Apr 09, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:10]

>> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR APRIL 9TH, 2024. 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM. THE CITY OF ROWLETT HAS THE RIGHT TO CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER A BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. THE PROCESS REPUBLICAN PUT IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITIZENS INPUT FORM AND THE CITY'S WEBSITE I 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING. I WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION IS AVAILABLE THAT CHAMBERS. WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA WILL BE CITIZENS INPUT. AT THIS TIME, A THREE-MINUTE COMMON WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSIONS DURING THE CITIZENS INPUT AND HE ADVISED THAT IF YOU ARE HERE TO TALK ON A PARTICULAR ITEM OR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS DURING THAT TIME. IS THERE ANY INPUT FOR GENERAL? SEEING NONE. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC

[4. CONSENT AGENDA]

THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 26TH, 2024 REGULAR MEETING. THAT IS IT. I AM SORRY. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO RENEW THAT FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? NOT HEARING THAT. OPEN FOR A MOTION. MS. WILLIAMS.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26,

2024 REGULAR MEETING. >> WE HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND THE MOTION.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON IT? SEEING NONE.

THAT'S CALLED THE BOAT. THE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MOVING ONTO THE NEXT ITEM. INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AND WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. REGISTRATION FORMS INSIDE THE CHAMBERS. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BEING MOVED TO A FUTURE MEETING. ITEM 5A WILL NOT BE

[5B. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Armando Garcia, on behalf of property owner Jose Corona, for a Special Use Permit to allow an enclosed accessory structure with an area greater than 500 square feet on a property zoned Single Family (SF-40). The property is addressed as 4609 Dexham Road. The approximately 6-acre lot is situated southwest of the intersection of Dexham Road and the DART Rail line, and platted as Dexham Creek Ranch Estates Lot 3, Block A in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

THE PROPERTIES ADDRESSED AS DEXHAM ROAD. SIX ACRE LOT AND IS SITUATED SOUTHWEST OF. CLINT IMPACTED AS RENT ESTATE LOT THREE IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT , TEXAS.

>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER. I AM HERE TO PRESENT THIS ITEM TONIGHT. SOME BACKGROUND ON. THE LOT HAS MENTIONED IS SIX ACRES AND IS. A SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY SHOWS AN APPROXIMATE BEFORE GAIT STRUCTURE THAT WAS IN SEPTEMBER OF 2021. ON APRIL 22, THE APPLICANT DID A APPLY SEEKING FOR A DETACHED GARAGE OVER 500 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS A REQUEST TONIGHT. DURING THAT REVIEW PROCESS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS LOCATED ON A FLOODPLAIN WHICH PUT THIS ON HOLD PENDING A LETTER OF MAP PROVISION. BACK EARLY THIS YEAR

[00:05:01]

>> A FLOOD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND BY THE CITY ENGINEER. BY MARCH, 2024, THE PROCESS WAS REACTIVATED FOR THE REQUEST TO ALLOW DETACHED GARAGE. IN TERMS OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, WE FOLLOW SECTIONS 77 OF THE DEVELOPING CODE IN WHICH WE COVER LOT COVERAGE, HEIGHT, AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. IN TERMS OF LOT COVERAGE, DOES NOT HAVE A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE SO WE FOLLOWED THAT 35% REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. IN THIS CASE, THE YARD IS OVER 222,000. 35% OF THAT IS SQUARE FEET. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS 2800 SQUARE FEET AND BALLS UNDER THAT MAXIMUM COVERAGE. IN TERMS OF HEIGHT, THE THE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE RESTRUCTURE. IN THIS CASE, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE 23 FEET. IN TERMS OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE YARD REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET SETBACK. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS 1600 SQUARE FEET TO THE REAR PROPERTY BOUNDARY. APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS FLOODWAY EASEMENT AND 12 FROM THE EASTERN SIDE AND FROM THE WESTERN SIDE PROPERTY LINES.

>> ADDITIONALLY, SECTION 77 1105 STATES THAT ACCESSORY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IS A PERMANENT BUILDING OR STRUCTURE TO THE GROUND WHICH IS SUBORDINATE TO THE RESTRUCTURE.

THEY USE SO THAT RESTRUCTURE OF THE PREMISES. IN THIS CASE, THE USE IS GOING TO BE A GARAGE TO STORE CARS. HAVING THAT SAID, THE STRUCTURE IS SMALLER THAN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THE USE IS CLEARLY INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMARY USE.

>> 10 LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT AND WE RECEIVED IN FLAVOR.

WE ALSO SENT OUT 19 NOTICES AND WE RECEIVED ONE IN OPPOSITION

AND ZERO IN FLAVOR. >> STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THIS 200 SQUARE FOOT 2800 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE DUE TO THE STRUCTURE HAVING A LOWER, LESSER IMPORTANCE TO THE PRIMARY RESTRUCTURE AND HAVING THAT IT NEEDS THE MAXIMUM REAR LOT COVERAGE CONDITION. THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONERS? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? DOES HE WANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION?

>> GOOD EVENING. I AM JOSE CORONA. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. BASICALLY, THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN A HEADACHE FOR ME FOR THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF. I AM JUST TRYING TO GET IT DONE, MOVE IN AND BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY. I HAVE FOUR BOYS. I AM JUST TRYING TO GET IT DONE.

>> I UNDERSTAND. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> MISS WILLIAMS. >> WHAT MATERIALS ?

>> IT'S GOING TO BE MATCHING THE HOUSE.

>> IT WILL MATCH THE HOUSE? >> EVERYTHING IS GOING TO MATCH THE HOUSE. EVEN IF IT WAS GOING TO BE METAL OR WOOD, IT'S GOING TO MATCH THE HOUSE THAT IS ALREADY THERE WITH STONE AND STUCCO, THAT IS WHAT IT IS. THEY ALREADY PUT IT.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS WHAT IS THE PURPOSE? IS IT FOR PERSONAL USE OR BUSINESS?

>> PERSONAL. >> I HAVE FOUR BOYS. BUT HE HAVE A CAR AND I AM TRYING TO MAKE IT MY MAN CAVE OUT THERE TOO. SOMETIMES I HAVE TO GET AWAY FROM ALL THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT? NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT? I AM GOING TO CLOSE

[00:10:02]

FOR A MOTION. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE. MISS WILLIAMS?

>> I SECOND. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. WE WILL

CALL THE VOTE. >> THAT PASSES 7-0. NEXT ITEM

[5C. Consider action on a request by Clint Richardson for a Minor Modification of the subject property zoned Planned Development (PD) to 1) Decrease the minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet to approximately 8,500 square feet; 2) Decrease the lot width from 70 feet to 65 feet; and 3) Decrease the lot depth from 135 feet to 118 feet. The approximately 0.194-acre tract is located southeast of the intersection of Chardonnay Drive and Miller Road, also described as Lot 2, Block A of The Vineyards and addressed as 6811 Chardonnay Dr. in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

INCREASE THE LOT DEPTH. APPROXIMATELY .19 ACRE TRACT IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CHARDONNAY DRIVE AND MILLER ROAD. AS DESCRIBED IN LOT 2, BLOCK A OF THE VINEYARDS. 6811 CHARDONNAY DRIVE IN THE CITY OF ROLLA,

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> ANY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT? SOME BACKGROUND ON IT, IT IS APPROXIMATELY .194 ACRE LOT. IT IS PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USES. THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2006. IT DOES ACCOMPANY APPROXIMATELY 46.6 ACRES WITH TWO SUBDISTRICTS AND THE OTHER BEING W. THIS IS PLANTED AT OF THE VINEYARDS AND THE FINAL WAS

APPROVED IN 2012. >> SOME MORE HISTORY. ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, YOU HAVE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. ORIGINALLY THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR IT. THAT PORTION IN THE YELLOW IS. ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, THAT OF THE VINEYARDS THAT IT WAS APPROVED ON. ORIGINALLY, YOU SEE UP THERE IT DID HAVE TWO LOTS AND IT ALSO HAS THOSE TWO

LOTS ON THE FINAL. >> THE REQUEST IS FOR MINOR MODIFICATION AND SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS. IT OUTLINES FOR REVIEWING AND PUTTING MINOR MODIFICATIONS WHICH ARE SLIGHT DEVIATIONS FROM STANDARD REGULATIONS.

MINOR MODIFICATIONS MAY BE APPROVED BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. IT IS INTENDED FOR WHERE THE PROPOSED CHANGES MINOR IN SCALE AND UNLIKELY TO HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. IT AIMS TO STREAMLINE APPROVALS FOR ADJUSTMENTS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR FORMAL VARIANCE PROCESS OR REZONING AND IT ALLOWS FOR A STREAMLINED APPROVAL PROCESS WITHOUT THE

NEED FOR VARIOUS PROCESS. >> THEIR REQUEST THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MINOR MODIFICATIONS IN MINIMUM LOT AREA FROM 10,000 SQUARE FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 8500 FEET. TO DECREASE THE LOT WITH FROM 70 FEET -65 FEET AND TO DECREASE FROM 135 TO 118. RIGHT ON THE LEFT, YOU HAVE IT BREAK DOWN WITH STANDARDS OF. WHAT THE CONSTRAINTS ARE ON THIS SITE.

THOSE ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD CHANGE. DECREASING IT BY 15%.

THE LOT WITH BY ABOUT 7% AND THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN LOT

DEPTH BY 12.59%. >> THE SUBJECT LOT SIZE IS UNDER THE STANDARD BUT FALLS SHORT OF THE REQUIRED DIMENSIONS. WITH AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 8005 SQUARE FEET, IT FAILS TO MEET THE MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE ASSET. ADDITIONALLY, IT IS 65 FEET. IT IS 118 FEET.

135 IN-DEPTH. THIS DEVIATIONS REQUESTED ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT ON

[00:15:04]

THE LOTS. >> MINOR MODIFICATION, THERE ARE FIVE CONSIDERATION CRITERIA'S. THE FIRST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WITHIN THE LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION WHICH HAS LOT SIZES BETWEEN 7020 SQUARE FEET AND APPROXIMATELY FIVE OF 8500 SQUARE FEET WOULD MEET THE INTENTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT DOES REQUIRE ADHERENCE TO THE BUILDING OF SAFETY CODES. IT WILL REQUIRE THOSE STANDARDS TO BE MET WHEN IT COMES TO THE BUILDING. BASICALLY, THE PERMIT THAT COMES IN FOR THAT. INTO EASEMENTS OR BUILDING LINE DOES NOT AN EASEMENT OR BUILDING LINE. THERE IS NO ANTICIPATED IMPACT ON HOW SAFETY AND WELFARE. LASTLY, THE REQUEST IN MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO EITHER ONE COMPENSATE FOR SOME DIFFICULTY OR UNUSUAL ASPECT OF THE SIDE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. NOT SHARED BY LANDOWNERS IN GENERAL OR ACCOMMODATE AN ALTERNATIVE OR INNOVATIVE PRACTICE THAT ENHANCES AND ACHIEVES THE SAME OR BETTER DEGREE OF THE DESIGN STANDARD TO BE MODIFIED. THIS FALLS WITHIN THE FIRST ONE. THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION ADDRESSES A PRACTICAL CHALLENGE NOT FACED BY LANDOWNERS ADHERING TO SFW STANDARDS BASED ON THE SIZE. TYPICALLY, LOTS WITHIN CONFORM WITH THE REQUIRED DIMENSION OF APPROXIMATELY 10,000 SQUARE FEET. DUE TO ITS CLASSIFICATION THAT SFW AND THE SPECIFIC POSED BY ITS SIZE. THESE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS ARE ESSENTIAL TO WITH ZONING REGULATIONS AND FACILITATE THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT. >> WE DID PROVIDE A NOTIFICATION TO THE NEIGHBORS AND WE DID RECEIVE TWO IN OPPOSITIONS WITHIN 200 FEET AND ONE OPPOSITION WITHIN 500 FEET.

JUST A NOTE, ONE OF THE OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET IS OWNED ABOUT

SIX OF THE LOTS AROUND IT. >> STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE MINOR MODIFICATION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE THREE MODIFICATIONS BEING REQUESTED IS DUE TO GRACE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FROM 10,000 SQUARE FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 8500 SQUARE FEET. DO DECREASE LOT WITH FROM 70 FEET TO 65 FEET AND DECREASE THE LOT DEPTH FROM 135 FEET TO 118 THE.

>> I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND HEAR IF YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS FOR THEM. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

COMMISSIONERS. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> COULD YOU GO AHEAD AND RETURN YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE

TABLE? >> HEAR YOU SAY REGULATIONS FOR SFW AS WELL AS FOR THE REQUESTED LOT. CAN YOU CONTINUE TO RETURN AND EXPLAIN TO ME WHICH LOTS ON THIS DRAWING ARE

VERSUS SFW? >> THOSE IN CASE IN THE YELLOW

. ALL THE PORTION OF THE RIGHT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. BUT IT'S

THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE. >> I AM LOOKING AT THE OPPOSITION HERE AND IT STATES BY ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT HE HAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO USE THIS EASEMENT.

WITH THIS IMPACT THAT? >> NOT TO MY UNDERSTANDING.

THERE IS AN EASEMENT THAT RUNS TO THE BACK AND THIS WILL NOT BE DEVELOPING THE TOP OF IT. IT IS ACTUALLY FURTHER BACK FROM

IT. >> LAST QUESTION. WE KNOW PROXIMALLY HOW BIG THE HOUSE THEY ARE LOOKING TO BUILD --

>> I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT. THE APPLICANT CAN CLARIFY AS WELL.

TABLE? >> THEY ARE AUTHORIZED UP TO 2800 SQUARE FEET LEST YOU THINK IT'S 2000 SQUARE FEET THAT

THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD? >> 2900. THE MINIMUM WOULD BE

[00:20:02]

THAT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND GIVE A PRESENTATION.

>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. MY NAME IS CLINT RICHARDSON. MY ADDRESS IS 11025 -- 10 950 RESEARCH ROAD, FRISCO, TEXAS. I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE OWNERS OF THE LOT WHO ALSO DEVELOPED THE COMMUNITY INITIALLY BACK BEGINNING IN 2013. JUST A QUICK HISTORY, WHEN THE GENTLEMAN I WORK FOR THE LAND, THE PLAT WAS APPROVED IN THE COMMUNITY HAD NOT BEEN DEVELOPING ALL. THAT ACCESS EASEMENT WAS GRANTED TO THE PREVIOUS LANDOWNERS FOR THE TORNADO AND MR. HALL HAS A GREAT STORY IF YOU EVER HAVE A CHANCE TO LISTEN TO THE TORNADO COMING THROUGH. JUST AFTER CHRISTMAS. THERE WERE TWO EXISTING HOMES. THE OLDER FAMILY THAT LIVED THERE. THESE LOTS WERE . CAN I GO BACK TO

THE EXHIBIT? >> THE ONE WITH THE YELLOW.

>> HERE IS A GOOD QUESTION YOU ASK ABOUT THE YELLOW BEING.

WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE LAND, THE PLAT WAS DONE. EVERYTHING WAS DONE. THOSE TWO LOTS THAT ARE BACK ON MILLER ROAD WERE INCLUDED IN THE SFW. WE DO NOT KNOW IF THAT WAS JUST A CURTAIN OR IF ETHAT WAS THERE BECAUSE THE EXHIBIT IS NOT VERY LEGIBLE, JUST TO BE FRANK WITH YOU. I AM NOT SURE HOW THE PLAT IS DRAWN UP WENT THROUGH A STAFF REVIEW, WENT THROUGH, GOT RECORDED IN WE ACTUALLY CLEAN UP A FEW LITTLE THINGS THAT WE DID AND WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE REVIEW PROCESS. BOTH TIMES, THOSE TWO LOTS DID NOT MEET THE STANDARDS. THEY DO MEET THE STANDARDS. I AM NOT SURE.

HAPPENED BEFORE MY TIME, NOT SURE HOW IT HAPPENE. WHEN THE HISTORY OF THIS, WE WORK THROUGH A JOB DURING THE DEVELOPMENT. MR. HALL PURCHASED THE LAND FROM THE PREVIOUS LANDOWNERS. WAS RUNNING THIS LITTLE KAYAK BUSINESS THERE. HE HAD MENTIONED THAT HE WAS USING THAT DRIVEWAY AND SAID OKAY, YOU HAVE THAT EASEMENT ON THEIR. WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM. WE ACTUALLY PUT IN CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS OFF OF CHARDONNAY PRIOR TO THE TORNADO. WE PROVIDED WATER STUBS, SEWER STEPS TRYING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. GENERALLY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE EASEMENT WOULD GO AWAY. IT NEVER DID GO AWAY. WE KEPT WORKING, HOPING THAT WOULD HAPPEN. IT COMES INTO THE DUSTBIN. YOU DON'T THINK ABOUT IT TOO OFTEN. AND THEN THE BUILDERS IN PHASES RECOGNIZED IT WAS AN ODD SHAPE AND SAID WE WILL BUY IT FROM YOU. LATER, IT BECOMES SIX YEARS. HERE WE ARE, WE FOUND A HOME BUILDER THAT WANTS TO BUY THE LOT. DREW UP A LOVELY PLAN. WE INITIALLY TOLD THAT OUR INTENTION WAS TO TRY TO BRING THE MEETINGS OF STAFF WHICH WE THINK WAS NOT THE INTENT. TO BRING IN THE STANDARD WHICH, IF YOU LOOK ON, IT WAS 2200. WHEN THEY CAME BACK FOR A PLAN FOR 2900, WE WERE VERY PLEASED WITH THAT. WE WERE INITIALLY ASKING FOR IS BASICALLY TO BRING THIS LOT TO WHAT WE THINK THE 8000 SQUARE FOOT. PLOTTED AT SQUARE FEET.

WITH THE 65 FEET WHICH IS WHAT IT IS PLAYED AS. 120 FEET WHICH HOW YOU MEASURE IT, I WAS TALKING TO MARTIN EARLIER. THE WAY I WOULD MEASURE IT WOULD BE. IF YOU MEASURED ON THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT. THE AVERAGE OF THE TWO SIDES. WHEN WE FOUND

[00:25:07]

FOR? >> WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR THE TWO HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY COUPLE THAT LIVED THERE.

>> THE EASEMENT ALLOWS FOR WHAT? COMMERCIAL BUSINESS?

>> EXCUSE ME. SORRY, MY FAULT.

>> THESE SLOTS WERE ORIGINALLY AT HOME BACK HERE AND HOME BACK HERE. I THINK IT WAS THEIR FAMILY OR RELATIVES THAT SOLD THE MAIN PART OF THIS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THEY WANTED TO KEEP THEIR HOMES. THERE IS A 20 FOOT EASEMENT THAT RUNS RIGHT THROUGH HERE. ON THEIR BOUNDARY OF THE WAY UP TO THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD TO THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS. WHEN WE PLOTTED, THERE IS A GAP BETWEEN CHARDONNAY AND THE PROPERTY LINE. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE ADDED CONCRETE DRIVES OFF OF -- THANK YOU. CONCRETE DRIVES OFF OF CHARDONNAY TO THE TWO EXISTING HOMES. WE BUILT A NICE HOME HERE THAT HE LIVES IN NOW THAT IS VERY HANDY ACROSS THE WAY. THIS GRAVEL DRIVEWAY IN SOME FORM OF FASHION IS STILL THERE. THERE IS A GATE WITH A COUPLE.

I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE TALK TO THIS POINT ABOUT HOW OFTEN OR IF THIS DRIVE IS ACCESS POINT AND USED AT THIS POINT.

REGARDLESS, THERE IS A RETAINING WALL ON THIS LOT.

THIS EASEMENT COULD STILL STAY IN PLAY AS IS RIGHT NOW EVEN WITH THE HOME PROPOSING. I WOULD LOVE FOR THE EASEMENT TO GO AWAY AND HAVE HOMEOWNER HAVE THE OPTION TO TAKE DOWN THAT WALL. WHATEVER IT MAY BE BUT IN THE MEANTIME, HIS EASEMENT WOULD STAY IN PLAY. WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THAT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON. DO YOU HAVE

ANY SPEAKERS? >> DAVE WHOLE.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANYBODY AFTER HIM?

>> YES. WE HAVE TWO OTHERS. >> JUST TO BE ON DECK.

>> DAVE WHOLE. I AM OPPOSED TO THIS REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON. TOO SMALL FOR A HOUSE WHICH WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND REDUCE THE VALUE OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES. THE MAP INCLUDED WITH THE REQUEST IS TOO SMALL TO SEE RELEVANT INFORMATION NEEDED BY THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENCE IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THIS REQUEST.

[00:30:03]

THIS MADE IT LOOK LIKE A 4000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE AND NOW IT FITS IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I BUILT MY HOUSE ON TWO ACRES WITH LOTS OF SPACE AND PARKING. I AM AFRAID WITH THE SHORTCOMINGS REQUIRED TO BUILD A HOUSE ON THE SMALL, REQUESTED LOT WILL SET THE EVENTUAL OWNER OF THIS HOUSE UP FOR CONFLICTS WITH THE NEIGHBORS DUE TO THE ABOVE ISSUES. AS AN EXAMPLE, THE HLA HAS NOT MOWED THE GRASS ON PART OF EASEMENT FOR TWO YEARS. EXHIBIT 9-10. THE AFFECTED RESIDENTS WERE GIVEN LESS THAN 24 HOURS TO RESPOND TO THIS LAST. WHEN THIS REQUEST WAS DELIVERED TO THEIR MAIL BOXES. 11, I OWN SIX PIECES OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE 200 FEET LINE. I SUBMITTED SIX IN OPPOSITION. I SAW ONLY ONE LETTER IN OPPOSITION IN TONIGHT'S PACKET. THE PREVIOUS PACKETS, THERE WAS STATISTICS THAT YOU READ SIX IN OPPOSITION, ZERO IN FAVOR. NOT INCLUDING THIS. SEEMS MISLEADING OR MAYBE AN OVERSIGHT. TONIGHT'S PACKET REFERS TO A BRICK WALL. THIS SEEMS TO BE A MISLEADING DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVEN FOOT

STONE RETAINING WALL. >> MR. HALL? THANK YOU.

>> I AM SORRY? >> AS A PROPERTY OWNER.

>> NO. >> PAT BIGGERS, FOLLOWED BY

GEORGE. >> GOOD EVENING. I AM PAT BIGGERS AND. I LIVE IN THE HOUSE THAT IS DIRECTLY THE SITE LINE OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING OF THE HOUSE THEY ARE PUTTING UP THERE. WE HAVE AN ALMOST 4000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT. EXCUSE ME, HOUSE. I BELIEVE IT IS A THIRD OF AN ACRE. THE PERSON FOLLOWING ME COULD BETTER VERIFY THAT. HE IS THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT. OUR OBJECTIN IS WE LOOK AT THAT PROPERTY AND WE DON'T SEE THAT A HOUSE FITTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE SIZE THAT WILL ACTUALLY FIT ON THERE. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT ONCE THE HOUSE OF 2900 SQUARE FEET IS PUT ON THERE, THERE IS A HAIR OF GRASS ON EACH SIDE.

THERE IS NOT REALLY A SPOT FOR THEM TO PUT IN A NICE GARAGE AND FIT IN. I AM NOT THE ONLY HOUSE THAT IS THE SAME SIZE AND SAME LOT SIZE. THERE IS ANOTHER. I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS ON IT OR NOT BUT THEIR HOUSE IS ALSO DIRECTLY ACROSS.

THEY ARE ON CHARDONNAY AND THEIR HOUSE PRETTY MUCH LOOKS LIKE HOURS. AS DAVE POINTED OUT, HIS HOUSE APPEARS TO BE MUCH LARGER THAN IT ACTUALLY IS. THAT IS WHAT MAKES FIT IN.

WE ARE CONCERNED THAT CANNOT BE DONE. THE NEXT POINT I WANTED

[00:35:05]

SIDES. >> THE LAST THING I WANTED TO SAY IS I THINK THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION APPROVAL IS REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY CHANGES ON ANY PIECES OF PROPERTY AT ALL.

TO THE REST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION EVEN HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT OR APPROVE IT.

THAT IS ALL I HAD TO SAY. THANK YOU.

>> APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> YOU GOT MY NAME RIGHT.

GEORGE, I REPRESENT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE VINEYARD. I HAVE FOUR FIVE YEARS. I WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE THINGS. THE HLA DOES NOT THAT LOT. BELONGS TO THE PERSON THAT OWNS IT. THEY NEED TO MOW IT. WE HAVE FIND THEM FOR NOT MOWING IT REPEATEDLY. THEY FINALLY HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH IT ALTHOUGH IT IS OUT OF CONTROL RIGHT NOW BUT THAT IS NOT A MEASURE FOR US TO DEAL WITH. THE WALL WAS DAMAGED HEAVILY IN THE 2015 TORNADO. WE ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH DAMAGE TO A LOT OF STUFF. I AM ACTUALLY MEETING WITH THE GUY TOMORROW FOR OUR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SESSION WHERE WE REPAIR STUFF THAT IS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST TO BE REPAIRED. IT WAS NOT EVEN NOTED THAT THERE WAS DAMAGE TO IT UNTIL TWO YEARS AGO. WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF BIG EXPENSES WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO WE ARE GETTING THE THINGS AS WE CAN. IT IS NOT -- THE FASCIA IS FALLING OFF. IT IS NOT STRUCTURALLY IN TROUBLE. WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE LOT BEING USED FOR HOME. WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SEE IF WE COULD PURCHASE THAT LOT TO DEVELOP OURSELVES. IF SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO STEP UP, WE ARE FINE WITH THAT. WE HAVE SEVERAL LOTS. THAT IS .19 ACRES. WE HAVE A LOT OF HOMES ON LOTS THAT ARE SMALLER THAN THAT WITHIN THE CENTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO IT, THERE IS A SMALL TRIANGLE ADJACENT TO IT. I'VE BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH MR. RICHARDSON ALREADY ABOUT MAKING A DEAL SO THEY COULD ACQUIRE THAT LITTLE PIECE OF LAND WHICH THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXTEND THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND MIGHT GET THEM SPACE FOR A DRIVEWAY TO REDESIGN THE HOUSE. THEY MAY BE ABLE TO GAIN SOME EXTRA SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE HOME ITSELF.

THAT LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY IS IN DISCUSSION. I HAVE ALREADY HAD IT PROVED WITH THE BOARD TO TALK ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC THING. I HAVE ALREADY BROUGHT UP AND IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE WITH THE HLA, FOR ANYTHING DIRECTED THERE, IT HAS TO CONFORM TO THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THE DEVELOPER BUILT WHICH THEY ARE NOW DEALING WITH THE LAST LOT TO SELL. WE HAVE STANDARDS AS TO HOW THE HOUSE WILL LOOK. WE HAVE APPROVAL ON SUCH. IT IS PART OF OUR. WE ARE ANXIOUS TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. THAT IS NOT A CONCERN THAT WE HOLD. WE ARE JUST ANXIOUS TO SEE IT GET

TO THAT POINT. ANY QUESTIONS? >> THE BOTTOM LINE, YOU ARE

OKAY WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT? >> IF IT CONFORMS WITH THE APPEARANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> WRITE, UNDERSTAND. WE WOULD PREFER -- WE HAVE EIGHT TINY TRIANGLE LOT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO INCORPORATE INTO THIS SO THAT IT COULD BECOME AESTHETICALLY A LITTLE LARGER.

LOOK MORE LIKE THE REST OF IT AND THERE IS A GENEROUS A DEAL ON THE TABLE. WE ARE JUST WAITING TO SEE IF IT GETS TAKEN. A SMALL PORTION OF THE VERY LARGE --

LOW VOLUME ] >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE

HLA? >> THIS IS THE LOT IN QUESTION.

WE OWNED THIS TEENY, TINY THING. IT'S GOT ABOUT THREE OR

[00:40:01]

BUILDING. >> THE WALL AT THAT POINT IS ABOUT THAT TALL. IN FACT, SEVEN FEET.

>> THINKING. EXCUSE ME. I AM SORRY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. YOU ARE JUST TALKING TO ME. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THAT'S IT? ANYONE ELSE? LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS? ANY COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? I AM WAITING FOR YOU TO PUSH THE BUTTON. NO? MS. WILLIAMS?

>> I WILL NOT DISAPPOINT. HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IS THE

TRIANGLE? >> YOU ARE ASKING THE WRONG

PERSON. >> IT IS REALLY NOT PERTINENT TO THE QUESTION AT HAND. OKAY? WE NEED TO STICK WITH THAT.

ANYBODY ELSE? COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? OKAY, WELL. YOU DID NOT COME UP YET? PUSH YOUR READY TO SPEAK. THERE WE GO.

>> IT WOULD JUST SEEM TO ME BASED ON QUICK MATH THAT THE 2800 IS -- THE PRESENT HAS ALREADY BEEN SET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BASED ON THE THINGS THAT WE ARE REFERENCED IN OPPOSITION. THIS IS ACTUALLY 100 SQUARE FEET LARGER THAN THAT STANDING STRUCTURE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> I AGREE THAT IT IS HUNDRED SQUARE FEET LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM BUT OTHER HOUSES IN THE AREA THAT IS BIG OR BIGGER.

>> YEAH. NEED SOME REQUIREMENT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> MR. RYAN? >> I AM CONCERNED ABOUT -- I AM WONDERING ABOUT THE CONCERN ABOUT THE HOUSE -- SHOEHORN INTO THAT SPACE. IT'S HARD TO VISUALIZE EXACTLY WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. IS A COMPLICATED QUESTION BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE EVEN WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE ARE PEOPLE IN FAVOR AND PEOPLE OPPOSED ITS ROOMS LIKE IN TERMS OF GRANTING THIS REQUEST, IT IS KIND OF IFFY WEATHER THEY MAY BE ABLE TO EXTEND TO THIS LITTLE AREAOR NOT. WE ARE BEING ASKED BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE, RIGHT? AND AGAIN, AS THEY'VE BEEN TALKING, I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS RETAINING WALL THEY KEEP BRINGING UP. IT APPEARS THAT IT WAS BUILT ALL ALONG THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE EASEMENT IS. THE CUT OFF FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. RIGHT? BUT I AM ALSO HEARING IS ACTUALLY IMPOSING ON WITH THE HOUSE WOULD BE WHICH IS CONFUSING. IS A LITTLE BIT HARD TO MAKE A DECISION.

>> I UNDERSTAND. BUT IF WE CAN TRY TO GET CLARIFICATION ON IT BECAUSE I AM A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ON THAT ISSUE AS WELL.

IF MAYBE THE ASSISTANT MANAGER KNOWS WHAT THE EXTENT OR

PURPOSE OF THE EASEMENT OR . >> YES, I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. I THINK THAT IS A QUESTION THAT THE COMMISSION HAS AND THEY NEED MORE DETAILED INFORMATION, I WOULD RECOMMEND TABLING THIS ITEM UNTIL WE CAN GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN REFERENCES TO SEVERAL COUNCIL DOCUMENTS WERE ORDINANCE BEEN ADOPTED AND IF YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION TODAY TO MAKE YOUR DECISION, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO RESEARCH THAT CAN BRING THAT BACK AT THE NEXT

MEETING. >> I WOULD AGREE GREATLY

APPRECIATE THAT. >> WITH THAT BEING SAID, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS?

[00:45:08]

>> I MOVED TO TABLE UNTIL WE CAN GET THE REST OF.

>> MOTION TO TABLE. WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> MS. WILLIAMS? >> SECOND.

>>

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.