Jun 28, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:07]

>> GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

IT'S 7 P.N. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN. THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS OR REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION OR CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT: IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITIZEN INPUT FORM ON THE CITY 'S WEBSITE BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING. ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING.

FOR IN-PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

OVER THERE ON MY RIGHT LEFT CORNER.

I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

4. INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AND WILL BE LIMITED TO 3-MINUTES.

NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY CITIZEN INPUT.

IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM YOU MAY WANT TO WAIT TO SPEAK. ANYONE HERE FOR CITIZEN INPUT?

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

WE HAVE THE MEETINGS OF THAT MEETING JUNE 14, 2022 JOINT WORK SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONERS DID YOU ATTEMPT TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? DO YOU HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS, COMMENTS? OKAY.

WE ARE READY FOR MR. COTE. >> APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> MOTION TO PROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

[4A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request to 1) rezone 5106 Chiesa Road from Single-Family Residential (SF-9) District and General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District to Planned Development (PD) District for Single-Family Residential (SF-5) Uses and approval of a Concept Plan; 2) Amend the comprehensive plan; and 3) Amend the zoning map of the City of Rowlett. The subject property is an approximately 5.89-acre tract located west of Wilson Road and approximately 200 feet north of Woodside Road, situated in the J. W. Gardener Abstract, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas]

ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS >> ALEX.

>> SO, THIS IS AGAIN A ZONING REQUEST.

LET ME GO THROUGH THIS BACKGROUND.

SO THIS PROPERTY HAD HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBJECT TO REQUEST ABOUT THIS APPLICANT FOR DEVELOPING OF WORK HOUSING NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS COMMITTEE DID RECOMMEND DENYING OF REQUEST TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY TO A P.D. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 33 HOMES ON JUNE 1ST OF THAT YEAR, OF COUNCIL AT THEIR MEETING REMANDED THE ITEM BACK TO THE COMMISSION SITING CONCERNS WITH THE LOT AND UNIT SIZES.

THE APPLICANT BROUGHT FORWARD A NEW PROPOSAL NOVEMBER 23RD, 2021. THEY RECOMMENDED 5-0 DENY THIS REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH NEW NEIGHBORHOOD BASE FOR

[00:05:04]

THE APPLICANT WITH DREW THAT ITEM BEFORE THE CONSIDERATION BY CITY COUNCIL. SITE DATA ON THE LEFT, THE VICINITY MAP, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN RED.

IT'S 5.9 ACRES GIVE OR TAKE WEST SIDE WILSON ROAD.

LET ME POINT OUT WHERE WILSON ROAD IS.

HOPEFULLY THIS WILL WORK. THERE IS WILSON ROAD AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY.

THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE IS THE RED ZONE C-2 THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAME ZONE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY IN YELLOW IS THE MULTI-FAMILY 9 DISTRICT.

THERE IS ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AN ACRE FLOOD IMPACT PROPERTY AND THEY ARE PROPOSING WITH THIS APPLICATION TO RECLAIM APPROXIMATELY 1/10 ACRE OF THAT PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. THERE ARE 24 SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOTS WHICH YOU CAN SEE WITH THEIR BUILDING PADS ILLUSTRATED ON THE PLAN HERE. RUNNING ALONG EITHER SIDE OF THAT INTERNAL STREET THERE. WOULD BE A COMMUNITY PARK HERE WITH SOME TABLES AND GAZEBO. I WOULD POINT OUT WHILE I'M IN THAT AREA THIS HERE IS A 50-FOOT WIDE GAS LINE EASEMENT, WHICH DOES IMPACT DEVELOPMENT UPON THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE MAY NOT BE ANY STRUCTURES PLACED WITHIN THAT EASEMENT.

ALSO THERE IS A DOG PARK ON THIS SIDE OF THE INTERNAL STREET MOSTLY WITHIN THAT EASEMENT THERE AS WELL.

EIGHT FOOT WIDE TRAIL THAT WOULD BE HERE AND THEN ALSO 7 COMMON AREA LOTS WHICH ARE PRIMARILY FOR THE OPEN SPACE AMENITIES AS WELL AS LANDSCAPING FEATURES ALONG WILSON ROAD.

AGAIN, THIS IS A PROPERTY PROPOSAL THAT THE SF-5 SINGLE-FAMILY 5 DISTRICT WOULD BE BASE ZONE THERE.

WOULD BE MODIFICATIONS. ANYTHING NOT MODIFIED BY THIS REQUEST WITHIN BOTH THE SINGLE-FAMILY 5 REGULATIONS AN THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE MET FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. THIS CHART DOES JUST LAY OUT THOSE STANDARDS WHICH THEY ARE REQUESTING TO HAVE MODIFIED.

SO I WOULD QUICKLY GO THROUGH THOSE TO CHANGE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO 4200 SQUARE FEET. WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT LATER TO HAVE THE MINIMUM LOT 40 FEET RATHER THAN 50 FEET AS REQUIRED UNDER THE SINGLE-FAMILY 5.

THEY WOULD ALSO REQUEST MODIFICATION OF THE FRONT SET BACK OF 15 FEET RATHER THAN THE 10 FEET.

THE MINIMUM SIDE SET BACK WOULD BE SET AT 5 FEET STANDARD AND THE REAR SET BACK TEN FEET AND THE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE OF 1300 FEET. OTHER ITEMS TO TALK ABOUT WITH THIS REQUEST WOULD BE WILSON ROAD.

IF YOU CAN RECALL FROM THE MAP THAT THE WILSON ROAD CURRENTLY TERMINATES IN THE MIDDLE PART OF THIS PROPERTY.

THE DEVELOPMENT PARTER IN IN PREVIOUS IT RELATIONS OF THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST DID STATE THAT THEY WOULD CONSTRUCT THE EXTENSION OF WILSON ROAD. THE DIFFICULTY THEY HAD WAS GETTING THE RIGHT OF WAY FROM GISD IN ORDER TO DO THAT.

CITY STAFF HAS WORKED WITH GISD TO ACQUIRE THAT RIGHT OF WAY SO THAT HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE CITY FOR THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF GISD'S PROPERTY SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT HAS A CONDITION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, THAT WILSON ROAD WOULD BE EX-TENNED TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF THIS ATTRACT AND WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT UNDER THE RDC THERE WOULD BE HALF STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS CASE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE ENTIRE RIGHT OF WAY TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THIS APPLICANT.

THE APPLICANT IS AMENABLE TO THIS EXTENSION BUT HAVE INDICATED THERE WOULD BE A REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY REGARDING THE COST OF PROVIDING THAT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT AGREEMENT WOULD NEED TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

SECONDLY, WANT TO TALK A BIT ABOUT GARAGES AND ALLEYS.

THEY ARE REQUESTING ALLEYS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS REQUEST.

[00:10:06]

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO HAVE FRONT LOADED SINGLE CAR GARAGES. WE WOULD NOTE THAT PART OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ALLEY WAIVER WOULD BE THE INCLUSION OF THE ALLEYS AS HIM GITD PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS ON THIS SITE SUCH AS THE FLOOD PLAIN ON THE WESTERN SIDE.

I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE TWO GARAGE SPACES. THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES TWO OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. ALSO, THEY MAKE A REQUEST FOR THE LOT SIZE TO BE REDUCED TO 1200 SQUARE FEET GOING THROUGH THE SITE PLAN THERE ARE 7 PROPERTIES, 7 LOTS THAT THEY HAVE LAID OUT THAT WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM OF 6400 SQUARE FEET AND THERE ARE 17 LOTS THAT ARE THAT MINIMUM OF THE APPLICANT DID INDICATE THEY WILL HAVE SOME HOMES WITH IN DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED THAT WOULD BE UP TO 2200 SQUARE FEET SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE 17 LOTS THEY'RE SHOWING AT MINIMUM 4200 SQUARE FEET WOULD BE PERMITTED TO HAVE 1300 OR DWELLING UNIT MINIMUM AS THEY HAVE SET FORWARD AND ALSO RECOMMEND A DWELLING UNIT 1800 SQUARE FOOT FOR LARGEER LOTS. LANDSCAPING AUTHOR THE SITE THE REQUIREMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES A 15 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER ON WILSON ROAD WITH MASONRY WALL AN CANOPY TREE PER 35 FEET AND 10 EVERGREEN SHRUBS PER 30 LINEAR FEET WITHIN THE BUFFER ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IN LIEU OF THE MASONRY WALL TO INSTALL AN 8 FOOT HIGH LIVING SCREEN THAT WOULD BE USING THE EXISTING TREES THAT WOULD BE PRESERVED AND ALSO SPLEMTD TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH FOR LIVING SCREENS IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SECOND PART TO THIS WOULD BE THERE ARE ENTRYWAY LANDSCAPING FEATURES REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WOULD FLANK EACH SIDE OF THE INTERNAL STREET WHERE SNEKTS WITH THE PERIMETER ROAD THAT THE ENVIRONMENT 9600 SQUARE FEET FOR PRIMARY ENFRIDAY WAY DIVIDED BY TWO EACH SIDE SO 4800 EACH SIDE AND FOR SECONDARY ENTRYWAY WOULD BE 6400 SQUARE FEET AGAIN HALF ON EACH SIDE. WITH LANDSCAPING MATERIAL THERE WOULD BE TWO CANOPY TREES FOR EACH 500 FEET OF THAT LANDSCAPE AREA AS WELL AS 75 PERCENT OF THAT OVERALL AREA WOULD NEED TO BE PLANTED WITH SHRUBS AN GROUND COVER.

THE APPLICANT IN THEIR COYER SET PLAN IS CONSIDERING THE ENTRYWAY OF THIS PROPERTY TO BE . . . ALSO, PROPOSING THE PLANT ONE CANOPY TREE 10 SHRUBS PER 200 SQUARE FEET AND POLE NAILER GARDEN LESS THAN 200 SQUARE FEET.

WE FEEL AGAIN BECAUSE THE PHYSICAL CON STRAIBTS WITH THE SITE THAT WILL PROVIDE THE CHARACTER AND THE ENTRYWAY FEATURE TO GIVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD A SENSE OF ARRIVAL FOR RESIDENTS AND GUESTS. IN THE WAY OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, THERE WERE EIGHT NOTICES SENT OUT TO PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET AND 35 NOTICES SENT OUT AS COURTESY TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 SQUARE FEET.

WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSIBILITY FROM PEOPLE WITHIN 200 FEET AND THAT RESPONSE WAS IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST.

STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION, ON THIS REQUEST WOULD BE TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE LAND IN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THE SINGLE 5 USES APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLANS AND LANDSCAPE PLANS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT WILSON ROAD WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY DECEMBER GATED TO THE CITY BY GISD TO THE NORTHERN EXTENT OF THIS PROPERTY THAT 17 OF THE LOTS WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 4200 SQUARE FEET AN AREA WITH A MINIMUM 1300 SQUARE SFOOT DWELLING AREA. 7 LOTS WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 6400 SQUARE MINIMUM 1800 SQUARE FOOT DWELLING AREA.

[00:15:04]

THEY HAVE PREPARED A PRESENTATION AND THEY WILL ALSO

BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL THE APPLICANT? JOHN YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS?

>> REQUIRES A MINIMUM TWO OFF STREET PARKING SPACES PER UNI-IT? CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHERE THE SECOND ONE IS ON THESE PLANS IN THE ONE IS IN A GARAGE AND ONE

IS IN A 15-FOOT DRIVEWAY? >> THAT WOULD BE THE INTENTION.

>> MY CAR IS LONGER THAN 10 FOOT.

>> YES. WE WOULD HAVE TO CONFIRM HOW THAT EXACTLY WORKS. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT

TO -- YES. >> GO AHEAD.

>> QUESTION. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ALEX AND I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE A TYPO IN THE REPORT IF YOU COULD CLARIFY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THE MINIMUM HOME SITE SHALL BE MINIMUM 1800 SQUARE FEET. COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT?

>> LET ME GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE. >> AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THE.

>> THERE WOULD BE 7 LOTS WITH THAT MINIMUM 6400 AND MINIMUM

1800 SQUARE FOOT DWELLING AREA. >> IF WE COULD CLARIFY FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE VIEWING AUDIENCE, ALEX, IT STATES IN THE REPORT THAT 17 LOTS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4200 SQUARE FEET WITH MINIMUM 1300 SQUARE FOOT IN THE AREA ALSO THAT 7 LOTS SHALL BE MINIMUM 6400 SQUARE FEET AND ALTHOUGH MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE NOT PROVIDEED BY THE APPLICANT IT'S RECOMMENDED THE MINIMUM HOME SIZE SHALL BE NO LESS THAN

1800 FEET. >> IT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER

WRITTEN. >> WOULD YOU CLARIFY.

>> THE APPLICANT HAS STATED SOME HOMES WOULD BE UP TO 2200 SQUARE FEET SO THEREFORE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING WE WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM HOME SIZE ON THOSE LARGER LOTS OF 1800 SQUARE FEET.

DOES THAT GET WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR?

>> YES, I WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR THE RECORD WE CLARIFY THAT AND AS IT RELATES TO THE DRIVEWAY I KNOW THAT PROVIDING A SINGLE CAR GARAGE WITH THE 20 FOOT WIDTH AS REQUIRED BY THE RDC, I THINK WHAT AND EX-WAS TRYING TO INDICATE WAS THE RDC DOES NOT HAVE A GARAGE REQUIREMENT AND THE SECOND VEHICLE WE WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PLACE THAT ON THE PAD AND I'M SURE THE

APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO CLARIFY. >> THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PARKING SPACE IS 20 FOOT LENGTH NINE FOOT WIDTH SO THAT WOULD PROBABLY MEAN THEY HAVE TO PICK OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT DRIVEWAY

ACCOMMODATE THAT VEHICLE. >> AND COMMISSIONERS YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY CONDITION THAT WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> YOU BET.

>> OKAY. IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION NOW AND THEN WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COME ON UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD

PLEASE. >> AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.

MY ADDRESS IS GABBY RAWLINGS MY ADDRESS IS [ADDRESS] DALLAS, TEXAS, I HAVE RALPH SHEFFIELD FROM THE HOUSING --

>> EXCUSE ME. ARE YOU WITH JACKSON WALKER?

>> YES. >> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO RECUSE

[00:20:01]

I THOUGHT I RECOGNIZED YOU. WHEN I HEARD YOUR NAME, IT

CLICKED. >> YOU SHOULD PROBABLY WORK FOR A LESS POPULAR LAW FIRM. ESSENTIALLY WHAT I WAS SAYING IN LIEU OF DOING A FULL PRESENTATION I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO ADDRESS EVERYBODY'S QUESTIONS AND THE FIRST ONE BEING NOTED BY YOU MR. COTE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THOSE DRIVEWAYS.

IT'S GOING TO BE A 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY ON OUR PLANS AN THAT'S NOTED ON OUR BUILDING ELEVATIONS AN IT MAY HAVE BEEN LOST IN THE MULTIPLE SUBMISSIONS WE'VE HAD, BUT I JUST WANTED TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS THAT AND WITH THAT, I KNOW THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY HAD OTHER QUESTIONS THAT MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR MR. SHEFFIELD OR

MR. ECKERBERG TO ADDRESS. >> SO YOU DON'T HAVE A

PRESENTATION? >> WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION BUT LET'S GIVE EACH OTHER SOME DINNER TIME.

NO, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO BUT I FEEL LIKE MICHIGAN KOENIGS PRESENTATION WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.

HE IS REITERATING THE SAME POINTS THAT WE HAD.

SO UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION BUT I THINK.

>> I'M GOOD. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT

THEN? >> YES, THE BIGGER LOTS YOU SAID THERE ARE 7 OF THEM. HOW BIG ARE THOSE LOTS?

>> THE 7 LOTS, BRYCE WOULD YOU LIKE -- I'LL TURN IT OVER.

>> GOOD EVENING. I'M BRYCE ECKER BERGER [ADDRESS] ROWLETT, TEXAS. [INAUDIBLE]

>> THAT'S OKAY. SO I CAN LIST THE 7 OFF.

SO, IF YOU WANTING TO -- SO, WE HAVE ONE THAT'S JUST UNDER 4600 SQUARE FEET. WE HAVE ONE THAT'S 8700 FEET, 6500 SQUARE FEET ALMOST 8900 SQUARE FEET.

THERE'S THREE THAT ARE BETWEEN 65 AND 68 AND THEN I WOULD SAY A MAJORITY OF THE ONES ALONG THE CREEK ARE THOSE LARGER LOTS THAT RANGE ANY WHERE FROM 44 TO 6600 SQUARE FEET.

>> ANY CHANCE YOU CAN GO WITH THE NUMBERS? THEY'RE NUMBERED ON OUR PRESENTATION AT LEAST.

I'M ON PAGE 20. >> ISSUES WITH MY LAPTOP.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

I'M ASSUMING THESE WILL HAVE TWO CAR GARAGES.

>> ONE. >> EVEN FOR THE LARGE LOTS? THERE WE GO. PERFECT.

>> I'M SORRY. I APOLOGIZE.

THAT'S THE MINIMUM THEY'RE PROPOSING THAT THAT'S SOMETHING CAN YOU ASK OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE LARGER LOTS WILL

HAVE TWO CAR GARAGE. >> ALEX, ONE MOMENT PLEASE.

IF YOU HAVE A BETTER DRAWING THAN THAT.

SORRY. I GUESS YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH

FLORIDA. >> THAT'S FINE.

SO THESE FOUR LOTS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER ARE FOUR OF THE 7. YOU HAVE THIS CORNER LOT WHERE WE'VE GOT A LARGER SET BACK THERE.

THIS LOT IS LARGER THAN THE 42 AND THESE TWO LOBTS ALONG THIS CURVE ARE LARGER THAN THAT 4200 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM.

>> THAT'S KIND OF MAKING SOME OF THESE LOTS SMALLER?

>> CORRECT. THE FLOOD BLAINE IS A LIMITING FACTOR ON THE EAST SIDE MANY WE ARE PROPOSING TO RECLAIM A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THAT BUT AS YOU CAN SEED THERE'S ALSO A SANITARY WEATHER IS EASEMENT THAT RUNS RIGHT HERE JUST UNDER OUR PROPOSED SIDEWALK THAT'S KEEPING US FROM BEING ABLE TO EXTEND THESE LOTS SO THOSE ARE TWO BIG CONSTRAINTS MAINLY THE CREEK AND

[00:25:01]

>> WOULD YOU CONSIDER TAKING THESE LOTS AND SQUISHING THEM TOGETHER? I UNDERSTAND IT'S A LOSS OF

HOUSES. >> TWO OF THEM.

>> YOU COULD GET ONE, TWO, THREE FOUR HOUSES SQUEEZING THOSE LOTS MAKING THIS SOMEWHAT BIGGER. THEY'RE SO TINY.

.1 IS SO TINY. IT'S LIKE LESS THAN .1 ACRE.

I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT BUT WILSON IS A TINY STREET.

THERE'S NOT MUCH THERE. YOU'RE KIND OF LAND LOCKED.

TALKING OUT LOUD. >> MR. CHRIS PIN.

>> YOU MUST HAVE ESP. SO, A VERY WISE PERSON SAID RECENTLY THAT OUR DEVELOPMENT CODES HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN BLOOD. COMMISSIONER COTE TWO WEEKS AGO.

>> I NEED TO CLARIFY THAT. BUILDING CODES.

>> BUILDING CODES. THANK YOU.

>> SO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS NOT WRITTEN IN.

>> WELL, THERE ARE INTENT IS THE SAME AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY IN JUST A MINUTE. AND I'VE MENTIONED THIS BEFORE.

UNFORTUNATELY I'M GOING TO HAVE TO MENTION IT AGAIN.

OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRE THAT WE HAVE DETENTION ON OUR SITES AND THE REASON WHY IT'S AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IS BECAUSE AS THESE CITIES ARE THROUGHOUT THE METROPOLITAN AREA HAVE DEVELOPED, WITHOUT DETENTION WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT WATER IS GETTING INTO THESE CREEKS FASTER.

THEREFORE THE FEMA ELEVATIONS OR THE FLOOD ELEVATIONS ARE RISING.

WHY? BECAUSE THE WATER IS GETTING THERE FASTER, AND AS A RESULT, YOU HAVE MORE WATER IN THESE CREEKS. I JUST MENTIONED THE FLOOD PLAINS GOING UP. THAT'S LED IN CASES AND THIS IS HAPPENING ALL OVER OUR NATION REALLY YOU ALSO HAVE INCREASED EROSION LONG OUR CHANNELS, WHICH MEANS THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE SUSTAINABLE SITUATION SO WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT CODES WERE IMPLEMENTED, THE IDEA WAS TO REQUIRE DETENTION TO THE POINT THAT THE RUNOFF FROM A PARTICULAR SITE WOULD NOT EXCEED THE CURRENT RUNOFF. YOU'RE NOT ELIMINATING THE RUNOFF. YOU'RE JUST REGULATING THE AMOUNT OR THE RATE AT WHICH THAT RUNOFF IS COMING SO THAT IT'S EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN WHAT THE CURRENT CONDITIONS ARE.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE HAVE ABOUT A SIX ACRE TRACT THAT IS BASICALLY AN OPEN FIELD AT THIS POINT.

AS WAS MENTIONED A MINUTE AGO, TIS IS VERY TIGHT.

THERE DEVELOPMENT IS EXTREMELY DENSE.

SO, EVEN FOR RESIDENTIAL AREA, THIS RUNOFF IS GOING TO BE VERY, VERY HIGH. SO, I READ THE STAFF'S REPORT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT A PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED. I'VE TAKEN A LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT THIS AREA, AND THE RUNOFF ON THIS CREEK HEADING INTO THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I JUST DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN R RELIABLY STATE THAT THE RUNOFF IS NOT GOING TO BE A FACTOR BECAUSE DETENTION ISN'T GOING TO BE REQUIRED AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR EXPLANATION BUT I'LL PREFACE IT BY SAYING THAT I JUST

[00:30:04]

>> YEAH, REALLY AND I'LL DO MY BEST TO NOT GET TOO NERDY ON YOU IN EXPLAINING IT. SO YOU MENTIONED WE DID DO A DOWN TREATMENT ASSESSMENT FOR THIS TRACT AS PART OUR ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL AND IT TARGETED AND LOOKED AT THE DETENTION IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MITIGATE ANY RISE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATIONS AS YOU MENTIONED AND SO, YOU'RE ACTUALLY CORRECT IN PART OF YOUR EXPLANATION THAT BECAUSE THIS TRACT, THE RUNOFF OF THIS PROPERTY . . . AND THE UP STREAM SYSTEM HITS THIS PROPERTY SO BECAUSE OUR WATER GETS INTO THE WATER BEFORE THE PEAK OF THE UPSTREAM DRAINAGE AREA IT ACTUALLY DOES NOT HAVE ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS DOWNSTREAM. IF WE WERE TO DETAIN OUR RUNOFF IN THE PEAK OF OUR SITE WOULD BE RELEASED AT THE SAME TIME OR CLOSER TO THE PEAK OF THE ENTIRE CREEK SYSTEM, WHICH WOULD THEN HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS DOWNSTREAM AND THAT'S WHEN OUR DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED BY CITY STAFF OR THE ENGINEERING GROUP AND APPROVED BY THE NUMBERS.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND JUST IN FAIRNESS TO YOU AND YOUR CLIENT AS I MENTIONED MANY TIMES I AM A CIVIL EVENING NEAR, A PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED EVENING NEAR AND CERTIFIED FLOOD PLAIN MANAGER. I DO THIS KIND OF STUFF ON A REGULAR BASIS SO I HAVEN'T SEEN THE DETAILS OF YOUR REPORT SO I'LL GIVE YOU THE BENEFIT OF THAT DOUBT BUT I JUST DON'T SEE IT. WHAT HAPPENS IN THESE SITUATIONS, IF THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT'S SO CLOSE TO THE CREEK IS ALLOWED DEVELOP WITHOUT RUNOFF DETENTION THE SAME COULD BE SAID OF ALMOST ANY LOT OR PARCEL THAT GETS DEVELOPED THAT'S CLOSE TO JUST ABOUT ANY CREEK THAT WE HAVE AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE CREEKS THROUGHOUT ROWLETT.

SOME OF THEM ARE SOME SMALL STREAM, SOME OF THEM ARE LARGE AND WHAT I'VE SAID SO MANY TIMES BEFORE, YOU WILL HAVE DETENTION BUT IT WILL BE POTENTIALLY ON THIS SITE BUT IT LAKE RAY HUBBARD. THAT'S GOING TO BECOME YOUR RETE RETENTION.

IF WE ALLOW DEVELOPMENTS AND SO MANY SIMILAR OTHERS IN THE AREA TO DEVELOP WITHOUT DETENTION, ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT GOES IN WITHOUT DEMOCRAT TENSION MEANS THERE'S THAT MUCH MORE WATER GETTING INTO THOSE SYSTEMS POTENTIALLY AFFECTING THE FEMA FLOOD PLAIN AND THE AMOUNT OF WATER THE VELOCITIES WATER, AND I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO NERDY ABOUT IT MYSELF BUT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK AT THE CREEKS THROUGHOUT THE METROPOLITAN AREA AND LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF EROSION THAT'S IN THERE.

WE ARE SUBJECT TO THESE CHANNEL' ROEGSZ BUT EVEN MORE SO THE PROBLEM WITH ROWLETT IS THAT ALL OF THAT SEDIMENT THAT GETS ERODED OUT OF OUR CHANNELS ENDS UP IN THE LAKE A LAKE THAT'S A BIG ASSET TO OUR COMMUNITY AND THE COST, EVEN THOUGH THE CITY OF ROWLETT ARE NOT THE OWNERS OF LAKE RAY HUBBARD IF AND WHEN THAT RESERVOIR NEEDS TO BE DREDGED IT'S GOING TO BE AN INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION.

WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO DETENTION AND WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT LETTING DEVELOPMENTS OCCUR WITHOUT ON SITE DEVELOPMENT OF SOME SORT, AND IT DOESN'T KNEES NECESSARILY MEAN THAT YOU WOULD BE GIVING UP REAL ESTATE. IT WOULD POTENTIALLY MEAN THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE UNDERGROUND OR SOME KIND OF STRUCTURE TO DETAIN YOUR STORM WATER IN A RATE THAT'S EQUAL TO OR EQUIVALENT TO THE CURRENT CONDITION AND I APOLOGIZE.

I CONTINUE WANT TO GET INTO AN ENGINEERING DEBATE PER SE BUT I'M JUST STATING AS AN OVERALL INTEREST TO THE CITY, WE NEED TO

[00:35:02]

I WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME SUPPORTING THIS WITHOUT THAT

KIND OF A REQUIREMENT. >> MR. FRIZ BEE.

YOU SAID A LOT. COULD YOU SUMMARIZE THAT?

>> AS A POTENTIAL, ADDITION AS A CONDITION.

>> CORRECT. >> THE DETENTION WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED ON THE SITE A THAT'S EQUAL FOR THE CURRENT RUNOFF

FROM THE SITE. >> QUESTION TO STAFF IS THIS SOMETHING WE WOULD NORMALLY DO FOR A DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TYPE?

[INAUDIBLE] >> OKAY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE CONSISTENT.

>> HI. GOOD EVENING.

COMMISSION, YES, IT IS GENERALLY TRUE THAT WHEN WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT WE LIMIT THEIR RUNOFF TO THE PRE-DEVELOPED RATE. THAT IS IN THE CODE.

THERE IS AN EXCEPTION FOR DIRECT DISCHARGE TO THE LAKE.

THIS IS NOT DISCHARGING DIRECTLY TO THE LAKE BUT WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT THAT DRAINAGE REPORT AND I WHAT'S SCEPTICAL LIKE YOU WERE AND I PASSED IT OFF TO OUR THIRD PARTY REVIEWER TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY, IF THE MODELING WAS CORRECT AND THEY CAME BACK AND SAID EVERYTHING WAS OKAY. AND I LOOKED AT IT, LOOKING AT THIS AND KNOWING THAT IT IS FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE DISCHARGE OF THIS TRIBUTARY, AND THAT THE PEAKS WERE NOT WITHOUT DETENTION THE PEAKS WERE NOT ADDING. IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD DECISION TO LET THEM GO WITHOUT DETENTION.

>> QUICK QUESTION, JEFF. SO, THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY RUNOFF?

>> WELL, IT WAS A PRETTY THOROUGH ANALYSIS.

I MEAN THEY DID A HECK GRASS ANALYSIS AN HECK HMS ANALYSIS MANY THEY WRAP A THOORP OH MODEL SNEEL DO YOU ANTICIPATE ANOTHER STUDY BEING CONDUCTED IF THIS IS APPROVED?

>> NOT MORE THE DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENT I DO NOT.

FOR ON SITE DRAINAGE, YES. >> SO NOW WOULD THAT ON SITE DRAINAGE AFFECT THE DOWNSTREAM REPORT?

>> NO. >> NO?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD. >> BUT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING

THAT STAFF WOULD ASSESS. >> YES.

>> SO ABSOLUTELY THERE WILL BE A SECOND ROUND OF REVIEWS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL SUBMITTAL, DEPENDING ON THE

ZONING ENTITLEMENTS. >> IN OTHER WORDS COMMISSIONER IF THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION FOR THIS SITE WAS VAST DLIFRNT THAN WHAT THEY ASSUMED IN THE REPORT, WE OOIFRJTH --

>> MR. SEGARS. >> SO, THERE IS A PLANNED HOA AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE HANDLEING THE 7 LOTS AND ANY OF THE COMMON AREAS SO YES THAT'S PLANNED.

>> MISS WILLIAMS, ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS THE ONLY TIME WE ARE GOING TO HAVE QUESTIONS MR. SWIFT?

>> NO QUESTIONS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION CONCERNING THIS WHOLE PROJECT IS BASED ON PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING SO WE FIT THE NICHE THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED TO FILL.

WHAT'S THE PRICE GOING TO BE? >> SORRY TO FLIP THE SWITCH.

MR. SHEFFIELD WOULD BE BETTER TO RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION.

[00:40:04]

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. I'M RICK SHEFFIELD WITH ROWLETT HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. MY ADDRESS IS [ADDRESS].

>> COMMISSIONER COTE THAT'S BEEN THE $64 QUESTION WHEN WE STARRED THIS TWO YEARS AGO. TWO YEARS AGO I WOULD HAVE SAID 280. IF WE CAN HIT THAT THAT ARE GET WE CAN HI THAT NUMBER PROBABLY EASIER AND LET ME TELL YOU HOW WE GET THERE. I'M NOT TELLING YOU THAT ANYTHING YOU DON'T KNOW THAT COST OF HOUSING IS SKYROCKETING COMPARED TO WAGES. MAYS REPORT THE MEDIAN SALE PRICE ON HOMES IN ROWLETT WAS JUST NORTH OF $415,000.

IF YOU LOOK AT A BREAKDOWN OF ALL THOSE SALES, HOMES $300,000 AND BELOW WERE LESS JUST UNDER 10 PERCENT TOTAL SALES.

HOMES BELOW 200,000, ZERO. WE HAVE A SEVERE LACK OF ENTRY HOUSING IN THE COMMUNITY. YOU HAVE A LOT OF JOBS COMING IN THROUGH DIFFERENT PROJECTS COMING IN THAT ARE GOING TO NEED THAT HOUSING OF RETAIL AND SERVICE WORKERS.

SO WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT AND AS PART OF THIS I SIT ON IF BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE TEXAS AFFILIATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS TAB SO THROUGH THE CONNECTIONS THERE WE ARE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH THE BUILDER COMMUNITIES THROUGH OTHER 051 C-3 FOUNDATION WORKING FOR MATERIALS DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO LOWER THAT COST. AS AN HFC WE CAN ALSO COPARTNER WITH THE DEVELOPER AND PROVIDE THEM WITH AN EXEMPTIONS FOR HARD CONSTRUCTION COSTS. I THINK WITH THESE TWO OPTIONS WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THAT COST PER SQUARE FOOT DOWN LOW. THIS IS OUR THIRD TIME BEFORE YOU. WE STARTED WITH 33 LOTS.

YOU SAID IT WAS TOO SMALL. COUNCIL LOOKED AT IT SO MANY SIZE INCREASE, VARIETY OF HOMES PAUSE WE JUST HAD BOXES TO BEGIN WITH AND I'VE GOT TO COMMEND STAFF ON THIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE WORKED TIRELESSLY ALEX ESPECIALLY THROUGH THIS LAST ITERATION BECAUSE WHEN WE CAME BACK FOR THIS THIRD TIME AND I'M HOPING THIRD TIME IS THE CHARM, I TELL STAFF THAT I WANTED TO FOLLOW THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE THAT GOT TO US A POINT OF NO RESISTANCE. AND AS YOU SAW ON STAFF REPORT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. FLOODING AND DRAINAGE WE WORKED ON TWO YEARS. IT'S HAD THREE SETS OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS LOOK AT IT AND THEY'RE COMFORTABLE AND AS YOU HEARD THERE WILL BE ANOTHER DESIGN COMING FORWARD BUT THAT'S A LONG ANSWER TO YOUR PRICE POINT QUESTION BUT I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A BACKGROUND WHERE WE ARE AT HOW WE PLAY IN

THE PARTNERSHIP. >> I UNDERSTAND AND YOU KNOW, I'M ALL FOR TRYING TO GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN HERE FOR OUR SERVICE PROVIDERS. A COUPLE POINTS HERE THOUGH.

I WOULDN'T SAY THIS IS THE PATH OF NO RESISTANCE BECAUSE THERE ARE STIPULATIONS AND APPROVAL SO OBVIOUSLY THERE'S SOME RESISTANCE THERE. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS IF YOU'RE TALKING SERVICE LEVEL HOUSING WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PRICE POINT IS EXPOSED TO BE FOR SOMEBODY TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD

THAT. >> WELL, IF WE TARGETED 80 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, WHICH THAT NUMBER I DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF ME, I'LL TELL YOU $97,000 IS THE MEDIAN INCOME. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 65-80,000.

IT WOULD BE INCOME RESTRICTED. REAL ESTATE YOU HAVE A RULE TWO AND A HALF THREE TIMES SALARY FOR AFFORDABILITY.

IF YOU LOOK AT 70-80 YOU'RE TALKING 210-240.

>> OUR MEDIAN SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE CONSIDERED WHAT OUR SERVICE PROVIDERS CAN AFFORD BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MAKING OUR

[00:45:01]

$60,000, THREE TIMES THAT IS $180,000 HOUSE.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT IT'S GOING TO PUSH 70 AT THE VERY MINIMUM

BOTTOM. >> JUST REAL QUICK YOU SAID IT WAS 70 PERCENT OF THE MEDIAN WHICH WAS 97?

80. >> 80 PERCENT, OKAY.

>> AND BELIEVE ME IF WE CAN GET THOSE NUMBERS DOWN LOWER COMMISSIONER WE WILL DO IT. I WILL TELL WHEN YOU WE FIRST STARTED THIS I STARTED WORKING WITH BUILDERS AND GETTING PRICING ON PLANS. OVER 18 MONTHS AGO THOSE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED AS WELL AS OUR HOUSE DESIGNS BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING A RANGE OF ANYWHERE FROM 1800-2200 SQUARE FEET.

WE DID GET THOSE CHARGES AND IT WAS MAYHEM GETTING PREPARED BUT ANYWHERE WE COULD LOWER THAT I WOULD LOVE TO HIT THAT 60,000

ECONOMICS. >> WE SEE THE NEWS TOO AS WELL.

LET'S SAY WE HAVE SOMEBODY MAKING $70,000 A YEAR LOOKING TO PURCHASE A HOME IN THIS AREA. WHAT ASSISTANCE WOULD BE

AVAILABLE TO THEM? >> THANK YOU, GOOD QUESTION.

A COUPLE THINGS THAT WE HAVE FOR THE HFC WE HAVE DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE A GRANT UP TO 5 PERCENT AND I WILL BE IN AUSTIN NEXT WEEK MORE THE TDXCA BOARD MEETING.

YOU MAY RECALL COUNCIL APPROVED A FEW YEARS BACK FOR PARTICIPATION FOR PROVIDING REDUCED RATE MORTGAGES AS WELL AS CREDIT CERTIFICATE, SO WE HAVE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO HELP THOSE TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT LOAN VALUE DOWN TO WHERE IT'S 70,000 AND BE ABLE TO AFFORD THAT 240 BUT LOTS OF OPTIONS WE CAN PROVIDE AN AGENCIES THAT CAN HELP WITH

THAT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> COMMISSIONERS.

DISCUSSION. >> I'LL START.

I WOULD SAY THE MARK HAS CHANGED.

I'M MORE SOFT NOW THE COMBINATION TRAIL DOG PARK ALL THAT NICE STUFF, HOA, THIS IS A UNIQUE LOT.

IT'S UNUSUAL AND FITS MY CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL THINGS LIKE THIS SO I'M OPEN TO APPROVING THIS.

>> MR. [INAUDIBLE] MS. WILLIAMS.

MR. SWIFT. >> SO, I WORK HAT A GANG DURING THE DAY. DOING THE SMOOTH ON AFFORDABILITY MFRMT FRISBEE DOES WHAT HE DOES.

I USED TO CALCULATE 7700, 600, AND 10 PERCENT DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE IT MAKES IT AFFORDABLE.

IT MAKES IT SOMETHING THAT A NORMAL BANKER OR BANK WOULD SAY THIS IS A LOAN, THIS IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSE OUT THERE.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE GOT INTO THAT MATH SO THANK YOU.

>> SO WITH THAT INFORMATION, I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE FOR MR. SHEFFIELD IS THEN, WOULD YOU BE THE PERSON THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD APPLY FOR A HOUSE OR WHO WOULD SELL THESE HOMES? WHO WOULD BE SELLING THESE HOMES AND HOW DO WE VERIFY THAT THEIR INCOME LEVEL IS APPROPRIATE FOR

THIS PARTICULAR HOUSING NEED? >> WE WOULD WORK, I THINK THE MAIN THING HONESTLY WE'VE GOT TO LAY SOME OF THAT OUT.

I LAY IT OUT, PLANS CHANGE. I'M WAITING TO GET PAST THIS FACES TO HIT A LOT THAT. BUT TDACA WOULD BE OUR PRIMARY PARTNER ON THAT AND WOULD DO THE INCOME QUALIFICATION FOR THAT AS WELL AS WORK ON REDUCED RATES FOR MORTGAGES.

IF YOU BUY A POINT OR TWO DOWN ON A LOAN THAT LOWERS THE PAYMENT FOR THEM BUT WE WORK THROUGH TDHCA.

>> AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE RESTRICTION AS FAR AS INCOME SO I CAN'T COME IN HERE AND BUY 5 OF THESE AND RESELL THEM.

>> ABSOLUTEY AND WE ARE LOOKING AT DEED RESTRICTION FOR A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS IF THEY CAN'T TURN AROUND AND FLIP THAT

[00:50:05]

AT MARKET RATE. >> YOU HAVE A DEED RESTRICTION

OF FIVE YEARS. >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY.

>> I THINK THAT LAST SIZES ARE EXTREMELY SMALL TOO BEGIN WITH SO WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN AND ASKS, OH YEAH, I'D LIKE A PD FOR SF-5 AND WANT TO PEAR DOWN ON SOME OF THESE THINGS IT MAKES ME NERVOUS. GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT THE 15 FOOT SET BACK AND THEN A TWO CAR MINIMUM PARKING SPOT IF THE GARAGE IS HAT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WHICH WE NOW CAN DO, THEN THAT DRIVEWAY IS ONLY 15 FEET LONG WHICH MEANS THE 20 FOOT MINIMUM ISN'T MET AND THE 30 FOOT NEEDED FOR MY TRUCK IS

DEFINITELY NOT MET. >> AND JUST TO CLARIFY THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A MISCOMMUNICATION ON OUR PLAN HERE WEARING SHOWING NOTHINGES THAN THE 20 FOOT ON THE PLAN SO IF WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT IS SHOWN IN OUR STANDARDS WE CAN DO THAT BUT WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANYTHING LESS

THAN 20 FEET. >> YOU DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GET THE CORRECT INPUT TO THE CITY COUNCIL THEN BECAUSE THE MINIMUM HERE IS 14.5 FOOT IS WHAT I'M SHOWING.

>> LOT 11 SHOWS. >> SO AND I CAN SEE WHERE THE CONFUSION IS. THAT'S MEASURE THE PARKWAY.

>> OKAY. >> SO YOU'RE SEEING THE 31 FOOT BACK TO BACK PAVEMENT AND THAT APRIL OH IS POINTING FROM THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION. >> OKAY.

>> REAR SET BACK OR FRONT SET BACK?

FRONT SET BACK 20 FEET. >> REAR SET BACK I'LL CALLING THE DRIVEWAY. 20 FEET IS MINIMUM.

>> FRONT DRIVEWAY. >> YES, YOU'RE CORRECT.

I APOLOGIZE. I'M USED TO DEALING WITH FRONT SETBACK. 20 FEET.

>> OKAY. >> SO I GUESS I HAVE TO WONDER, WHY IS THAT NOT LISTED UNDER THESE REQUIREMENTS? OR THE PD PROPOSAL? SO MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK SHOULD BE 20 FOOT. TABLE 1.

>> SO, IN TERMS OF THE PD CONDITION REQUESTS I THINK I'M GOING TO TRY AN CLARIFY. I THINK WE ARE SEEING THE SAME THING BUT GETTING TO IT DIFFERENTLY.

THE BUILDING SETBACK YOU'RE REQUESTING IS 15 FEET IN YOUR PD CONDITIONS. IF THAT IS THE CASE, HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO PROVIDE A 20 FOOT REQUIRED DRIVEWAY IS WHAT WE NEED TO ANSWER AND THEN, SHOULD THE COMMISSION WHATEVER THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS, THAT WOULD BECOME A RECOMMENDATION OR ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE RECOMMENDATION SO WE JUST NEED TO INSURE THAT IN ADDITION TO YOUR GARAGE WHICH HAS THE 20 FOOT DEPTH THE SINGLE CAR GARAGE YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR AN ADDITIONAL CAR AND THAT DRIVEWAY HAS TO BE 20 SNEET.

>> AND IT CAN'T INTERFERE WITH THAT 14.5 PARKWAY.

>> AND IT CAN'T INTERFERE WITH THE SIDEWALK OR THE PARKWAY.

IT HAS TO BE CONTAINED IN THE ENVELOPE.

>> I THINK ON OUR PART WE CAN UPDATE IT TO NOT BE 15 FEET BECAUSE WE ARE PROPOSING 20 FEET FRONT SETBACK FOR THE GARAGE.

>> SO I'LL CLARIFY. IT'S A 15 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE BUILDING AND ADDITIONAL FOR THE GARAGE AN FROM THERE ADDITIONAL 20 SO THE DRIVEWAY. SO, ALL TOGETHER -- EXACTLY, THE

[00:55:03]

IF THE ACTUAL BUILDING THE HOME, SO YOU'RE GOING TO -- SO YES, EXACTLY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 20 FOOT GARAGE AND THEN A 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY. ILLUSTRATIONS IN YOUR PRESENTATION WHAT THESE

MIGHT LOOK LIKE? >> WE DO.

NOT IN THE PRESENTATION PER SE. I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE IT IN THE PRESENTATION. KNEESLESS TO SAY WE CAN INCLUDE IT IN THE PD CONDITIONS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE 20 FOOT CAR AN THERE'S GOING TO BE A DRIVEWAY THAT WAS INTENDED, SO THE BUILDING SETBACK WAS INTEND TO INCLUDE THE ACTUAL FRONT GARAGE WHICH IS MAINLY, IT'S A DISCONNECT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT. IT'S 20-FOOT BUILDING AN ADDITIONAL 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY SO ALTOGETHER 40 FEET THAT FITS TWO CARS. AM I NOT MAKING SENSE?

I'M SOAR. >> I NO, BUT WE CAN PROBABLY CLARIFY THAT AS HAVING THAT AS A CONDITION.

>> RIGHT. WE NEED TO COMMISSIONERS WHATEVER YOUR RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE, WE NEED TO ESTABLISH IS THERE A REVISED BUILDING SETBACK REQUEST, IS IT 20 FEET SETBACK OR 15 FOOT FRONT YES, SIR SETBACK NUMBER 1 AND NUMBER 2 EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE WE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE REQUIREMENT FOR A 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY HOWEVER YOU'RE BUILDING. KEEPING IN MIND YOU'VE GOT 5 FEET ON EACH SIDE WHICH LIMITS HOW MUCH LOT YOU HAVE AS WELL AS LOT COVERAGE AN THOSE ELEMENTS SO PLEASE CONSIDER THOSE.

>> TO CLARIFY, INCLUDING THE GARAGE IF IT COMES OUT THERE

WOULD BE 20-FOOT. >> SO I'M LEANING ON YOU GUYS TO TELL ME WHAT IT IS YOU'RE REQUESTING IN TERMS OF YOUR SETBACK AND RICK YOU SEEM TO BE UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IF YOU COULD CLARIFY, PLEASE.

>> COMMISSIONERS, I APOLOGIZE. WE'VE HAD 27 DIFFERENT ITERATIONSES OF THIS. IF YOU CAN PICTURE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THERE'S YOUR 15 FEET. THE GARAGE IS BACK BY GIVING IT A 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ATTEMPT TO GO TRY TO SAY BUT SHOULD YOU DESIRE TO NAUGHT CONDITION OF 20-FOOT THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THAT HAND WE DON

HAVE THOSE ELEVATION YET. >> AND WE HAVE THIS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BUILDING PADS. I WOULD SAY YOU CUT A NOTCH OUT ON THE CORNERS THAT WOULD SHOW WHERE THE ADDITIONAL 5 FEET

WOULD COME FROM THE DRIVEWAY. >> I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT. THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS IF I APPROVE THIS THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT TELLS ME THEY'RE GOING TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. ER GO WE SHOULD HAVE A 20 FOOT

DRIVEWAY MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. >> THANK YOU.

>> THAT WAS THE INTENT. SO WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT'S

REVISED AND CLARIFIED. >> OKAY.

SO I GUESS PAGE 1 OF YOUR SITE PLAN INDICATES A 20-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE BUILDING. SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOUR PD,

[01:00:02]

REALLY 20 FOOT? >> YES.

SO EVERY BUILDING ON OUR PLAN RIGHT HERE THAT IS INTENDED TO ENCOMPASS THE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT FLOOR PLANS WE HAVE.

EVERYTHING IS SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF

WAY. >> EXCELLENT.

>> THAT WAS OR INTENTION. >> AND IF THE GARAGE IS TRULY SET BACK 5 FEET FROM THAT THAT, WOULD BE GREAT.

>> WHICH ONE OF THESE DO WE CHANGE?

>> I DON'T THINK ANYTHING NEEDS TO CHANGE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSS COMMISSIONERS? I'M READY FOR A MOTION. [INAUDIBLE]

>> I'M SORRY? I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH

CONDITIONS. >> MR. SEGARS MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND. >> MR. SWIFT SECONDS.

SO CALL THE VOTE. AND YOU ABSTAIN.

AND THAT PASSES 3-2. WAIT A MINUTE.

HOLD ON. WE MAY HAVE TO DO THIS OLD SCHOOL. WE HAVE 3-2.

ONE ABSTENTION. SO CAN WE DO A VERBAL?

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE. MOTION AN SECOND TO APPROVE, STAFF RECOMMENDATION ALL IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND.

ALL OPPOSE. 3-2.

THAT MOTION PASSES. AND

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.