVE OUR CHAIR -- THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. [02:50:03] SO WE HAVE 4-2. THAT IS DISAPPROVED. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK TO FIND OUR CHAIRPERSON WHO I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVEN MORE TONIGHT BECAUSE I APPRECIATE HER ROLE AND TO OUR VICE CHAIRPERSON -- WHO I'M GLARING AT RIGHT NOW. WE'LL GET BACK TOGETHER IN FIVE MI >> OKAY. [5E. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request by Christopher Carpio, OMNIPLAN Architects, on behalf of property owners Sapphire Bay Marina, LLC, for Major Warrants to Article 2.4 to allow for a single story building, Articles 2.4.1.f and 3.1.3.a.1 to allow parking lots to dominate the street, and Article 2.4.3.b.2.i and Appendix 2.1 to eliminate the requirement for 80% continuous street frontage and allow for buildings to front on the lakeshore instead of on the street. The approximately 3.24-acre site is located south of the intersection of Marina Vista and East Access Drive, situated on lot 54, Block A of the Sapphire Bay Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Rockwall County, Texas.] ITEM 5E. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST BY CHRISTOPHER CARPIO, OMNIPLAN ARCHITECTS, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS SAPPHIRE BAY MARINA, LLC, FOR MAJOR WARRANTS TO ARTICLE 2.4 TO ALLOW FOR A SINGLE STORY BUILDING, ARTICLES 2.4.1.F AND 3.1.3.A.1 TO ALLOW PARKING LOTS TO DOMINATE THE STREET, AND ARTICLE 2.4.3.B.2.I AND APPENDIX 2.1 TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR 80% CONTINUOUS STREET FRONTAGE AND ALLOW FOR BUILDINGS TO FRONT ON THE LAKESHORE INSTEAD OF ON THE STREET. THE APPROXIMATELY 3.24-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARINA VISTA AND EAST ACCESS DRIVE, SITUATED ON LOT 54, BLOCK A OF THE SAPPHIRE BAY ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, ROCKWALL COUNTY, TEXAS. >> TODAY WE'RE LOOKING AT PHASE II WHICH IS THE LOWER PORTION OF THE LOCATION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE MAJOR WARRANTS. THE FIRST ONE IS FOR TO ALLOW A SINGLE STORY BUILDING IN THE DISTRICT. THE SECOND ONE IS TO ALLOW PARKING LOTS TO DOMINATE THE STREET. AND THE THIRD ONE ALSO AFFECTING A COUPLE OF ARTICLES IN THE CODE IS TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR 80% CONTINUOUS -- THAT IS REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR 18-26 BUILD TO ZONE. THE APPROXIMATELY 3.24-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH TO THE INTERSECTION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS BEING DEVELOPED WITH TWO BUILDINGS FOR RESTAURANT AND RETAIL USES. AFFILIATED WITH THE SAPPHIRE MARINA DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT PLACES THE TWO OF INSTRUMENTS ALONG THE LAKE SIDE TO MAXIMIZE THE VIEWS OF THE DOCKS AND THE LAKES. A DIRECT RESULT OF THIS ARRANGEMENT THAT IS A PARKING LOT IS LEFT TO FRONT ALONG THE STREET SO, THAT IS IS A GENERAL SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT BUT IT DOES GIVE YOU ENOUGH TO ENTERTAIN THESE THREE DIFFERENT MAJOR WARRANTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED HERE. THE FIRST ONE BEING THE BUILDING HEIGHT. THE ARTICLE 2.4 -- DOES STATE THAT A MINIMUM TWO STORY BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE PROVIDED BUT IT ALSO GIVES YOU THE ALLOWANCE TO APPROVE THE WARRANT A ONE STORY BUILDING THAT IS A UNIQUE CONDITION IN A LARGER DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY A GIVEN WITH THE PROXIMITY OF SAPPHIRE BAY HAVING A NUMBER -- A GOOD EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF BUILDINGS THAT WILL BE FOUR OR FIVE STORIES WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS LOT. SO THAT BEING THE CASE STAFF IS AMENABLE TO THIS REQUEST. CONCEPT ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN TO THE RIGHT. THE SECOND MAJOR WARRANT WOULD BE FOR PARKING LOTS DOMINATING THE STREET. ARTI-- THEY DO STATE THAT ON-SIE PARKING LOT SHOULD BE LOCATED BEHIND BUILDINGS AND WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC STREETS OR OPEN SPACE. THEY HAVE A VERY I'LL USE THE WORD INTENSE LOAD OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO WITH THIS [02:55:02] AND TO THE NORTH TOTAL AT MINIMUM 295 VEHICLES OR SPACES. AND THIS IS REGARDING THE 1005 BOAT DOCK THAT'S THEY ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE 20 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR THE PUBLIC BOAT RAMP WHICH WE HAVE UP AT THE NORTH SLOT AND ENOUGH PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED 9100 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL USE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING IN KEEPING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS. AND SO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY ALLOWING FOR THE BUFFER AND ANNA ADDITIONAL BUFFER ON THE INSIDE OF THE SIDEWALK AS WELL AS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT AND THE TRAIL. THE THIRD MAJOR WARPANT WOULD BE FOR THE FRONT TABLE REQUIREMENT REDUCTION. IT STATES THAT CONTINUOUS BUILDING FRONT STAGE WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE MET WITH 80% IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BUILD TO ZONE AND ANY REDUCTION REQUIRES AN APPROVAL. THE CELEBRATION OF WATER. IT'S A MARINA. THEY ARE PLACING THEIR BUILDINGS ON THE WATER. THEIR PROJECT IS CALLED BAY WALK. 8 AND SO IT ONLY MAKES SENSE THAT THESE BUILDINGS BE PLACED ON THE WATER. THERE ARE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS BY THE DE NIRO LOT ITSELF AND WITH THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT IS REQUIRED TO SERVICE THIS LOT STAFF DOES AGREE THAT THIS SHOULD BE THE PREFERRED LOCATION FOR THE RESTAURANT AND RETAIL COMPONENTS. PUBLIC NOTICES WERE NOT SENT DUE TO THE ISOLATION OF THE PROPERTY SO THERE WERE NOT ANY ACTUAL PROPERTIES THAT NEEDED TO BE NOTICED. WITHIN THE 200-500-FOOT RADIUS SO NO OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR WERE RECEIVED. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS ARE TO APPROVE THE MAJOR WARRANTS AS READ WHICH ARE TO ALLOW FOR THE SINGLE STORY BUILDING. AND TO ALLOW FOR THE WAIVER OF THE 80% CONTINUOUS STREET FRONT AGE REQUIREMENT. -- THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? >> MR. INGRAM. >> MAYBE THIS WAS DECIDED BEFORE BUT WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT 20 SPACES FOR PUBLIC RAMP. IS THAT THE TRUCK OR THE CAR AND THE TRAILER PARKING SPACES. IT DOES NOT SEEM LIKE A LOT. >> IT IS BOAT PARKING AND IT DOES OCCUR -- IT'S ON THE NORTH LOT AND THOSE WERE APPROVED IN PHASE I. SO THE TOTAL COUNT OF PARKING WAS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENTIRE PROJECT. BUT SOME OF THOSE NEEDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MET BY THE NORTH LOT. >> MR. FRISBEE. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. ON YOUR EXHIBIT ONE. IS THAT SIDEWALK THAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT. -- IS THAT THE MAIN ENTRANCE INTO THE MARINA? >> IN TERMS OF VEHICULAR ACCESS YOU'LL HAVE THIS POINT OF INGRESS AS WELL AS INGRESS AND EGRESS IN TERMS OF PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY WE'RE LOOKING AT A TRAIL THAT DOES GO ACROSS HERE. AND DOES HAVE AT LEAST TWO POINTS OF CROSSING AND THE MAIN ENTRY WILL BE ASSESSED TOWARDS THE CENTER PORTION SPLITTING THE TWO BUILDINGS SO THAT WOULD GIVE YOU -- ESSENTIALLY THE BACKSIDE OF THE TOPPLE VASE HERE. -- *. >> GO BACK UNSLIDE. >> ON THE FAR RIGHT SIDE THE SIDEWALK THAT GOES OFF INTO THE LAKE >> THAT IS THE ENTRY FOR THE DOCKS. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> OKAY. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND [03:00:02] HAS A PRESENTATION. >> YES. IF YOU'LL COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> S WITH HOBWIT. FRISCO TEXAS: I WILL BE BRIEF. CARL HAS COVERED PRETTY MUCH ALL OF IT. SO HERE IS A LARGER OVERVIEW. WE'RE RIGHT WHERE THE STAR IS BUT THERE ARE OTHER SITES THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED. THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT IS MORE ZOOMED IN H. SHOWING WHERE THE RETAIL BUILDINGS WILL BE. THESE ARE THE REQUESTS. SO OUR JUSTIFICATIONS AS HE STATED OBVIOUSLY THERE IS GOING TO BE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. WE DON'T WANT TO BE GREEDY. TO TAKE UP ALL OF THE LAKEFRONT VIEWS. LEAVE THAT FOR MORE PEOPLE TO ENJOY. WE WANT PEOPLE TO ALSO BE ON THE LAKE AND ENJOY THAT ENVIRONMENT OF BEING RIGHT ON THE BOARDWALK WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. WITH THE BUILDING DESIGN MADE TO ORIENT WITH THE LAKE. A BEAUTIFUL DESIGN. WE HAVE THE DESIGN TEAM HERE AND I THINK THEY DID A GREAT JOB. THIS IS LOOKING FROM THE WATER SO THIS IS -- IF YOU PULL INTO A SLIP THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM WALK ALONG AND GETTING TO THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF FROM THE BOARDWALK THAT COMMISSIONER FRISBEE POINTED OUT. THE PARKING LOTS OBVIOUSLY THE SITE CONSTRICTION IS NARROW AND MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO PUT THE PARKING LOTS NEAR THE WATER WHICH IS WHAT WE DON'T WANT. WATER IS THE FEATURE HERE. WE'RE LANDSCAPING THE FRONT AGE. WE'RE * ADDING SOME OF CANOPY TREES. AND THESE ARE THE HIKE AND BIKING TRAILS. IT WILL CONNECT THROUGH THE SITE AND THAT IS -- THE LANDSCAPING WILL PROVIDE SHADE AND BEAUTIFY THE AREA FOR THE VISITORS NOT TRAVELING BY CAR. COMPLIANCE WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DO TO MAKE IT WORK. OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO BE ON THE WATER AND HAVE OUR PEOPLE AT THE FRONT DOORS ALONG THE WATER AND SEE THE ENTRANCE AND ENJOY THE PATIO SPACE. DOING THAT PARKING LOT IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE WANT. 7 SO THIS IS WHAT THE SIDE VIEW ORIENTATION THEY GET TO LOOK AT THE WATER AND THE BOATS VERSUS IT THE STANDARD CODE HAVING US LOOKING AT THE PARKING LOT AND TOWARDS THE FREEWAY. HERE ARE SOME RENDERINGS. I HAVE NO COMMENTARY OTHER THAN GOOD JOB AND AS WELL AS THIS ONE FROM THE WATER. HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. BUT WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR ARCHITECTS? OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. >> DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? MR. FRISBEE GO AHEAD. >> I WANTED TO CLARIFY. ARE THESE TWO BUILDINGS FOR RESTAURANT USE OR IS ONE GOING TO BE LIKE A MARINA SHOP? >> PRIMARILY FOR RESTAURANTS. THE OWNER CAN LIKELY ELABORATE BUT MY ASSUMPTION IS RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL. NOT A BAIT SHOP. NOT THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDLED. ALEX, HAVE YOU GOT ANY E-MAIL? >> I HAVE NO E-MAILS ON THIS ITEM. >> WE'LL SEEING NONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I LIKE THIS. IT'S GOOD LOOKING AND I LIKE THE LAYOUT OF IT. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING. >> WE'RE READY FOR IT FOR GO UP >> MY COMMENT IS HURRY UP. >> IT MAKES PERCEPTIONS AND IT ACTUALLY WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO COMPLY IN THIS CASE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> I'M READY FOR A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS. >> OKAY. AND I'LL SECOND. >> OKAY. I THINK SHE BEAT YOU TO IT. I THINK THE LADIES HAVE GOT THIS ONE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY [03:05:03] MS. SCHINDLER AND A SECOND BY MS. WILLIAMS. ALL IN FAVOR. AND THAT IS 100%. APPROVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING IT. WE'LL MOVE TO WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT NOW. [Items 5F - 5H] BECAUSE ITEMS 5F AND 5G AND 5H ARE ALL SAPPHIRE BAY WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS READ THE THREE OF THEM -- AND HAVE MR. MONSAL PRESENT THE THREE OF THEM AND THEN WE'LL DO A PUBLIC HEARING SEPARATELY ON EACH AND A VOTE SEPARATELY ON EACH. SO ITEM 5F. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST BY MANHARD CONSULTING, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS SAPPHIRE BAY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, REGARDING THE FOLLOWING: 1) AMENDMENTS TO THE SAPPHIRE BAY REGULATING PLAN; AND 2) A MAJOR WARRANT TO ARTICLE 4, LIGHTING STANDARDS. THE APPROXIMATELY 115.32-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE PENINSULA SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 30 (IH-30) IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY AND ROCKWALL COUNTY, TEXAS. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST BY MANHARD CONSULTING, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS SAPPHIRE BAY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, REGARDING 5H. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST BY MANHARD CONSULTING, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS SAPPHIRE BAY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, TO CONSIDER A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A RESTAURANT WITH MAJOR WARRANTS TO: 1) ARTICLE 2.8.6.E.2 TO REDUCE THE FAÇADE GLAZING REQUIREMENTS FROM 60% TO 15% ON ALL ELEVATIONS, AND 2) ARTICLE 2.4.2.B.2 TO ALLOW FOR A SINGLE-STORY BUILDING ON PROPERTY REGULATED BY THE FORM-BASED URBAN VILLAGE STANDARDS. THE APPROXIMATELY 2.6-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MEIGAN ELISE DRIVE AND KATIE DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> THAT WAS A MOUTHFUL. >> THANK YOU FOR READING THAT. >> I'LL HAVE THREE PRESENTATIONS. THREE PRESENTATIONS THAT WE'LL WALK YOU THROUGH ALL THREE OF THE REQUESTS. THE FIRST ONE BEING MORE OF A BIG PICTURE REFERRING TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAN FOR SAPPHIRE BAY AND WE'LL GO ONE BY ONE WITH REGARDS TO THE AMENDMENT. THEY ARE NOT THAT MANY BUT THEY DO MERIT DISCUSSION AND THEN WE'LL FOCUS ON TWO LOCATIONS ON THE SITE WHICH WILL BE -- THE EAST TOWNHOMES LOCATED ALONG THIS LITTLE AREA OF THE SITE ON THE SOUTHEAST. AND THEN THE SECOND ONE WILL BE A RESTAURANT SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST OF THE SITE. AND SO THAT WOULD BE THE SEQUENCE OF OUR PRESENTATION. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE [03:10:06] SPECIFIC -- LANDSCAPE PLANS AND DOES ASSIGN SIGNAGE CRITERIA. THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED FOR A SPECIAL DISTRICT BACK IN 20125. SUBSEQUENTLY IN 2020 A PLAN -- WAS APPROVED AND THIS REGULATING PLAN WAS AMENDED IN FEBRUARY 2021. THIS IS A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THIS REGULATING PLAN WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR PROJECTS OF THIS SIZE AS THEY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL AND FIND, WELL GET FURTHER INTO THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROCESS. THE ENTIRETY OF THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 115 ACRES. AND EVERYBODY IS FAIRLY WELL ACQUAINTED AS TO WHERE IT IS LOCATED. THERE WILL BE FUTURE CONNECTIONS AS WELL AS OFF OF SAPPHIRE BAY BOULEVARD CROSSING THE BRIDGE INTO THE NORTHERN PORTION. PHASING. THE PHASING PLAN ON YOUR LEFT IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY APPROVED AND THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS BEING PROPOSED. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE COLORS NOT NECESSARILY BEING THE SAME. BUT THEY ARE PHASE I IN YELLOW ON THE LEFT SIDE. AND INTENDED TO BE COMPLETED IN 2022. IT WAS A VAST MAJORITY OF THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE PHASE I -- SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED ON THE PROPOSED PLAN -- THAT SAID THEY DID INTRODUCE A PHASE II THAT ALSO DOES PROPOSE A 2022 END DATE WHICH IS AND THAT IS THE BROWN OR PEACH COLOR ON YOUR PROPOSED SITE PLAN SO THAT DOES ADD A FEW OTHER PARCELS INCLUDING THE ONES WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY FOR THE RESTAURANT SITE AND THE EAST TOWNHOMES ALONG THE EAST. THE -- SOME NOTABLE CHANGES WOULD BE -- THE INTERIOR MALL OR THE OUTDOOR MALL THAT WE SEE HERE -- BEFORE BEING PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IS NOW BEING PROPOSED TO BEING TWO PHASES BUT STILL ONLY WITH THE OUTSET OF A YEAR. 2023 AND 2024 THE SITE PLAN DOES REMAIN FAIRLY WELL A SIMILAR TIME LINE BUT DIFFERENT PHASING COMPONENTS. THIS PROJECT -- EVEN THOUGH IT GOES FROM FIVE PHASES TO THE NEWLY PROPOSED SYSTEM DOES ACTUALLY FALL A YEAR SOONER AND SO EVEN THOUGH THE OVER-ALL CHANGES DOES SPLIT OFF THESE PROJECTS FURTHER IT ALSO DOES ANTICIPATE A COMPLETION DATE OF 2025. THE LAST PORTION I WANT TO NOTE HERE IS REGARDING TO THE LANDSCAPING. AND SO THE LANDSCAPING PHASING PLAN IN THE ORIGINAL SITE YOU WILL NOTE THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING TO COMPLETE THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRAIL AS PART OF PHASE I OF THE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS. THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE AND THE IMPROVEMENTS FORTH TRAIL AND THE PARK WHAT WE CALL THE KITE PART WILL BE COMPLETED AS PART OF PHASE I. WITH SUBSEQUENT IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE CURRENT PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE. THE PUBLIC TRAIL IS MOVING ON FROM THE PHASING COMPONENT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FOR THE PUBLIC TRAIL TO BE RELOCATED. THE DEVELOPMENT -- CURRENTLY PROPOSES A TRAIL LOOP THAT ALLOWS FOR A CONNECTION. ACROSS SAPPHIRE BAY BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND EAST/WEST ACCESS ALONG I-30. SHOWN BY THE ARROWS BLACK. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A CHANGE TO THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT ALONG THE SOUTHEAST OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE APPROVED TRAIL PLACEMENT SHOWN IN GREEN DOES PRIORITIZE WALKING BY MAXIMIZING THE AMENITY OF THE LAKE AND [03:15:06] MINIMIZING RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSSING AND THIS ENSURES THE SAFETY OF THE USER AND ALSO MAKES FOR MUCH BETTER HIKING OR WALKING EXPERIENCE FOR ALLOWING EXPOSURE ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RECRUIT A PORTION OF THE TRAIL BY CROSSING THE STREET AT THIS LOCATION HERE -- WRAPPING AROUND THE INSIDE OF THE STREET AND CROSSING BACK ESSENTIALLY AVOIDING INTERACTION WITH THE TOWNHOMES -- WHICH PREVIOUSLY WERE INTENDED TO HAVE A TRAIL ALONG THE SHORE. THERE ARE TWO DRIVEWAY CUTS THAT ARE ALSO EXPECT ALONG THE NEW TRAIL ROUTE AND THOSE ARE ILLUSTRATED WITH RED ARROWS AND THOSE WILL BE FOR A CONDOMINIUM TOWER THAT IS EXPECT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS BASED ON 2024. TO ENSURE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS CHANGE NOT BE APPROVED. WE WANT TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF CROSSINGS BUT ALSO MAXIMIZE THE EXPOSER TO THE WATER SIMILAR TO THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD IN REGARDS TO MAINTAINING THE VISIBILITY OF THE WATER EXPOSURE. THE MASTER SIGN -- PACKAGE -- WE SAW A PACKAGE THAT SHOWED AND REGULATED THE DEVELOPER'S REQUIREMENTS OR EXPECTATIONS FOR SIGNAGE IN SAPPHIRE BAY. THIS ADDS ANOTHER ELEMENT TO THAT IN THE SENSE THAT IT NARROWS IT DOWN TO THE TENANT. AND SO ON THE GRAPHIC TO THE RIGHT THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT COLORS. EACH OF THOSE SIGNIFIES OR POINTS TO A DIFFERENT ZONE. EACH OF THESE HAVING DIFFERENT EXPOSURE OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THE HIGHWAY VISIBILITY CORRIDOR COULD P -- POTENTIALLY HAVE SLIGHTLY LARGER SIGNAGE BUT YOU WANT TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF LIGHTING AND REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SIGN EXPOSURE THAT IS DIRECTLY EXPOSED TO THE RESIDENTS. SO, ITS A PRETTY EXTENSIVE PACKET BUT IT IS -- STAFF DID REVIEW IT THOROUGHLY AND WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS IS A GOOD ADDITION TO THIS PLAN. THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING WARRANT RELATED TO THE GAS STATION COMPONENT. WHICH I DON'T HAVE A GRAPHIC HERE BUT IT IS -- IT IS LOCATED HERE AT THE INTERSECTION ACROSS FROM THE MARINA. SO PREVIOUSLY A MAJOR WARRANT APPROVED THE 12 GAS PUMPS WITH A RESTAURANT PRIMARY USE. THIS PROPOSAL HAS NOW SHIFTED TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE FORM BASED CODE WHICH IS TO HAVE A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS AND ALSO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PUMPS FROM 12 TO 16. THE SAME CONDITIONS WOULD APPLY IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SCREENING FOR ALL RIGHT-OF-WAY FRONT AGES AND THIS INCLUDES I-30 FRONT STAGE AS WELL AS THE EAST ACCESS DRIVE AND THE MARINA VISTA. IT'S THREE SIDED PROPERTY. THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO LOCATE EITHER WELL TO SCREEN THE GAS PUMP COMPONENTS BEHIND THE STRUCTURE WHERE THE FRONT CONSTITUTES ADJACENCY TO THE STREET OR OPEN SPACE. SO LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN OTHER TERMS. AND THIS WOULD BE PERMITTED FOR ONE USER. THAT CONVENIENCE STORE DOES HAVE A RESTAURANT USE ATTACHED TO IT. BUT THE GAS STATION WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE ASSOCIATED DIRECTLY WITH THAT TENANT. THE MAJOR WARRANT PROPOSEDS REGARDING THE REQUIREMENTS ALONG [03:20:07] THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. IN THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT -- WE REDUCED OR CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A REDUCTION FROM 1.5-FOOT TO .5 TO ARRANGE A .521 CANDLES FOR THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. THE APPLICANT IS NOT SEEKING TO REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT. RATHER REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PHOTO METRIC PROOF AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS. SO TO BE CLEAR THEY ARE NOT REMOVING LIGHTING FROM THE TRAILS. THEY ARE SIMPLY REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE FOOT CANDLE OR PHOTOMETRIC PLAN AS PART OF THE PLAN. ALL APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN AT THE TIME. IT IS ESSENTIALLY A PLAN THAT DOES SHOW THE LIGHT LEVELS THROUGHOUT THE PARKING LOTS AT THE ACTUAL SURFACE. SO IT SHOWS THE LEVEL OF FOOT CANDLES AT PARKING SPACES, OPEN SPACES, SIDEWALKS AND IN THIS CASE TRAILS. AND IT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PLANS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. BECAUSE OTHERWISE STAFF WOULD HAVE NO WAY TO PROVE OR VERIFY THAT THOSE LEVELS ARE ACTUALLY BEING MET. THEREFORE STAFF IS NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST. ALMOST SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS CASE ONE NOTICE WAS SENT HERE FOR THE MARINA. AND NO RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED FOR THIS PROPERTY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REGULATING PLAN AMENDMENT BUT RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL OF THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL RELOCATION AND REQUEST THE MAJOR WARRANT TO WAVE ALL PHOTOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC TRAIL. CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT PRESENTATION, SUSAN. AND THIS WILL GO A LITTLE SMOOTHER NOW THAT YOU HAVE A BIG PICTURE OF THE CONTEXT OF THE SITE. >> SO WE'LL FOCUS ON THE EAST TOWNHOMES LOCATED HERE. WE JUST SPOKE ABOUT THE TRAIL -- RELOCATION TO AVOID HAVING THE TRAIL GO BEHIND THESE TOWNHOMES. BUT APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 22 TOWNHOMES. A SUBDIVISION WHICH YOU JUST APPROVED AS PART OF THE REPLATTE EARLIER. AVENUE THERE ARE THREE MAJOR WARRANTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REQUEST. THE FIRST ONE BEING TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STOOP ENTRY. THE SECOND TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE STREET AND THE THE THIRD ONE TO REDUCE TREE SPACING REQUIREMENTS ALLOWING TREES TO BE EVERY 30 FEET AS OPPOSED TO 25. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWN ON THE RIGHT DOES SHOW 22 TOWN HOME UNITS ALONG THE SHORELINE WITH AN AVERAGE LOT DIMENSION OF 35X60. THESE UNITS WOULD HAVE DRY WAYS AND GARAGES FRONTING ON THE STREET WHICH WAS IN APPROVAL IN THE FIRST ITERATION OF THE REGULATING PLAN ALLOWING FOR FRONT ENTRY TOWNHOMES. IN THIS SECTION OF THE SITE. THEY WOULD BE PROPOSING AS PART OF THE CONCEPT PLAN SET BACKS -- THAT ARE BETWEEN 18-20 FEET. THEIR REQUIREMENT IS 18-26 SO THEY WOULD BE CODE COMPLIANT. AND PENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE REGULATING PLAN THE TEN-FOOT WIDE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL WOULD BE RELOCATED TO THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE STREET AS SHOWN IN THE ORANGE OR BROWN TONE ON THE SCREEN. I ALSO WENT AHEAD AND HIGHLIGHTED A COUPLE ADDITIONAL CROSSINGS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE SOME OF THE LESS FORMAL TRAIL CORRIDORS. SENSE ARELY COME OUT TO THE CORNERS AND SERVING AT DISABILITY POINTS. THE STOOP * REQUIREMENT -- THE ARTICLE -- REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 3 -- SIX INCH STEPS COMING UP TO A PORCH OR FRONT DOOR. THE PROXIMITY WELL, THE GRADE OF THIS SITE IS WHAT IS BEING USED AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR REMOVING THIS REQUIREMENT. THE -- WITH THE REQUIREMENT [03:25:06] FOREFRONT ENTRY GARAGES AND DRIVEWAYS AND THE LIMITATION OF THE DEPTH THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED IT MAKES IT HARDER TO HAVE THE FINISHED FLOORS BEING DIFFERENT SO IF YOU HAVE A GARAGE THAT COMES UP AT THE APPROVED SLOPE AND THEN YOU STILL HAVE 18 INCHES ABOVE THAT WITHIN THE HOUSING NOW YOU'RE HAVING TO PROVID STEPS INTERNAL TO THE BUILDING AND CREATE SOLUTIONS IN FRONT OF THE HOME BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY, SIDEWALK AND FINISHED FLOOR OF THE HOME WHICH AT THAT POINT IT WOULD BE AT THREE DIFFERENT POINTS AND THREE DIFFERENT GRADING POINTS. SO JUST BECAUSE OF THIS CONDITION -- STAFF IS AMENABLE TO ALLOW ADD GRADE. ALLOWING FOR FOR UNITS TO BE AT GRADE SIMILAR TO A LARGER DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD HAVE A NUMBER OF UNITS THAT STILL FRONTS THE STREET AND STILL HAS A FRONT DOOR TO THE STREET BUT IT IS NOT ELEVATED WHICH WE DON'T BELIEVE IS A CONDITION THAT HAS A BIG IMPACT ON THIS AREA. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING TO REMOVE THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE TOWNHOMES DUE TO THAT SAME GRADE CONDITION. THAT WOULD USING THIS GRAPHIC HERE -- ESSENTIALLY LIMIT THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY ALL TOGETHER FOR THESE TOWNHOMES. SO IF YOU'RE AND THE GRAPHIC TO THE RIGHTINGS -- ESSENTIALLY PULLED OUT DIRECTLY FROM THE CODE IS THE EXPECTATION OF A TOWN HOME UNIT SHOWING THE -- BUILD TO ZONE AND THE EXPECTED GRADE CONDITION. YOU'LL SEE THE STOOP ALSO GRAPHICALLY SHOWN THERE. BUT WITH THE REDUCTION OF OR REMOVING THAT SIDEWALK LOCATION ALONG THE FRONT OF THE TOWNHOMES YOU'RE ALSO INSINUATING THAT ANYBODY WHO'S WALKING FROM THE TOWNHOMES HAS TO CROSS THE STREET IN ORDER TO HAVE ACCESS TO A PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR. IT CREATES A SERIES OF INFORMAL CROSSINGS IN AN AREA THAT HAS SEVERAL BLIND SPOTS DUE TO THE 90-DEGREE TURNS. AND SO STAFF IS NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST. WE BELIEVE THAT WITH PROPER GRADING WHICH IT'S STILL IN GOOD TIME FOR THAT THAT WE CAN LOWER THE ACTUAL FINISHED FLOOR OF THE LOTS AND MINIMIZE SOME OF THE GRADE CONDITIONS WITH THE SIDEWALK -- THE ENTRY DRIVEWAYS AND THE FINISHED FLOOR OF THE HOME. SO WE THINK THAT WITH FURTHER ENGINEERING THESE CAN BE SOLVED WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE SAFETY OF THE PEDESTRIANS ESPECIALLY IF THE -- TRAIL IS RELOCATED BASED ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND CITY COUNCIL'S ACTION. AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS TO CHANGE THE SPACING FROM 25 FEET WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE CODE TO 30 FEET. THE PROPOSED CONDITION IS A DIRECTION RESULT OF FRONT ENTRY DRIVEWAYS AND CONFLICTS WITH UTILITY CONNECTIONS WHICH DOES HAPPEN. AND SO IT DOES LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF PLACEMENT OR THE -- AREA WHERE PLACEMENT OF TREES CAN OCCUR. THIS IS AN AVERAGE AND SO THERE MAY BE SOME THAT ARE SLIGHTLY GREATER THAN 30. SOME THAT ARE CLOSER THAN 25. BUT IT IS A CONDITION THAT STAFF DOES SUPPORT. ZERO NOTICES WERE SENT OUT SO NO RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO WAIVE WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT. IT DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL TO REMOVE THE SIDEWALK ALONG THE STREET. AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF OF THE MAJOR WARRANT TO INCREASE THE SPACING FROM 25-30 FEET. AND THEN OUR THIRD PRESENTATION -- WILL BE REGARDING THE NORTHWEST PROPERTY FOR [03:30:04] RESTAURANT SITE. THANK YOU, SUSAN. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO MAJOR WARRANTS TO REDUCE THE FACADE GLAZING REQUIREMENTS TO 15% AND TO ALLOW FOR A SINGLE STORY BUILDING. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 2.6 ACRES AND THE SITE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 400 NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MEIGAN ELISE AND KATY DRIVE. IT IS THIS ELBOW CONNECTION HERE. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS THESE TWO OF POINTS OF ACCESS -- GO TO AN INTERNAL PARKING LOT ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT. THIS IS BEING DEVELOPED FOR AT LEAST BEING PROPOSED FOR BOND SELLS AND IT'S A RESTAURANT THAT DOES HAVE A -- THAT DRIVE AND A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT TO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. THE FRONT STAGE IS SIMILAR TO THE MARINA EARLIER. THEY ARE PROPOSING THE BULK OF THEIR FRONTAGE TO BE ALONG THE LAKE. BUT ALSO IN AN INTERNAL CORRIDOR THAT IS -- THAT SERVES AS A CULMINATION TO THE TRAIL ALONG THE WEST AS WELL AS AN ENTRY POINT OR ENTRY FEATURE INTO THE RESTAURANT AREA WHICH THERE WILL BE A SIMILAR CONDITION OCCURRING TO THE SOUTH THAT MAY BE PRESENTED TO YOU AT A LATER DATE IF THERE ARE ANY VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED. BUT -- ALL PARKING IS SCREENED FROM THE OPEN SPACE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THAT VISUAL APPEAL OF THE LAKE AND THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL CORRIDOR. THE GLAZING PERCENTAGE WHICH IS THE FIRST MAJOR WARRANT FOR THIS PROPERTY IS FOR A REDUCTION ON THE GLAZING REQUIREMENT FROM 60 TO 15% ON ALL ELEVATIONS. IF YOU'RE BEING FOLLOWING THE CODE ESPECIALLY THE URBAN VILLAGE REQUIREMENTS WE KNOW THAT THESE ARE INTENDED TO BE ZERO LINE LOT CONDITIONS SO THE VILLAGE NEXT DOOR WHERE WE DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SITE ELEVATIONS AND EVEN REAR ELEVATIONS ARE TYPICALLY ALLEY OR INTERNAL TO A PARKING LOT. THIS AREA HERE AS A DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2020 IT IS AN ISOLATED FEATURE. SO THIS ELEMENT HERE DOES HAVE IN ESSENCE FOUR EXPOSED ELEVATIONS WHICH IF YOU'VE DESIGNED A BUILDING IT'S VERY TOUGH TO MAKE IT WORK WHEN YOU HAVE MECHANICAL SPACES AND YOU HAVE BACK OF HOUSING AND DUMPSTER LOCATIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS AND SO THE REDUCTION FROM THE GLAZING IS NOT UNCALLED FOR IN THIS SCENARIO. AS IT WOULD BE TYPICALLY IN A MORE URBAN SETTING WHERE WE'RE JUST FOCUSING ON THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. SO UNDERSTANDING THE CONDITIONS -- STAFF DOES NOT HAVE OBJECTIONS. THEY HAVE A UNIQUE FACADE THAT DOES OFFER A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GLAZING ALONG THE "GROUND LEVEL" WHICH LEADS ME INTO THE SECOND MAJOR WARRANT WHICH IS BUILDING HEIGHT. THE REQUIREMENT WE SPOKE EARLIER IS FOR TWO STORY BUILDING HEIGHTS AT MINIMUM BUT WE CAN CONSIDER WARRANTS FOR BUILDINGS THAT ARE UNIQUE AND PART OF A LARGER DEVELOPMENT. THIS WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE MARINA IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER MULTI-LEVEL BUILDINGS HERE WITHIN SAPPHIRE BAY. SO THE IMPACT IS VERY REDUCED ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE PROPOSING A TALL STRUCTURE TO SAY THE LEAST. A 22-FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT WHICH IS VERY CLOSELY RELATABLE TO A TWO STORY BUILDING. THAT WOULD TYPICALLY MEET SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THAT RANGE. 24-25 FEET SO IT WILL NOT FEEL [03:35:06] SMALL. LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY. THAT SAID, STAFF IS IN FAVOR OF THAT REQUEST AS WELL. NO NOTICES WERE REQUIRED TO BE SENT. AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF BOTH REQUESTED WARRANTS FOR THIS PROPERTY. AT THIS TIME I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE THREE PRESENTATIONS. BUT THE APPLICANT IS HERE ALSO TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU, SIR. DO YOU HAVE WANT TO TAKE THESE ONE AT A TIME. WOULD THAT BE LESS CONFUSING? I THINK SO. SO LET'S GO BACK TO 5F AND THAT IS SPECIFICALLY REGARDING ONE -- TO THE REGULATING PLAN AND TWO THE MAJOR WARRANT FOR LIGHTING STANDARDS COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> LET ME MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT ONE HERE. >> WITH THE PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTING. >> YES. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT BASICALLY THREE MAJOR WARRANTS -- THE REGULATING PLANNED AMENDMENT. THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL RELOCATION. AND THE TO WAIVE WAIVE ALL -- PHOTO LIGHTING >> IT IS ESSENTIALLY ONE MAJOR WARRANT . THAT IS IN ADDITION TO AN AMENDMENT PACKET OF ALREADY EXISTING AND APPROVED CONDITIONS SO WE HAVE THE PHASING PLAN THAT WE'RE AMENDING. WE HAVE THE MASTER SIGN PACKAGE THAT WE'RE AMENDING. AN EXISTING MAJOR WARRANT FOR THE GAS PUMPS AND THEN WE HAVE THE NEW MAJOR WARRANT FOR THE LIGHTING STANDARDS. AND THE TRAIL RELOCATION WOULD ALSO BE PART OF THE AMENDMENT CONSIDERATION. AND I'M NOT SURE IF I JUST CONFUSED YOU ALL MORE >> JUST TO BE CLEAR STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDED AGAINST MOVING THE PUBLIC TRAIL. ALSO RECOMMENDED AGAINST THE LIGHTING CHANGE. CORRECT? >> THERE IS A CORRECT. >> AND BECAUSE I HAVE A SHORT MEMORY WAS THAT TRAIL SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE WATER? >> YES. SO NOW WE'VE GOT CONDOS AND THERE IS A PRIVATE GREEN SPACE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWNHOUSES >> AND FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THERE WERE TOWNHOMES THAT WERE PROPOSED ALONG THE CORRIDOR BUT THEY WERE WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH A PROPOSED TRAIL. SO THAT WAS A CONDITION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING >> WE'VE APPROVED THE WARRANT. FOR THE TRAIL >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. IT SAYS HERE INTRODUCING A NEW PHASE II. WHAT IS THAT? >> SO THE PHASING SEQUENCE WAS AND YOU SAW THE DIFFERENT COLORS BUT BEFORE WE HAD A FOR SEQUENTIAL PHASING PLAN. NOW WE HAVE ANT SCENARIO WHERE WE HAVE PHASE I 2022. PHASE II THE LATTER PART OF 2022 AND THEN PHASE III BEING 2023 AND SO ON. 8 SO THERE IS AN INTRODUCTION OF A NEW PHASING COMPONENT BUT IT DOES FOLLOW A SIMILAR TIME LINE AND ACTUALLY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF YEARS. >> WHAT IS THE NEW PHASE II CONSIST OF? >> I'M HAPPY TO SHOW YOU THE PHASING PLAN AGAIN BUT IT IS BREAKING DOWN THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF PHASE I COMPONENTS THAT WERE FIRST INTRODUCED. IT'S EASIER TO DEVELOP SMALLER FORCES OF THE SITE EVEN THOUGH THEY FALL WITHIN THE SAME YEAR. >> OKAY. AND CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE THAT GAS STATION IS IN RELATION TO THE TWO RESTAURANT SITES. ADDRESSED IN 5E. >> AND WHILE WE'RE LOOKING THE GAS STATION IS ALREADY APPROVED. [03:40:01] >> THE GAS STATION IS APPROVED WITH A RESTAURANT USE AND FOR 12 GAS PUMPS. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO STATE A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS STATION OR WITH A GAS STATION TOWN 16 POINTS. >> INCREASING BY 4 PUMPS >> CORRECT. >> WAS THERE A RESTAURANTS THERE BEFORE? >> THERE WAS A RESTAURANT PROPOSED. BUT THE RESTAURANT IS NOT GOING AWAY. IT'S GOING TO A SEPARATE LOT AND NOT PROVIDING THE USE. >> JUST A GAS STATION. >> A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS. A 7-ELEVEN WITH A DELL TACO WHICH IS A BASED ON THE ELEVATIONS THAT THEY'VE SHARED WITH US THEY DO SERVE A VERY NICE ELEVATED COMPONENT. THAT SAID IT IS NOT YET IN A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED OR REVIEWED SO IF THERE ARE MAJOR WARRANTS IT WOULD COME THROUGH HERE. >> BETTER TO SEPARATE THE RESTAURANT FROM THE GAS STATION. I THINK. >> MAY I CLARIFY. QUICKLY. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS REGULATING PLAN AMENDMENT IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT INCLUDED A RESTAURANT THAT ALSO HAD AN ANCILLARY USE OF GASOLINE SALES OR GAS PUMPS AND WE HAD A SPECIFIC UP IN OF WHAT I CALL THE PUMP ISLAND. BUT THIS ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE REGULATING PLAN ALSO NOW INCLUDES OR INCORPORATES A C STORE USE. THERE WILL BE ANCILLARY USES OR SECONDARY OR PRIMARY USES. YOU WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GASOLINE SALES. WE'RE EXPANDING THE SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED USES. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> SHOW ME WHERE THIS GAS STATION IS IN RELATION TO THE TWO RESTAURANTS ASSOCIATED WITH ITEM 5E. >> SO THE GAS STATION WOULD BE LOCATED RIGHT AT THIS INTERSECTION WHERE -- THE FAR EAST EDGE OF THE PINK AREA. SO IT WOULD BE RIGHT AT THE CORNER RIGHT AT THIS CORNER OF EAST ACCESS DRIVE AND MARINA VISTA. >> OKAY AND WHERE ARE THE TWO RESTAURANTS? >> WELL, THE RESTAURANT THAT WE LATER DISCUSSED IS OVER HERE. WHICH IS -- THE MARINA COMPONENT WOULD BE THIS GRAY AREA ACROSS THE STREET. >> SO THAT GRAY AREA IS WHERE THE TWO RESTAURANTS. >> CORRECT. THE MARINA COMPONENT -- AND THE NORTH PARKING LOT AS PART OF PHASE I WOULD BE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS GAS STATION. >> WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE ITEM THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING RIGHT NOW. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT -- OF BROCHURES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN OUR PAN ON THE LIGHTING AND BOARDWALKS. THEY ARE MAGNITUDE. -- MAGNIFICENT. >> A GOOD PROJECT AND WE'LL SEE WHAT CITY COUNCIL SAYS IN THE NEXT SESSION FOR THAT. >> OKAY. AND DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THIS. >> YES. >> SYDNEY STRATTON. 1225 GREENVILLE AVENUE DALLAS. I'M GOING TO START AND PIECEMEAL THESE ITEMS AND THEY WILL ASSIST. THIS IS MASSIVE AND I APPRECIATE STAFF'S TIME IN PUTTING IT TOGETHER. THE GOAL IS TO STREAMLINE THIS. WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. I WANT TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE ITEMS JUST TO ANSWER -- I KNOW STAFF IS IN YOU SUPPORT OF MAJORITY. PHASING PLANS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. WE HAVE MORE DETAIL NOW THAN WE HAD TWO YEARS AGO SO WE'RE DETERMINING THERE ARE MULTIPLE MULTI-FAMILIES. NOW WE'RE FINDING SOME WILL BE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND THE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL. WE SHOULD HAVE PUT MORE EFFORT INTO MATCHING THAT. THE INTENT IS STILL THE SAME. WE HAVE MORE DETAIL NOW ABOUT [03:45:02] HOW THESE INDIVIDUAL TRACTS ARE GOING TO BUILD OUT. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS LET ME KNOW. >> IT SAYS IN MY PACKAGE HERE A MAXIMUM OF 80% OF TOTAL UNITS MAY BE TYPE ONE. WHAT'S TYPE ONE? >> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU'RE SEEING THAT. >> IT'S CALLED ATTACHMENT 3 BAY SIDE DISTRICT HOUSING MIX. 8 >> I UNDERSTAND. SO, THAT IS THE ORIGINAL I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO CALL IT THESE DAYS. THE ORIGINAL REGULATING PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE DISTRICT. THAT SET FORTH OVER-ALL HOW MANY MULTI-FAMILY UNITS. AND THAT WAS APPROVED PROBABLY A DECADE AGO. >> SO TYPE ONE RESIDENCES WHAT IS THAT? >> SO IT WOULD BE TYPE ONE RESIDENTIAL OR TOWNHOMES AS -- DEFINED BY THE CODE. I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO STAFF >> I WOULD HAVE TO PULL THAT UP BUT IF YOU COULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION AND I MIGHT BE ABLE TO GUIDE YOU THROUGH THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO >> IT SAYS A MAXIMUM OF 806% OF THE TOTAL UNITS MAY BE TYPE ONE. THE REMAINING MAY BE TYPE II OR TYPE THREE. >> WE'RE REFERRING TO THE USES* SPECIFIC TO THIS DISTRICT WHICH IS PART OF THE OVER-AL AGREEMENT OR PART OF THE REGULATING PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS AND IT'S REFERRING TO THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. >> IS SO 80% GOING TO BE APARTMENTS? >> NO. AND IN TERMS OF THE THRESHOLDS OF MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OR RESIDENTIAL OR HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS CAPPED BY THE FLOOR AREA AND BY A PERCENTAGE. WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO I THINK IT'S CLEAR TO ME NOW ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF FORM BASED CODE OR THE REGULATIONS THAT IDENTIFY WHEN YOU HAVE CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS. OF THAT CATEGORY YOU HAVE SPECIFIC PRODUCTS AND THOSE PRODUCTS HAVE TO MEET THAT RATIO CAP THAT IS REFERENCED THERE. >> WE'RE IN THE REQUESTING ANY CHANGES. THAT DOCUMENT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR YEARS TO HELP GOVERN HOW THIS DISTRICT WAS LAID OUT. WE'RE NOT REQUESTING ANY CHANGES TO THAT. THE PHASING PLAN IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE BEEN SEEING. WE'RE PICKING SOME MORE DISTINCT DATES TO GIVE STAFF A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE MOVING FORWARD. >> OKAY. ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THE PHASING PLAN? >> SECONDARY -- IS PLACEMENT OF THE TRAIL. I DO WANT TO DISCUSS. AS YOU NOTED THE TRAIL WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO GO AROUND THE EAST SIDE OF THE TOWNHOMES ALONG THE SHORE. AS WE'VE COME TO DEVELOP THESE SITES THERE IS SOME EXTREME GRADING ISSUES ON THAT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. ESSENTIALLY THAT CROSS SECTION THAT YOU SAW AS PART OF THE TOWN HOME PLAN. THE VERY ENGINEERED DRAWING WE'RE LOOKING AT A 35% TO 40% BACKYARD. SO THERE IS NO PRIVATE TOWN HOME BACKYARD GREEN SPACE THAT WE'RE GIVING UP IN PLACE OF THIS PUBLIC TRAIL. THERE IS NO WAY TO MAKE A SAFE TRAIL. MAINTENANCE WE'VE STARTED TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO MITIGATE THAT SLOPE AND THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE TO PROBABLY USE RIVER ROCK AND THOSE DECKS WOULD EXTEND BEHIND THE TOWNHOMES. THERE WON'T BE A YARD BACK THERE AT ALL. NOT ONLY ARE YOU TRAPESSING THROUGH A BACKYARD BUT UNDER A DUCK WALK ALONG ROCK SO WE CAN STABILIZE THE SHORELINE. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A TRAIL BACK THERE. SO OUR GOAL WAS TO PROVIDE THAT SAME AMENITY IN A SAFE WAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN IF THERE THERE WAS A DIFFERENT AREA IT'S BEEN APPLIED CORRECTLY BUT IN THIS AREA THE ENGINEERING CHALLENGES ARE HIGH. >> CAN YOU TELL US WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> ON THE SECOND ONE. IT'S ON ANOTHER PRESENTATION. SORRY. WE SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT. 5G. THERE IS A GOOD INDICATION ON [03:50:03] THE TOWNHOMES BECAUSE IT IS MORE IN CONCURRENCE. >> IT WOULD HELP ALL OF US SO WE CAN SEE EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE TALKING. >> THIS IS WHAT THE TOWNHOMES LOOK LIKE. THE TRAIL WOULD NEED TO BE RIGHT THERE BETWEEN THE LOT LINE AND THE LAKE EDGE AND THE SLOPE IS NOT ABLE TO BE MITIGATED. AGAIN WE'RE DOING STABILIZATION OF THE SHORE LINE WITH OTHER THINGS AND THE INTENT IS TO HAVE RIVER ROCK BECAUSE GRASS IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN AND THE DECK -- ALLOWING THESE TOWNHOMES TO HAVE SOME FORM OF OUTDOOR SPACE. IF YOU WERE WALKING ON A 30% SLOPE. IT IS VERY STEEP. YOU ALREADY WOULD HAVE -- >> AND WHERE DO YOU PROPOSE TO PUT THIS TRAIL IN LIEU OF WHERE IT WAS GOING TO BE. >> ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. >> RIGHT THERE IN ORANGE. HAVE THE FULL WIDTH OF THE TRAIL AND TREE WELLS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. MUCH MORE WALKABLE AREA. THERE WILL BE TWO CROSSING AREAS. THAT GETS YOU TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TOWNHOMES. BUT AGAIN THEY GET YOU TO AREAS AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN GET -- A SHARKA -- SMALL PARK LET. THIS IS OUR AGAIN FROM AN ENGINEERING STAND POINT THE BEST VERSION OF THE TRAIL. I DO UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF HAVING IT ALONG THE SHORELINE IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THAT WE WANT AND THAT IS PROVIDED ALONG EVERYWHERE ELSE. JUST IN THIS AREA DUE TO THE GRADING COMPLICATIONS AND THE SHORELINE -- >> I'M CONFUSED WHY THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO MOVE IT >> I THINK STAFF LIKES THE IDEA OF IT BEING ALONG THE SHORELINE WHICH WE AGREE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE DETERMINED WITH STAFF UNTIL A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. >> YOU HAVE NOT MOVED THE TOWNHOMES. >> THE TOWNHOMES ARE AT A DEPTH THAT IS BUILDABLE. YOU HAVE SOME ELEVATIONS. THERE ARE 60-FOOT DEPTH WHICH IS PRETTY STANDARD FOR THE BUILDER THAT WE'RE WORKING W AS YOU CAN SEE SOME LOTS HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM BUT DUE TO THE SHORELINE THERE ARE SOME THAT BARELY HAVE THE 10 FEET BEHIND IT BEFORE YOU'RE PHYSICALLY IN THE WATER. THAT IS A SLOPED BACKYARD >> SO THESE CONDOS WERE ALWAYS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. THE TRAIL WAS SUPPOSED TO BE BY THE WATER. WHAT CHANGED? >> GETTING DOWN TO WHAT THIS GRADING LOOKS LIKE ON PAPER VERSUS THE FIELD. THERE IS NO CRAZY INCREASE IN SLOPE. IT'S JUST DUE TO THE WAY THE SHORELINE DROPS OUT SO MUCH. WE WOULD LIKE TO USE THAT LAND. MAKE THESE LOTS BIGGER. BUT AGAIN THE GRADING DOESN'T COINCIDE WITH THAT AND IN ORDER TO HAVE TOWNHOMES AT THE SAME GRADE AS THE ROAD THAT IS WHAT THE BACKYARD LOOKS LIKE. YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THAT INDICATION. THE GOALS TO HAVE THE TOWN HOMEWORKING IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE ROAD. YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE BEING FIVE OR SIX FEET BELOW OR ABOVE THE ROAD. THAT WOULD BE DRAINAGE ISSUES. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH HAD TO. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE CREATED IS THE BEST WAY TO PHRASE THAT >> COULDN'T YOU JUST FLIP THEM AND PUT THE TOWNHOMES WHERE YOU HAVE THE TRAIL AND PUT THE TRAIL WHERE YOU HAVE THE TOWNHOMES >> THE INTENT IS TO HAVE THESE TOWNHOMES ON THIS SIDE. I LIKE THAT IDEA. >> UNFORTUNATELY WE WOULD LOSE A LOT OF IMPORTANT LAND. THAT IS ABOUT TWO AND A HALF OR THREE ACRES OF LAND THAT WOULD GO UNUTILIZED. YOU HAVE 60 FEET OR AT TRAIL IS ONLY 10 FEET. SO IT DOES THE QUITE WORK THAT DIRECTION. UN UNFORTUNATELY >> I JUST DON'T THINK IT IS THE BEST AND HIGHEST USE OF THE LAND THERE. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE INTENT IS TO CONTINUE THAT TRAIL AND PROVIDE FOR THE EXPERIENCE TO GET AROUND SAPPHIRE BAY. WE'VE DETERMINED IT DOES UNFORTUNATELY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN THIS AREA. THE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE THE PATH ALONG THE JETTY AND ENCOURAGE THAT NATURAL EXPLORATION. [03:55:04] JUST IN THIS SMALL AREA IT DOES NOT PAN OUT. OUR PROPOSITION IS TO FLIP IT. SIGNAGE WILL BE KEY >> HOW PROPOSE TO STABILIZE THE SHAPE >> WITH THE ADDITION OF -- THERE IS A LOT OF EXHIBITING RIFF RAFT THAT IS THERE. JUST PUT THERE OVER A SERIES OF YEARS. SO THE GOAL IS TO FORTIFY OF THE SLOPE WITH MASSIVE ROCKS. WHICH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS OUT THERE BUT MUCH MORE FORTIFIED AND IN ORDER TO ESPECIALLY COULD THE SLOPE THE BEST IS THAT RIVER ROCK SO AGAIN FROM THE MARINA -- IT'S GOING TO BE A NICE VIEW BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING YOU COULD RUNAROUND IN THE BACKYARD. >> COULD YOU PUT A SEAWALL? >> SO THERE IS NO SEAWALL PLAN DUE TO THE STABILIZATION. THAT JETTY -- THERE IS A SEAWALL BEING INSTALLED. THE JETTY BLOCKS A TON OF THE EROSION. THE SO THE STABILIZATION IS BETTER HERE. BUT THE SEAWALL IN ORDER TO GET IT GOING BACK TO THIS IN ORDER TO GET THAT IN A MANAGEABLE THAT SEAWALL WOULD HAVE TO BE -- PROBABLY 40-FOOT-TALL. TOTAL WITH A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF IN FILL TO EVEN MAKE THAT EVEN SOMEWHAT USABLE. AND EVEN THEN I'M NOT SURE THAT WOULD BE A BACKYARD THAT ANYONE WOULD WANT TO BE IN. >> ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON. >> OH, SORRY. >> APOLOGIZE I. I'M AN ENGINEER SO I TEND TO LOOK AT THESE IN A DIFFERENT VAIN. THIS IS A TYPICAL SCHEMATIC AND NOT NECESSARILY AN ACTUAL REPRESENTATION. A SPECIFIC CROSS SECTION AT A SPECIFIC LOCATION. >> IT IS. THIS IS ONE OF THE TOWNHOMES. NOT ALL OF THEM LOOK THE SAME >> OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN IRREGULAR SHAPE. MOTHER NATURE IS GOING TO MOVE THE SHORELINE BACK AND FORTH AND IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE IT SO YOU HAVE SOME PLACES WHERE IT'S A PINCH POINT AND OTHER PLACES WHERE YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE WIGGLE ROOM. I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT LET ME BACK UP A SECOND. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF RELOCATE CAN THE TRAIL AND THE * THE REASON IS IT'S ANN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE FOR YOU AS THE DEVELOPER BUT I BELIEVE IF YOU USED PILING OR ANOTHER STRUCTURE TO TRY TO RECLAIM OR READJUST SOME OF THE AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE THE ROCK RIPRAP RIGHT NOW AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE AND IF YOU WANT TO EDUCATE ME MORE ON THE PARTICULARS I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO LISTEN. BUT HERE IS THE THING AND I UNDERSTAND WE'RE CROSSING QUESTIONS WITH CONTINUES AT THIS POINT. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS SET A PRECEDENT BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE HOMES GO IN AND THOSE HOMES MONOPOLIZE THE LAKE VIEW AND THE LAKEFRONT. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE SINCE THE CONCEPT WAS ORIGINALLY TO INCLUDE A TRAIL WATERFRONT OR WATERFRONT TRAIL THEN WE NEED TO MAKE -- A MORE CONCERTED EFFORT TO TRY TO WORK THAT OUT. AND AGAIN I KNOW THAT TO DO THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT ON YOUR PART IN TERMS OF RETAINING WALLS OR SHORELINE ARMORING OF SOME SORT. BUT I THINK TO BE HONEST WITH YOU AS A DEVELOPER THAT IS PART OF THE PRICE YOU PAY IN ONE AREA AND YOU JUST HAVE TO MAKE UP THE COST AND SPREAD IT OUT OVER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT RATHER THAN TRY TO ISOLATE IT INTO EACH INDIVIDUAL TOWN HOME. THAT'S AN OPINION. AND I AGAIN APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I'M MAKING A STATEMENT WHEN WE [04:00:05] SHOULD BE ASKING QUESTIONS. BUT WE MAY NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AROUND. SO ANY WAY THAT IS MY TAKE ON THAT. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU CHANGING THE TEXT SLIGHTLY -- WHY WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED OR WHY WOULD THE DEVELOPER BE OPPOSED TO PROVIDING A PHOTOMETRIC ON THE TRAILS AGAIN AS AN ENGINEER I DO A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT AND PHOTOMETRICS IS PART OF IT AND THAT IS ONE OF THE LEAST COMPLICATED ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. SO IT JUST STRIKES ME A LITTLE BIT PECULIAR THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO WAIVE WAIVE THAT REQUIREMENT? >> ABSOLUTELY AND I UNDERSTAND. AND THE WAY -- WHAT WE'RE AIMING FOR IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY STAFF WORDS THINGS TO SO THAT CODE IS CLEAR. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY OF THE TASK OF DOING THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN AS YOU DO WE DO THOSE FOR EVERY SINGLE SITE ALL THE TIME. THE INTENT IS THAT THE TRAIL WAS NOT INTENDED -- THE GOAL OF THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE THE TRAIL TO BE INTENDED TO BE LIT. THERE IS A QUESTION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE. SOME THINGS BROUGHT UP TONIGHT AND LIGHTING IS ALWAYS A BIG ITEM. EVERYWHERE ALONG THE PROPERTY THERE IS AMBIENT LIGHTING. THIS IS A GREAT AREA. IF YOU HAVE A TRAIL BEHIND THESE PEOPLE'S HOMES HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHAT THE LIGHTING LOOKS LIKE. IT'S BEEN A BIG LIGHTING ITEM FOR US. 3 HOW DO YOU BADEN SURING THAT THINGS ARE LIT BUT YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO THE STANDARD TO THE REST OF THE PHOTOMETRIC PLANS ARE HELD. >> THIS IS FOR CARLOS. REGARDING THE -- WHEN YOU ARE DISCUSSING THE PHOTOMETRIC AND THE LIGHTING STANDARDS YOU CONFUSED ME WITH THE CHANGE. 7 ARE WE REDUCING THE FOOT CANDLES ALONG THE TRAILER INCREASING THEM. THAT IS A PART THAT I DID NOT FOLLOW >> TH LAST AMENDMENT BROUGHT FORWARD A REQUEST TO REMOVE ANY LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TRAIL. THAT WAS THEN -- AMENDED VIA A CONDITION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT SAID THEY DON'T WANT TO REMOVE IT BUT THEY WERE WILLING TO REDUCE IT SO THERE WAS A REDUCTION FROM 1.5 TO 2.5-FOOT CANDLES. MINIMAL LIGHTING BUT SUFFICIENT FOR THE TRAIL TO BE SAFE >> AND IF YOU HAVE A 12-20-FOOT ILLUMINATION MASS VERSES THE SMALLER BALLER TYPE ILLUMINATION POST THAT SPREAD OUT THE LIGHT A LITTLE BIT MORE AT A LOWER HEIGHT MAYBE YOU WOULD HAVE MORE OF THEM BUT THERE WOULD BE LESS INTRUSIVE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED? >> TO SOME EXTENT. THERE IS A MASTER LIGHT PACKAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE STREET. AND WE ARE CONSCIOUS THAT ESPECIALLY IN THE AREAS THAT THE TRAIL IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE STREET THAT THAT LIGHTING WILL BE ESSENTIALLY PROVIDED BY THE STREETLIGHTING TO THE TRAIL. BUT THERE ARE AREAS WHERE THE STREETS ARE NOT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE TRAILS SUCH AS PERHAPS THIS CONDITION IS APPROVED OR THE WEST TOWN HOMES WHERE THERE ARE BUILDINGS IN BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE TRAIL. SO IT A A REFLECTION OF THE CONDITION WHERE WE WERE ASKING FOR THE MINIMUM FOOT CAPPED DILL REQUIREMENTS BUT IN ORDER TO DO SO WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE PHOTOMETRIC PLANS TO VERIFY. >> JUST AS A NOTE. YOU MADE MULTIPLE CONTINUES. I DO WANT TO CONVEY THAT THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT. I JUST WANT TO SORT OF REITERATE THAT WHILE I AGREE THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE COST ASSOCIATED WITH DOING DEVELOPMENT. 7 THIS IS ANYWHERE FROM 10 TO 3. THE AMOUNT IS MASSIVE AND EVEN IF WE ARE FILL THERE IS A DETERMINATION THAT THESE DECKS ARE PROPOSED 25-50 FEET IN THE AIR. I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS TO CONSIDER VERSUS JUST ADDING [04:05:05] DIRT BACK IN. THERE ARE GOING TO BE A LOT OF OPINIONS AND WE'RE LOOKING OUT FOR WHAT WE THINK THE TRAIL WILL BEST SERVE THE PUBLIC AND NOT WIND THROUGH BACKYARDS -- UNDER DECKS ON RIVER WALK. THE GOAL IS TO MAINTAIN THE TRAIL JUST A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT LOCATION. IN AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP THINGS MOVING ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THE TRAIL? OKAY. I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE MANY BUT THE MASTER SIGN PACKAGE THE GOAL -- ENSURE THAT EACH TENANT DOESN'T COME IN TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. TO APPROVE IT RIGHT HERE UP FRONT SO NOW EVERY TENANT -- WILL COME IN AND HELD TO THE SIGN STANDARDS ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT HAPPY TO ANSWER. >> I WAS GOING TO ASK CARLOS. WHAT SAY YOU ON THE DEBATE ON THE WALKING TRAIL BETWEEN THESE TWO. ARE YOU AGREEING WITH MR. FRISBEE >> I DO THINK THERE ARE ENGINEERING OPPORTUNITIES. I ALSO DON'T KNOW BASED ON MY CURRENT EXPERIENCE OF WALKING THE SITE THIS PAST WEEK THAT A 36% SLOPE IS CURRENTLY THERE ARE THE IMAGES THAT I HAVE LOOK VERY DOABLE. ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS -- -- THIS GRAPHIC IS NOT TO SCALE SO THERE ARE SOME EXAGGERATIONS IN TERMS OF THE VIRTUAL COMPONENT AND JUST TO NOTE IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THAT DRIVEWAY LENGTH AND COMPARE THAT DISTANCE VERTICALLY THAT HOUSE WOULD BE CLIMBING ABOUT 7-8 FEET AND THAT IS NOT THE SENATOR JOE PROPOSED. -- *. JUST BASED ON THE WALKING ON THE SITE AND SEEING THAT CONDITION I MENTIONED KIND OF BRINGING UP THE BACK END AND PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS WITH JEFF AS WELL IN TERMS OF FILLING THE BACK -- THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY ADDED FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WOULD HAVE -- THAT WOULD COME FROM DOING SO BUT WE STILL THINK IT IS A VERY FEASIBLE ELEMENT >> WOULD THEY CONSIDER TABLING THAT PARTICULAR LINE ITEM. A LOT TO CHEW ON AND APPROVE. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GIVING YOUR REQUESTS SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. I JUST DON'T THINK I HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION HERE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE AN INFORMED AND INTELLIGENT DECISION TO BE FAIR TO YOU. BUT I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU. IT'S YOUR PROJECT. >> >> I WILL SAY BY THE WAY FOR REFERENCE THIS VERSION OF THAT CROSS SECTION -- IS -- THIS HOME RIGHT HERE. >> AND EVEN ON THE SOUTH >> IT'S GOING TO BE SIMILAR. IT IS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. WE DID MODEL IT >> BUT WE'VE GOT TO CROSSOVER AT THAT SOUTHERN SECTION. CAN YOU HIGHLIGHT THAT. BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THAT PINCH POINT BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE LAKE. I-30 IS BASICALLY ALL ALONG THE BOTTOM. SO THE COST TO EXTEND THAT LAND FAR ENOUGH TO ADD THE TRAIL WOULD BE A FORTUNE. AND IF WE GO INTO DOING STUFF LIKE THAT IT'S NOT WE'RE TAKING AWAY FROM AMENITIES THAT MATTER AND TO US THIS MADE THE MOST SENSE FOR JUST DOLLARS SPENT. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THAT. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY PICTURES? >> ON MY PHONE. SORRY. >> MAYBE THAT LENDS TO MR. FRISBEE'S IDEA TO GET A BETTER LOOK. >> I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO BETTER IDEA >> IF WE DO THAT TRAIL BEHIND THERE WE'LL HAVE HAVE TO STRIP AWAY FROM STUFF THAT MATTERS >> THE PROBLEM IS THE BIG SELLS [04:10:03] THAT THE TRAIL IS WHAT MATTERS. THE BIG HYPE ON THIS PROJECT WAS IT WAS A WORLD-CLASS -- ENTERTAINMENT ATTRACTION WITH A WATERFRONT HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. AND I'M NOT -- THIS IS NOT ME PERSONALLY. BUT IT'S FOR ME IT'S A BIG DEVIATION AND BY GOING OUT TO LOOK. I'M NOT SAYING IT HAS TO BE THAT WAY. BUT I MAY LOOK AND SAY OH, GOD THIS IS 10 FEET. AND IT'S ACROSS THE STREET. AND THERE IS A STREET AND THERE IS A HOUSE AND THERE IS A DECK AND SOME ROCK AND WATER. THAT IS MY OWN MIND. IT'S 11:30 ME. MAYBE NOT 8:30 ME. I NEED TO GET A BETTER PICTURE. I'LL GO LOOK AT IT AS WELL. >> OKAY. >> FOLLOW-UP COMMENT. HAS THE DEVELOPER CONSIDERED SINCE THE QUESTION CAME UP ON THE SIDEWALK QUESTION -- ACCORDING TO YOUR PLAN AND IT MAY BE JUMPING TO ANOTHER ITEM BUT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW THE STREET CONFIGURATION AND THEN A PIECE OF AMEEN TEASE -- * OPEN SPACE AND THE POSITIONING OF THE SIDEWALK IN YOUR STANDARD. WOULD IT BE PLAUSIBLE TO CONSIDER NUMBER ONE MOVING THE SIDEWALK SO THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE BACK OF CURB SO THAT YOU STILL HAVE A SIDEWALK THERE AND MAYBE EVEN WIDEN IT AND POTENTIALLY LOOK AT MEANDERING THE TRAIL IN AREAS WHERE YOU DO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND COMING UP THROUGH THE GAP. ARE THOSE ALL CONTINUOUS TOWNHOMES OR ARE THERE ANY GAPS WHERE YOU CAN WEAVE THIS OR BREAK UP THE UNITS TO WORK SOMETHING IN. I'M LOOKING FOR A WAY TO COMPROMISE TO GIVE THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY PROBABLY FELT THEY WERE LED TO BELIEVE THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE. >> SURE. AND I'LL SPEAK TO THAT. THERE IS NO ROOM BETWEEN THE TOWNHOMES. IT'S ABOUT THREE FEET. AND DO I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND THAT IS THE INTENT WITH PROVIDING THE PARK LET THAT IS IN THE CENTER. I UNDERSTAND THAT IS NOT THE SAME. AS TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE SIDEWALK THE FORM BASE CODE DOES REQUIRE US TO HAVE THAT SIX FEET OF AMENITY SPACE. IT'S FOR TREES. AND SO, THAT IS WHY CODE IS WRITTEN THAT WAY. WE WOULD NEED TO BE CURB -- SIX-FOOT AMENITY SPACE AND THEN A SIDEWALK. BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN FACILITATE THE FULL TRAIL AS THESE DRIVEWAYS ARE ONLY 18 FEET DEEP FROM BASE OF CURB TO BUILDING >> AND I APOLOGIZE FORGETTING INTO THE MY FUSHIA -- WE APPROVED THE SHIFTING OF A SIDEWALK ON A PRIOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE PHASE I. OF THE RESTAURANT SITE THAT WE LOOKED AT EARLIER WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE THAT WORK AND IT WAS FOR SIMILAR REASONS THAN BECAUSE OF GRADES. BUT ANY WAY MAYBE I'M GETTING CALL UP IN MUNITION. -- * >> ABSOLUTELY. >> SO BY MOVING THE TRAIL OVER IS THIS A TWO BLOCK DISTANCE? >> THAT TRAIL IS MOVING RIGHT THERE ACROSS THE STREET. THAT ORANGE LINE IS THE NEW PROPOSED TRAIL. WE'RE MOVING IT ACROSS THE STREET. AND THERE WILL BE TREES THERE AND THAT SORT OF THING THAT YOU DON'T SEE ON THIS PLAN >> ALONG THE TOWNHOMES A TWO BLOCK KISS ANC. >> THERE IS 24 FEET. THE TOWN HOME DRIVEWAYS ARE 18 FEET. I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION. >> TOTAL LENGTH -- >> PROBABLY. THAT IS PROBABLY A GOOD EST ESTIMATE. SORRY. THERE IS A LOT TO LOOK AT HERE. >> IT'S DEFINITELY EXTENDED FOR SURE >> I WANT TO BRING UP SOMETHING THAT IF I WAS LIVING IN ONE OF THOSE HOMES I DON'T KNOW THAT I'D WANT ANYBODY COMING AROUND BEHIND MY HOUSE. THAT IS SOMETHING FOR US TO CONSIDER. 78 THERE IS PRIVACY -- IS MORE IMPORTANT -- WOULD BE MORE [04:15:08] IMPORTANT TO ME IF I LIVED THERE. AND THE TRAIL -- AND THE TRUE PERCENTAGE OF WHAT I'M CURIOUS IS OF ALL OF THE TRAILS THAT IS GOING TO MEANDERING THROUGH WHAT IS THE PERSONAL OF THIS AREA THAT WE'RE DROPPING IN FRONT OF SOME OF HOUSES. >> MY GUESS WOULD BE 10% OR LESS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS LAKEFRONT. THE WESTERN TOWNHOMES THOSE ARE ACTUALLY ABOUT TO START VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION. THE ROADS ARE IN. YOU CAN SEE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BACK OF THE TOWNHOMES AND THE EDGE OF THE LAKE SHORE. IT'S DIFFERENT AND WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE A TRAIL THAT IS NOT IN SOMEONE'S BACKYARD. THERE IS PLENTY OF SPACE AND FEELS ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. THIS IS NOT THE SAME SITUATION. SO MY GUESS WOULD BE ABOUT 10% OF THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. >> AND THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT THIS WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN >> THE REMAINDER OF THE TRAIL -- -- >> I HAVE YOUR WORD ON THAT >> YOU DO. >> IT WAS THAT RED TRAIL LINE. IT'S ON THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION WHICH WE MAY WANT TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ONE WITH W >> I SEE THE CITY'S POINT OF VIEW. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE WATER. MORE DESIRABLE TO HAVE IT ON THE WATER. BUT RIGHT FROM YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING UP AT A DECK. WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A VERY >> AND AGAIN IT'S A DIFFERENT VIEW. AND THAT IS NOT THE GOAL HERE BUT THE VIEW HERE ON THE LEFT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL. THE AREA HE HAS HIGHLIGHTED EVEN LESS OF THAT BIG BLACK BOX IS FURTHER EAST. THAT IS THE AREA THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. EVERYWHERE ELSE IT WILL BE PROVIDED. AND EVEN A PORTION THAT GOES INTO THE MARINA. >> I UNDERSTAND BOTH POINTS OF VIEW BUT IF IT WAS ME AND I WAS LIVING THERE -- MY HEART WOULDN'T BE BROKEN IF MY PRIVACY >> EVERY OTHER PLACE ON THE TRAIL HAS GOT THE TRAIL BEHIND THEIR HOUSE. SO, THAT IS OKAY FOR EVERYBODY. >> HOW MUCH OF IT IS GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT OR A PARKING LOT VERSUS AN ACTUAL PERSON. >> THE ONLY PORTION THAT IS -- RESIDENTIAL ARE THE TO TOWNHOMES. THAT IS THE ONLY OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREA. THESE TWO WILL LIKELY END UP BEING APARTMENT COMPLEXES. THAT IS A KITE PARK. THESE ARE RESTAURANTS, HOTEL, RETAIL ETC. LIKELY THE SAME OVER HERE. THIS IS THE CITY'S NEW FIRE STATION. YOU'RE LEFT WITH PRETTY MUCH TWO YOU UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES. -- -- THE SPACING DOESN'T WORK. THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE DECKS ABOVE THEIR HEADS. AND THE GRADING DOES NOT WORK. >> OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THERE ARE TWO MORE ON THIS. THE NEXT ONE WAS THE GAS PUMPS. CARLOS DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING THAT. THOSE WERE ALREADY APPROVED AS PART OF A PREVIOUS PLAN. WE HAD INTENDED TO LOOK AT AN OPTION FOR A GAS PUMP WITH A RESTAURANT OPTION AND THAT HAS NOT -- PANNED OUT AND 7-ELEVEN HAS SHOWN INTEREST. IT WILL NOTLOOK LIKE YOUR TYPIC. THEY ARE TWEAKING IT EVERY DAY. IT'S GOING TO SELL WINE AND BEER AND IN AN OPEN SETTING WHERE YOU CAN HAVE A DRINK WHEN YOU GO TO WHOLE FOODS. ALL OF THAT I HOPE TO PUSH OFF TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND GIVE IT THE TIME THAT IT DESERVES. WE'RE ONLY REQUESTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE GAS PUMPS IN THE CONVENIENT STORE ASPECT. EVERYTHING DESIGN WISE WILL GO THROUGH THE FORMAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND THEN ARTICLE 4 LIGHTING. IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER [04:20:05] THEM. THAT IS THE WHOLE LIST ON THIS ONE. 7 >> Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN. LET ME ASK YOU ONE THING. WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING LINE TIME WHILE GOING BACK TO THE TRAIL. >> NOT A PROBLEM. >> THE BUILDING LINE OF THOSE TOWNHOMES AND THE WATER LINE? >> IT VARIES. THE TIGHT EGGS ONE THERE ARE AREAS WHERE IT IS 10 FEET. THERE ARE AREAS WHERE YOU'VE GOT CLOSER WHERE IT MEEHAN DEADER OUT TO 30 FEET. BUT 10-15 FEET IS MOST OF THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY AND THAT IS TRULY FROM LOT LINE TO YOU ARE IN THE WATER >> AND THE OTHER SIDE WHERE THERE ARE TOWNHOMES? >> ANYWHERE FROM 40-50-60 FEET. >> BECAUSE THERE IS QUITE A BIT MORE SPACE ON THAT SIDE >> ABSOLUTELY. A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DESIGN AND THE OTHER PIECE IS THAT WE CANNOT ADJUST THOSE EAST TOWNHOMES. 7 WE'LL JUST CHANGE THEM. THE FRONT ENTRY GRADE IS DRIVING THIS. AND THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED. SO A LOT OF THAT IS BEING DRIVEN BY THAT. THE WEST TOWNHOMES ARE ALLEY SERVED AND A DIFFERENT LAYOUT. THESE ARE SMALLER ON THIS SIDE. >> AND YOU WANT TO WAVE THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN REQUIREMENTS WHY AND FOR HOW MUCH OF THE PUBLIC TRAIL? ALL OF IT? >> ESSENTIALLY YES. THE ASK BEFORE IS THE SAME AS THE ASK NOW AND THE REASONS ARE VARYING FROM REASONS THERE ARE PARKS ALONG THE SHORELINE WHERE THE INTENT IS NOT TO HAVE PEOPLE LATE AT NIGHT AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTIAL CONCERNS. AGAIN WE BELIEVE THERE IS A LOT OF -- >> AREN'T THERE REQUIREMENTS FOR NATURE TRAILS TO BE LIT? IN THE CITY? >> THE CODE DOES REQUIRE 1.5 CANDLE REQUIREMENT OF WHICH TRAILS FALL IN THAT CATEGORY. SO THAT WAS THE CONSIDERATION THAT CAME BEFORE COUNCIL LAST TIME AVENUE THEY WERE NOT AMENABLE TO REMOVING THAT REQUIREMENT SO, THAT IS WHY THE REDUCTION WAS A COMPROMISE TO ALLOW FOR BIGGER SPACING PERHAPS FOR THE LIGHTING >> AND THAT REDUCES THE COST. >> THE COST? IT SIMPLY REDUCED THE LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS >> THE IDEA I'M ASSUMING IS NOT A COST. YOU'RE TRYING TO PREVENT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NOT A PARTY BEHIND SOMEONE'S HOUSE AT 11:00 AT NIGHT. I'M ASSUMING. >> THAT IS CORRECT >> AND THERE ARE AREAS WHERE THAT BOARDWALK FEEL WILL BE ENCOURAGED. ITS'S NOT A COST ITEM. IT'S NOT EVEN THIS DEVELOPER. IT'S ALL SET ASIDE DIFFERENTLY >> SO, IT'S NOT A COST THING >>> THAT IS NOT THE REASON >> THEORETICALLY IT WILL REDUCE THE COST BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE COSTER BEING SHARED FOR THIS VISION >> EXCUSE ME. I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERJECTING SO ABRUPTLY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER AS YOU PONDER THIS A AMENDMENTS ORIGINALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MUCH LARGER MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT. NOW WE'RE TO THE POINT WHERE THIS SOUTHERN COMPONENT IS BEING DEVELOPED AND IT'S INVOLVING. HOWEVER THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A MASTER TRAIL PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES CONNECTIVITY OF TRAIL FROM THIS PARAMETER TO OTHER COMPONENTS OF CONNECT ACTIVITY WITHIN THE CITY. FAST-FORWARD WE CONDUCTED -- THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR THE REGULATING PLAN THAT ADDRESSED THE FOOT CANDLES OF SOME OF THE TRAIL SYSTEMS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT -- STAFF HAS TO CONSIDER ARE THE [04:25:01] REQUIREMENTS OF THE FORM BASE CODE AND THE GLARE AND ILLUMINATION REQUIREMENT. BUT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND THIS TRAIL SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED FOR ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE PUBLIC AND WE KNOW THAT THE TRAIL WILL NOT BE JUST USED FOR GATHERINGS OR JUST A PEDESTRIAN OR TWO BUT A JOGGING TRAIL. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS SAFETY. I THINK IT'S A MUCH LARGER TOPIC QUITE FRANKLY AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TWO PIECES. ONE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TRAIL LOCATION APPROPRIATE. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO SEE WHAT THE PHOTOMETRIC ELEMENTS WOULD PRODUCE TO DETERMINE THE SAFETY ELEMENTS IF SOMEONE IS JOGGING ON THE TRAIL THE CITY WILL GET THE CALL. AND WE COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE OTHER ASPECT IS YOU'LL HAVE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE THERE YEAR ROUND SO IT'S A DIFFICULT ONE SO, THAT IS WHY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS PHRASED THE WAY THAT IT IS >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> WE'VE GOT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON EACH OF THEM TOO. >> AT THIS TIME -- WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 5F. AND I HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD HERE. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD >> JOHN -- 3905 SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE. I JUST WANT TO DO THIS TO GET A FEEL FOR IT FROM THIS SIDE. JUST TWO THINGS. FIRST OFF I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN THE WALKWAY AROUND THE PERIMETER LIKE IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED FOR AND IF -- NOTHING ELSE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU COULD DROP A COUPLE OF TOWNHOMES IN ORDER TO GAIN ACCESS TO THAT AREA. BUT I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THAT REMAIN PART OF THE PROJECT. 8 AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE GAS STATION. PORTION. ORIGINALLY IT WAS APPROVED BECAUSE IT WAS PRESENTED AS A AN SILL REYY PORTION OF * A THEMED RESTAURANT. THAT IS WHY A LOT OF US ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME OR THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME SAID OKAY. LET'S DO IT: NOW LET'S GO TO A LARGER 16 PUMP GAS STATION. THERE ARE TWO OF THEM ACROSS I-30 SO I DON'T THINK THIS AREA WARRANTS ANOTHER GAS STATION. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DESTINATION PLACE -- SO A THEMED RESTAURANT -- THAT MAY BE PUMPS GAS. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IT GOT APPROVED TO BEGIN W SO HOPEFULLY YOU DISAPPROVE THAT. THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? 5F. ALEX, HAVE YOU GOT ANY E-MAIL TO READ >> I HAVE NO EL -- E-MAILS >> AT THIS TIME I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSS. ANY MORE DISCUSSION. ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? >> BASED OFF THE KNOWLEDGE I'M INCLINED TO PERSONALLY RECOMMEND AN APPROVAL BUT FOLLOWING STASH'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS ONE. 8 -- >> ANYBODY ELSE? >> AND MY LAPTOP DIED. >> I AGREE. BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IF I SAW THE TOWNHOMES I COULD SEE THE TRAIL. BUT THERE IS NO TOWNHOMES. AND IT'S HARD TO GET BACK THERE ANY WAY. CAN WE GO BACK THERE AT ALL. >> I WAS GOING TO GET A BOAT >> AND THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO VISUALIZE ABOUT THE LIGHTING. IS IT TOO EARLY TO BE DISCUSSING THIS STUFF. I WOULD APPROVE IT WITH THE CITY AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS RIGHT NOW. >> LADIES? I AGREE WITH BOTH OF THEM. I THINK WHICH I GUESS WOULD MEAN THAT WE WERE APPROVING SENT FOR [04:30:03] THE CHANGE TO THE TRAILS, THE WAIVER TO THE PHOTOMETRIC AND THE REMOVAL OF THE SIDEWALKS. WELL THAT IS LATER. THOSE TWO. >> THE SIDEWALK IS A HIKE AND BIKE RELOCATE -- >> SO THEN I'M READY FOR A MOTION. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS OF NOT MOVING THE TRAIL, NOT CHANGING THE LIGHTING AND I BELIEVE IT WAS -- A WAIVER OF THE SIDEWALK,S THAT THE THIRD PIECE? I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CORRECT. >> I CAN CLARIFY THE SIDEWALK IS PART OF THE NEXT ITEM. >> OKAY. SO I'M JUMPING AHEAD. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY THE TRAIL AND THE LIGHTING. >> I'VE GOT IT. >> WELL, THE REGULATING PLAN AMENDMENT I BELIEVE WE WANT TO APPROVE. AND THEN DISAPPROVAL OF THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL RELOCATION AND THE WAIVER OF THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR THE PUBLIC TRAIL. >> THAT IS WHAT I AGREE TO YES. ONCE AGAIN MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REGULATING PLAN AMENDMENT AND I PROPOSE THIS APPROVAL OF THE HIKE AND BIKE RELOCATION AND THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN REQUIREMENTS. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REGULATING PLAN AMENDMENT AND DISAPPROVAL OF BOTH THE RELOCATION OF THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. AND THE WAIVER ON THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR THE PUBLIC TRAIL. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I HAVE A SECOND. >> I HAVE A SECOND FROM DEB. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS I READ IT. OR AS ROBERT REDDIT. EVERYBODY VOTE. AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS. AND WE WILL MOVE TO 5G 7 AND AS A REMINDER 5G IS REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE STREET AND I'M SORRY. REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE STOOP ENTRY -- TO REDUCE THE TREE SPACING REQUIREMENTS ALLOWING TREES TO BE SPACED AN AVERAGE OF 30 FEET OC OPPOSED TO 25. AND THAT IS IT. >> STOOP ENTRY. REQUIREMENT FOR THE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE STREET AND THE AVERAGE SPACING ON AVERAGE OF 3. AS OPPOSED TO THE REQUIRED 25. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DEB. >> THIS WAS THE ONE THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SIDEWALK. CORRECT? >> YES. THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE STOOP ENTRY. AND THE TREE SPACING BUT NOT THE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE STREET. THAT IS CORRECT. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT. >> I'LL BE BRIEF I PROMISE. WE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE ALREADY AND TO START WITH THE STUPE REQUIREMENT WE'RE BACK TO THE SAME ISSUE WITH THESE FRONT GRADEN TREE. THE STUPE REQUIREMENT IS INTENDED FOR ALLEY ENTRY. THERE IS NOTHING WRITTEN FOREFRONT ENTRY IN THE SAME WAY. BASED ON THE DEPTH AND THE GRADING OF THE SITE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THAT STOOP WHICH WOULD PUT US TWO FEET BACK OF CURB THIS DRAWING WOULD GET EVEN TALLER. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE. DRIVEWAYS HAVE TO BE AT A MANAGEABLE SLOPE IN ORDER TO UTILIZE THEM. WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THAT STOOP REQUIREMENT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. [04:35:01] SIDEWALK AGAIN THIS IS AN ITEM BEING REQUESTED BY THE DEVELOPER AND THE BUILDER. THERE ARE NO BACKYARDS ON THIS PROPERTY. WE'RE NOT IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE. AGAIN AN ATTEMPT AT GREEN SPACE. WITH THE TRAIL BEING RELOCATED WE DON'T SEE A BENEFIT FOR THE SIDEWALKS. THEY ARE SERVING THE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWNHOMES AND LOOKING TO PROVIDE MORE GROWN SPACE. THE TREES WOULD BE MAINTAINED WHICH BRINGS ME AND AGAIN REMINDER THAT THE TREAT SITS SIX FEET BACK OF CURB. THE THIRD ITEM IS THE TREES. JUST DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE DRIVE WAYS -- AND THE WAY THEY HAVE TO BE SPACED OUT. 30 FEET WAS HARD -- 25 FEET WOULD BE HARD TO ACCOMPLISH. WE CANNOT AFFECT DRAINAGE AT THIS TIME. SO, THAT IS ANOTHER ITEM. WE CANNOT RIP UP ANY CURBS. AND AGAIN THERE WILL BE CANOPY TREES AS REQUIRED AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. >> WHAT WAS THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVEWAY? >> 18 FEET FROM FACE OF CURB TO BUILDING. >> AND THE OTHER PIECE OF THAT SIDEWALK GOING OFF OF THAT THAT WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED IS THAT THERE IS A SLIGHT CONCERN THAT CARS COULD BLOCK THAT SIDEWALK. UBER DRIVERS AND PEOPLE RUNNING INTO THE HOME. THESE ALL HAVE GARAGES. THE GOAL IS NOT TO PARK IN YOUR DRIVEWAY CONSTANTLY. BUT WE LIVE IN NEIGHBORHOODS AND THAT IS A TOUGH THING TO POLICE. SIDEWALK BLOCK AGE WILL LIKELY HAPPEN. THAT IS ANOTHER ITEM TO ADD TO THE LIST OF THINGS TO CONSIDER BUT THAT WAS ANOTHER REASON WE WERE ASKING THIS. THIS IS NOT AN AREA THAT WE THINK IS USEFUL FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE WALKING ALONG. THERE IS A SIDEWALK ALONG THE OTHER SIDE OR A TRAIL WHICH WE'VE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH. 7 ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER? >> ANYBODY? >> MR. FRISBEE. >> JUST LIKE TO ASK STAFF IF IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO DEFY THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE SIDEWALK IF ANYONE ON STAFF HAS EVALUATED THE OPTION TO MOVE THE LOCATION OF THE SIDEWALK TO THE BACK OF CURB -- RATHER THAN HAVE THE GREEN SPACE IN ORDER TO GIVE THE DEVELOPERS MORE GREEN SPACE IN FRONT -- BASICALLY BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE FRONT OF THEIR HOME AND BY THE WAY I DO CONCUR THAT THE WAIVING OF THE REQUIREMENT MAKES SENSE FOR GARAGE ACCESS ISSUES. AND THE TREE SPACING I ALSO AGREE MAKES SENSE >> SO YOU'RE SAYING GIVE THEM MORE YARD AND LESS CONCRETE WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE SIDEWALK. 7 >> BASICALLY RIGHT NOW THE WAY THE DIAGRAM IS SET UP YOU HAVE AND I FORGOT WHAT THE SPACING IS. IT'S ABOUT FIVE OR SIX FEET FOR AMENITIES BETWEEN THE BACK OF CURB AND THE SIDEWALK. AND THAT IS WHERE YOU WOULD NORMALLY PUT YOUR TREES AND PARK BENCHES OR ILLUMINATION POST OR WHATEVER ELSE. AND THEN FOUR OR FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALK AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SIDEWALK YOU HAVE HERE -- IS IT A FOUR FOOT OR FIVE-FOOT >> FIVE-FOOT >> SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE CAN'T MOVE THE SIDEWALK TO THE BACK OF THE CURB AND GIVE THE DEVELOPER MORE GREEN SPACE. MORE CONTIGUOUS GREEN SPACE IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY. BUT THAT IS JUST ME THINKING. 7 >> AND TO ANSWER YOUR -- IF STAFF WOULD CONSIDER IT. YES. I DID THINK ABOUT IT. I CONSIDERED THE CHANGES. IT WAS NOT COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY. MOSTLY BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE TYPICAL STREET SECTION FOR THIS DISTRICT AND FOR THE TOWN HOME TOO WHICH ACTUALLY ALSO REFLECTED HERE -- THIS STAFF BELIEVES THAT THIS CONDITION [04:40:04] WITHIN REPLICATED BY LOWERING THE GRADES AND SO NOW THAT ISSUE WITH THE GRADING GOING UP IS LIMITED OR REDUCED. SO YES THERE IS A SLIGHT CHANGE OR IT WOULD HELP SLIGHTLY TO BRING THAT SIDEWALK CLOSER TO THE STREET BUT NOW YOU'RE ALSO PUTTING STREET TREES RATHER THAT ARE WITHIN 8-9 FEET OF A STRUCTURE. AND SO THIS ACTUALLY DOES HELP TO ALSO MAINTAIN SEPARATION FROM THE TREE AND THE BUILDING STRUCTURE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. I'M SORRY. I'M TIRED. HE HAS TALKED. HE HAS TALKED. WE NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS. ON THIS ONE. IS THERE ANYONE HERE -- WE'RE ALL APPLICANT OR -- UNLESS JOHN WANTS TO TALK AGAIN. >> ALL THE SMART PEOPLE WENT HOME >> YEAH. >> ALEX, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO READ ON THIS ONE >> I HAVE NO E-MAIL COMMENTS TO READ >> OKAY. SO I GUESS AT THIS TIME WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AND I GUESS UNLESS Y'ALL WANT TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS OR HAVE MORE DISCUSSION I'M READY FOR A MOTION. >> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND STAFF APPROVAL ON THIS. AND LET ME READ IT. APPROVE OF THE MAJOR WARRANT -- TO WAVE THE STOOP ENTRY REQUIREMENT. DENIAL THE MAJOR WARRANT -- AND -- TO REMOVE THE SIDEWALK ALONG THE STREET SIDE OF THE PROPOSED TOWN HOME THAT IS A DENIAL. AND THEN APPROVE THE MAJOR WARRANT TO ARTICLE 2.4.6.8.2.6 OF THE FBC TO SPACE TREES EVERY 30 FEET ON CENTER. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. FOR ON THE THREE ITEMS AS WAS READ BY -- MR. -- >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> MR. INGRAM. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I HAVE A SECOND BY MR. SWIFT AND WE VOTE. OKAY. WE HAVE 6 YESES SO THAT ITEM CARRIES AND ONE NO. MOVING ON TO ITEM 5H. THIS IS THE ONE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT -- REDUCE THE FACADE GLAZING REQUIREMENTS FROM 60% TO 15% ON ALL ELEVATIONS. ALLOW FOR SINGLE STORY BUILDING ON PROPERTY REGULATED BY THE URBAN STANDARDS. AND >> ONE OF THE WARRANTS IS ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME AS CARLOS NOTED. AGAIN THERE IS A FORM BASE CODE NOTE THAT SAYS BUILDINGS CANNOT BE ONE STORY. THE FACADE IS INTERESTING AND IT'S A NICE VISUAL THERE ON THE LAKE FRONT. THE OTHER WARRANT WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL SIDES OF THE ELEVATION. WHICH THE FORM BASED CODE IS TENDED TO APPLY TO MORE URBAN AREAS. SO IN ORDER TO AND YOU CAN SEE THE ELEVATIONS -- IN ORDER TO MEET THE GLAZING REQUIREMENTS WE DO NEED A REDUCTION. ABOUT HALF OF THE FACADE IS A [04:45:02] COMBINATION -- OF BRICK, STUCCO THERE IS A METAL ELEMENT THAT IS OVERLOOKING THE PATIO THAT IS PRETTY COOL AND ALSO BACK OF HOUSING THAT CANNOT HAVE GLAZING. SO AGAIN THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE AS MANY WINDOWS AS POSSIBLE. THIS IS A VERY COOL LOOKING BUILDING BUT WE CANNOT MEET THE CODE AS IT IS WRITTEN. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR A RESTAURANT THAT HAS FOUR FRONTAGES OF ELEVATION. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> I THINK WE'RE HAPPY WITH THIS ONE. I THINK IT'S A VERY COOL LOOKING BUILDING TOO. I LIKE IT A LOT. OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO ANYBODY THAT WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE DO WE HAVE ANY TO READ ON 5H >> THERE ARE NO E-MAILED COMMENTS. >> ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M READY FOR A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED MAJOR WARRANTS >> WE'VE MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED MAJOR WARRANTS FOR 5H. DO I HAVE A SECOND >> I HAVE A SECOND FROM TAMARA. ALL IN FAVOR. AND THAT'S A UNANIMOUS. THAT PASSES. THANK YOU. [5I. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to Chapter 77-508 of the Rowlett Development Code regarding residential building standards.] >> AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 5I. >> YES. WE HAVE TWO MORE. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 77-508 OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS. >> MR. -- >> OR LESS. I'M JOKING. >> THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH THIS. WE DID A WORK SESSION ON THIS ITEM. RECENTLY. -- THEY DIRECTED US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS. AS REQUIRED BY OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE SO THIS WOULD BE REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS -- IN 77-508. THERE ARE THREE ITEMS WITHIN THIS THAT WE WERE LOOKING TO AMEND. FIRST REGARDING BUILDING MATERIALS. HOUSE BILL DID REMOVE THE ABILITY FOR CITIES TO ENFORCE REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING MATERIALS. THEREFORE WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THAT BE REMOVED FROM THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IN ORDER TO EASE THE RELY NUMBERING SYSTEM HERE WE'RE GOING TO INSERT RESERVED INTO THIS SECTION AND NOT RENUMBER THE ENTIRE SECTION. SECONDLY WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT ENTITLED ORIENTATION TO THE DWELLING. IN REGARD TO MAKING SURE THAT A FRONT DOOR IS VISIBLE AND GARAGES DO NOT DOMINATE A STREET FRONT SO WE'RE SEEING MORE AND MORE HOMES AS YOU ARE AWARE THAT ARE FRONT ENTRY AND SO WITH THAT IF THERE IS A J OR L HOOK GARAGE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARD TO HAVE THE FRONT DOOR WITHIN 8 FEET UNLESS YOU PUT A FRONT DOOR IN YOUR GARAGE. SO THEREFORE WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE WOULD REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT FROM THE ORDINANCE. THIRD PIECE WOULD BE ABOUT GARAGES. AGAIN WE'RE SEEING MORE COMMONLY NARROW LOT AND STREET FACING GARAGES SO WE WERE PROPOSING AMENDING THIS SECTION. CODE TO PROPOSE AN OPTION FOR A SINGLE BAY GARAGE DOOR FOR STREET FACING GARAGES. OR A SITUATION SO THAT WOULD BE TWO GARAGE DOORS OR A DOUBLE BAY GARAGE DOOR THAT HAS A WIDTH BETWEEN 16-18 FEET AND SECONDLY CLARIFY THE MINIMUM DEATH OF THE VEHICLE PARKING AREA IS 20 FEET AS WELL AS THAT MEASUREMENT IS TAKEN ON THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. AGAIN WE'RE LOOKING TO ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY DELAYS AS WE SEE MORE AND MORE OF THESE TYPES OF HOMES COME FORWARD. AS WELL AS TO MOVING THIS FORWARD NOW PRIOR TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE CODE UPDATE [04:50:04] BECAUSE THESE ARE READY TO GO. PROCESS AGAIN. PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NEXT WEEK. WE WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE >> QUESTIONS ANYONE? MR. FRISBEE. >> ANY DEVIATIONS IN WHAT IS RECOMMENDED IN THIS PACKAGE VERSUS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED DURING OUR WORK SESSION A FEW WEEKS AGO. >> I WOULD SAY MORE CLARIFICATION IN REGARD TO THE GARAGE SECTION. TO AGAIN OFFER UP THAT OPTION FOR MORE CLEARLY OFFER UP THE OPTION FOR THE TWO SEPARATE GARAGE DOORS ONE FOR EACH BAY OR TO HAVE THE SINGLE GARAGE DOOR FOR THE DOUBLE GARAGE DOOR BETWEEN 16-18 FEET IN WIDTH. >> ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. I'M READY FOR A MOTION. >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. >> I'M SORRY. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT AT THIS POINT WE SHALL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOW I'M READY FOR A MOTION >> WE RECEIVED NO E-MAIL COMMENTS ON THIS. >> THANK YOU, ALEX. >> THE MOTION -- GO AHEAD. >> I'LL SECOND IT THEN. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND HAPPEN? MR. FRISBEE. ALL IN FAVOR. AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. [5J. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to Chapter 77-803.F of the Rowlett Development Code regarding the public hearing notification process.] AND THIS IS THE LAST ITEM. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 77-803F OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION PROCESS. MR. -- >> POOR THING. >> AGAIN THIS WAS YET ANOTHER ITEM THAT WE RECENTLY HAD A WORK SESSION WITH YOU ON AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR DISCUSSION, GUIDANCE AND COMMENTARY THAT YOU PROVIDED TO US. DURING THAT TIME. I'M WAITING -- ARE YOU GOING TO GET THAT? IT'S OKAY, SUSAN. 7 ALL RIGHT. SO AGAIN THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REGARDING NOTIFICATION AS WELL AS BEING MORE EFFECTIVE WITH OUR REQUIRED POSTED SIGNS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WELL AS TO HAVE BETTER COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND THE PARTICIPATION PROCESS. WE REQUIRE FOR A LEGAL NOTICE TO BE PLACED IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS. THAT ADVISES THE PUBLIC OF THE REQUEST AS WELL AS HOW TO PARTICIPATE WITHIN THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. CODE REQUIRES FOR ONLY THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING MEETING TO HAVE THAT PUBLIC NOTICED AND THEREFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING IS NOT REQUIRED HOWEVER IS REQUIRED UNDER THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THEN ALSO THE MAILED NOTICE OF WHICH THOSE THINGS GO TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF ANY SUBJECT SITE THEY MUST BE SENT 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING BEING 10 DAYS BEFORE THE TENTH DAY PROVIDE TO. WE ALSO SEND A COURTESY NOTICE WITHIN 500 FEET. BOTH AS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED INCLUDE A RESPONSE FORM. THE COURTESY NOTICE IS EXACTLY THAT. NOT REQUIRED UNDER TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. HOWEVER SET FORTH IN OUR ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND THEN LASTLY WE HAVE THE POSTED NOTICED WHICH IS SIGNS THAT ARE PLACED UPON PROPERTIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO A ZONING REQUEST. THE DEVELOPMENT CODE STATES THAT THE SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED BY AN APPLICANT NO LESS THAN 10 DAYS ARE PRIOR TO A MEETING OF THE DECISION BODY OTHER. [04:55:02] THAT IS USUALLY THE CITY COUNCIL. PRESENT PRACTICE IS FOR STAFF TO PLACE THE SIGN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NO LESS THAN 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING. FOR A NUMBER OF THESE ITEMS -- THAT IS WHAT THIS REQUEST WOULD BE. SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO MAKE A CHANGE WOULD REQUIRE THAT NOTICES BE SENT 12 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WE WOULD ESTABLISH WITHIN THAT A RECEIPT FOR RESPONSES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE COUNCIL MEETING PACKET. THE REASON FOR THAT BEING UNDER TEXAS LAW THERE IS THAT 20% SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT. SO, THAT IS WHY WE GET THOSE NOTICES BACK SO THAT WOULD BEEN CONSIDERED AS FILING A PROTEST. AND THEN WE WOULD CHANGE OUR CURRENT PRACTICE FROM CHANGING FOR THE POSTCARD TO BE SENT RATHER THAN A LETTER IN AN ENVELOPE FOR THE 500-FOOT. FOR THE PUBLISHED NOTICE THE LEGAL AD NOTICE WOULD BE PLACED IN DALLAS MORNING NEWS ONLY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND THAT IS DONE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WE WOULD NOT PUBLISH A NOTICE PRIOR TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. THE POSTED NOTICE WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT IS TO BE POSTED BY THE APPLICANT AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AND NOT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS CURRENTLY SET FORTH IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE WOULD ADD SPECIFICITY FOR PLACEMENT ON THE PROPERTY. INFORMATION TO BE REQUIRED ON THE SIGN. THOSE ITEMS WOULD NOT BE CODIFIED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE BUT THEY WOULD BE INCLUDED IN OUR DEVELOPMENT GUIDE WHICH IS OUR HANDY DANDY RESOURCE FOR OUR APPLICANTS AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THE GUIDE OF HOW TO MANAGE AND NAVIGATE THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HERE IN ROWLETT. THE PROPOSED SIGN WOULD BE INCREASED TO FOUR FEET BY FOUR FEET. AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AND NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT THEY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE FOR PLACING THE SIGN ON THE PROPERTY. PROCESS AGAIN THIS EVENING WE'RE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE IN ORDER FOR AMEND OUR -- CODE. WE'RE LOOKING TO BETTER ALIGN -- TO ALIGN WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND TO BETTER ENGAGE OUR PUBLIC IN THE REVIEW OF ALL OF THE REQUESTS AND THE PROPOSALS THAT COME FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING. WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND WITH THAT ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS -- BOTH WHEN WE DID AND AT THE WORK SESSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL WE TALKED ABOUT PUTTING THE QR CODE ON BOTH OF THOSE NOTICES. WERE YOU ABLE TO INCLUDE THAT >> -- >> OKAY. WELL THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPAKERS. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND ALEX >> THERE WERE NO E-MAILED COMMENTS SENT IN TO US. >> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M READY FOR A MOTION. >> MR. ENGEN >> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 77-803-F OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION PROCESS. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR APPROVAL. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. WILLIAMS. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS. AND WE'RE ADJOURNED AT 12:15 A.M. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.