[4A. 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 8,400 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. ]

FIRST ITEM IS CONSIDERED ACTION ON A REQUEST BY CLINT RICHESON FROM A MODIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. 21, DECREASE THE MINIMUM AREA FROM 10,000 FT.÷ APPROXIMATELY 8400 FT.÷ TO DISGRACE -- TO DECREASE THE LOT

[00:20:02]

FROM 70 TO 65 FEET. IN THE DEPTH FROM 135 TO 118 FEET APPROXIMATELY, .194 ACRE TRACT. IT IS LOCATED. SOUTHEAST. OF THE INTERSECTION TO THE SHORE DRIVE IN MILLER ROAD AND DESCRIBED AS BLOCK ANY OF THE VINEYARD. AND ADDRESSED A 6811 CHARDONNAY DR. IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. MR. MARTIN? MISS WILLIAMS?

>> I RECUSE MYSELF FROM THE RECORD.

>> THANK YOU. MR. MARTIN? TO MEMBERS OF THE PLANETS AND

COMMISSION. >> MY NAME IS --, I'LL BE PRESENTING THE ITEM TODAY. SOME BACKGROUND ON THE ITEM. SUBJECT AS PART OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPROVED IN 2006. AND IT IS THE ACTUAL PD ABOUT 46.6 ACRES. AND IT WAS PLANNED IN APRIL 2012.

THIS ITEM WAS TABLED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON APRIL 23, ON APRIL 23, 2024 TO GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY. WE WILL KNOW MORE DURING A BACKGROUND INTO IT. SO SOME FURTHER BACKGROUND ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL PD. IT HAD TO SUBDISTRICTS, SFB TWO, AND SFW. THE LOT LANDED WITHIN THE YELLOW AREA ON THE RIGHT ON TOP. IN THE PD SFW. ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE AS PART OF THE FINAL PLAT WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION. FURTHER INFORMATION ON HERE. TOWARD THE RIGHT, YOU HAVE APPROXIMATELY FOUR LOTS THERE. WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THIS ORIGINAL PD. AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PLATTED. BUT ESSENTIALLY, THE FOUR LOTS HAVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT GOING UP TO MILLER ROAD AND IT DOES GO TOWARD THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY BACK THERE. ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, ISMS AND A LITTLE BIT MORE AND ESSENTIALLY RUNS THROUGH THE BACK OF THE ROAD AND THAT IS INGRESS FOR THOSE PROPERTIES. SOME MORE HISTORY ON THAT. ADDITIONALLY, WITHIN THE EASEMENT THAT RUNS THROUGH THEIR ON THE ACTUAL PLAT. IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY. YOU HAVE MANY EIGHT LOTS DIRECTLY FRONTING THOSE LOTS. AND FOR REFERENCE AS WELL, ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE , ORDINANCE 117 US WERE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. AND IT IS FOR THE USE FOR THE BUSINESSES ON THAT SIDE. SOME MORE HISTORY WHEN WE VISITED THE SITE THE KIND OF GETS GROUNDED AND KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON OUT THERE. ESSENTIALLY, IT IS THE EASEMENT GOING OUT STREET TO MILLER ROAD. ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE WHERE YOU HAVE THE RETAINING WALL THAT IS WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT WILL GO. ESSENTIALLY, THE BACK QUESTION WOULD NOT BE BUILDING ANYTHING. WITHIN THAT AREA. I WILL GET INTO MINOR MODIFICATION. ESSENTIALLY IN SECTION 77 811, OUTLINES PROCEDURES, REVIEW AND APPROVING MINOR MODIFICATION WHICH ARE SLIGHT DEVIATIONS FROM THE REGULATION. MINOR MODIFICATION MAY BE APPROVED BY PLANNING AND ZONING. AND, MINOR MODIFICATION MAY BE OUT A MAXIMUM OF 20% OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD. IT IS INTENDED FOR CASES WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE MINOR IN SCALE AND UNLIKELY TO HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORHOODS , NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. IT AIMS TO STREAMLINE APPROVAL TO SMALL ADJUSTMENTS WITHOUT THE NEED OF A FORMAL VARIANCE OR PROCESS. IN TERMS OF THE REQUEST ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, I PROVIDED THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD WITHIN THE PD. YOU HAVE SFB TWO. SAID VW. AND 6811 CHARDONNAY IS THE SUBJECT LOT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO ONE, DECREASE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AREA FROM 10,000 FT.÷ APPROXIMATELY 8400 FT.÷. TO DECREASE THE LOT WITH FROM 70 FEET TO 65 FEET. LAST IS TO DECREASE LOT DEPTH FROM HUNDRED 35 FEET TO 118 FEET. THE PERCENT CHANGE IN LOT AREA IS REDUCTION TO DECREASE 16% IN THE LOT AREA. THE LOT WITH BY 7% IN THE LOT THE -- THE LOT DEPTH BY 12%. SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER. THE SUBJECT LOT IS CONSIDERED CATEGORIZED UNDER THE SF EW. WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 8500 FT.÷. IF FAILS TO MEET THE

[00:25:07]

MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS OF 10,000 FT.÷ WITHIN THE STANDARDS. IF WIDTH OF 65 FEET AND ZAP THE BUDGET IN 18 FEET DO NOT ALIGN WITH THE SFB W STANDARD OF 70 FEET AND 135 FEET DEPTH. DEVIATIONS NECESSITATE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO COMPLY FROM ZONING REGULATIONS AND FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT. WITHIN MINOR MODIFICATION, THERE ARE FIVE STANDARD THAT IT MUST MEET. THE FIRST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COPPER HAS A PLAN. WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF PLAN , LOW DENSITY IS 7000 TO 20,000 FT.÷ LOTS. IT DOES FALL WITHIN THAT MUST ADHERE TO BUILDING THE SAFETY STANDARD CODE AND WOULD NEED A BUILDING PERMIT AS WELL AND MEET ALL THE CODE THERE.

NOT ENCROACHMENT INTO EASEMENTS OR BUILDING LINES. THE REQUEST A MODIFICATION DOES NOT ENCROACH INTO RECORDED EASEMENT ACROSS ANY BUILDING LINES. IMPACT OF HEALTH AND SAFETY.

THE REQUEST MODIFICATION WILL HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THAT. AND LASTLY, THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION IS NECESSARY TO EITHER A, COMPENSATE FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. OR SOME UNUSUAL ASPECTS IN THE SITE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND NOT SHARED BY LAND OWNERS IN GENERAL. OR BE, ACCOMMODATE AN ALTERNATIVE AND INNOVATIVE THIS THAT SHE'S IS THE SAME OR BETTER DEGREE OF OBJECT OF DESIGN STANDARD. THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION IS ADDRESSING THE PRACTICAL CHALLENGES NOT FACED BY OTHER LAND OWNERS ARE HEARING TO SFW STANDARDS. TYPICALLY LODGED WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF HAVING A 10,000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT AND FALLEN SHORT OF THAT. AND DUE TO CLASSIFICATION AND SPECIFIC BACK-TO-SCHOOL DIFFICULTIES POSED BITE-SIZE, THE MINOR MODIFICATIONS ARE ESSENTIAL. TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND FACILITATE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS AND RECEIVED TWO IN OPPOSITION WITHIN 200 FT.÷.

ONE OF THE OPPOSITIONS WAS OF THE LAND OWNERS ON THAT AREA.

ANOTHER ONE WAS INDIVIDUALLY. WITHIN 500 FEET, WE RECEIVED ONE IN OPPOSITION AND ONE FAVORITE. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE MINOR MODIFICATIONS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WITH WANT TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM AREA FROM 10,000 FT.÷ 8400 FEET. TO DECREASE THE LOT WITH FROM 70 FEET TO 65 FEET AND TO DECREASE THE LOT DEPTH FROM HUNDRED 35 FEET TO 118 FEET. AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS

HERE AS WELL. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? IS THE DEVELOPER HERE WITH THE INPUT? AND WANTS TO PROVIDE A

PRESENTATION? >> I DON'T THINK -- THERE WE

GO. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION.

I'M CLINT RICHESON. ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS THE PROPERTY, PRESTON VILLAGE DEVELOPERS. 10 950 RESEARCH RD., FRISCO, TX, 75003. I WANT TO REITERATE EVERYTHING MARTIN PRESENTED IN THE PACKAGE IS NOW. GENERALLY, THE PROPERTY, SEVERAL STATS AGO AND EVEN THE LANDOWNER BEFORE US WENT THROUGH THE PD PROCESS AND ESTABLISH TWO DISTRICTS WITHIN THE PROPERTY. THE SFB TWO NSFW. SFW GENERALLY WOULD BE LAKEFRONT AND ALL THE LOGS.

BACK TO THE PARK IN THE LAKE. AND FOR SOME REASON, THOSE TWO LOTS AND BACK TO MILLER WERE INCLUDED IN THAT. THE PROPERTY WAS PLATTED LIKE MARTIN SAID BACK IN 2012. THAT PLAT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE ZONING MAP . IT SEEMS EVERYBODY AND STAFF AND DEVELOPER AND WHATEVER, ALL INTERPRETED THE GOOD INTENTIONS AND BAD INTENTIONS INADVERTENTLY TREATED THESE TWO LOTS AS IF THEY WERE IN THE SFV TWO. REALLY DID NOT NOTICE IT UNTIL WE FINALLY FOUND A BUYER AND WE HAD TROUBLE WITH THE LOT. WE WORKED WITH DAVE HALL, THE KAYAK BUSINESS OWNER THERE FOR YEARS HOPING TO GET THE EASEMENT REMOVED. SO WE CAN TAKE IT OUT OF THE MIX AND I MADE THE LOT COMPLICATED TO SELL TO PRODUCTION HOMEBUILDERS. WE HELD ONTO IT WAY TOO LONG AND KEPT TRYING AND TRYING. WE FOUND A BUILDER THAT UNDERSTANDS THE VALUE OF THIS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

[00:30:04]

AND WANTS TO BUILD A HOME THERE AND IS COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT FITS ON THE LOTS. HE'S COMMITTED TO BUILDING A REALLY NICE HOME ON THERE. BUT HE WAS THE ONE THAT NOTICED THAT THE LOT WAS IN SFB TWO. SFW, NOT BE TOO. AND THE FILED PLAT WITH ITS DIMENSIONED DID NOT MEET SFW STANDARDS. WE MET WITH STAFF AND DISCUSSED DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOLLOWING THIS AND AGREED ON THE MINOR MODIFICATION. I'M KIND OF CHECKING MY NOTES HERE. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PLATTED TWICE. ONCE ORIGINALLY AND AS AN AMENDING PLOT. I THINK EVERYBODY JUST KIND OF INTERPRETED AND ASSUMED IT WAS THE INTENT. IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT ANY KIND OF SLEIGHT OF HAND OR HIDING THE BALL OR DOING ANYTHING. IT IS EIGHT YEARS IN BEING INCORRECT. WE WANT TO CLEAN IT UP RIGHT NOW SO THE HOME CAN BE BUILT. THE BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE TAKEN. IT CAN BE OBTAINED FOR THE HOME. KIND OF THE COMMENTS PARSES OUT. IT WASN'T , I'M CHECKING MY WORK EMAIL, SORRY. EARLIER ON, WHILE MR. LOPEZ WAS TALKING, I DID NOT KNOW HE WAS TALKING ABOUT 4 LETTER A. THE KNOW HE MENTIONED ABOUT THE PRIVACY IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY KIND OF HOUSE BEING BUILT NEXT DOOR TO HIM. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PRESERVE IT FOR HIM. IN HIS COMMENTS ABOUT THE OPPOSITION, HAS COME IN WITH THE HOUSE BEING TOO SMALL. IN THE HOUSE SOON. HERE. THE PLAN THAT THE BUILDER HAS DRAWN UP FOR US AND PRESENTED TO US FOR CONSIDERATION. IT IS OVER 2800 FT.÷ WHICH EXCEEDS THE SFW STANDARDS. IT'LL BE A LOVELY HOME, TWO-STORY HOME ON THERE.

AND SOME OF THE OTHER , FOR MY OWN INFORMATION I LOOKED AROUND. AND I'LL ESSENTIAL DISTRICT TO GET A FEEL FOR WHAT HOMES BUILT WERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WAS CLICKING ON THEM AND HALF OF THEM WERE OVER 2800 AND THE OTHER ONES CLICKED ON, I FOUND SEVEN OF THEM THAT RANGE FROM 2362 FT.÷ TO 2732 FT.÷. ALL LESS THAN 2800. THE HOME FITS IN PERFECTLY WELL WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ONE OF THE OTHER OPPOSITIONS FROM MR. DAVID HALL WITH THE KAYAK BUSINESS. I THINK THE KEY THERE AND THAT IS THE QUESTION AT THE LAST HEARING ABOUT THE EASEMENTS AND WHAT THEY DID AND DID NOT DO. WORK WITH MARTIN TO LOOK BACK THE FILES. ABOUT TRYING TO UNDERSTAND TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. THEY WERE GIVEN TO FAMILY MEMBERS BASICALLY TO SUBDIVIDE THE LAND. IT IS A HOUSE AND HOW YOU GET THERE LEGALLY. TO THAT. IT WASN'T DEDICATED TO DAVID ALL BUT TO THOSE FAMILY MEMBERS FOR HOMES WITH THESE TO BE TWO HOMES BEFORE THE TORNADO CAME THROUGH THE AREA. AND, THEY GOT A PD FOR THE USE OF THE KAYAK RENTAL BUSINESS THERE. WHICH PREDICATED HE MUST USE THAT DRIVEWAY. WE WORKED WITH HIM AGAIN FOR FOUR YEARS DURING DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE HIM SOME CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AND WATER AND SEWER STUFF. ALL THE WHILE HOPING TO GET RID OF THE EASEMENT AND CLEAN THE AREA UP AND HAD NOT HAPPENED. WE FOUND SOMEBODY WILLING TO WORK WITH EASEMENT AS IS AND WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT ON HIS EASEMENT USE WHATSOEVER. HE CAN STILL USE IT RIGHT NOW IF YOU WANTED TO.

KINDA KEEP THE FOCUS ON WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR WITH THE ZONING MODIFICATION. IT BOILS DOWN TO A SIMPLE AS, WE WANT TO CHANGE WHAT IS APPLIED LOT. FROM BASICALLY THE STANDARDS THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD WAS SFV TO THAT OF SFW IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE. TRYING TO MAKE THE INTO THE MINOR MODIFICATION FOR ZONING TO BRING THE PLAN PLOT IN LINE WITH THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION USED ELSEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT THE HOME CAN BE BUILT. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AND I HOPE THAT YOU TAKE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> OKAY. TANK YOU SIR. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. BECAUSE IT IS A MINOR MODIFICATION. HOWEVER, I KNOW THERE'S PROBABLY SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS ON US WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE FLOOR UP FOR COMMENTS. THAT IS THREE MINUTES PIECE. MISS --, DO YOU HAVE ANY?

>> --. >>

>> THAT'S YOUR LAST ONE. >> MY NAME IS PAT --, 3201

BURGUNDY TRAIL. >> CAN YOU DROP THE MICROPHONE?

[00:35:03]

THANK YOU. >> YES, HE'S TALLER. I LIVE AT 3201 BURGUNDY TRAIL, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE LOT IN QUESTION. I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD MR. LOPEZ TO SAY THAT THE HOUSE WOULD BE TOO BIG FOR THE SMALL LOT. I MAY HAVE MISSED HEARD IT. THAT IS THE PROPOSAL THAT I UNDERSTOOD WAS THE 2900 FT.÷ HOUSE THAT WOULD MAKE IT MUCH LARGER FOR THE SIZE OF THE LOTS. WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE SEEKING APPROVAL. I BELIEVE THE REST OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION ARE IN COMPLIANCE.

THIS WILL BE THE ONLY ONE OUTSTANDING AND I DON'T SEE ANY PARTICULAR REASON WE NEED TO DO THAT. HOWEVER, I WONDERED IF ADDITIONAL LAND MIGHT BE ACQUIRED TO ENHANCE THE SIZE OF THAT LOTS. IF THAT WERE POSSIBLE. BECAUSE THERE IS A SMALL STRIP OF LAND RIGHT NEXT TO IT. I BELIEVE IT WAS BROUGHT UP LAST TIME BY THE HOA PRESIDENTS. IF THE LOT SIZE COULD BE ENHANCED, IT MIGHT BE A POSSIBILITY. THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD IN MY OWN MIND IS WHETHER OR NOT THE LOT AND PIECE OF LAND WAS EVEN AVAILABLE. OR WHETHER IT WAS TAKEN UP BY GREEN SPACE AND NOT POSSIBLY MOVABLE INTO ENHANCING THE SIZE OF THE LOT THAT MR. RICHARDSON IS ASKING TO BUILD ON. SO, AS LONG AS EVERYTHING IS COMPLIANT, I WOULD NOT OBJECT BUT I DO THINK THAT , OBJECT UNTIL IT IS COMPLIANT.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I THINK WE STILL NEED HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION APPROVAL FOR THE PARTICULAR STRUCTURE , ET CETERA, ET CETERA. AND I DON'T THINK THAT HAS COME TO PASS YET. BUT I COULD BE A LITTLE BIT WRONG. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THE DEVELOPER WAS IN CONTROL OF THAT. AND THAT HAS SINCE CHANGED HANDS NOW WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

LAST POINT WAS THE WALL DIRECTLY BEHIND THAT PARTICULAR LOTS. A PRETTY FAIR DROP OFF. IT IS THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT IS BEEN PAYING FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF IT. IF YOU BUILD A HOUSE IS A C ON THE PROPOSAL THAT IS ALMOST SMACK UP AGAINST THE LOT, THAT IS AN AWFUL LOT OF STRESS ON THAT. ON THE WALL. THE MAINTENANCE ON THAT, I WOULD EXPECT WOULD BE STEEPER. I SEE SOME OF THAT FROM A LITTLE BIT OF EXPERIENCE. THE LOT WE HAPPEN TO LIVE ON IS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY. AND THE STRESS ON IT HAS BEEN SUCH THAT THERE HAS BEEN A CRACK THAT WIDE THAT HAD TO BE REPAIRED ON ONE SIDE OF THE WALL AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL AT THE CORNER BECAUSE WE LIVE ON A CORNER LOT. IT ALSO HAS CRACKS AND IS BEEN REPAIRED AND IT IS A RECURRING ISSUE. LOOK AT IT TODAY AND

WILL SEE HIM AGAIN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. MR. LOZADA.

>> DAVE HALL? >> DAVE HALL, WITH EXCUSE ME.

THE EASEMENT WAS THERE BEFORE THE VINEYARDS GOT THERE. I HAD IT DATED TO ME BEFORE THE VINEYARDS HAD CHARDONNAY BUILT BY THE RETAINING WALL. THAT'S THE DEAL. NEEDED TO MAINTAIN FROM -- AND HIS DESCENDENTS. THE TRIBES CONTRACT MENTIONED DURING THE LAST PNC MEETING FROM ON HOA PROPERTY NOT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR ME. I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PHYSICIAN TO PLACE DRIVES AND UNTIL IT IS. STAFF SCHEDULED AND CANCELED MEETINGS AFTER THE LAST MEETING TO REVIEW MY EASEMENT AND STOOD ME UP ON ONE OCCASION. THEY DID NOT ANSWER MY EMAILS OR MY PHONE CALLS. LAST MEETING STAFF WAS FIVE MINUTES LATE AND LEFT FIVE MINUTES EARLY WITHOUT ADDRESSING THIS FIVE-MINUTE LIST. THREE. DEVELOPER WAS NOT ALLOWED TO USE MY EASEMENT DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VINEYARDS. LATE ONE DAY WHEN I WAS 18 WHEELERS, THE LOAD OF GRAVEL, STUCK MY EASEMENT AND TURNED ALL THE SPINNING THE GRAVEL. LIKE BULLDOZERS TAKING THE TRUCK OUT OF SMALL PIECES.

RATHER THAN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION, I NEGOTIATED THE DEVELOPER TO BRING THE GRAVEL INTO THE CATTLE POINT PARK TO FIX THE KAYAK WATCH AND PUT IN TAKE-UP. ONE OF THE DEVELOPER'S TRUCK SNUCK IT ON MY EASEMENT.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING PERTINENT TO ITEM 48?

>> THIS IS THE EASEMENT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?

[00:40:01]

>> NO. WERE TAKING -- WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TAKING A SMALL AMOUNT OF MODIFICATION FOR THAT LOT.

>> I WENT OVER THIS THE LAST TIME AND YOU'RE USING UP MY TIME. THE RETAINING WALL IS FAILING AND THAT A BLOCK MY EASEMENT. I THINK THIS IS ALL VERY PERTINENT. SO, YOUR BURNING UP MY TIME. CAN I CONTINUE?

>> GO AHEAD. >> I FOLLOWED HIM DOWN WITH MY TRUCK HONKING AND MY HORN AND HE SPED AWAY AND I BURNED OUT THE HORN FEELS ON MY TRUCK CORN AND STAFF OF THE DEVELOPER HAS SHOWN ANY RESPECT TOWARDS ME AND THE REST OF US DOING THE PROCESS. YOU HAVE A RETAINING WALL WHICH IS FAILING UP AGAINST MY EASEMENT AND YOU HAD A COMMERCIAL DRIVE AS PART OF THE LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE. WHERE THE HOUSE ONTO SMALLER LOTS EXASPERATE VEHICLES PARKING LOT ON MY STREETS. THE DEVELOPER SAW THE LABORING HOUSES TO THE RESIDENTS IN ALMOST A DECADE LATER, YOU ASK FOR AN EXEMPTION FOR THIS NONCONFORMING LOT WHICH NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS DO NOT WANT. YOU ASKS THE DEVELOPER CAN GAIN FINANCIALLY. IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE TIME AND I DOUBT YOU WILL GIVE ME MORE. NUMBER NINE, IN CONCLUSION, I KNOW THE RESIDENCE WITHIN ITS BUDGET FEET ARE LOOKING AT THIS AND SEEING A BACKWARD MEETING AND

DEALING TAKING PLACE. >> LET'S MAKE SURE YOU GET

NUMBER EIGHT AND THEN. >> YOU WANT TO QUESTION MIKE OKAY.

YESTERDAY, AT NUMBER AIDS, AFTER WORK, WALKING MY DOG, I SAW A BIG CONSTRUCTION PICKUP TRUCK PARKED AT THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE. THE SIDE DOOR WAS LEFT OPEN AND A LARGE MAN WAS WALKING AROUND TAKING PICTURES. HE JUMPED IN HIS TRUCK AND STARTED TO DRIVE AWAY. MY DOG STOPPED IN FRONT OF THEM AND I MOTIONED FOR HIM TO ROLL HIS WINDOW DOWN. I ASKED HIM WHAT HE WAS DOING TAKING PICTURES IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. HE WAS DELAYED IN ANSWERING. IN CONDUCTING , HE WAS RUDE IN DELAYED ANSWERING AND CONDUCTING CLICK CONVERSATION.

THIS TURNED OUT TO BE COMMISSIONER CODY. THANK YOU

FOR LISTENING. >>, MR. HALL. THANK YOU. MISS

LOZANO. ANYBODY ELSE? >> MATTHEW HAHN?

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE QUASIPUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS. QUESTIONS AND

COMMENTS? MR. TUCKER? >> QUESTION FOR YOU IS WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU ACTUALLY USED THIS EASEMENT?

>> I USE IT ON A REGULAR BASIS WITH MY KAYAKS MOVING IT BACK AND FORTH. ON THE ONE WHO WENT AND GOT THE RAILROAD TO PLACE THE STONES ON IT AND MAINTAIN IT. AND, I USE IT ON A REGULAR BASIS. PROBABLY WITHIN THE LAST TWO WEEK.

>> SEEMS TO BE, WITH WEEDS, THERE'S ALSO A CHAIN ACROSS THE END OF IT ON THE OTHER ROAD. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE

USED? >> LET'S STOP RIGHT THERE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. HALL. >> I WANT TO ANSWER ABOUT THE

CHAIN? >> IT'S RELEVANT. IT'S A

RELEVANCE. >> OKAY. IT'S NOT PART OF WHAT WE HAVE TO DISCUSS HERE. WHICH IS A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PARTICULAR PD EVENT. SO, COMMISSIONERS? ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COMMENT? OKAY. MY, WILL BE AS FOLLOWS. THAT IS, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU? IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT ON NOT ONLY THE BUILDER, BUT THE CITIES PARTS.

AND THE LOT NEVER MET THE SFW. RIGHT? SFW AND I GOT A GET BACK TO IT. THE REQUIREMENTS AND SHOULD'VE ORIGINALLY BEEN NOTED AS THE SFB TWO. IF IT WAS AN SFB , THERE WILL BE ALMOST NO

[00:45:05]

QUESTION BECAUSE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DEPTH BEING LEST -- LESS THAN 2 FEET OF THE LOT, IT'S MEETING AND EXCEEDING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SFB TWO. AS FAR AS THE WAY THE HOUSE OR THE RESIDENCE APPEARS, TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE IT'LL PUT IN WELL WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I'M SURE AS ONE OF OUR COMMENTERS MENTIONED , THE CITIZENS MENTIONED, THE PLAN HAS TO GO IN FRONT OF HOA FOR APPROVAL. ANYTHING LOOK LIKE IF IT'S IN WITH THE REST OF THE COLOR SCHEME AND DESIGN OF THE EXISTING ONE. I'M IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THIS REQUEST. BUT THAT IS JUST MY COMMENTS. DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO COMMENT? PUSH A BUTTON. MR. FRISBY.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED TO PUSH THE BUTTON FIRST.

>> YOU HAVE THE PLUS BUTTON. >> I LIKE TO PUSH A BUTTON ONCE IN A WHILE , IT JUST MATTERS WHOSE BUT GETS PUSHED FIRST.

>> THIS IS AN ISSUE BETWEEN THE SFW AND THE ZONING. IT IS A ZONING QUESTION AND NOT A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS QUESTION, IS

THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MINOR MODIFICATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY PLANNING AND ZONING.

>> GOT IT. WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN A QUARTER OF THAT HOUSE IN THE FACE OF THAT WALL TO CURIOSITY? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE OF FEET, TWO OR 3 FEET, 4 FEET?

>> I WANT TO SAY FOUR OR 5 FEET. I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT MENTION OF THAT. TO THE POINT THAT THE DESIGN OF THE HOME FROM THE DESIGN OF THE FOUNDATION AND ENGINEERS AND WHO COMES UP WITH A PLAN THAT'LL COME TO THE CITY FOR PERMIT WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS AT THAT POINT.

>> MY FINAL QUESTION IS, LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE, MR. RICHARDSON, YOU HAD MENTIONED THE HOA MENTIONED THAT THEY MIGHT NEGOTIATE WITH YOU ABOUT PURCHASING THAT ADJACENT LOTS.

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THAT NEGOTIATION?

>> MR. -- WHOSE EMAIL I FORGOT TO MENTION, HE WAS EMAIL ME AS I PULLED HIM THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO COME IN EXPRESSED -- I FORWARDED THE EMAIL TO STAFF THAT THE HOA WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. WE DID TALK AFTER THE MEETING. I DON'T WANT TO SAY EXACTLY, HE MADE A GOOD OFFER TO EXPAND ON THAT ESSENTIALLY THAT'LL TAKE -- GO BACK?

>> IS HIS MICROPHONE ON? >> I'M SORRY, I'M TOO FAR AWAY

FROM IT. I APOLOGIZE. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE

EVERYBODY ELSE CAN HEAR IT. >> LET ME GO BACK HERE. YEAH.

THAT TRIANGLE , LOOKING AT THE SCREEN TO THE RIGHT . IT IS CURRENTLY AN HOA LOTS. THEY OFFERED THAT IF THE BUYER OR US WANTED TO TAKE A PORTION OF THAT TRIANGLE AWAY FROM HOA.

AND ADD TO THE HOME LOT, IT'LL ADD SOME SIDE YARD TO THE LOT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE BILLABLE AREA BECAUSE OF THE ANGLE THERE. I TOLD THEM THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO PURSUE PER SE BECAUSE THE LOT IS A LOT FOR A HOME. WE TOLD HIM WE WOULD RELATE TO THE PURCHASE LOT AND THEY CAN WORK WITH THE H AWAY AND ALL WOULD TAKE IS A REPLY OF THE HOA LOT TO CREATE A SECOND LOT THERE. IN A WEIRD WAY BECAUSE THE WAY THE LOT DEPTH MEASURE ADDING THE SIDE YARD WOULD MAKE IT LESS CONFORMING TO THE STANDARD. SO, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO PURSUE RIGHT NOW. WE WILL PASS IT ON TO THE HOMEBUILDER AND WHOEVER YOU GUYS HAVE TO COME TO PURCHASE THE HOME WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE TRIANGULAR AREA AND MAKE A NICE LITTLE SIDE YARD THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THE RESIDENCE PERSONAL

USE. >> WAS THE CRITERIA AND THE WIDTH OF THE LOT? THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I'M ASKING.

BECAUSE HATTIE MOVED FORWARD WITH THAT, HOW DO WE NEGOTIATE THAT AND HAD IT NOT DEPENDING ON THE LOT, IT COULD POTENTIALLY AFFECT SOME OF THE LOGIC OF WHAT WE ARE PURSUING

HERE? THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER? THIS WILSON?

>> I WAS CURIOUS TO KNOW. WHEN IS THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING FOR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION? HOW OFTEN DO THEY MEET AND CAN

[00:50:04]

ANYBODY ANSWER THE WHEN WAS IT DECIDED?

>> WE HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN REACH OUT TO THE H AWAY.

TO NOBODY'S HERE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, OKAY. THANK YOU.

I JUST WANT TO KNOW. YOU KNOW. >> THAT HAS NO BEARING. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY BEARING HERE. THEY CAN CALL THE MEETING IF

THEY WANTED TO. >> YET. WHAT'S THAT? YOU NEED TO GO AHEAD AND PUSH THE BUTTON SO PEOPLE CAN --. OKAY. HEARING NO MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

>> MISS RICE, YOU NEED TO PUSH THE READY TO SPEAK, THERE YOU

GO. MISPLACE ? >> THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINOR MODIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTY, 4 A.

>> AS PRESENTED BY STAFF? >> MR. RYAN. MR. RYAN.

NEVERMIND. >> HOLD ON. THIS WILSON? HE WILL GET THE BUTTONS DOWN. MS. WILSON?

>> EVERY. THERE WE GO. >> ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TALK.

>> I PRESSED IT. OKAY. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE MINOR MODIFICATION PRESENTED BY THE STAFF WITH A SECOND . LET'S GO AHEAD AND IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON IT? LET'S CALL THE VOTE? OKAY. OKAY. THERE WE GO. PASSES 6-0 WITH ONE ABSTENTION. MS. WILLIAMS, CAN SOMEBODY GET MS. WILLIAMS TO COME BACK IN? SORRY. OKAY. 12

[4B. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on request by property owner, Sri Harsha Thotakura, Lakeview Biergarten, LLC to 1) Rezone the subject property from Single Family (SF-10) to Planned Development (PD) District with underlying base zoning of General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District; 2) Approve a Concept Plan to a develop a food truck park, construct a 2,220 square feet building and a dog park with amenities; 3) Amend the Comprehensive Plan; and 4) Amend the official Zoning Map of the City. The 3.19-acre property is located directly north of the intersection of Lakeview Parkway and Shipp Road, situated in the James Hobbs Abstract, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

B, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING THE PROPERTY OWNER, --. I'M GOING TO MUCH OF THAT NAME. --. LAKEVIEW BARRINGTON, LLC TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SO APPROVED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH UNDERLYING BASE ZONING OF GENERAL COMMISSIONER RETAIL C2.

DISTRICT TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT TO THE DEVELOPMENT , TO DEVELOP A FOOD TRUCK PARK CONSTRUCTED 2220 FT.÷ BUILDING AN ADULT PARK WITH AMENITIES. THREE, THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN AND AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY. THE 3.19 ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AND SHIPP ROAD. SITUATED IN THE JAMES HOBBS ABSTRACT, THE CITY OF ROLLA, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

TONIGHT, IT IS A REQUEST FOR THE 3.19 ACRE LOT. THAT IS DIRECTLY LOCATED NORTH OF SHIPP ROAD AND LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. IT IS A SINGLE ZONE, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF 10 SURROUNDED BY, TO THE NORTH, SINGLE-FAMILY US OF 10. TO THE EAST. THERE IS A RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY THAT IS EAST OF THE PROPERTY AND TO THE WEST IS A LIFT STATION. THE CITY OF ROWLETT LIFT STATION AND ALSO THE TAKE LINE AND LAKE RAY HUBBARD ON THE WEST SIDE.

[00:55:01]

THIS ITBE A LITTLE FAMILIAR. THIS WAS PRESENTED BEFORE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022. AND THE REQUEST WAS FOR TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO COMMERCIAL C2. HOWEVER, THE REQUEST IS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL BUT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE GOING CITY COUNCIL. THIS EVENING, THE REQUEST THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH THE BASE ZONING OF C2 COMMERCIAL. WITH IN THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING, THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A PERMANENT FOOD TRUCK UP TO SIX FOOD TRUCKS MAXIMUM.

2200 FT.÷ BUILDING. WITH A POTENTIAL MAXIMUM BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 5000 FT.÷ IN THE PD STANDARD. A DOG PARK WITH AMENITIES AND THE DOG PARK IS ABOUT 2900 FT.÷. AND ALSO OTHER CTU'S MODIFICATION IF REQUIRED THAT MAY REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE FUTURE. SO, WITH THE PD ZONING DISTRICTS, IT IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE ALTERNATIVE USES. AND INTEGRATE USES OF DIFFERENT VARIETIES THAT WE DO NOT HAVE HERE IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT. AS YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE ANY FOOD TRUCKS IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT PARKS. IT'LL BE A UNIQUE USE UNDER THE PD. IF THE PROJECT IS APPROVED, THEY HAVE TWO YEARS TO COMMENCE ON THE PROJECT. AND, IF THERE IS NO STARTING OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT.

THEN, THERE COULD BE CITY INITIATE PUBLIC HEARING THAT CAN REVERTED BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONING DISTRICT. I WILL WALK YOU THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THE CONCEPT PLAN PROPOSED FOR THE APPLICANT. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO HAVE THE BUILDING OVER HERE THAT IS A 2000 , 2000 1000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING. ALSO ALONG THE WAY THEY WILL PROPOSE A PHOTO OP WALL THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. AND ALSO THEY WILL HAVE THEIR DUMPSTER HERE AND ALSO PARKING IN THE VICINITY AND GATHERING ENTERTAINMENT AREA LOCATED TO THE NORTH AREA AND ALSO THE DOG PARK THAT SITS WITHIN THE PROPERTY. THEY DO PROPOSE TO HAVE 101 PARKING SPACES. 22 SPACES FOR THE RESTAURANTS. 79 FOR THE MINUTE HE AND FIVE FOOD TRUCK PARKING SPACES AND IT DOES TOTAL TO 101 FOR THE 22 PARKING SPACES AND 79 PARKING SPACES AND THEN YOU HAV THE FIVE FOOD TRUCK PARKING SPACES FOR THE PERMANENT FOOD TRUCKS.

WHERE THE FOOD TRUCKS. THE APPLICANT DID PROPOSE THE PARKING STRUCTURE THAT THEY HAVE HERE WITHIN THIS PROGRAM.

THAT THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT , WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE FOOD PARK, THE TRUCK FOOD PARK THEY ARE PROPOSING. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN. HERE. AND I WILL WALK YOU THROUGH THAT ONE AS WELL. THEY ARE MEETING THE NORTH REQUIREMENT OF THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER. THAT IS A 15 FEET WITH OPEC SCREENING OF LARGE EVERGREEN SHRUBS. AND ALSO, TO THE EAST, THEY WILL HAVE IT COMPATIBILITY BUFFER.

THAT WILL BUFFER BETWEEN THE RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT. THEY ARE MEETING THE 20 FOOT WITH BUFFER THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE STREET RIGHT AWAY BUFFER TO THE FRONT. THEY HAVE PUT SOME OF THE STRAWBERRY -- SHRUBBERY FURTHER UP NORTH ON THE FRONTAGE OF LIQUID PARKWAY TO ALLOW FOR ACCESS TO THE LIFT STATION. AND THEN ALSO HERE, TO THE EAST , TO THE WEST SIDE, EXCUSE ME, THERE PROPOSING A 10 FOOT MISSIONARY WALL THAT PROVIDES A BUFFER BETWEEN THE LIST STATION AND THE PROJECT. TO ALLOW FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT'LL BE GATHERING IN THIS COMMUNITY SPOTS TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS AND LOOK AT THE VIEWS OF THE LAKE TO NOT OBSTRUCT THE LAKE. OTHER THAN THAT, OTHER REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING MET OF THE RDC CODE .

OKAY? I PROPOSE TO HAVE THE BUILDING FACADE HERE. THAT PROVIDES TRANSPARENCY FOR INDIVIDUALS TO BE A WOULD IT TAKE OPPORTUNITY OF THE LAKEVIEW HERE AS WELL. ONE OF