Oct 24, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission

[CONVENE REGULAR SESSION (7:00 P.M.) ]

[00:00:13]

TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2023.

AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN. CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO BE CONVEYING OR CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. THE PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON YOU MAY COMPLETE A CITIZENS INPUT FORM ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING. FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENTERING PRIOR TO THE START. IN PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS THEY ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS CITIZENS INPUT. AT THAT TIME A THREE-MINUTE COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE. NOACTION CAN BE TAKEN DURING THE COMMISSION DURING CITIZENS INPUT . IF YOU DO HAVE A COMMENT THAT YOU WANT TO ADDRESS TO A SPECIFIC ITEM ON THE AGENDA WE WILL PROVIDE YOU THAT OPPORTUNITY DURING THAT ITEMS DISCUSSION. IS ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT? HEARING NONE WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE CITIZENS INPUT.

[4. CONSENT AGENDA ]

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THE MINUTES. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO ADOPT THE MINUTES. I HAVE A SECOND? QUICK SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND FOR MR. HURDLER. >> THOSE IN FAVOR?

>> AYE. >> LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. >> THAT PASSES WITH FIVE YESES AND ONE ABSTENTION. ON THE AGENDA NEXT IS INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION IN

[5A. Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on a request by Duane Cannon on behalf of property owner Cornerstone Assembly of God for approval of a Tree Removal Permit on a property zoned Limited Office (O-1) and Single-Family Residential (SF-10) .The approximately 12.054 acre site is located west of approximately 1,400 feet north of the intersection of Dalrock and Miller Roads, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

ITEM 5 A IS TO CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SALARY REQUEST BY DUANE CANNON ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ON THE PROPERTIES OWNED LIMITING OFFICE AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. IT IS APPROXIMATELY 12.54 ACRES LOCATED WEST 1400 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. IF YOU CAN GIVE ME ONE SECOND I'M GETTING IT BACK TO THIS

PORTION OF THE PRESENTATION. THE. >> THINK YOU.

AS YOU KNOW THE SITE IS LOCATED AT $4000 ROCK AND IT IS OWNED LIMITED OFFICE COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT RIGHT NOW. AT THIS TIME IT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY. IT IS A VACANT PROPERTY AND IT IS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CHURCH BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY.

[00:05:05]

THERE IS A PLAN ADMINISTRATED APPROVED ON MAY 25 2021. AFTERWARDS THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WHICH CITY COUNCIL DID APPROVE ON NOVEMBER 1. WITH THAT ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN THERE WAS A MODIFIED VERSION TO THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE ALLOWED BY THIS ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN WHICH ALLOWS EVERGREEN STROKES HAVING A FEET RESTRICTION OF 3 FEET. FOR THE POTENTIAL BUILDOUT IT WOULD BE INSTALLED IN THE FUTURE. IF YOU COULD TAKE A MINUTE AND LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN THAT IS ON THE SCREEN RIGHT HERE THE YELLOW DOT SHOW THAT THESE ARE THE CHURCH TREES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL SUCH AS TAKE A MENTAL NOTE OF WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION YOU WILL SEE HOW THEY COME INTO DETERMINE HOW THEY WILL BE REMOVED. FOR THE ROW THAT DEVELOPMENT CODE IT STATES THAT IF YOU REMOVE THREE OR MORE PROTECTIVE TREES IT'S REQUIRED THAT THE CITY ACTION BY THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A SURVEY AND THEY DID INDICATE THERE ARE 129 PROTECTIVE TREES ON SITE WITH 2000 AND 7.5 CALIBER INCHES.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSES TO REMOVE 17 TOTALING 393.5 CALIBER AND THERE IS A PRINTABLE TREES THERE WE CONSIDER PROTECTED BUT 11 ARE PROTECTED AND SIX ARE EXEMPT AND WE WILL EXPLAIN IN THE HOW THEY ARE CONSIDERED EXEMPT. THE EXEMPT TREES ARE DEFINED AS REMOVAL OF TREES THAT ARE DEAD, DISEASE, AND ACTUALLY FOLLOWING AND BEYOND THE POINT OF RECOVERY AND ALSO IF THE TREE IS DISEASED IT IS IMPORTANT TO REVIEW THOSE TREES SO IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE HEALTHY TREES THAT ARE SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO REPLACE THE PROTECTED TREES AND THIS IS BECAUSE THIS IS BASED ON THE RDC REQUIREMENT THAT IT ALLOWS ONE CREDIT FOR WHEN CALIBER IMAGE THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REPLACED FOR EACH CALIBER INCH OF PROTECTED TREES THAT ARE RECEIVED.

THE REMAINING 11 TREES WILL NOT BE MITIGATED BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE TREES BEING SAVED ON THE SITE. THE SIX EXEMPT TREES WILL NOT HAVE DURABLE REPLACED BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSIDERED IN POOR CONDITION AND FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY FOR EXEMPT TREES.

ALSO TWO OF THE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAPLANS ARE APPROV WILL HAVE ADDITIONAL TREES PLANTED. THEY WILL ALSO MAINTAIN THE TREES THAT ARE ON SITE THAT ARE MATURE TREES. REMOVAL OF THE TREES ARE NOT REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CONTACT OR CONDUCT ANTICIPATED ACTIVITY. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION CAN BE MADE TO PRESERVE THE TREES ON SITE FOR THE PURPOSE AND INTENT TO THIS CHAPTER NOT BEING MET BY THE APPLICANT.

WOULD YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND THIS IS BASED ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN THAT WAS A MINISTRY EVENT APPROVED ON MAY 25, 2021. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THEM FOR YOU.

[00:10:10]

>> IS THE APPLICANT HERE? >> YES. >> DOES HE HAVE A

PRESENTATION? >> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS NUMBER 110 AND 111 BEING REMOVED BECAUSE OF THE DRIVEWAY. IS THERE ANY THOUGHT OF MOVING

THE DRIVEWAY FURTHER NORTH? >> WE WILL GO RIGHT BACK TO THIS.TWO YELLOW ONES TO THE

BOTTOM. >> MANSOUR? >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.

>> BRIAN HYDE PASTOR CORNERSTONE CHURCH.THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED AND WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED MOVING THE DRIVEWAY ONLY BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA COSTS THAT HAVE BEEN ALREADY SPENT. DELAYS BETWEEN THIS AREA HAS COST US THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.

I CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER DELAY. WE HAVE A HUGE AMOUNT OF TREES ON THE PROPERTY.

WE TRY TO KEEP THE PECAN AND OAKS BUT THIS IS PROBABLY THE LEANEST WE CAN DO TO GET AWAY WITH THAT. IN REGARD TO YOUR QUESTION I DON'T THINK IT'S A POSSIBILITY.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. >> MISS WILSON? >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

I WAS WONDERING WHO DEEMED THOSE TREES TO BE DEAD OR JEOPARDY?

>> YES THE LANDSCAPER HAS A SIGN AND SEAL OF THE DOCUMENT. THEY PUT THEIR SEAL ON.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. >> YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING TO REMOVE 17 TREES AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WILL PLAY IN COMPENSATION AROUND THE ZONE IN THE BUFFING AREA.

DO YOU HAVE A NUMBER FOR HOW MANY TREES YOU PLAAND ON PLANTI AND IS IT COMPARABLE TO WHAT'S

BEING REMOVED? >> . >> I WILL SAY AROUND THE PARKING LOT AREA THEY WILL BE 22 NEW TREES. THREE THEY WILL KEEP AND 22 NEW WILL BE PLANTING IN THE STREET PARKING AREA SO IT DOES EQUATE OUT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIOS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? >> THANK YOU DO WE HAVE ANY

DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVED WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND LIKELY HAVE A SECOND. THIS WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AS PRESENTED PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[5B. Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on an Alternative Landscaping Plan under Section 77-504.I of the Rowlett Development Code to allow a natural buffer as screening under section 77-207 (D)(2)(b) of the RDC for property adjacent to the Dart rail line. The property is zoned Industrial Overlay (IO) District. The approximately 1.35-acre site is located on 4811 & 4821 Grisham Drive, being Lot 3 & 4 of Toler Industrial Park 3, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

[00:15:05]

>> GOOD EVENING CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION I WILL BE PRESENTING THIS ITEM TONIGHT. I STAYED AT THE SITE IS LOCATED AT APRIL 8, 2011 AND 821 GRESHAM DRIVE. YOU ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING BUILDING THERE AND THE 48 ON THE OTHER ADDRESS THERE. THAT'S WHERE THEY PROPOSE THE ADDITION AND THE ZONING IS INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY.HERE HAS BEEN A SITE PLAN CONDITIONALLY APPROVED BASED ON THE ALP.

THE I/O DISTRICT REQUIRES SEPARATE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE DART RAIL UNDER SECTION 70 JULY 2, 2007 D TWO B OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THEY HAVE TWO METHODS OF DOING THIS. THE FIRST IS PROVIDING EVERGREEN BUFFERS WHICH INVOLVES PLANTING EVERGREEN TREES AND SHRUBS FROM APPROVED LISTS AND THE SECOND OPTION IS TO INCLUDE NATURAL BUFFERS IF EXISTING FOLIAGE ALREADY EXISTS THAT COULD PROVIDE YEAR-ROUND STREAMING AND ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLANS CAN BE CONSIDERED SUBJECT TO SECTION 70 7504 OF THE ROW LET DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ALP PLAN TO ALLOW A NATURAL BUFFER INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED EVERGREEN BUFFER IN SECTION 77 D2 A OF THE ROW THAT GOVERNMENT CODE.

>> THE SECTION IS WHAT ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS FOR THE APPROVAL OF ALP AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERE . THE REQUEST FOCUS ON AMENDING THE TREES AND SHRUBS FOR THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT ALONG THE RAIL LINE.

>> THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 39 TREES ALONG THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

THE NATURAL BUFFER MEANS THIS TRAINING IS ON THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND PROVIDES SUFFICIENT SCREENING FROM THE DART RAIL. THE SMALL PORTION THAT DOES NOT HAVE A NATURAL BUFFER WILL INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL EVERGREEN BUFFERS TO MEET THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ON THAT PORTION OF IT BUT THERE IS NO ACTUAL TREES THERE CURRENTLY.

IN THAT LOCATION THERE WILL BE FIVE TREES BEING PROPOSED WHERE THE NATURAL BUFFER DOES NOT EXIST. OVER TIME THE TREES WILL DEVELOP AND THERE WILL BE AN OBLIQUE BUFFER ON THAT AREA. NATURAL BUFFER DOES EXIST AND THERE IS A LOT OF TREES AND SHRUBS IN THAT AREA. SHOWS HOW IT WOULD COVER AND STREAM THAT PORTION FROM THE

RAIL LINE. >> STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE ALTERNATE

LANDSCAPE PLAN. >> THANK YOU IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

>> THEY ARE QUICK SO THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION? >> THEY DON'T HAVE A

PRESENTATION THAT THEY ARE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> COMMISSIONERS DO WE HAVE

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE STAFF? >> ON THE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN WHAT KIND OF TREES ARE PROPOSED TO BE PUT IN PIN THE BUFFER AREA?

>> ANOTHER GOT THE PLAN BUT I KNOW THERE ARE FIVE TREES I AM THE DESIGNER WHO IS FILLING THE VOID WITH THE NATURAL BUFFER DOESNOT EXIST . I PROPOSE AT THIS TIME EMPIRE LIVE OAKS WITH THE EVERGREEN TREES AND THEY ARE A LITTLE FASTER THAN THE TRADITIONAL LIVE OAK. THEY WILL EXCEED THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AT THE TIME OF

[00:20:02]

APPROXIMATELY EVERY 27 FEET. >> ARE THESE TREES GOING TO BE IRRIGATED?

>> I DID NOT DESIGN ANY IRRIGATION FOR THE COMPANY AND FOR THIS PROJECT.

I WAS ASSURED THAT THEY WOULD BE WATERED. ALSO FOR THE VOID THEY WILL BE PLANTING WHAT WE CALL POCKET PLANTING . CURRENTLY THERE EXISTS FOR THE GRASS I WILL BE POCKET PLANTING IN THAT TURF GRAPH SO THEY WILL BE GROUNDCOVER.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMISSIONERS?

>> THANK YOU WE HAVE A MOTION? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST.

>> MS. WILLIAMS HAS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LANDSCAPING REQUEST DO WE HAVE

A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND. >> MS. WILSON SECOND LET'S

CALL A VOTE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >> ITEM 5C.

[5C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request by Alvie Plumlee, regarding a Special Use Permit to allow an enclosed accessory structure with an area greater than 500 square feet on a property zoned Form Based Rural Neighborhood (FB-RN). The property is addressed 4910 Merrit Road. The approximately .54-acre lot is situated northwest of the intersection of Merritt Road and Hickox Road, also described as part of Richard Copeland Abstract No.229 in deed to G.S. Plumlee recorded in Volume 3722 Page. 158, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

THE APPROXIMATELY .54 ACRE LOT IS SITUATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MERRITT ROAD AND HICKS ROAD. ALSO DESCRIBED AS PART OF RICHARD COPELAND ASKS TRACT NUMBER 229 INDEED GS PLUMLEY RECORDED IN VOLUME 3722 PAGE 158 IN THE CITY OF ROW LET

DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS. >> THE NEXT ITEM YOU HAVE THIS WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY .5 ACRE . THE OWNER AIN'T OWNS BOTH LOCATIONS.

RECENTLY THEY HAVE UPDATED TO TO CITY RECORDS THE PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNATED AS TWO SEPARATE PARCELS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WHICH WILL BE THE CONSTRUCTION APPROXIMATELY 25 SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED EXCLUSIVE STRUCTURE.

>> IN TERMS OF THE STRUCTURE YOU CAN SEE BOTH ADDRESSES THEIR AND THIS ONE IS ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE WITH THE BOUNDARY THERE AT 8910 MERIT ROAD.

THEY WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 3 FEET FROM THE REAR AND 7.5 FEET TOWARDS THE SIDE FROM THE FRONT APPROXIMATELY. IT'S HOUSED AT 8910 MERIT ROAD IN AUGUST 2023.

THERE IS NO ACTUAL PRIMARY STRUCTURE CURRENTLY ON 8910 MERIT ROAD.

IN TERMS OF THE STRUCTURE THAT WANTS TO BE BUILT. THE HEAD OF THE STRUCTURES APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET AND IT IS INTENDED FOR A WORKSHOP INTENDED FOR PERSONAL USE.

FOR SECTION 77 1105 THE DEFINITION AS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WHICH IS A PERMANENT BUILDING OR STRUCTURE AFFIXED TO THE GROUND SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE FOR USE OF WHAT IS INCIDENTAL IN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR THE PREMISES. THEY DID NOT GET BACK IN THIS AREA BUT STAFF RECOMMENDATION

[00:25:06]

WE DO BELIEVE SINCE THERE IS NO PRIMARY STRUCTURE THERE IT CAN BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE LET ME KNOW WE ALSO HAVE

THE APPLICANT HERE TODAY. >> DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION?

>> IT IS MY FIRST TIME DOING ONE OF THESE SO PARDON ME.> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> OUT PLUMLEY 8914 MERIT ROAD.

THE FIRST SIDES HAVE THE WRONG ADDRESS IS ON THEM.WE WOULD LIKE TO COMBINE THE PROPERTIES.

WE CALL THE DALLAS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND THE LADY SAID JUST FILL OUT THIS FORM AND WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT. THAT'S WHAT WE DID AND WE GOT APPROVED.

BOTH THE PROPERTIES ARE COMBINED INTO 8914 NO. IF YOU DISCOVER IT'S BEEN COMPLETED. QUICK SO I'M NOT SURE WITH THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT SAID THAT BASICALLY YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH THE CITY TO HAVE THAT REPLATTED AS A SINGLE PARCEL.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IF YOU DO THAT THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THE

SEP. >> NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT WHEN I WAS TRYING TO GET THIS BECAUSE WE COULDN'T REACH HER MY WIFE WAS TRYING AND SHE COULDN'T REACH SOMEONE SO WE

WENT TO THE DALLAS COUNTY TEST THEM WHEN NEEDED TO DO. >> IS THAT IT?

>> THAT IS IT. WE HAVE A FENCE UP ON THE PROPERTY NOW.

>> OKAY. >> NOBODY'S GOING TO SEE IT. >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR ANY COMMENTS. SEEING NONE IN HEARING AND WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING . WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS, CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS?

>> I UNDERSTAND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WILL WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS

OF THIS WAS APPROVED? >> I UNDERSTAND THAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR DISAPPROVAL. IF IT WERE TO BE APPROVED WHAT WOULD BE THE NEGATIVE IMPACT TO

THE CITY OR THE SURROUNDING AREA? >> I THINK IN TERMS OF OUR PROCESS WE DO HAVE TO GET THIS PLOTTED FIRST FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED AND THEN WE CAN CONSIDER IT BASED OFF OF A NEIGHBORHOOD OF IF THIS IS SOMETHING COMPATIBLE.

>> OF THE SITCOM TO THE PLOT AND IT WOULD BE MORE OF A RECOMMENDATION TOWARDS

APPROVAL? >> THE PRIMARY CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE IS THE SEPARATE LOTS IS ON THE RECORD. THOSE TEND TO BE SOMEWHAT PROBLEMATIC WHEN WE WERE WHEN THE TIME THAT THEY NO LONGER LIVE THERE AND SEEK TO SELL THE PROPERTY.

IT IS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE I WILL PUT IT THAT WAY TO SOME FOLKS TO SEE THAT AS A SEPARATE BUILDING THAT THEY COULD USE FOR SOMETHING ELSE AND HAVE SOMEONE LIVE IN THE HOUSE.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU ARE IN AN UNINCORPORATED AREA? WHY WERE YOU CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT DALLAS COUNTY BRACES COMING TO OUTLET FOR APPROVAL? IS IT BECAUSE YOU APPROVED SOMETIME OF UNINCORPORATED AREA?

[00:30:04]

>> I GREW UP THERE. QUICKSAND LIVED HERE FOR YEARS. WHEN I GROW UP.

IT WAS A TWO LANE ROAD OUT FRONT. TO ME IT'S OLD SCHOOL AND I'M JUST A COUNTRY BOY. NOT LIVING THE CITY LIFE. I'M 60 NOW AND I'M JUST LOOKING FOR RETIREMENT. MY CURRENT WORKSHOP IS A TWO CAR GARAGE UNDER 700 FT.? AND I HAVE THREE WALKING LANES AND THERE I CAN EVEN DO A PROJECT IN THEIR.

I NEED SOMETHING BIGGER SO I HAVE ROOM AND I CAN WORK ON ONE OR TWO PROJECTS AT A TIME WITHOUT HAVING TO FINISH THIS BEFORE OUR WORK ON THAT SECOND SET SOMETHING ASIDE.

I'M JUST OUT THERE TRYING. >> WE UNDERSTAND. >> THANK YOU SIR ANY OTHER

COMMENTS?>> AS I UNDERSTAND THIS IT'S THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

>> THIS IS A SINGLE TAX PARCEL FOR THEIR TAX RECORDS HOWEVER THAT DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH THE

SAME OR HERE AT THE CITY AS THE REPLY WOULD DO. >> WHERE I'M GOING WITH US AS IT'S ABOUT THE PROCESS. IT'S PARTIALLY ALSO THE FACT THAT WHAT'S TO STOP AN OWNER FROM SELLING OFF ONE OF THE TWO PARCELS DOWN THE ROAD IF THEY ARE LEGALLY SEPARATE LOTS.

>> CRACKED ME WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE, IS THAT COMPARABLE TO THE ACCESSIBLE

STRUCTURE? >> IF I'M CORRECT AT THE END IT'S ABOUT 1800 FT.?.

>> CAN YOU OUTLINE WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS FOR THE OWNER? AS FAR AS WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO REPLANT

THESE TWO PROPERTIES AS A SINGLE LINE? >> THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS JUST TO SUBMIT THE PLAT APPLICATION. THAT WAY DEPENDING ON IF THEY DID PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE THEY WOULD BE THERE. IF THE CITY APPROVED THAT THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE, BY THAT I MEAN THAT A STAFF LEVEL OTHERWISE HE WOULD SEE THE PLAT ITSELF. TYPICALLY HE HAS 30 DAYS WHEN IT COMES IN.

AFTER THAT THAT'S WHEN YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT ONE LOT. >> THE POINT OF MAKING THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING IS REALLY TO BENEFIT THE OWNER. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING INTO. YOU SHOULD COME UP WITH A PRODUCT THAT IS SQUEAKY CLEAN

AND JUST FOR YOUR PUBLIC RECOR . >> DOING OF ANY COMMENT OR

QUESTIONS? >> THIS IS PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

>> I AM READY FOR A MOTION. >> YOU CAN'T MAKE A MOTION. >> PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS

[00:35:09]

ITEM IS ALREADY BEEN CLOSED. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MS. WELCOME SECOND SET. >> LET'S THINK TAKE A VOTE.

WE HAVE A FIVE AND ONE APPROVAL OF THE DENIAL OF THE SEP. ITEM 5D.

[5D. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request by Joe Soliz, regarding an amendment to a Special Use Permit to allow an increase in height and size for an accessory structure in a residential zoning district that is over 500 square feet in size on property zoned Single-Family Residential (SF-9) District. The 1.65-acre property is located at 4818 Chiesa Road, southeast of the intersection of Chiesa Road and Pennridge Circle, Lot 1 Block 1 of the Soliz Estate Plat, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

YOU'RE GETTING A WORKOUT TONIGHT. >> YES.

I HAVE THIS NEXT ITEM. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT SINCE THE STRUCTURE IS OVER 500 FT.?. TO SOME BACKGROUND ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED AS F9 AND IT'S ONE OF THE LARGER LOTS OUT THERE. IT'S ABOUT 8000 FT.?.

THIS LOT IS FROM CHEESE THE ROAD AND PENN RIDGE CIRCLE. JUST SIMILAR BACKGROUND.

WE HAVE HEARD THIS EARLIER. >> THE RESTRICTIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE SITE PLAN THAT IS APPROVED AT THAT TIME AND THAT THE STRUCTURE SHOULD NOT EXCEED 1615 FT.?.

THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL BE DETACHED FROM THE UNIT AND SITUATED IN THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE TO THE EXHIBITS THAT AREPROVIDED . A FURTHER REQUEST THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND 500 FT.? AND THE CHANGES ARE TO INCREASE THE FOLLOWING. THE HEIGHT WOULD INCREASE FROM 12 FEET TO 16 FEET. AND THEN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE FROM 1650 WOULD INCREASE TO APPROXIMATELY THREE 86.25 FT.?. THIS LOT IS CONSIDERED A CORNER LOT AND TOXIC SLEEP DOES NOT HAVE THE COURTYARD BECAUSE IT IS A KEY LOCK.

IT'S THE SIDE YARD OF THE ADJOINING LOTS WHICH ARE SHOWING IN THIS FIGURE WHICH IS WHAT MAKES IT A KEY LOT. IN TERMS OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IT SHOULD AT LEAST BE FEET 3 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINES. BASED ON THIS IMAGE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BASED ON OUR CODE THAT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT WHICHEVER IS LESS.

THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THIS LOT IS 13.5 FEET. THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS 16 FEET. NO COVERAGE OF THE AREA IS ABOUT 18,800 EIGHT.

[00:40:04]

WE DID RECEIVE ONE OPPOSITION AND THEY SAID IT MIGHT BE HINDERED TO THE VIEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST BUT NOTHING SPECIFICALLY.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE SEP WITH THE INCREASE IN

HEIGHT AND THE SIZE OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. >> DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR

STAFF? >> WHAT IS THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO BE USED FOR?

>> IT IS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES THAT THEY DO HAVE ON SITE.

>> DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO SPEAK? >> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS JOS ELYSE I LOVE IT 4818 SHE SAT ROAD. THE STRUCTURE I DON'T WANT MISINFORMED. THE BUILDING ITSELF IS TO STORE MY RV.

IT'S AN EXTENSIVE RV TO GET OUT OF MY STREET TREES AND KEEP THEM AWAY FROM SQUIRRELS TO TAKE CARE OF WHAT I'VE PURCHASED. THE BUILDING IS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THINGS THAT I'VE PURCHASED THAT ARE NOT CHEAP SO I'M JUST TRYING TO PROTECT MY INVESTMENTS. THE BUILDING ITSELF WHEN HE SAYS TO ME THAT IT'S LARGER.

IT'S THE WAY THE BUILDING IS DONE WITH LEAN TO'S. IT'S LIKE A PORCH.

THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE IS NOT ENCLOSED. IT'S ON EACH SIDE OF THE BUILDING YOU A PORCH ON ONE SIDE AND ANOTHER PORCH ON THE OTHER SIDE WHICH IS TO PROTECT MY TRACTOR THAT I HAVE WHICH WE PARKED UNDERNEATH IT SO THE BUILDING PER SOUTHEAST IS 1600 FT.?. WHEN I GOT APPROVED BEFORE THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE HEIGHT THAT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT BECAUSE I HAVE TO HAVE 16 FEET IN ORDER TO HAVE A 14 DOOR IN ORDER FOR THE RV TO GET INTO THE BUILDING. WITHOUT THE 14 FOOT DOOR I CAN'T GET IT THROUGH. AS FAR AS I KNOW I HAD BROUGHT IT TO ME BY THE CODE THAT YOUR SECONDARY STRUCTURE CAN'T BE TALLER THAN YOUR PRIMARY. IF ANY OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA MY PARTICULAR HOUSE IS WHAT I PERCEIVED TO BE THERE.

WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY 32 ACRES. EVERY HOUSE HAS GOT 16 FOOT TALL ROOFS ARE BIGGER BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST NEWER HOMES. MY HOUSE IS AN ORIGINAL HOME THAT WAS BUILT A VERY LONG TIME AGO. THAT CODE WAS BROUGHT IN AFTER I HAD ALREADY BEEN THERE. IT KIND OF GOES AGAINST ME. TO ME IT'S NOT FAIR.

I'M ASKING FOR THAT EXTRA HEIGHT. IT ALREADY GOT APPROVED ONES AND EVERYONE SAW THE PICTURES AND EVERYONE SAW WHAT THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. MY NEIGHBORS LOVE IT. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.

[00:45:08]

AND THEN WE GOT TO HOOK UP WITH THE HEIGHT. >> A QUICK QUESTION.

WE DO THE INITIAL APPROVAL OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WHICH IS A LOT SMALLER THAN WHAT IS COMING UP RIGHT NOW. IS THAT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO THAT?

>> I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING ITSELF. WHEN WE SHOW THE PICTURES WE SHOW THE LIENS AND THE 3D DRAWINGS. HE SHOULD HAVE PICTURES OF IT AND I DIDN'T SEE HIM WHEN HE SHOWED IT BUT I KNOW I GAVE HIM PICTURES. LIKE I SAID THE BUILDING AND THE RV AND THE BOAT ACTUALLY IS GOING TO BE INSIDE. IT'S ONLY THE 16 SOMETHING.

THAT ADDITIONAL WHERE IT SAYS IT'S 3000 ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET THAT CONCRETE THAT WAS POURED AROUND FOR THE PATIO AND THOSE AREAS TO BE ABLE TO PARK ON IVAN FORD EXTRA CONCRETE IN FRONT OF IT BECAUSE I HAVE TO HAVE CONCRETE IN FRONT OF IT. I WAS TOLD THAT I HAVE TO DO THAT. I EVEN ADDED MORE CONCRETE TO THE DRIVEWAY.

THAT NEW CONCRETE IS 3000 FT.?. THAT'S NOT THE BUILDING THAT'S CONCRETE.

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

>> IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR ANY COMMENTS. NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO COME UP AND COMMENT ON THE ITEM ON

THIS ITEM. >> I'M NOT A NEIGHBOR OF THIS PERSON.

>> FOR THE RECORD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR METRICS. >> ROBERTO ORTIZ 8906 MERIT.

>> I'M NOT A NEIGHBOR OF THIS PERSON BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S GOING THROUGH.

HE'S JUST TRYING TO PROTECT HIS PROPERTY. IT'S NOT LIKE HE IS BUILDING A STRUCTURE IN DOWNTOWN ROULAC. I THINK I KNOW THE AREA BECAUSE LIKE I SAID I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF ROULAC SINCE 1994. EVIDENTLY HE DOES HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH PROPERTY TO BUILD A STRUCTURE THAT HE WANTS. LIKE YOU SAID THERE ARE LITTLE DISCREPANCIES ON THE HEIGHT.

THERE ARE OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE BUILT AFTERWARDS ON MORE THAN 16 FEET TALL.

I DON'T REALLY SEE A PROBLEM. >> ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? >>.

AYES, SIR. >> MY NAME IS LUIS QT RAZ AND I AM THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY THAT'S DOING THE BUILDING STRUCTURE. WE'VE BEEN IN THIS PROCESS FOR A LITTLE BIT OVER A YEAR. WE HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH THE SITUATION ABOUT HEIGHT.

WE ASK AND PLEAD TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING A FEW FEET.

IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL HOUSE IN THE MAIN STRUCTURE BUT FROM THE

ROAD YOU WILL PROBABLY BE ABLE TO SEE IT ON THE BACK. >> THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING

[00:50:04]

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> SEEING ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WE WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC

HEARING COMMISSIONERS? >> ON THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE CITY WAS THE INTERPRETATION OR THE INTENT OF THE STRUCTURE TO BE USED TO HOUSE THIS RV UNIT? X CAN YOU GIVE ME A QUICK RUNDOWN OF? WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE? QUICK SO YOU AGREE IT'S JUST PICKING UP THE ADDITIONAL

SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> DO YOU KNOW FROM THE STAFF STANDPOINT WHAT THE SURROUNDING AREA LOOKS LIKE WITH ROOFTOPS AS FAR AS THE AVERAGE HEIGHT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS?

>> I THINK IT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY WERE SPEAKING TO. I DON'T HAVE A LIST OF ANY

ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ASK ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> JUST FOR THE APPLICANT THE ADDITIONAL CONCRETE THAT'S BEEN POURED IS FOR HIM TO HAVE ACCESSIBILITY FOR YOUR VEHICLE . THAT'S WHY YOU PROBABLY POURED ADDITIONAL CONCRETE.

>> THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION IS DOES THE BUILDING TO THE ADDITIONAL AREA THAT YOU ARE MENTIONING, IS THAT MENTIONED IN THE FIRST ROUND? IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THE SPIRIT AT LEAST FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU CAME IN AND GAVE INFORMATION.

THE POINT IS YOU HAVEN'T CHANGED THE PLAN FROM THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT IT'S JUST ALONG THE WAY IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS BEEN MISCOMMUNICATION IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS INCLUDED

AND WHAT THE HEIGHT WILL BE REQUIRED. >> I WOULDN'T SAY SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR PLAN WHICH SHOWS ANOTHER 14 FOOT DOOR OR MAYBE AN 8 FOOT DOOR IN YOUR PLAN C

MIGHT WANT TO CHECK THAT OUT. >> WITH EVERYTHING BEING CONSIDERED I BELIEVE THAT IT'S A WORTHWHILE INVESTMENT AND A WORTHWHILE EXEMPTION TO THE REQUIREMENT SO I WILL PROBABLY SUPPORT APPROVING THE SEP OR

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> I SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

THEN LET US TAKE A VOTE. >> THAT IS APPROVED SIX AND ZERO.

WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.