Aug 27, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission

[00:00:06]

>> AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT'S -- MEETING FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 27TH, IT'S NOW 7:15. WE HAVE A QUORUM. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MAY BE CONVENIENT CLOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PERFECT -- ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HERE IN. THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE RECESS FROM RELYING THE REVENUE SESSION OF COLD EXECUTIVE SESSION. ONE ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME FOR OUR PROCUREMENT. THE PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT. IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITIZENS INPUT FORM ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE MY 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 FORM/INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CHAMBERS, OR, IN THIS CASE, RIGHT OUTSIDE THE DOOR. SO IT'S 7:15. WE'LL CALL THE

[2. CITIZENS’ INPUT]

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

NEXT ITEM IS CONSENT AGENDA. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION. A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ARE OR A CITIZEN MAY REQUEST ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. THE ITEMS ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA ARE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR JULY 23, 2024 REGULAR MEETING.

APPROVAL OF A REPLAT FOR THE AVALON RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CORNERSTONE CHURCH ADDITION FINAL PLAT. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO REMOVE ANYTHING FROM THE

CONSENT AGENDA? >> I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE REMOVE 3B FROM THE AGENDA SO THAT WE CAN TAKE SEPARATE ACTION ON THE -- OH, I'M SORRY, 3A. OR, NO, 3B.

>> OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE 3B FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE 3C. >> AND 3C FROM THE TENTATIVE.

SO THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF APPROVING THE MEETING FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 23RD, 2024. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. HERNANDEZ TO APPROVE, A SECOND BY MR. WILSON. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> RAISE YOUR HAND SO I CAN SEE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS WILL BE

[3B. Consider approval of Replat Consider action to approve of Avalon Retail Development Replat. The approximately 9.532-acre tract of land is located southwest of the intersection of Dalrock Road and Sunset Boulevard, described as Lot 1, Block A of Bayside East, situated in the William Crabtree Survey, Abstract Number 346, City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS . >> I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH YOU WILL WANT TO GO INTO THE SPIRIT I DID REQUEST THAT IT BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION. I BELIEVE YOUR PACKET STATED THAT THERE WAS A NEED FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE, OR FOR AN APPROVAL OF A WARRANT FOR THE BLOCK LINK ON THE PROJECT, AND I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER IN YOUR MOTION SHOULD WE BE READY TO APPROVE IT TO INCLUDE A CONTINGENCY IN RECEIVING THAT WARRANT, WHICH WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED YET. BUT I BELIEVE WE WILL. THE WARRANT IS FOR THE BLOCK LINK. SO THE -- WE DON'T ALLOW BLOCK LINK TO BE OVER 400 FEET WITHOUT A WARRANT, AND DUE TO THE NATURE OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE REALLY NOT, NOT A WAY FOR THEM TO DESIGN THAT EASILY TO PLACE THE STREET CLOSER TO THE BUILDING. ÚJUST DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY'RE

TRYING TO BUILD THERE. >> OKAY.

>> GO INTO IT A LITTLE BIT MORE --

>> SO IT'S JUST A WARRANT? IF YOU, IF YOU APPROVE THIS RIGHT NOW, THEY COULD BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S LONGER THAN 400 FOOT

LONG? >> HOW BIG WOULD IT BE,

ROUGHLY? >> SO THE WARRANT THAT'S BEING

REQUESTED -- >> I THINK IT'S OVER, A LITTLE OVER 1000 FEET.

[00:05:06]

IT APPROVED. >> YES.

>> RIGHT. AND BOTH OF THEM, BLOCK A AND B, ARE IN EXCESS OF

THE 400 FEET. >> I KNOW.

>> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> WHAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED

INAUDIBLE ]4 RIGHT NOW? >> AND DO WE, DO WE HAVE ANY INDICATION AS TO WHAT THEY ACTUALLY WANT TO BUILD THERE?

>> NO OFFICIAL REQUESTS FOR THE WARRANTS TO THE USES ALLOWED IN THE URBAN VILLAGE RIGHT NOW. THE ONLY WARRANT THAT WE RECEIVED REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC TO THE BLOCK LINK.

>> I WAS, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE ACTUALLY IMPROVED THE SITE OR SOMETHING. AS A SUDDEN, SEVEN STORY OFFICE

BUILDING. >> NO, THAT'S THE ONE ON -- THE ONE RIGHT NEXT TO IT. THE STORAGE SPACE. IT'S JUST

OPPOSITE OF THAT. >> WELL, I OBVIOUSLY --

>> OH, THAT WAS, THAT'S THE ONE BY THE --

>> I DO REMEMBER THAT ONE, THOUGH. NEXT TO THE --

INAUDIBLE ] >> WHAT THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE. YOU KNOW, I KNOW WHAT WHAT AN ALTERNATIVE BE? I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THIS, BUT I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A 1000 FOOT WALL THERE.

WHAT WOULD THE OPTION BE? >> THIS APPROVING THIS AND ALLOWING, WAITING FOR THE WARRANT TO COME --

>> SO, I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, THAT PLANNING IS KIND OF MINISTERIAL FUNCTION. SO WITH THE ZONING, IF THEY CAN CLAIM THE ZONING IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, THEN YOU ARE REQUIRED TO APPROVE THE PLAT. IN THIS CASE SPECIFICALLY, THEY WOULD NEED THE WARRANT IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE COMPLIANT. SO YOUR OPTIONS AT THIS POINT WOULD BE TO TABLE THIS ITEM, TO DENY THIS ITEM, OR TO APPROVE IT CONTINGENT UPON WHATEVER ITEMS YOU SEE FIT. I HAVE REQUESTED, IF YOU'RE READY TO APPROVE IT OTHERWISE, THAT YOU WOULD APPROVE IT CONDITIONALLY UPON RECEIVING THE WARRANTS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.

>> WHAT DO YOU ANTICIPATE RECEIVING?

>> THE WARRANT? I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN GIVE YOU A TIMELINE ON THAT SPECIFICALLY. SO WE OBVIOUSLY ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FROM THE CITY MANAGER FOR THIS, BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE CASE THAT'S MADE AND WHETHER, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE, THE CODE INDICATES IS MADE, WHETHER ALL THAT IS APPROPRIATE TO BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY OR NOT. IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE, AND IT MAY COME BACK BEFORE YOU FOR THE WARRANT AT SOME POINT ANYWAY. THAT WOULD GO THROUGH PNZ AND COUNSEL IT FOR THOSE WARRANTS. IN THE WARRANT IS REALLY JUST FOR THE BLOCK LINK, AS I SAID. THERE'S NOT ANY OTHER WARRANT THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING AT THIS POINT FOR ANY USES OR ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE FORM-BASED CODE REQUIREMENTS.

>> IS THERE ANY REASON WHY IT'S HERE NOW VERSUS HAVING

APPROVED IT WITH WHATEVER -- >> APPROVE IT, DISAPPROVE IT,

OR APPROVE IT TO THE -- >> DISAPPROVE IT?

>> DISAPPROVE OR APPROVE IT CONDITIONALLY.

>> SURE. >> YOU WERE RIGHT. I WAS THINKING OF ZONING. YOU'RE RIGHT BIT APPROVE, DENY, OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS WOULD BE A BETTER OPTION.

>> APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. >> BECAUSE I GUESS IT'S --

>> YEAH. >> IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER WARRANTS, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE CITY.

>> RIGHT. IF THERE'S ANY, ANY OTHER WARRANTS, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION, AND WHETHER THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO YOU AND CITY COUNCIL FOR MORE APPROVAL IN THE FUTURE.

>> I'LL MAKE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE

WARRANT. >> AND I'LL SECOND.

[00:10:02]

>> WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE, TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE WITH THE, THIS REPLAT WITH THE -- I'M SORRY.

>> CONDITIONAL --

>> YEAH. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE REPLAT , AND CONDITION WOULD BE TO RECEIVE THE WARRANT FOR THE, THE APPROVED WARRANT. AND, MS. WILSON HAS A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND. THANK YOU FOR NOT MAKING ME HOW

TO REPEAT THAT. >> THIS IS -- THE SITTING APPROVAL CERTIFICATE, IT SAYS DIRECTIVE PLANNING. IT'S IN SHAPE CHAMFERS IN PLANNING AND

ZONING. >> OKAY. SO WOULD YOU MIND, THEN, COMMISSIONER, REOPENING THE VOTE ON THE ITEM TO CLARIFY

THIS? >> MOTION?

>> YES. SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A --

>> MR. WILSON, WOULD YOU APPROVE THAT AMENDMENT TO THE

ORIGINAL MOTION? YES? OKAY. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE REPLAT . THE CONDITIONS WOULD BE THAT APPROVED BLOCK LINK WARRANT, AND TO CHANGE THE WORDING ON THE CITY APPROVAL CERTIFICATE TO INCLUDE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

>> THE CHAIRPERSON. >> CHAIRPERSON, EXCUSE ME. ALL IN, ALL IN, ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. MOVING ON. OH, I'M ON THE WRONG AGENDA.

[3C. Consider approval of Final Plat Consider action to approve Cornerstone Church Addition Final Plat. The approximately 12.248-acre site is situated in the William Crabtree Survey, Abstract Number 346, approximately 174.6 north of the intersection of Commodore Drive and Dalrock Road and is addressed as 4000 Dalrock in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

>> IT IS ZONED AS F 10, AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL. EXCUSE ME, LIMITED OFFICE. AND THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING A NEW CHURCH THAT SHOULD BE ABOUT 13,000 SQUARE FEET ON THIS PROPERTY. HERE IS THE PLAT SHOWING THE DIFFERENT EASEMENTS, AND THE LOCATION OF THE ACCESS THAT WOULD BE APPROVED ON THIS PLAT, AND ALSO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE PLAT. THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION -- THE FINAL PLAT WITH THE STIPULATION -- BLOCK FOR DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO BE CORRECTED -- RECORDING THE PLOT. AND ALL AVAILABLE GRAND CRESCENT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> ON THE ATTACHMENT 2 IN OUR PACKAGE, IT SAYS NOT FOR

RECORDING. >> NOT YET, NO. THE ACTUAL RECORDING DOCUMENT WOULD BE THIS DOCUMENT. IT'S CORRECTED ON THIS DOCUMENT HERE. SO THIS WOULD BE THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT THAT WOULD BE RECORDED. SO WE PROVIDE THIS FOR SIGNATURES FIRST, AND THAT THIS WOULD BE TAKEN TO THE DOBBS COUNTY TO BE

RECORDED. >> DO YOU WANT TO SHOW THEM

THAT, SO -- >> MISERY.

>>

>> AND THEY, THEY COMPLETED THAT -- YEAH, THEY -- SO THERE

[00:15:04]

WILL BE FOUR. >> I WAS DRESSED --

>> SO IN PRACTICE HERE, WE DON'T BRING THE FINAL INAUDIBLE ]PLAT TO YOU UNTIL THE FINAL PLAT.

>> OKAY. SO WE'VE CLEARED THAT UP. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A

MOTION? >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT WITH THE STIPULATIONS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IS CORRECTED BY

INAUDIBLE ] >> MR. SWIFT.

>> SECONDS. >> ALL IN FAKER FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAT WITH THE CORRECTION ORIGINALLY. THANK

YOU. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE --

INAUDIBLE ] >> THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.

[4A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by John Ercan Kilicer regarding a Special Use Permit to allow for 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 3706 Castle Drive. The approximately 2.4-acre lot is situated northeast of the intersection of Castle and Merritt Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

>> ALL RIGHT. GOOD. >> MOVING ON. 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, OR, IN THIS CASE, OUTSIDE OF THE ROOM. ITEM 4A, CONDUCTED IN PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A REQUIRED DONATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY JOHN ERCAN KILCER REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN ENCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH AN AREA GREATER THAN 500 SQUARE FEET ON A PROPERTY ZONED EAGLE FAMILY SF 40. THE PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED AT 3706 CAPSULE DRIVE. THE APPROXIMATELY 2.4 ACRE LOT IS SITUATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CASTLE AND MEERUT ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

>> WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ITEM BEFORE, SO WE'RE PRESENTING UPDATES TONIGHT. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW, HOW MUCH YOU WANT ME TO PRESENT TONIGHT IN TERMS OF -- BACKGROUND, AGAIN. SO WE KNOW THAT IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY SF 40, THE ZONING DISTRICT. WE ALSO KNOW THAT IT'S APPROXIMATELY 2.4 ACRES, AND IT IS A PLATTED LOT. DURING OUR PREVIOUS MEETING, WE KNOW THAT THE -- PRIMARY STRUCTURE OF OVER 2600 SQUARE FEET. THERE ARE FOUR ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITHIN THE SITE, AND HE IS ALSO PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT THREE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES. TWO ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES. ONE IS THE 1400 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND 240 SQUARE FOOT PERGOLA AND, AND WHAT THE SUB IS BEING REQUESTED FOR IS THAT 1200 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE. DURING OUR JULY 23RD MEETING, WE DID NOTE THAT HE WAS THE PERMANENT SITUATION WAS UNCLEAR TO US, SAME AS THE ASPHALT THAT WE HAD FOR THE INFORMATION, SO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT TO MOVE FORWARD OR NOT, NOT DOING THIS PROJECT.

>> COULD YOU BACKUP JUST REAL QUICK? WHY DO I HAVE TO CALL THE 1450 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING?

>> SO IT WAS -- DURING THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THE, THE SITE PLAN, AND YOU, IN MY MIND, YOU, WHERE ALL THE STRUCTURES

WOULD BE -- >> I READ THE LAST ONE TODAY --

>> YES. THAT PERGOLA'S GOING TO GO RIGHT BEHIND HOME, OR NOT RIGHT BEHIND HIS HOME. THIS IS WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE SITUATED. AND THEN THIS IS THE ABILITY, THE PERGOLA, AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR MOVING TONIGHT IS GOING TO BE HERE.

AND THIS IS THE -- NOT APPROVED.

>> I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. >> OKAY. SO DURING THE JULY 27TH MEETING, WE DID, WE DID HOLD THE PUBLIC, WE DIDN'T HOLD IT, BUT WE KEPT IT OPEN UNTIL TONIGHT, AT 7:30, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE CONCERNS WITH THOSE OUTSTANDING ITEMS. SO NOW, WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT HE DID -- PERMIT THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED AND APPROVED FOR THE APPROVED CONCRETE SURFACE.

IT'S ON THE WORKS NOW. I SPOKE TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THIS AFTERNOON AND DID MENTION THAT THEY WENT OUT THERE, THEY

[00:20:02]

PAVEMENT. >> DO WE KNOW WHY IT DIDN'T

PASS? >> I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT I MIGHT HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE BUILDING.

>> IT WAS THE CORE OF INSPECTION, SO IT COULD'VE JUST BEEN SPACING OF THE EXPANSION JOINTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I WOULD GUESS. IT'S KIND OF A PRETTY COMMON FAILURE IN THIS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS. BUT IT WAS NOT THAT AGE, SO NOTHING'S BEEN FORWARDED IN TERMS OF THE

FUNDING YET. >> BUT THE ASPHALT IS GONE?

>> YES. THE ASPHALT IS REMOVING THE FORMS ARE SET FOR CONCRETE.

>> THERE IS SOME ASPHALT THERE, BECAUSE I DROVE BACK IN BEFORE

I CAME HERE. >> OKAY.

>> AND I THINK THAT'S WHY, WHEN THEY WENT OUT THERE TODAY, IT MIGHT'VE BEEN A COMMENT THAT THEY, THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS MADE TO THEM, THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THAT NEEDS TO

COME OUT, POURING CONCRETE. >> OKAY.

>> BUT IT WILL, IN ORDER TO GET THE INSPECTIONS FOR THE CONCRETE, THE ASPHALT WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS

ON AN APPROVED SURFACE. >> SO WE'RE COUNTING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS HERE. ONE IS THE APPROVAL --

>> SO WHEN -- SO DURING THE LAST MEETING, WE, ONE OF THE CONTINGENTS WAS HE NEEDED TO GET ALL OF THESE ITEMS WE SAW BEFORE US MOVING FORWARD SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE THAT HE WANTS TO BUILD. SO THAT'S WHY THIS, THIS BECAME SOMETHING CONCERNING TO US, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT'S AN UNAPPROVED SURFACE.

>> HE HAS A PERMIT. IT JUST NEEDS TO PASS INSPECTIONS.

>> NOW, FOR THE REST OF THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE OUT THERE, ARE THEY, HAVE THEY, WERE THEY ALL INSTALLED WITH A PERMIT?

>> NO. SO THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY EVERYTHING -- SO THE PERGOLA THAT HE'S LOOKING TO INSTALL AND THE PAVILION NEEDS TO HAVE, NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BEFORE HIM MOVING FORWARD WITH A, A SUV. DURING OUR LAST -- ON THIS THIS AFTERNOON, BECAUSE HE WASN'T ABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT, AND HE DID SAY THAT HE'S APPLYING FOR THAT, THE, HE'S APPLYING TO SUBMIT THE, THE FUNDS FOR THE PAVILION. NEXT WEEK. AND HE'S PLANNING ON REDUCING THE SIZE. SO INSTEAD OF THAT 1600, 1400 SQUARE FEET. AND SO HE -- WITH THE PAVILION. I KNOW THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAD QUESTIONS FOR HIM. HE SAID COMMENTS. SO NOW WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR HIM TO INSTALL IT. HE MENTIONED TO METERING, THE OTHER SAME EMAIL, THAT HE WAS GOING TO GET THAT ALL TAKEN CARE OF. SO IT'S STILL, YOU KNOW, HE'S STILL HAVING SOME PENDING ITEMS, BUT HE'S WORKING WITH OUR TEAM IN MAKING SURE THAT HE'S COMPLYING

WITH WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. >> IT LOOKED LIKE THAT PERGOLA

WAS IN CONSTRUCTION THINGS. >> YES. SO THAT, SO, WHICH IS WHY IT'S, YOU KNOW, OUR BUILDING TEAM HAS BEEN WORKING WITH HIM, LETTING HIM KNOW, HEY, YOU NEED TO GET PERMITS FOR ALL OF THIS. SO IT'S BEEN AN ONGOING CONVERSATION WITH HIM, TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS WITHIN, YOU KNOW,

OUR STANDARDS. >> SO GETTING ON THE SUB DOESN'T GET ENOUGH --

>> JUST STRICTLY FOR THE, THOSE STRUCTURES.

>> RIGHT. >> THEY WOULD BE SEPARATE ITEMS, BUT AT THE LAST MEETING, IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THERE WASN'T AN INTEREST REALLY IN MOVING FORWARD WITH THE SU P UNTIL ALL OF THE OTHERS ISSUES ON THE SITE WERE RESOLVED, AND SO THAT'S WHY THIS WAS TABLED NOT FOR ONE MEETING BUT TWO, WHICH WORKED OUT WELL FOR US BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT

LAST MEETING, BUT. >> SO WHAT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? BECAUSE THAT'S USUALLY WHAT YOU GIVE US,

RIGHT? THE BOTTOM LINE? >> YOU MIND MOVING TO THE LAST? THE REST OF THE PRESENTATION IS WHAT I PRESENTED TO YOU LAST TIME IN REGARDS TO THE RAW COVERAGE, THE STANDUPS FOR HEIGHT AND SUCH. SO. AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY, YOU KNOW, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC COME OUT AND SPEAK IN REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY OPPOSE IT OR APPROVE IT. IT'S ALL WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THEY PRESENTED TO YOU ALL SO FAR.

>> THESE THREE ONE-STORY FRAME, LITTLE BY LITTLE HOUSES. I

MEAN, WHETHER IT'S -- >> NO, NO. BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT TOLD US, THE CITY IS A BARN, BARNS THAT WERE THERE

[00:25:03]

>> REALLY? THEY LOOK LIKE LITTLE CASINOS. THEY DON'T LOOK

LIKE BARNS. >> WELL, SHE DOESN'T, SHE CAN

ONLY -- >> YES.

>> APPLICANT HAS TO SAY. YOU SAID THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE WHO

-- >> NO, IT WAS, IT WAS -- THE ONES THAT CAME LAST TIME OPPOSE THE PROJECT. BECAUSE -- THEY WEREN'T, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO UNDERSTAND, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO FIND THE ORDINANCE, SO IT WAS MORE SO IN REGARDS TO NOT HAVING ENOUGH INFORMATION THAN TO DECISION. THERE'S THAT IS OPPOSED, BUT BASED ON, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF HER CONCERNS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, THE ASPHALT, THE DRIVEWAY THAT WAS AN UNAPPROVED SURFACE, THE AMOUNT OF BUILDINGS ON SITE.

BUT, IN GENERAL, IT IS QUITE A BIT OF BUILDINGS, BUT HAS A LARGE LOT, SO ALL WE CAN DO IS CONFORM WITH WHAT THE CODE IS REQUIRING RIGHT NOW BASED ON THE STANDARDS, WHICH TELLS US THAT WE ONLY LOOK AT 35% OF THAT REAL LOT COVERAGE, AND HE

IS MEETING THAT REQUIREMENT. >> IS THIS GOING TO BE, LIKE, AN EVENT VENUE, LIKE A WINE TASTING EVENT VENUE?

>> I'M TOLD NOT. >> THAT'S NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE, AND IT WOULD BE SOMETHING --

>> STREET CAME IN AND SAID THAT HE WAS IN SUPPORT OF THIS, AND THAT THE PROPERTY OVERALL WOULD LOOK BETTER. AT LEAST HIS NEIGHBOR, HE IS, HE IS HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

>> SO THE QUESTION FROM THE SU P IS JUST FOR THE 1200 SQUARE-FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE?

>> CORRECT. AND SHOULD YOU APPROVE TONIGHT, IT IS YOUR DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE IT, BUT WE DO THINK THAT IF YOU DO CHOOSE TO APPROVE THAT, YOU APPROVE THE CONDITIONS THAT HE STILL ABIDES, HE STILL CONFORMS WITH THOSE PERMIT THAT HE STILL NEEDS TO GET, AND ALSO THE ISSUE, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE IN THE CONDITION OF THAT CONCRETE

DRIVEWAY. >> IS AN SU P REQUIRED FOR THE

OTHER STRUCTURES? >> THEY'RE SMALL ENOUGH, AND THE PAVILION BEFORE WAS NOT SMALL, BUT BASED ON OUR DESIGNATION OF ACCESSORIES, IT'S, IT HAS TO BE AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE, AND THIS IS JUST A PAVILION. SO WE DON'T, WE DON'T THINK OF, NOT WE DON'T THINK THAT CODE DOESN'T DEFINE

US AND STRUCTURE REQUIRES. >> AND THAT ITEM -- LAYOUT? BECAUSE YOU, YOU'RE SAYING THAT ITEM, A PAVILION, WHICH WAS HUGE, BUT NOW GOING TO BE SMALL. IS IT GOING TO BE BEHIND A 1200 FOOT, 1200 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE, WHICH IS HUGE. SO WE WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT ANYWAY.

>> SO THIS IS A STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING, OR THAT IS REQUESTING THE SUP TONIGHT. IS THIS THE, THIS IS WHERE THE PAVILION WAS PLANNED. SO YOU CAN SEE THIS IS QUITE LARGE.

THIS IS THE 1400, THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 1400+ SQUARE FOOT. THE PROPOSAL NOW IS FOR THIS TO BE SHRUNK TO

500. >> YEAH. BUT IS IT, IS THAT ALSO, THAT ITEM NOT IN PROGRESS, CONSTRUCTION IN

PROGRESS? >> THE PAVILION?

>> YEAH. >> HE MIGHT BE CONSTRUCTING IT, BUT OUR BUILDING TEAM IS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO PUT A STOP TO IT. SO HE COMPLIES WITH WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.

>> OKAY. SO MY -- THOUGHTS ON THIS IS, WHY APPROVE ANYTHING ELSE IF THE CURRENT STATE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR COME UP WITH THE CITY'S ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS? I MEAN, AND THEN

-- >> THEIR PROGRESS OF TRYING TO CORRECT IT, I MEAN, REMOVAL OF THE ASPHALT.

>> WELL, AND I, AND THAT'S TRUE. AND TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR -- FOR SOME, SOME GOOD FAITH --

>> NOT ALL. NOT ALL. HOW ABOUT THIS?

>> IT'S PROGRESS. >> FROM NOT HEARING FROM THE

[00:30:02]

>> WELL. >> IT GETS APPROVED, IT DOESN'T GET HIM OFF THE HOOK FOR ALL OF THE OTHER

ORDINANCES. >> NO, BUT ALSO COMPLIES --

>> WELL, YEAH. WE DON'T -- >> AS I SAID, WE CAN'T, WE CAN APPROVE IT WITH THE CONDITION THAT EVERYTHING ELSE MUST BE

DONE FIRST >> SO IN ORDER FOR THE SUB TO GET APPROVED, WE NEED TO MEET THE CONDITIONS -- TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONS, YOU WOULD NEED TO MEET THOSE CONDITIONS BEFORE HIM MOVING FORWARD WITH APPLYING FOR THAT MIDDLING --

>> IT'S LIKE APPROVING SOMETHING TO BE PUT ON AN -- I'D SAY, MY PERSONAL BELIEF WOULD BE -- COMPLYING FIRST.

AND THEN ADD SOMETHING TO IT. >> IT'S NOT A NONCOMPLIANT LOT

-- >> IT'S NOT, WHEN I SAY NOT COMPLIANT -- ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON A LOT IS, HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED IN

THE PAST. >> SO AGAIN, THIS IS SAYING CHOICES YOU MENTIONED EARLIER. WE COULD APPROVE, WE COULD APPROVE CONDITIONALLY, OR WE COULD DISAPPROVE. IS THAT AN

OPTION IN THIS CASE? >> SO THIS WE HAVE TO INITIALLY OPEN AND CLOSE BEFORE YOU TAKE ACTION.

THE PUBLIC HEARING CAN BE OPENED AND CONTINUED TO A DATE CERTAIN AGAIN TO A FUTURE DATE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PUSH IT OUT FURTHER INTO THE FUTURE, OR YOU CAN OPEN AND CLOSE THE HEARING, OR CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CLOSE IT, AND TAKE

ACTION TONIGHT. >> SO TECHNICALLY WE'RE IN

PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT NOW? >> YES.

>> YES. >> IF WE, IF WE CAN, IF WE DECLINE IT, IT CAUSES THIS -- WOULD HAVE TO REAPPLY, REPAY --

>> RECOMMENDATION DOES GIVE CITY COUNCIL --

>>

>> IF WE TABLE IT AGAIN, AND THAT GIVES US THE TIME TO SEE

WHAT IT DOES. >> ALL RIGHT. IF YOU, IF YOU, WHETHER YOU APPROVE OR DENY, IF YOU TAKE SOME ACTION, THEN IT WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.

>> A LATER DATE? >>

>> HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK YOU NEED, TWO WEEKS? A MONTH?

>> THEY'RE ASKING FOR. I MEAN, PROGRESS WITH, WITH, YOU KNOW, GETTING THE PERMITS FOR THE CONCRETE. SO, AND HE IS, HE IS LETTING US KNOW THAT HE WILL, YOU KNOW, MOVE FORWARD WITH THE OTHER PERMITS NEXT WEEK. SO IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE WHETHER OR NOT TO

>> WEEKS, FOUR WEEKS, A MONTH. BECAUSE HE'S, HE'S SHOWN AN EFFORT. HE'S DONE SOMETHING, NOTHING'S HAPPENED. IN TWO WEEKS, HE'S RIPPED OUT ASPHALT AND GOT A PERMIT AND PUT THAT IN THERE. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT THAT FAST. SO, LIKE, I'M IMPRESSED WITH THAT. SO I DON'T WANT TO DENY IT. AND SEND IT TO CITY COUNCIL AND MAKE IT COME THROUGH AGAIN. SO I ARGUE WE POSTPONE IT TO THE NEXT

MEETING. >> TO THE SEPTEMBER 24TH MEETING?

>> I'M OKAY WITH THAT. >> SO. WE HAVE A MOTION. HOW

DOES THAT WORK? >> AND YOU WOULD HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 24TH.

>> SO I'LL NEED TO OPEN OR CLOSE IT? BECAUSE IT'S STILL

OPEN. WE JUST POSTPONE. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER FOUR WEEKS.

>> LET'S GIVE IT, GIVE IT TIME AND THE DATE.

>> WINTER SCHEDULE, NEXT SCHEDULED --

>> 7:00 P.M. FOR THE 24TH. >> SEPTEMBER 24TH.

>> 2024. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM MR. FRISBIE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON

[00:35:01]

AND WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND.

>> AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. WILLIAMS. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL SEE YOU ON

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.