[00:00:06] >> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. MEETING FOR ROWLETT, JUNE 25, 2024. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED AS A 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 CALL THE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO 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 ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 7:01 , [1. CALL TO ORDER] [2. CITIZENS’ INPUT] WE HAVE A QUORUM, WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, CITIZENS' INPUT, AT THIS TIME, THREE-MINUTE COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION DURING CITIZENS' INPUT. DO HAVE ANY INPUT? >> CLIMATE NEXT? >> DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ? >> ROD HAYES . >> FOLLOWED BY JUSTIN MARSHALL . >> >> I KNOW WE HAVE PROTECTED SPECIES WITH OWLS WHO AT NIGHT, WONDERFUL PLACE, THEY WILL HAVE TO BE SOMEWHERE. I JUST HOPE WE WILL TAKE THE CONCERN SERIOUSLY. WE CHOSE TO LIVE HERE. WE SUPPORT THE CITY, SUPPORTED WITH BUDGET SHARPENING AND ALSO WITH OUR TAXES AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, GOD BLESS AMERICA, TEXAS AND GOD BLESS ROWLETT, YOU ALL HAVE A GOOD ONE . >> JUSTIN MARSTON ? >> GOOD EVENING, JUSTIN MARSTON [00:05:02] 5401 FLAMINGO DRIVE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND SERVICE. I'M SURE MANY OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE ACTUALLY I SPOKE LAST WEEK ON THE CITY COUNCIL CITIZENS INPUT REGARDING THE EXISTING TREE ORDINANCE FOR ROWLETT. THE CITY'S PRESERVATION READS AS FOLLOWS TO ENCOURAGE A PRESERVATION OF LONGEST ESTABLISHED TREES OF SIZE THAT ONCE REMOVED CAN ONLY BE REPLACED AFTER MANY GENERATIONS OF GROWTH. THIS IS IN PLACE TO PROHIBIT THE INDISCRIMINATE CLEARING OF TREES FROM PROPERTY PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN PROTECT TREES AS TO ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT, INCREASE THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITH THE CITY BY MAINTAINING THE CITIES CURRENT TREE INVENTORY AMONG OTHER THINGS. THE CITY DEFINES PROTECT THE TREE AS ANY TREAT MINIMUM OF 8 INCHES IN DIAMETER, MEASURED AT BREAST HEIGHT. 11 INCHES IF YOU ARE HACKBERRY, TO PROVIDE CONTEXT HERE'S A LITTLE BIT -- PICTURE OF ME STANDING IN FRONT OF A TREE IN FRONT OF MY YARD, 8 FOOT REACH IN THIS TREE, WELL OVER 25 FEET TALL. THIS TREE IS ONLY FIVE AND HALF INCHES IN DIAMETER. YOU CAN IMAGINE MAYBE WHAT A TREE OF THIS SIZE MIGHT BE. THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED A PROTECTED TREE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT EVEN 7 INCHES. I BROUGHT THIS UP TO THE CITY , LUCKILY THEY WILL LOOK AT THE CITY DEVELOPMENTAL CODE FOR TREE ORDINANCES. THINK ABOUT ALL THE TREES IN DOWNTOWN ROWLETT. MANY OF THESE TREES WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED PROTECTED TREES. THE REASON WHY I BRING THIS UP IS, BECAUSE THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW WITHIN THE CITY AND YOU CAN SEE WHEN YOU SEE AN AERIAL OF THESE, COVERED ENTRIES, BUT ONLY SHOWS A HANDFUL ON THE TREE PRESERVATION, IT IS, BECAUSE OUR TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCES SEVERELY FLAWED. ALL THOSE TREES THAT ARE NOT COUNTED ARE ALSO GETTING SKIPPED FOR MITIGATION PURPOSES THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO REPLACE OR PAY FOR THE CITY. WHEN YOU SEE THIS DEVELOPMENT COMING UP IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, TALKING ABOUT REMOVING ALL THE TREES IN COLOR RED FOR A VERY HIGH DENSITY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY. I AM NOT REALLY SURE HOW THAT ALIGNS WITH THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE THAT DISCOURAGES INDISCRIMINATE CLEARING OF TREES. AGAIN I AM HOPING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL , HOPEFULLY I WILL BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THEM ON HOW TO IMPROVE OUR TREE PRESERVTION PLAN, BUT WHEN THIS COMES UP I REALLY WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THE CITY CUMBRE HAS A PLAN IN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR 20,000 SQUARE-FOOT PROPERTIES INSTEAD OF 5000 SQUARE-FOOT PROPERTIES TO HELP MAINTAIN THE TREES THAT ARE THERE. THANK YOU . >> THANK YOU, SIR . >> JUST FOR THE NOTE, I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL DID IN FACT ADD AN AGENDA ITEM TO THEIR MEETING TO REVIEW THE TREE PRESERVATION PROGRAMS. ANY OTHER INPUT ? [3. CONSENT AGENDA] OKAY, HEARING NONE, MOVING ONTO CONSENT AGENDA, THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION. A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER OR A CITIZEN MAY REQUEST ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA OR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. AS A NOTE, 3A ITEM IS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, BECAUSE IT IS INCORRECT. THAT LEAVES 3B , 3B. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE THE TRAILS AT COTTONWOOD CREEK PHASE 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTED BY YOUNG WOOK CHOI OF JBI PARTNERS, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, TRAIL CREEK PARTNERS, LTD, FOR THE TRAILS AT COTTONWOOD CREEK PHASE 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE APPROXIMATELY 88.774-ACRE SITE IS PART OF THE WILLIAMS BLEVINS SURVEY, ABSTRACT 95, THE ATKINSON CLEMENTS SURVEY, ABSTRACT 255, THE ELISHA M. PRICE SURVEY, ABSTRACT 1114, AND THE M. L. PRICE SURVEY, ABSTRACT 1115 CITY OF ROWLETT AND CITY OF GARLAND, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> DOES ANYBODY WANT TO REMOVE THAT FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? >> HEARING NONE, MOVING ON . WILLING TO ACCEPT THE MOTION ON CONSENT AGENDA. >> MR. HERNANDEZ? >> GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION. >> YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS IS NOT AND. >> NOT ON . [00:10:10] >> NOW IT IS, THANK YOU. MR. HERNANDEZ? >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WRITTEN. >> MOTION, A SECOND? >> A SECOND FROM MS. WILLIAMS. >> I SECOND. >> OKAY >> IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. YOU HAVE TO BE FASTER. [4A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Kevin Wier, SPIARS Engineering, on behalf of developer JPI and property owner Arcadia Land Partners for Major Warrants from the following portions of the Form-Based Code 1) Appendix 2.2—Street Typologies to increase pavement widths of travel lanes on Picadilly Way, Greenwhich Drive, and Carnaby Drive and to eliminate a median on Woolwich Drive; 2) Appendix 2.5—Streetscape to reduce tree grates from 6 feet by 6 feet to 5 feet by 5 feet on Picadilly Way, Greenwhich Drive, and Carnaby Drive; and 3) Article 2.8.6(a)(2)—Interior Parking Lot Landscaping to reduce tree islands and increase tree spacing. The site is located west of Merritt Road approximately 900 feet south of the President George Bush Turnpike, in the Samuel Compton Abstract Number 368 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.] MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AND WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. REGISTRATION FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 4A, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY KEVIN WIER, SPIARS ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF DEVELOPER JPI AND PROPERTY OWNER ARCADIA LAND PARTNERS FOR MAJOR WARRANTS FROM THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THE FORM-BASED CODE, ONE, APPENDIX 2.2, STREET TYPOLOGIES TO INCREASE PAVEMENT WIDTHS OF TRAVEL LANES ON PICADILLY WAY, GREENWICH DRIVE, AND CARNABY DRIVE AND TO ELIMINATE A MEDIAN ON WOOLWICH DRIVE. TWO, APPENDIX 2.5÷STREETSCAPE TO REDUCE TREE GRATES FROM 6 FEET BY 6 FEET TO 5 FEET BY 5 FEET ON PICADILLY WAY, GREENWHICH DRIVE, AND CARNABY DRIVE. THREE, ARTICLE 2.8.6(A)(2) INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING TO REDUCE TREE ISLANDS AND INCREASE TREE SPACING. THE SITE IS LOCATED WEST OF MERRITT ROAD APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET SOUTH OF THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE, IN THE SAMUEL COMPTON ABSTRACT NUMBER 368 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> ALL RIGHT. >> YEAH . >> FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T MET ME COREY WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR HERE WITH THE CITY OF ROWLETT INTO MY FOURTH WEEK HERE. I AM GOING TO RUN THROUGH THIS AND I WILL SAY WE HAVE THE WHOLE TEAM HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. SIR? >> SURE. >> OKAY, IS THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER? >> OKAY , I THINK I SAID THIS BEFORE MY KID WOULD NOT ACCUSE ME OF SPEAKING QUIETLY, BUT I WILL TRY TO RAISE MY VOICE A LITTLE BIT HERE FOR YOU. THIS PROJECT THAT IS HERE BEFORE YOU IS FOR SEVERAL MINOR WARRANTS THAT A BEEN REQUESTED ON THE PROPERTY, FALLS WITHIN THE FORM-BASED CODE ZONING . THE ENTIRE PROPERTY HAS A WRIGGLING PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED, PRELIMINARY PLAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED FOR THIS SITE IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR. DURING THE CIVIL PLAN REVIEW WHICH FOLLOWED THAT SITE PLAN APPROVAL THE SITE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL , THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEWERS IDENTIFIED SEVERAL AREAS WHERE THE ORIGINAL PLAN DID NOT SEEM TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE FIRE TRUCK ACCESS TO PROPERLY PROTECT ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS. IT SHOULD'VE BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE CAUGHT , OR CITY SHOULD'VE CAUGHT THAT EARLY IN THE PROCESS AND WE DID NOT. WE ARE TRYING TO RID FIVE THAT. MOVE FORWARD WITH HOLDING MEETINGS INTERNALLY AS WELL AS MEETING WITH THE ADVOCATE IT THEIR ENGINEERS AND EVERYTHING TO COME UP WITH A WAY TO ADJUST THE PLANS IN A WAY THAT WOULD STILL WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND ALSO WITH WHAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING. JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT ALL OF THESE REQUESTS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT BEFORE THESE WARRANTS ARE THINGS THAT WERE INITIATED COMING OUT OF THAT MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT. THIS IS A FOOL LIST OF THE WARRANTS THAT A BEEN REQUESTED BELOW, GROUPING THEM LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WITH THEN IT WAS WRITTEN ON YOUR AGENDA ITEM. THERE IS A REQUEST INCREASE PAYMENTS WITH WHICH WOULD BE TO ACCOMMODATE TWO TRAVELING TO THE LIMIT FOOT ON EACH OF THESE THREE STREETS . 11 FOOT TRAVEL LANES ARE ALLOWED FOR IN THE FORM-BASED CODE, BUT THIS WOULD BE INCREASE OF WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. SO WE WOULD BE GOING TO 21 FOOT PAVING TO 22 FOOT ON PICCADILLY WAY FROM 19 FOOT TO THE 22 FOOT ON GREENWICH DRIVE. ON CARNABY WEST OF GREENWICH FROM 19 TO 22, ULCER CHANGE TO ELIMINATE THE MEDIUM WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN WOOLWICH DRIVE, THAT WOULD BE THE ENTIRE. OF 31 FEET. REQUEST TO REDUCE THE [00:15:05] DIMENSIONS OF THE TREE GRATES ON PICCADILLY WAY, GREENWICH DRIVE AND CARNABY DRIVE FROM 6 FOOT SQUARE, TO THE 5 FOOT SQUARE. THAT IS NECESSITATED BY THE WIDENING OF THE ROADWAY SO THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WAS PROPOSED WOULD STAY THE SAME. ACTUAL PAVING OF THE ROADWAY WITH WIDENED BY -- SLIGHTLY, ONE, 3 FEET DEPENDING ON WHICH STREET AND, BECAUSE OF THAT IN ORDER TO FIT IN ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE STREET WENT AWAY, THIS IS ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WAS AGREED TO AS KIND OF THE BEST THING THAT COULD REDUCE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTING THE USABLE SPACE. AS WELL AND PARKING AREAS, BUILDING FOUR, FIVE, LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT IT IS REALLY DIFFICULT, SPECIFIC QUESTIONS A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT FOR FIRE TO HAVE A FAIRLY TOO CLOSE TO THE BUILDING OR HAS TO BE WONDER IF IT IS CLOSE TO THE BUILDING. SOME SHUFFLING OF THINGS AROUND INSIDE OF THE PARKING AREAS FOR THOSE TWO BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE ADEQUATE FIRE LANE, THE CURRENT CODE WOULD REQUIRE A TREE ISLAND, PLANTER AND AND I BELIEVE ONE FOR EVERY EIGHT PARKING STALLS. THIS WITH BE A REDUCTION TO ONLY REQUIRE IT FOR UP TO EVERY 16 PARKING STALLS, TO ALLOW FOR THEM TO SHUFFLE THINGS AROUND AND FIT IN THE REQUESTED FIRE LANE. THIS IS JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A GRAPHIC OVERVIEW IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE ALL OF THE STREETS ARE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. CAN YOU SEE THAT PRETTY WELL? DO YOU NEED ME TO ELIMINATE THE STREETS ILLUMINATE ? THIS IS THE OFFICIAL REQUEST OF THE FIVE REQUESTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FROM THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS THEIR JUSTIFICATION. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE FIRST THE EDUCATION IS FOR THE WIDER STREET SECTIONS, ELIMINATING THE MEDIUM TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUEST. THE FIFTH REQUEST IS SIMILAR , BUT THE PARKING AREAS RATHER THAN ON THE STREET, TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE BETWEEN THE BUILDING, I'M SORRY, FIRE LANE AND THE BUILDING. KIND OF MAKING THIS CONSIDERATION ON THE WARRANTS, THESE ARE ALL LESS FIGHT AS MINOR WARRANTS. JUST TO KIND OF BE CLEAR, I THINK THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT IT. THEIR WIDENING THE ROADWAY, BUT THEY ARE NOT WIDENING IT BELONGED WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE CODE SO THESE ARE BEING TREATED AS MINOR WARRANTS. THIS IS JUST KIND OF THE STANDARD JUSTIFICATION ON WHITE WE WOULD OR WHAT WE WOULD DO IN CONSIDERING THE WARRANTS AND WHETHER THEY MAKE SENSE FOR US TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THOSE. THE WARRANT MEANS GENERAL INTENT OF THE CODE WHICH WOULD BE CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISTRICT. WHICH WE BELIEVE IT ALSO DOES AND IT DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE OVERALL REALIZATION OF THE INTENT OF THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE. THIS IS JUST A GRAPHIC SHOWING NOTIFICATION AREAS. YOU RECEIVED ONE NOTICE , I'M SORRY RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION , 500 FOOT RADIUS. I BROUGHT THAT BEFORE YOU. IT WAS IN YOUR PACKET, BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THAT, BUT WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. THIS IS JUST THE FINAL SITE HERE. STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THESE WARRANTS AS THEY ARE PRESENTED TONIGHT. THESE ARE IS A MENTION THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THE MEETING THAT WE HAD WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH THE BEST SOLUTION TO ACCOMMODATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUESTS AND THE CURRENT PLAN THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR THE APPLICANT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> YES, MANNY . >> OKAY. >> I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED, BECAUSE IN A COUPLE OF WAYS IT SAYS MAJOR WARRANTS AND A COUPLE OF PLACES IT SAYS MINOR WARRANTS. WE KNOW THERE ARE SOME WARRANTS, WHICH ARE LET ME YES, SIR. MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE ARE CURRENTLY AND THE CITY HAS AT LEAST THE LAST SIX MONTHS PROBABLY LONGER THAN THAT MOVED AWAY FROM ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, EXERCISING INTERNAL DISCRETION ON SOMETHING THAT WERE REINVENTED TO BE APPROVED USUALLY IN THE CODE SO WE HAVE BEEN TREATING EVERYTHING TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THE MAJOR WARRANTS SO I BELIEVE THERE IS JUST SOME MISUNDERSTANDING ON MAYBE WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE MAJOR WORK PROCESS AND THEY MAY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS MAJOR WARRANTS, BUT I ALSO HAD HEARD THE MENTION OF THE WIDENING OF A PAVEMENT WIDTH WITH THE GOAL, THE GOAL WOULD BE TO CREATE WALKABLE ENVIRONMENTS, NEVER ROADWAY SO THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR IT TO BE TREATED AS A MAJOR WARRANT IF WE ARE EXCEEDING THE PAVEMENT WITH -- I'M SORRY THE LANE WITH WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE CODE. WHILE THIS IS AN INCREASE IN THE PAVING OF WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROVED, IT IS NOT EXCEEDING THE CODE'S [00:20:05] MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT SO I BELIEVE THESE SHOULD ALL BE TREATED AS A MINOR WARRANT. WE ARE HERE FOR YOU AND CITY COUNCIL TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS EITHER WAY. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF RIGHT NOW? >> IS THE DEVELOPER HERE? DO THEY WANT TO PRESENT WERE SPEAK ON THIS POINT? >> >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU . THIS IS A PUBLIC CANCEL AT THIS TIME -- MR. HERNANDEZ YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF , STILL. >> I'M SORRY. >> GO AHEAD, MR. HERNANDEZ. >> I AM JUST CURIOUS, WHEN THESE WERE BEING CONSIDERED, WAS THERE EVER A THOUGHT TO HAVE THE STREET PARKING REMOVED AND INSTEAD ON BLOCK D AND D, SINCE ALL THE PARKING IS INTERNAL, WAS THERE A CONSIDERATION TO MAKE IT A GARAGE INSTEAD? >> I'M SORRY? CAN REPEAT THE QUESTION ONE MORE TIME, A LOOK AT THE MAP YOUR. >> THE AREA ALMOST FOCUS ON IS PICCADILLY WAY. >> OKAY. >> WITH THEIR EVERY CONSIDERATION TO REMOVE THE STREET PARKING SO THAT WE WOULD ACCOMMODATE THE INCREASE IN SIZE OF THE STREET THAT IT NEEDS TO BE? AND INSTEAD OF YOU HAVING STREET PARKING FOR BLOCK B AND A ALL THAT INTERNAL, WITHIN THE BILLING WAS THERE EVER A CONSIDERATION TO MAKE IT A GARAGE INSTEAD? >> I CAN PROBABLY LET THE DEVELOPERS SPEAK TO THE GARAGE QUESTION. WOULD SAY IN TERMS OF REMOVING THE PARKING SPACES ALONG PICCADILLY WAY, THE PARKING IS INCLUDED IN THE PLAN THAT IS CONSISTENT BOTH WITH WHAT WE REQUIRE IN THOSE AREAS, BUT ALSO TO MEET THE PARKING CALCULATIONS FOR THE BUILDINGS THOSE ARE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS, YOU WILL NEED MORE PARKING THAN WHAT IS AVAILABLE JUST IN THOSE INTERIOR, TO SERVE EVERYBODY OUTSIDE OF THE RESIDENTS THERE. NOT SURE THAT WE COULD JUSTIFY REMOVING THE PARKING SPACES. >> THAT IS WHY I AM ASKING ABOUT A GARAGE, BECAUSE IT THE STREET PARKING WAS REMOVED, THE STREETS COULD BE WIDER WITHOUT HAVING TO SEXLESS THINGS LIKE THE THREE SPACES, THINGS LIKE THAT. IF IT WAS A GARAGE YOU WOULD COVER HOW MUCH PARKING YOU WOULD STILL NEED. >> TO ME LIKE A SEPARATE STRUCTURE OF THE PARKING GARAGE? >> INSTEAD OF IT BEING A FLATTOP, WITHIN THAT PLOT B AND D, HAVE IT WHERE IT IS GARAGE AND BUILDING UP INSTEAD OF JUST OUT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS EVER CONSIDERED, DO NOT KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK OR LIKE TO F THE DEVELOPERS TO SPEAK TO THE QUESTION? I KNOW THAT WE WE -- SUPPORTED A PARKING STRUCTURE IN THIS AREA AND WE ARE TRYING TO KIND OF CREATE THE WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT, NOT NECESSARILY HAVE PEOPLE DRIVE THERE. THE PARKING IS REALLY JUST FOR THE RESIDENTS AND ANYBODY WHO VISITS THE BUSINESSES IN THE AREA. >> WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WALKABILITY, STREET PARKING TO ME HAS A DANGER TO IT ITSELF. WE HEAR ABOUT ALL THE TIME PEOPLE TRY TO PULL INTO A PARKING SPACE, HIT THE ACCELERATOR INSTEAD OF THE BRAKE. IF WE HAVE WALKABILITY IN THE AREA BASICALLY WE COULD HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE SIDEWALKS, ENDANGERED FOR THAT KIND OF STUFF . >> THE CODE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE REQUIRED, I BELIEVE, FEEL FREE TO INTERJECT, WOULD'VE REQUIRED PARALLEL PARKING. THIS TYPE OF PARKING WAS APPROVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PREVIOUSLY LAST YEAR. I WOULD ASSUME, TO ACCOMMODATE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WERE TO CORPSMAN IN THE CALCULATION THAT THEY CAME UP WITH AT THE TIME . DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? I'M SORRY. THAT IS MY BEST UNDERSTANDING FOR WHAT HAPPENED THEN, NORMAL STREET SECTION, ALL THE FOREIGN-BASED AREAS, WE HAVE PARALLEL PARKING ALONG THE ROADWAYS RATHER THAN THE HEAD IN PARKING. I WOULD IMAGINE THERE WERE SOME CALCULATIONS AT THE TIME THAT DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WE NEEDED TO INCLUDE. THAT IS WHY THE CHANGE IT TO THIS TYPE OF PARKING, MOST OF THOSE AREAS. >> I COULD APPRECIATE THAT , LIKE I SAID, TO ME I THINK A GARAGE WITH A BETTER SUITED IT. ESPECIALLY IF WE ASKED TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, I THINK THAT COULD OF BEEN A BETTER SOLUTION. >> GO AHEAD. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> GO AHEAD . >> HEARING NONE, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING, NEXT , ANY SPEAKERS ? >> NO SPEAKERS, I GUESS WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONERS? >> WE HAVE A MOTION? >> ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? >> [00:25:05] STILL WAITING FOR A MOTION. >> >> MR. TUCKER? >> WHY ? >> APPROVE THE CONSIDERATION AS WRITTEN. I DO NOT SEE ANY ISSUES OR PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP . >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FOUR MINOR WARRANTS IN FRONT OF US . DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> MS. WILSON SECOND . >> A, ] WE HAVE TO WAIT, BECAUSE NOW WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE MOTION. ANY COMMENTS CONCERNING THE MOTION? >> HEARING NONE, CALL A VOTE . * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.