[4A. Consider approval of the Eizeldin Addition Preliminary Plat with an alley waiver and variance to permit a 50-foot-wide right-of-way submitted by Shady Migally, ME Innovations, Inc., on behalf of property owner Sam Eizeldin. The approximately 5.74-acre site is zoned Single-Family Residential (SF-8) District and located approximately 450 feet northeast of the intersection of Dalrock Road and Pheasant Run Drive within the Hanse Hamilton Survey, Abstract No. 548 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

THE BACK RIGHT CORNER. 4A.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE EIZELDIN ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH AN ALLEY WAIVER AND VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 50-FOOT-WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY SUBMITTED BY SHADY MIGALLY, ME INNOVATIONS, INC., ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER SAM EIZELDIN.

[00:05:07]

THE APPROXIMATELY 5.74-ACRE SITE IS ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF-8) DISTRICT AND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DALROCK ROAD AND PHEASANT RUN DRIVE WITHIN THE HANSE HAMILTON SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 548 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

MR. KEONIG. >> THANK YOU.

CHAIRWOMAN ESTÉVEZ. SO, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE THERE IS THE MAP OF WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS ON DALROCK ROAD.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 5.74 ACRES STONED SINGLE-FAMILY 8 THIS PLAT WOULD ESTABLISH 7 RESIDENTIAL LOTS 5 COMMON AREA LOTS.

APPROXIMATELY TWO ACHERS AND CHANGE WOULD BE DEDICATED AS A FLOOD PLAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND I'LL SHOW THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE PLAT UP FOR FLOOD PLAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENT THEN ALSO COMMON AREAS FOR LANDSCAPING AS WELL AS AN EASEMENT IN CASE THERE IS NEED FOR PUBLIC MAINTENANCE OF THAT FLOOD PLAIN AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT. THEN ALSO THERE IS A PRELIMINARY TREE SURVEY PRESERVATION PLAN WHICH WAS SUBMITTED WITH THIS DURING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT ED - REVIEW PROCESS.

WITH THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT THERE'S ALSO REQUEST FOR ALLEY WAIVER, AGAIN REQUESTED DO TO LOW NUMBER OF LOTS AS WELL AS THE FLOOD PLAIN. THE CONCEPTION PLAN REFLECTS EACH HOMES SO THERE WOULD NOT BEEN FRONT ENTRY GARAGE DAYS WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE REQUESTING A 50 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY. THE COMMISSION PER THE DEVELOPMENT CODE MAY CONSIDER THIS A REQUEST WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE RECOMMENDATION OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

THERE IS ALSO A NEED FOR A 5 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT TO BE ADDED ON EITHER SIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY IN ORDER FOR FRANCHISE UTILITIES TO BE PLACED WITHIN THAT AREA.

THIS IS NOT CURRENTLY REFLECTED ON THE PLAT SO THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THIS PLAT.

HERE IS THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT AND I WOULD SHOW YOU THERE WE GO. SO HERE'S THE 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY ENDS IN CUL DE SAC WITH 1-7 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THIS AREA BACK HERE IS THAT FLOOD PLAIN EASEMENT AS WELL.

SO WITH THAT STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT PROVIDED THE 5 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT WOULD BE REFLECTED ON EACH SIDE OF THAT 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL AS APPROVAL OF THE ALLEY WAIVER REQUEST.

ALL TECHNICAL ISSUES ADDRESSED PER THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE AND TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE

COMMISSION MAY HAVE. >> [INAUDIBLE]

>> UNFORTUNATELY NO. >> YES, ALEX I'M CONFUSED ON YOUR REQUEST. YOU CONSIDER CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH 5 FOOT EASEMENT ON 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AND ALLEY WAIVER BUT WHAT STS COMMENT ABOUT 50

FOOT RIGHT OF WAY? >> OH.

SO THE 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY TYPICALLY RIGHT OF WAYS ARE 60

FEET IN WIDTH. >> I SEE.

>> SO THAT WOULD BE WHY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 50-FOOT RIGHT OF

WAY. >> I THOUGHT THERE WAS ANOTHER

ONE YOU WANTED. >> YEAH.

>> THANK. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

GO AHEAD. >> SO YOU'RE SAYING IN THE EX-WIBT THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE CUL DE SAC DID NO INCLUDE, DID NOT SHOW UTILITIES ON EACH SIDE.

>> ON EITHER SIDE YES. >> I CAN SEE IT HAPPENING ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THAT. IS THE FIVE-FOOT EASEMENT GOING TO BE CONTIGUOUS ALL THE WAY TO THE BUBBLE? WHERE THE BUBBLE KIND OF HITS E- THE EDGE OF THE CUL DE SAC SO IS THAT 5-FOOT EASEMENT ALONG THAT FIRST LOT OR DOES IT GO ALL THE

WAY THROUGH? >> BECAUSE IT'S A 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, WE FELT WE NEEDED THE EXTRA FIVE FEET, WHICH WOULD

[00:10:03]

NORMALLY BE THERE FOR 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY TO ADD THE DRY UTILITIES, THE CITY UTILITIES. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED IT IN THE BUBBLE. WE WILL HAVE TO FLESH THAT OUT DURING THE ENGINEERING REVIEW. THAT'S A PREEMPT LARGE DIAMETER BUBBLE. I THINK IT EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM.

I THINK HE TOLD ME IT'S 100-PLUS SO IT'S A FAIRLY LARGE RADIUS TO BEGIN WITH. WE MAY HAVE THE ROOM.

AT THIS POINT I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT'S A DETAIL THAT WE COULD WORK

OUT. >> ANYBODY ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MISS SHINER.

>> ALEX COULD YOU SHOW US ON THE MAP WHERE THE OPEN SPACE AND

POLLEN GARDEN ARE? >> YES, I CAN DO SO THAT THE WOULD BE IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE JUST SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEAST OF THE CUL DE SAC IS WHERE THAT WOULD BE LOCATED.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> CERTAINLY. >> ANY DISCUSSION? OTHER QUESTION, COMMENTS? WELL? I'M READY FOR A MOTION THEN. MR. COTE.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAT CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE LAT P PLAT WITH THE ADDITION OF 5-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG

THE 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> AND WE HAVE SECOND BY

MS. WILLIAMS. >> I'D LIKE TO AMEND THAT.

WE WOULD INCLUDE A WAIVER OF THE ALLEYWAY.

>> OKAY. >> YES.

>> ALL IN FAVOR? AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS AND IT

[4B. Consider and take action on a request by Eduard Minchuk for a street-facing garage at 941 Lake North Road, Lot 1, Block A, of the Rodriguez Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

PASSES. 4B.

CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY EDUARD MINCHUK FOR A STREET-FACING GARAGE AT 941 LAKE NORTH ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK A, OF THE RODRIGUEZ ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. MR. MANSALL.

>> CHAIRPERSON ESTÉVEZ COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. THIS IS A REQUEST TYPE THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE SEEN BEFORE. AND IT IS SOMEWHAT A RESULT OF THE STANDARDS THAT WE APPROVED IN THE RECENT MEETING AS WELL.

THAT SPEAKS TO WELL, IT'S REALLY A THIS PORTION OF ITS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE CODE PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT REQUIRES PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVAL FOR ANY FRONT FACING GRAUJS IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION YOU HEARD ALEX MENTION THAT YOU WERE, WELL, THAT SUBDIVISION TWO NOT HAVE FRONT FACING GARAGES BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEING PROPOSED AS SUCH BUT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS A SINGLE HOME ON LAKE NORTH ROAD THAT IS REQUESTING FOR THAT FRONT FACING CONDITION. SO, IT WOULD NOT BEEN L OR J HOOK. IT WOULD BE OR A REAR ENTRY FROM AN ALLEY. THIS WOULD BE A GARAGE DOOR THAT IS DIRECTLY FACING THE STREET WHICH WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PLANNING AND ZONING TO APPROVE.

LAKE NORTH ROAD EXTENDS NORTHEAST OF DALROCK ROAD AND HAS NO OUTLET. THIS PROPERTY IS ONE OF THE REMAINING 4 DEVELOPED PARCELS OUT OF THE 12 ON HAIK NORTH ROAD. MOST OF THESE TOEMS DON'T HAVE STREET FACING GARAGE DOORS LITERALLY A QUICK ASSESSMENT OF THAT STREET ONLY SHOWED ONE PROPERTY HAVING A FRONT FACING GARAGE THOUGH THEY'RE ALL FRONT ENTRY DRIVE WAYS.

SO, THAT'S A SMALL DISTINCTION TO BE MADE BUT IT IS IMPORTANT.

THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY 4133 SQUARE FEET AND WOULD HAVE TWO CAR GARAGE WITH DOORS FACING NORTHLAKE ROAD ALSO A SINGLE OR DOUBLE BAY DOOR THAT WOULD BE FACING THE STREET.

THEY ARE STREET FACING GARAGE DOORS ARE A COMMON FEATURE NOWADAYS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE CODE CONDITION IT IS STILL PLANNING AND ZONING'S PREROGATIVE TO APPROVE IT.

[00:15:02]

THE ELEVATIONS AND A COUPLE GRAPHICS WHERE YOU SHOW HOW THIS CONDITION WOULD APPEAR, SO IF YOU'RE HOOKING AT THE FRONT ELEVATION ON YOUR TOP LEFT, THE GARAGE DOOR WOULD BE TO THE LEFT REFLECTED ON THE 3 DETEIMENSION GRAPHIC AS WELL AS THE OVERLAY ON THE RIGHT. I MENTIONED SOME OF THE HOUSES ON THE STREET THE ONE ON THE TOP RIGHT REALLY IS THE ONLY CONDITION THAT I WAS ABLE TO TELL HAD FRONT GARAGES THAT WERE DIRECTLY FACING THE STREET. OTHERWISE EVERYTHING ELSE IS EITHER DRIVING TO THE REAR OR LJ CONDITIONS ON THE STREET.

SO THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR STRAIGHT FACING GARAGE AS IT IS A FAIRLY LOW IMPACT CONDITION.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

>> YES. >> DID THEY WANT TO SPEAK?

>> THEY'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS ANYBODY? ALL RIGHT.

I THINK WE ARE GOOD. THANK YOU.

OKAY, I GUESS WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION.

MR. SWIFT. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A STREET FACING GARAGE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND.

>> SECOND BY MS. WILLIAMS. ALL IN FAVOR.

>> YOU'RE STILL BLINKING. >> IS IT WORK SOMETHING.

[4C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request by David Lara, regarding a Special Use Permit to allow for an accessory structure in excess of 500 feet on property zoned Form-Based Rural Neighborhood (FB-RN) District. The subject property is located southwest of the intersection of Misty Lane and Hickox Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

>> WE ARE GOOD. >> AND THAT PASSES.

IT'S UNANIMOUS. 4C.

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST BY DAVID LARA, REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 500 FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED FORM-BASED RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD (FB-RN) DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MISTY LANE AND HICKOX ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. MR. MANSALL.

>> WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 4413 MISTY LANE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT LOCATION ON THE MAP BEING A NARROW LOT ALONG MISTY LANE BUT IT DOES FACE OR HAVE BOTH FRONTAGES ON HICKOX OR MISTY LANE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A STRUCTURE THAT WILL NOT EXCEED 900 SQUARE FEET BASED ON THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED US AND THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES AN SUP BE APPROVED FOR ACCESSI STRUCTURE EXCESS 500 SQUARE PETE AND CLOSE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

LITTLE BIT OF THE BACKGROUND THE PROPERTY IS ZONED FORM BASEED RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. THIS ESPECIALLY IS INTENDED TO BE LOTS THAT ARE NO LESS THAN 33,000 SQUARE FEET TYPICALLY.

NONETHELESS THIS WHOLE AREA WAS IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE FORM BASED CODE AND SO, THE DIMENSIONS OF THE LOTS ARE ESSENTIALLY USING THE MORE TYPICAL TERM GRANDFATHERED IN BUT THEY ARE LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING LOTS THAT DO SERVE THE PURPOSE OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL.

SURVEY 2001 REFLECTS FOOTPRINT OF PREVIOUS STORAGE BUILDING WHICH I SHOWED ON THE TOP RIGHT WHICH HAD APPROXIMATELY 1213 SQUARE FEET IN AREA OR DIMENSIONAL, DIMENSIONS OF 30.1 FEET BY 30.3 FEET. IT BECAME DLAP DATED AND WAS TORN DOWN. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NOT TO SEEKS ED 500 SQUARE FEET.

YOU SEE THE PICTURE ON THE BOTTOM.

[00:20:01]

THAT IS THE STRUCTURE THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING AND WE'VE SEEN CASES SIMILAR TO THIS BEFORE WHERE THE STRUCTURE COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND SO, CURRENTLY THAT CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN HALTED PENDING THE APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND IT WILL ALSO HAVE TO FOLLOW THINGS LIKE PLATTING AND BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPEKTH FOLLOWING THIS APPROVAL IF COUNCIL DECIDES ON SUCH. BASED ON APPLICANT'S INFORMATION, THIS STORAGE SHED OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE USED FOR STORAGE OF [INDISTINCT] AND TOOLS MANY THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD BEGUN CONSTRUCTION STATING THEY WERE UNAWARE A PERMIT WAS REQUIRED. THE STRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY FULLY FRAMED AND ENCLOSED HOWEVER NONE OF THE FINISHES A PLIETD TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. THEY HAVE INTEND TO FINISH IT SIMILAR TO THE HOME WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THE BACKGROUND THERE THE WHITE STRUCTURE ON THE BOTTOM IMAGE.

PROPOSED DIMENSIONS ARE 31 BY 29 WHICH TOTALS 899 SQUARE FEET AND THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHY TEN FEET 4 INCHES IN HEIGHT.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY PLANS. THEREFORE, WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO CONFIRM THE ONE IN THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS OF YET AS WELL AS ANY STRUCTURAL OR HEIGHT RELATED COMPONENTS AND THAT INCLUDES ELEVATIONS AND FINISHED MATERIALS.

THE MINIMUM SIDE BACK IS 7 AND A HALF FEET PER THE FORM BASE CODE STANDARDS AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 8 AND A HALF FEET FROM THE WEST PROPERTY BOUNDARY WHICH IS THE SIDE YARD RELATED TO H BUILDING. THE OTHER SET BACK REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD APPLY TO THIS WOULD BE ESSENTIAL THREW 18 TO 26 BUILDING ZONE ALONG THE FRONTAGE.

THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS WITHIN THAT AREA SO THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM EITHER. IF THE SUP HAS I MENTIONED THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PLAT THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT AS THE STRUCTURE IS UNPERMITTED NO INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED ON THE FRAMING OR STRUCTURAL FOUNDATION. BUILDING SAFETY WILL NEED TO VERIFY BOTH ELEMENTS TO ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT ANY DEMOLITION WILL BE NECESSARY. YOU CAN SEE ON THE IMAGE THERE IN THE BOTTOM THE SET BACK CONDITIONS FOR THE STORAGE SHED.

THAT IS IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTES JUST BALLS WE ARE SEEING THE PLANS THAT EVEN THOUGH IT IS IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OR GENERAL LOCATION OF WHERE THE PREVIOUS SHED WAS, IT IS NOT THE SAME DIMENSION AND IT'S NOT THE SAME FOUNDATION.

IT'S A DIFFERENT SHED ALTOGETHER, EVEN THOUGH IT'S GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SAME PLACE.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT 200-500 NOT RADIUS OF THE PROPERTY AND THERE IT WAS ONE IN OPPOSITION FROM 200 AND ONE IN OPPOSITION FROM 500 WHICH WE HAVE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. YOU CAN SEE BOTH PROPERTIES THERE ON THE MAP THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NOT EXCEEDING 900 SQUARE FEET AS INDICATED IN THE SITE PLAN WITH FOLLOWING CONDITIONS FIRST ONE BEING THAT G GUL GULTERS BEEN INSTALLED ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY BOUNDARY TO REDUCE ANY STORM WATER RUNOFF, 2 THAT THE APPLICANT WILL REMOVE ALL INSTANCES OF OUTDOOR STORAGE VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY IF YOU GET A CHANCE TO DRIVE OUT THERE, THERE IS SIGNIFICANT OUTDOOR STORAGE THAT IT'S CURRENTLY BARELY VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY SO THIS WOULD BE A PROPOSED CONDITION FROM STAFF.

AND THIRD THAT THE STRUCTURE WENT TO BE AUTHORED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE APPLICANT HAS CONFIRMED THAT THEY INTEND TO USE IT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND SO, THAT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM BUT WE WANT TO INSURE JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE WORK VEHICLES OUT THERE CURRENTLY THAT THIS IS NOT

[00:25:01]

BEING USED AS A BUSINESS OPERATION.

THAT SAID, THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BUT I'M ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

MR. FRISBIE? >> THE QUESTION IS IF THIS EXCEPTION SUP IS ALLOWED, WILL THE STRUCTURE STILL BE REQUIRED TO BE INSPECTED BY CITY INSPECTORS?

>> YES. >> AND WILL PLANS BE REQUIRED?

>> YES. THE STRUCTURE WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW EVERY BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS SO THAT INCLUDES THAT NO CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING OR ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED WITHOUT A PLAT SO THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP AND SO THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY COME ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.

SECOND PART WILL BE THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE STRUCTURE AND ESSENTIALLY PLANS THAT SHOW AND PROVE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING AND INSPECTIONS WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THOSE

APPROVALS. >> I NOTICE THE STRUCTURE WILL HAVE NO PLUMBING OR ELECTRICITY IS THAT CORRECT.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IS IT STILL THE CASE NO ELECTRIC TRIMTS ANTICIPATED? THANK.

>> STATING NO UTILITIES WILL BE ASSESSED FOR THAT PROPERTY.

>>MY OTHER QUESTIONS MR. COTE? >> I KNOW THAT YOU HAVEN'T GONE OUT THERE AND TAKEN ANY MEASUREMENTS BECAUSE IT ISN'T PLATTED BUT ONE THING I NOTICED IN YOUR PHOTO THE HEIGHT OF THIS BUILDING APPEARS TO BE SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE PRIMARY

RESIDENCE. >> IT IS NOT.

IT PERHAPS LOOKS LIKE IT FROM THIS ANGLE HERE BUT AT LEAST BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S DIMENSIONS THE HOME ITSELF PEAKS AT 18 FEET, WHEREAS THIS STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED TO BE AT 10.4. AGAIN, WE HAVE NOT VERIFIED THOSE DIMENSIONS. THAT SAID, VISUALLY WHEN I WAS OUT THERE I COULD TELL THE STRUCTURE OR THE HOME ITSELF WAS TALLER THAN THE ACTUAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> YES. YOU SAID ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WOULD BE IT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES.

THE APPLICANT IN HIS NARRATIVE SAYS THAT IT WOULD BE USED TO STORE WORK VEHICLES AND NOT IN USE, IS THAT NOT CONSIDERED TO

BE BUSINESS PURPOSES? >> DEPENDS ON AND PERHAPS THE APPLICANT CAN SHED LIGHT INTO THAT.

WE AS STAFF UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE WORK RELATED VEHICLES FOR THE

PROPERTY. >> OH, OKAY.

>> SO TYPICAL TO A RURAL PROPERTY WHERE YOU HAVE A STORAGE SHED YOU TWO STORE ESSENTIALLY YOUR WORK VEHICLES IN THERE BUT PERHAPS THE APPLICANT CAN SHED FURTHER

LIGHT. >> THAT WOULD BE KNOW BECAUSE THE ONE IN OPPOSITION STATED THEY WERE RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS AND THAT WAS ONE OF THEIR PROBLEMS WITH IT.

>> RIGHT AND THAT'S ONE. MAIN REASONS WE WANTED TO INSURE

THAT WAS THE CASE. >> RIGHT.

THANK YOU. >> IF THERE'S NO MORE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IF THE APPLICANT WOULDN'T MIND COMING UPSTATING THEIR NAME AN ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD SO WE CAN ASK SOME QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> MAY NAME IS DEVA LARA, I LIVE ON [ADDRESS].

>> YES, SIR. COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO US HOW YOU

ARE GOING TO USE THIS BUILDING. >> WELL, WHEN I SAY WORK-RELATED VEHICLES DO I HAVE LIKE A LAWN MORE AND I JUST HAVE IT OUT IN THE OPEN. IT DOESN'T LOOK NICE OR ANYTHING AND I HAVE ONE WORK VEHICLE THAT I DON'T USE.

IT'S JUST IN CASE LIKE MY WORK VAN MESSES UP BUT IT'S NOT LIKE A BIG WORK VAN. IT'S A TYPICAL CHEVY WORK VAN I WANT TO PUT AWAY AN NOT KEEP IT IN MY FRONT YARD.

>> IT'S BETTER. >> AND I HAVE TOOLS YOU KNOW, I

[00:30:02]

BUY OTHER TOOLS AND I DON'T HAVE NOWHERE TO STORE EM.

I DON'T HAVE A GARAGE IN MY HOUSE OR LIKE A EXTRA ROOM TO

STORE MY TOOLS IN. >> OKAY.

ANY OTHERS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> WELL, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD FOR THIS ITEM FOR JIMMY MARKS IF YOU TWO -- WOULD LIKE TO COUPLE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> MY NAME IS JIMMY MARKS, LIVE AT [ADDRESS] I'M THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR OF THE SUBJECT'S PROPERTY AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M OPPOSED TO THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT N. ADDITION TO THAT I'VE TALKED TO ANYONE WITHIN 500 FEET AND ALL OF THEM HAVE TOLD ME THEY'RE ALSO OPPOSED TO I. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.

DAVID IS A NICE GUY BUT DAVID LIVES AT 4413 MISTY LANE AND HE WORKS FOR HIS FATHER WHO OWNS A CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AN PARKS HIS HEAVY DUTY EQUIPMENT LARGE GOOSENECK TRAILERS SKIDSTER'S EXCAVATORS AND LARGE EQUIPMENT I DON'T RECOGNIZE DAILY FRONT AND BACK. I DO NOT -- I'M AFRAID THAT THE BUILDING THAT IS BEING BUILT IS GOING TO BE USED FOR HOUSING MATERIALS FOR THAT COMPANY. THEY CONSTANTLY COME AND GO WITH EQUIPMENT. THIS MORNING THERE WAS FOUR WORKERS OVER THERE WITH A LARGE GOOSENECK TRADER LOADING EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIALS. SO, MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE USED FOR A BUSINESS.

IT HAS BEEN SINCE THEY MOVED IN ALMOST 3 YEARS GO.

COMPANY GOING WITH SKIDSTERS LARGE GOOSENECK TRAILERS SOY I FEEL IT'S GOING TO BE USED AS A BUSINESS AND I CONTINUE WANT TO LOOK OUTSIDE MY DOOR EVERY DAY CANNED SEE HEAVY DUTY CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS NEXT GORE ON SPECIAL USE APPROVAL.

YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID I TALKED WITH DAVID.

HE'S MY NEIGHBOR. I HAVEN'T GOD TO BAD THING TO SAY AGAINST DAVID HIMSELF. IT'S JUST I DON'T WANT A BUSINESS NEXT DOERTD AND THAT BUILDING WILL BE USED IN MY OPINION TO HOUSE MATERIALS FOR THAT BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY CONSTANTLY COME IN AS A BUSINESS.

THEY'RE RUNNING A BUSINESS THERE.

YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I TALKED TO ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE AROUND.

THEY ALL TOLD ME THEY WERE GOING TO SEND IN OPPOSED ON THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO, I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TODAY AND LET YOU KNOW THAT MY OPINION I HAVE PICTURES OF THE TRAILERS AND SUCH. HE'S GOT REBAR ON THE SIDE OF HIS HOUSE LONG 20-FOOT PIECES OF REBAR FOOT PIECES OF CUELLAR TUBING ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, AXLES IN THE FRONT DOOR THEY TOOK OFF HEAVY EQUIPMENT EVEN PICTURES OFF OUTSIDE MY DOOR I SEE SKITSTER'S AN EXCAVATORS AND SO FORTH.

SO IT'S NOT FOR ME TO SAY SOMEBODY SHOULDN'T BJORK OR RUN A BUSINESS BUT I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE RUN IN OUR NEIGHBERHOOD AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING.

IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

>> WELL, UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE JUST ABOUT OUT OF TIME.

YOU ONLY GET 3 MINUTES IN THE PUBLIC HEARING BUT WE APPRECIATE

IT VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? SUSAN DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO READ IN THE RECORD? I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR.

DOES ANYBODY, IF SOMEONE HAS ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, HOLD ON JUST ONE MOMENT. DO WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE

APPLICANT. >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

>> OH, COME ON UP, THEN. WAIT JUST ONE MOMENT.

I WANT TO OFFICIALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.

GO AHEAD. >> WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTIONS YOU JUST HEARD AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS?

>> YES, WE, I OWE OCCASIONALLY DO STORE MATERIALS THAT WE BRING

[00:35:07]

BACK FROM WORK, BUT I DON'T GET THE MATERIALS EVERY DAY.

WE STORE THEM AND WE DO NEED THEM WHICH IS ON COCASE WE WILL GO GET THEM AND IF I GET THIS SUP I CAN STORE THEM IN THE SHED AND LEAVE THEM THERE INSTEAD OF LIKE HE SAYS ON THE SIDE OR FRONT OF THE HOUSE. I DON'T HAVE NOWHERE TO STORE THEM SO I LAY THEM OUT BUT I'M NOT COMING IN AND OUT EVERY DAY PARKING THE TRAILER. RIGHT NOW IT'S BEEN PARKED THERE A COUPLE DAYS SINCE IT WAS RAINING SO WHERE ELSE CAN I PARK IT, YOU KNOW. THE REASON I BOUGHT THAT HOUSE WAS FOR THE SPACE BUT WHEN WE ARE WORKING THEY'RE PARKED AT THE JOB SITE BUT LIKE I SAID OCCASIONALLY WE HAVE LEFT OVER MATERIAL. WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THAT GO TO WASTE. I WANT TO STORE IT AND WHEN WE NEED IT WE COME AND GET IT, YOU KNOW AND THAT'S ALL.

I DON'T COME IN AND OUT. MY LEASE IS FOR MY WORK VAN WHICH IS A WORK HAVANA 2003 CHEVY 18 FOOTERED OR 16 FOOT VAN BUT THAT'S A TYPICAL WORK VAN. AND TO COMMENT, I ALSO BOUGHT THIS PROPERTIES BECAUSE WHEN I GO AROUND IT THERE WAS MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES THERE. A COUPLE HOUSES DOWN THERE'S A SKIDSTER AND IN ORDER OVER HERE TO MY RIGHT A COUPLE HOUSES DOWN THEY HAVE DUMP TRUCKS AN EVERYTHING.

THEY'RE LUCKY SINCE THEIR PROPERTY IS NOT ON BOTH INTERSECTIONS THAT CAN KEEP IT M MORE, I'M TRYING TO KEEP CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT I DO BRING AWAY AND I NEED SOMEWHERE TO STORE.

>> HOW MANY VEHICLES DO YOU HAVE COMING AN GOING EVERY DAY?

>> WHEN IT'S NOT RAINING IT'S JUST ME.

>> AND WHEN IT'S RAINING? >> IT'S JUST ME.

IT'S JUST MY VAN. TYPICALLY JUST MY VAN.

OCCASIONALLY MY DAD MIGHT BRING HIS TRAILER WHEN WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE TO ANOTHER PLACE OR TO DIFFERENT LOCATION THAT'S NOT IN OUR GENERAL VICINITY FOR WORK WHICH IS UP NORTH IN NORTH

TEXAS. >> AND YOU HAVE NO CONSTRUCTION

EQUIPMENT COMING AND GOING? >> NOT EVERY DAY, NO.

NOT HOW STATED IN AND OUT EVERY DAY.

>> WELL HOW MANY DAYS DO YOU HAVE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

COMING AND GOING? >> I RARELY DO.

LIKE I SAID MAYBE JUST ON A SATURDAY AND IF HE DOESN'T WANT THAT ANYMORE I'LL STOP PARKING THOSE VEHICLES THERE BUT MAINLY JUST SATURDAYS ARE THE ONLY DAYS AND THAT'S WHEN HE BRINGS IT

BACK HOME. >> COULD I ASK A QUESTION FROM STAFF? JUST TO REFRESH ME REALLY QUICKLY OUT THERE. WE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT -- SUDDENLY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT THERE.

IS THERE ANYTHING THE WAY IT'S PRESENTLY ZONED THAT PROHIBITS THESE VEHICLES GOING ON AND OFF THE PROPERTY?

>> THERE IS, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS ON HOME OCCUPATIONS THAT DO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF WORK VEHICLES THAT CAN COME IN AND OUT FROM THE PROPERTY, AND IT DOES NEED TO BE, ALSO LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES THAT CAN WORK OFF THAT PROPERTY AND THINGS OF THAT SORT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE FIGURES

ARE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. >> I WAS CURIOUS JUST WE WERE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THAT AND I WAS JUST CUSHION JUST MANY THANK

YOU. >> I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

SOAR BY THAT. >> NO WEATHER NICE IF WE APPROVE THIS WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT'S NOT AUTHORIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, DO WE HAVE A MECHANISM FOR ENFORCING THAT?

>> OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT GUYS WOULD BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR SUCH BUT NATURALLY, SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING.

>> YES, IF YOU DON'T MIND A COUPLE OF THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL OUTDOOR STORAGE IS PROHIBITED SO THAT IS A CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION WHEN WE DO A DRIVE-BY IF WE SEE THAT WE WE WOULD PROVIDE A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND GIVE TEN DAYS TO CLEAN UP AN POSSIBLY ANOTHER 10 DAYS IF THEY NEED MORE TIME HOWEVER A HOME OCCUPATION IS REGULATED BY OUR FROULT DEVELOPMENT CODE. UNFORTUNATELY IT IS GENERALLY COMPLAINT DRIVEN BECAUSE FROM A POLICING MECHANISM IF WE WANT TO USE THOSE WORDS IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT.

SO WE CAN ABSOLUTELY CONDITION THE SUP.

YOU CAN ADD DISH NABL CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED TO THE SUP BUT AT THIS POINT IT'S VERY CLEAR THEY CANNOT OPERATE A BUSINESS FROM THAT PROPERTY. THEY SHOULD NOT BE UNLESS THEY'RE A HOME OCCUPATION BUT THAT BRINGS UP PARAMETERS OF

[00:40:04]

OUTDOOR STORAGE WOULD BE PROHIBITED HAVING ONE DEDICATED PARKING SPACE WHICH IS FINE IF IT'S ON THE THE PROPERTY AN NOT HAVE ANY ADVERTISING OFF THE SITE TOO SO IF YOU HAD A REGULAR CHAIN OF CUSTOMERS OR EMPLOYEES COMING IN AND OUT THEN THAT WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY COMPROMISE THE REGULATIONS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE STAFF BEFORE CARLOS SITS DOWN AGAIN?

>> I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE. >> OKAY.

WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS WHERE I GET A FEELING THAT THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO KEEP HIS PLACE NICE AND NEAT. WHICH I APPRECIATE.

BUT AS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN CITY OF ROWLETT I CAN SEE OUR SPEAKER'S POINT OF VIEW AS WELL.

BUT, IF WE MAKE A MOTION STIPULATING EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, THEN WE CAN APPROVE IT WITH THOSE CONDITIONS AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE, NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE OR PAY A PRICE, YOU KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

READY FOR A MOTION? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS REQUEST PREDICATED ON THE CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL INSTALL THE GUTTERS FOR THE STORM WATER RUNOFF ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY BOUNDARY REMOVE ALL THE INSTANCES OF OUTDOOR VEHICLES OR OUTDOOR STORAGE, VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE STRUCTURE WILL NOT BE AUTHORIZED

FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I SECOND. >> WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. COTE.

ALL IN FAVOR. AND THAT ITEM PASSES WITH FOUR YESES AND TWO NO'S. AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT

[4D. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Sam Moore, MMCG DBR DFW, LLC on behalf of property owner Rowlett Consolidated, LLC., regarding a Special Use Permit to allow a restaurant with a drive-thru on a portion of an approximately 0.9-acre property zoned Planned Development (PD) District with a base zoning of General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District. The subject property is located approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the intersection of Lakeview Parkway and Dalrock Road, being a portion of Lot 2, Block A of the 8900 Lakeview Parkway Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Rockwall County, Texas]

ITEM. 4D.

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY SAM MOORE, MMCG DBR DFW, LLC ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER ROWLETT CONSOLIDATED, LLC., REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU ON A PORTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 0.9-ACRE PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT WITH A BASE ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (C-2) DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AND DALROCK ROAD, BEING A PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK A OF THE 8900 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, ROCKWALL COUNTY, TEXAS.

>> SO, THIS IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A 950 SQUARE FOOT DUTCH ROSE COFFEE DROOIPTH RESTAURANT ON LAKEVIEW PARKWAY, THE SUP IS FORMAL ZONING ACTION ENCOURAGING ADDITIONAL PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT FUTURE URS TO INSURE PROPOSED USES DON'T HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UPON SURROUNDING USES MANY THE PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS WE HAVE A SCHEMATIC OF THE SITE PLAN THERE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.

THERE WOULD BE 18 PARKING STALLS, ON THE SITE, AND I WILL SHOW THOSE. 16 DRIVE-THRU STACKING SPACES.

THOSE ARE NOT SHOWN WITH VEHICLES ON THIS PLAN, I WOULD NOTE THAT YOU HAVE THE DUAL DRIVE-THRUS HERE, ENTRYWAY.

THIS IS ALL THE EXIT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FROM HERE IF NECESSARY FOR SOMEONE TO EXIT THE DRIVE-THRU LANE.

HOWEVER THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND CAN EXPLAIN THAT MORE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT EXACTLY HOW THAT MIGHT WORK.

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 24 NEAT WOULD BE AN 8 FEET MASONRY WALL ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE IN THIS GENERAL AREA PER THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THAT WAS APPROVED FOR THESE FOUR PAD SITES HERE ON LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AS WELL AS THE REQUIRED 20 FOONT LAND ZAIP BUFFER ALONG LAKEVIEW PARKWAY.

ALSO, IN THE GEM CODE WE HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION STANDARDS WHICH ARE APPLICABLE FOR THIS SITE BEING THAT THERE IS THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH, WHICH DO CALL FOR

[00:45:02]

THE COMMISSION AN COUNCIL TO IMPOSES ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UPON APPLICANT'S FOR THINGS SUCH AS HOURS OF OPERATIONS, PLACEMENT OF TRASH RESET CALS CONTROL OF DUST HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS LIGHTING AREAS AS WELL.

WE WOULD SUGGEST IN THIS CASE THE THINGS THEY'RE PROPOSING WITH THAT IN REGARD WOULD BE THE HOURS OF OPERATION BETWEEN 5:00 IN THE MORNING TO 11:00 IN THE EVENING NO SIGNAGE ON THE SOUTH FACADE FACING TOWARD THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES.