Oct 22, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[2. CITIZENS’ INPUT]

[00:03:05]

USED BY YOU TO EXPAND THE NON-CONFORMING CHARDONNAY LOT FOR REZONING. I HAVE A 20 FOOT EASEMENT RECORDED IN THE DALLAS COUNTY RECORDS EXHIBIT 1. I BELIEVE THAT IS BEING PASSED TO YOU, SLOWS THIS PHYSICAL EASEMENT AND FOR 6811 CHARDONNAY WITH THE RETAINING WALL. THEDISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS 19 FEET, ONE FOOT SHORT OF THE 20 FOOT EASEMENT. WHAT DO YOU THINK? MAYBE IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE MOVED TO THE EAST.

THIS CLOUD INCLUDE THE RAILROAD, THE LAKE OR THE VINEYARD ON MY EASEMENT. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS NOW? WE HAVE ADDED ANOTHER LAYER OF COMPLEXITY AND CONFUSION TO MY PROPERTY. ALL IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WILL FIX ALL THE PROBLEMS IN PAD APPROXIMATELY POINT PARK.

THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS P&Z.

>> JUSTIN MARSTEN. >> GOOD EVENING. 5 0-1 FLAMM FLAMINGO DRIVE AND AND I'VEBEEN HERE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL IN SEVERAL PAST MEETINGS TRYING TO PAINT THIS PICTURE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS BEEN COMING, AND I'M SURE IT'S GOING TO BE COMING UP VERY SOON SOING THIS THIS IS THE PROPERTY AND THIS BACKS UP TO MY HOUSE AND BACKS UP TO THIS BEAUTIFUL PRISTINE PIECE OF PROPERTY. ALL THOSE DARK AREAS, THOSE ARE TREES. TO DEVELOPER ODDLY ENOUGH POINTED OUT THERE ARE MANY ISSUED IN DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY, ONE IS THE NUMBER OF TREES AND MID-GAS STATION TO BE REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THEM TO

[00:05:05]

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. MARTIN.

ANYONE ELSE? HEARING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE CITY PLANNER.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CONSENT AGENDA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS MAY BE ENACTED ON THAN THE CONSENT AGENDA IS ACTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SENT 24TH, 2024 REGULAR MEETING. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO REMOVE IT? THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. WILLIAMS AND SECONDED BY MR. FRISBEE. ANY DISCUSSION.

LET'S CALL A VOTE . THAT'S INTERESTING. DID THAT COME UP ANYWHERE IT'S NOT HERE. SO DOES THAT -- OH, NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT 3A.

WE VOTED ON IT. WHAT WAS THE RESULT? I DIDN'T SEE IT, OKAY.

SO THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. YEAH, BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE IT.

[4A. Conduct a public hearing and take action to approve the residential replat of Lot 1 Block A, of Larry Coy Kirby Estates. The 1.551-acre property is located northeast of the intersection of Miller Road and Lafayette Road Drive, also described as Lot 1, Block A, Larry Coy Kirby Estates, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

COUNTY, TEXAS. . >> SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS SITE ON THE SUBJECT SITE IS ZONE SF-10. THE LOT WAS ORIGINALLY PLOTTED IN JANUARY OF 2006. THAT IS AT ONE POINT 1.55 ACRE

[00:10:03]

ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. OH, EXCUSE ME. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SO WE HAVE TWO CITIZENS THAT WANT TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM, SO THE FIRST CITIZEN IS SUSAN KIRBY KIRBY.

>> THANK YOU, ZONING COMMITTEE FOR MEETING WITH US. I AM SUSAN KIRBY AND LIVE ON 217 MILLER ROAD, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

MY HUSBAND AND I ARE OWNERS, LARRY KIRBY. WE'RE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. THE KIRBY FAMILY HAS BEEN ON THAT PROPERTY FOR SIX GENERATIONS, SO WE WANT TO SUBDIVIDE THAT SO OUR GRANDSON CAN BUILD A HOME THERE NEXT TO US, AND AS YOU SAW WAS AN ACRE AND A HALF LOT PROPERTY, SO THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM THERE, AND THIS ZONING DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT PROPERTY, AND WE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU WOULD APPROVE IT. THANK YOU.

>> APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. . >> RYAN B ALL OF A SUDDEN UNDER

THE INFLUENCE EVIDENCE. >> GOOD EVENING, I'M RYAN BL.

>> >> . UE AND WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THIS IS OUR TIME FINANCIALLY AND JUST RESPONSIBLY FOR OUR FAMILY, GROWING FAMILY TO BE ON THIS LOT AND TO DEVELOP IT FOR OURSELVES, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER INPUT? HEARING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS.

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. HOLD ON. WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY MS. WILLIAMS, SECOND BY MS. WILSON -- EXCUSE ME, MS. WILLIAMS AND MS. WILSON. I SUPPOSE THAT IS TO APPROVE. MS. WILLIAMS. THAT'S TO APPROVE THIS MOTION -- YES, OKAY. MOTION TO APPROVE. EXCELLENT. ANY COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE, AND THAT PASSES

[4B. 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 approximately 2.4-acre lot is situated northeast of the intersection of Castle and Merritt Road. Addressed as 3706 Castle Drive, also described as Lot 5 and 6, Block 2, Castle Park Estate, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

I'M LILYANA AND HERE TO PRESENT THE ITEM TONIGHT. SO WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROJECT BY NOW, SO I'M JUST HERE TO PROVIDE SOME UPDATES, SO AS OF TODAY, THE P RRGOLA,

[00:15:05]

>> THANK YOU . COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. OKAY, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. OF SEEING NO INPUT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MS. WILSON. SECONDED BY MS. WILLIAMS. I'M NOT SURE I LIKE THIS. SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY MS. WILLIAMS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, CALL THE VOTE. MAYBE . YOU OPEN THE PUBLIC

[4C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Justin Nunn, on behalf of the property owner Michael Beckelman, 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-10). The approximately 0.48-acre lot is situated near the intersection of Point Royal Drive and Heartstone Lane, addressed as 512 Point Royal Drive, also described as Lot 25, Block A, of Third Addition, Point Royal Estates, in the City of Rockwall, Rockwall County, Texas.]

>> AND THAT PASSES 5-0. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY JUSTIN NUNN, ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER MICHAEL BECKELMAN, 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-10). THE APPROXIMATELY 0.48-ACRE LOT IS SITUATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF POINT ROYAL DRIVE AND HEARTSTONE LANE, ADDRESSED AS 512 POINT ROYAL DRIVE, ALSO DESCRIBED AS LOT 25, BLOCK A, OF THIRD ADDITION, POINT ROYAL ESTATES, IN THE CITY OF ROCKWALL, ROCKWALL COUNTY, TEXAS. .

>> WELL, HELLO, AGAIN. >> PLEASE. SO I AM STANDING IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY, AGAIN, WITH AN SUP, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. IN THIS CASE, WE'RE LOOKING AT A PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED AS A 10 AND THE LOT IS APPROXIMATELY FOUR ACRES AND IT SHOWS APPROXIMATELY A 3600 SQUARE FOOT REASONABLE STRUCTURE, A 1500 SQUARE FOOT UNCOVERED PATIO WITH A POOL, A 250 SQUARE FOOT COVERED PATIO AND 2700 SQUARE FOOT CONCRETE PAVEMENT INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAY. IN THIS CASE, THE SUP REQUEST IS FOR AN 865 FOOT DETACHED STRUCTURE, A GARAGE. AS YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD ME SAY, SECTION 77-C3 CODE ABIDES BY THE STANDARDS FOR WHAT WE LOOK AT LOT COVERAGE, HEIGHT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. IN THIS CASE, IT CALLS FOR A 45 PERCENT LOT COVERAGE AND THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY .4 ACRES, -- SQUARE FEET. CURRENTLY, THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS 8,1262 ,626 ADDING TO 9, 027 /SWAOEFT OF COVERAGE /SWAOEFT SQUARE FEET. THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS 35 FEET AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A MIDLAND OF THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE IN THE REAR.

IN THIS CASE, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS 50 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND FIVE TO SIX FEET FROM THE NEAR SIDE BOUNDARY. PER SECTION 77-1105, A STRUCTURE IS A PERMIT BUILDING OR STRUCTURE AFFIXED TO THE GROUND SUBORDINATE TO THAT PRIMARY STRUCTURE, THE USE WHICH IS INCIDENTAL TO THE DOMINANT OR PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR PREMISE IN THIS CASE. AGAIN, IT'S A DETACHED GARAGE. HE'S PLANNING TO STORE VEHICLES,

[00:20:01]

DENYING. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ? AGENDA LISTED THE CITY OFROCKWALL RATHER THAN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, SO I WILL CLARIFY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU STILL TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS APPROPRIATE IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT, AND WE'RE CLARIFY IF THAT IS ACCEPTABLE OR IF WE NEED TO BRING IT BACK WITH ADDITIONAL

NOTICE CLARIFYING THAT. >> THANK YOU. SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS IS 512 POINT ROYAL DRIVE, WHICH IS IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, ROCKWELL COUNTY, TEXAS. OKAY, SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. SEEING AND HEARING NO INPUT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IF WE HAVE NO DISCUSSIONS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. TUCKER SECONDED BY MS. WILSON.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE OR SEEING NONE, THEN LET'S CALL THE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM IS APPROVED 4-1. NEXT

[4D. Consider action to extend Creekside Village Preliminary Plat. The approximately 5.89-acre tract is located west of Wilson Road and approximately 200 feet north of Woodside Road, situated in the J. W. Gardener Abstract, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

IT'S TRULY IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT. .

>> SO THIS SUBDIVISION, CREEK SIDE VILLAGE PLAT APPROVED TWO YEARS AGO, AND WE'RE COMING UP FOR 5.89 ACRES, 24 RESIDENTIAL CENTER FIELDER SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED AS A PD, AND IT WAS APPROVED IN JULY OF 2022. THAT GAVE THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSITY. IT WAS A PARTNERSHIP WITH ROWLETT HOUSING, FINANCE CORPORATION AT THE TIME. THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED AS S-9 AND REZONED TO THIS PD AT THE. SOME ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE CURRENT ORDINANCE READS IF A PD HAS NOT COMMENCED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TWO YEARS, WE SHALL RECOMMEND REZONING BACK. WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE AT THE TIME. THIS WAS APPROVED AS STATED NOW AS WE MAY INITIATIVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR REZONING, SO WHENEVER THAT KIND

[00:25:01]

>> NO, MA'AM. I THINK WE'RE FINE WITH THAT. WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THIS PLAT RIGHT NOW.

>> RIGHT. SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR, SO YOU HAVE OPTIONS, YOU CAN APPROVE THE EXTENSION AS REQUESTED, APPROVE THE EXTENSION FOR A DIFFERENT TIME PERIOD IF YOU CHOOSE TO, AND YOU CAN DIDN'T THE EXTENSION IF YOU CHOOSE TO. IF YOU CHOOSE TO DIDN'T THE EXTENSION, THEY CAN SUBMIT A NEW PRELIMINARY PLAT AT ANY TIME AND PAY THE APPLICATION FEES AND GO THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS, AND THAT'S WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE THINGS IN PLACE NOW THAT WERE NOT IN PLACE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. THAT MIGHT CAUSE SOME MINOR SHIFTS, BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD SOME MAJOR CHANGES SINCE

THAT TIME PERIOD. >> CAN YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE PLEASE? ONE ITEM HERE IS IN TERMING THE GRANT WHERE COMMISSIONER SHALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE REASONS FOR THE

LAPSE. >> WE'VE HAD A LOT OF COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT, I WILL SAY FROM A FAIRLY LARGE GROUP FROM THE CURRENT OWNERS, POTENTIAL PURCHASERS, REALTORS INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTION, A WHOLE HOST OF INDIVIDUALS AND SO IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY WHERE WE MAY PARTNER ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WILSON ROAD EXTENSION NOT JUST TO THE LIMITS OF THEIR PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED UNDER THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT BUT FURTHER ALL THE WAY UP TO LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. SO I THINK THEY'RE HOPING THERE MAY BE CONSIDERATION TO THE CITY NOT SOMETHING THAT STAFF IS TO TAKE

INTO CONSIDERATION. >> I'M CONFUSED NOW, SO ARE THEY HOLDING OUT FOR THE CITY TO PARTNER WITH THEM TO EXTEND

[00:30:04]

TO HAVE TWO ROUTES INTO IT. >> THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. IF THEY CHOOSE TO DEVELOP THIS AND IF WE ARE REVIEWING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS, WE WOULD ONLY APPROVE THEM SHOULD THEY SHOW THE ROAD CONNECTION. AT THE TIME IT WAS APPROVED ALSO AN EASEMENT WAS GRANTED BY THE CITY TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WHERE THE ROAD WAS CONSTRUCTED TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD. WE HAVE A 10 YEAR TIME PERIOD FOR THE ROAD TO BE CONSTRUCTED BEFORE IT REFERS BACK TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE EASEMENT WOULD EXPIRE, SO IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO CONSTRUCT THAT ROAD ANY TIME PRIOR TO OR THE CITY WERE TO FOR ANY REASON, WE WOULD THEN BE GIVEN A DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY. CURRENTLY IT'S BACK TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. WE'RE TWO YEARS INTO THIS IF WE DON'T

BUILD IT. >> WE'RE TALKING JUST ABOUT THAT SECTION ON THE ROAD ADJACENT TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> YEAH, WE'RE NOT ASKING TO BE CONNECTED ALL THE WAY THROUGH, ONLY FOR THE SECOND POINT OF EGRESS.

>> SO MY QUESTION FALLS BACK TO, WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THE

LAPSE? >> SO THEY INITIALLY HAD AN ENGINEER ON BOARD THAT WORKED ON, I THINK, PRETTY FAR INTO THEIR CIVIL PLANS. I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE GOTTEN AN EXACT REASON WHY THAT STALLED OUT. THERE WAS A NEW BUYER INTERESTED IN THE PROPERTY, AND HIS GOAL WAS TO DEVELOP IT AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, SO THAT'S WHERE THEY ENGAGED WITH THE CITY TO SAY WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS, BUT WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE BECAUSE THE PD IS POTENTIALLY GOING TO EXPIRE ANY DAY AND THE PLAT IS TO EXPIRE LATER THIS YEAR, SO MY FEEDBACK AT THAT TIME, I AM NOT RECOMMENDING REZONING ON THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, AT MY DISCRETION, AND WE HAD A PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WAS ACTIVE, BUT I DID TELL THEM, THE OPTIONS WERE LET THE PLAT EXPIRE AND RE SUBMIT THE NEW PLAT .

>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, WOULD COMING FORWARD BE PRESENT

HERE TODAY, ARE THEY PRESENT? >> I DON'T KNOW. WE DIDN'T TELL THEM -- OKAY. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE, SO I'M NOT SURE WHO MAY HAVE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SCHMIDTED THE REQUEST TO US WHICH IS WHY IT'S ON YOUR AGENDA, SO IT DID COME TO US FOR REQUEST TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA AFTER SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS. WE ASKED FOR SOME BACK-UP DOCUMENTS BECAUSE I'VE INFORMED THEM THIS IS THEIR CASE TO MAKE IN TERMS OF THE EXTENSION REQUEST SO THE LETTER REQUESTING THE ONE YEAR IS ALL WE HAVE IN TERMS OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO PROVIDE TO YOU.

>> AND THAT LETTER IS THE LETTER IN THE PACKAGE FROM MR.

-- >> I'M SORRY, I CAN'T REMEMBER

HIS NAME. >> IN THAT LETTER, THERE WAS NO

EXPLANATION? >> YES.

>> OKAY. MS. WILSON. NO. HOLD ON. THERE YOU ARE.

]

>> MY QUESTION IS THIS, SINCE YOU'RE NOT REALLY SURE AS FAR AS THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE SHE SAID IN THE FUTURE SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT BUY THE PROPERTY.

>> RIGHT, SO THE REQUEST IN YOUR PACKET IS FROM THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN A LOT OF THE CONVERSATIONS. WE HAVE ALSO HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER BUYERS AND POTENTIAL BUYERS, AND I THINK THE TIMING OF THE PD AND THE PLAT, POTENTIAL PLAT EXPIRATION CAUSED SOME AREAS OF

CONCERN WITH THEM. >> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT LAST

COMMENT? >> THAT WE HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH POTENTIAL BUYERS WHO WERE INTERESTED OF DEVELOPING IT AS IT'S SHOWN IN THE PD IN THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, BUT THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS OF THE TIMING OF THE PD, POTENTIAL EXPIRATION OR RECOMMENDATION FOR REZONING AS WELL AS THE PLAT EXPIRATION SO THEY ENGAGED WITH STAFF TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEIR OPTIONS WERE IN DEVELOPING THAT, SO WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY INDICATED EVERYTHING APPROVED UNDER THE

[00:35:03]

COUNCIL. >> DO WE KNOW WHAT DAY THE PD

WILL EXPIRE? >> THE PD WAS APPROVED IN JULY OF 2022, SO WE'RE OVER TWO YEARS FROM NOW. IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRED. IT COULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR -- INAUDIBLE ] . IF THE PLAT WERE NO LONGER ACTIVE, WE MAY REVISIT THAT AND BRING FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION. I DON'T WANT TO COMMIT TO THAT, BUT WE MAY BRING FORWARD A POTENTIAL

REZONING REQUEST . >> IF YOU DIDN'T THE PLAT EXTENSION, THE PROPERTY IS SIMPLY WHEN THE PLAT EXPIRES, THE PLAT EXPIRES, AND WERE THEY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO RESUBMIT A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND HAS NO AUTOMATICALLY DRINKING ANYTHING TRIGGERANYTHING.

>> THANK YOU . I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE REASON FOR THE LAPSE. WERE THEY LOOKING FOR A BUYER?

>> I COULDN'T SPEAK TO THAT. YOU'D HAVE TO TALK WITH THE APPLICANT. I DON'T KNOW WHY NECESSARILY. I KNOW THAT THE ENGINEERING FIRM THAT WORKED ON THE ORIGINAL PLANS WITH THE OWNER WAS REENGAGED IN THIS PROJECT BY A POTENTIAL BUYER, I BELIEVE, BECAUSE THEY WERE REACHING OUT ASKING QUESTIONS, AS WELL, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN SPEAK TO IT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS FINANCIAL OR IF IT WAS CHANGE OF PARTNERS. I FRANKLY DON'T KNOW HOW THEY OR BECAUSE CAUSED THEM NOT TO MOVE FORWARD BEYOND ANYTHING ELSE BEYOND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT

APPROVAL. >> MS. WILSON.

>> I WAS JUST THINKING IF YOU DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY AMENDMENTS OF ANY ORDINANCES THAT MIGHT IMPACT THIS PARTICULAR, SO IF YOU DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY CHANGES, I DON'T SEE REALLY A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IN VOTING FOR IT THIS EVENING. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

>> YOU MEAN IN TERMS OF -- I'M SORRY, WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

>> IF YOU'RE SAYING IF WE APPROVE IT TONIGHT, ARE WE JUST EXTENDING IT UP TO ONE YEAR, OR HOW LONG ARE WE EXTENDING IT?

>> YOU CAN SET THAT TERM, COMMISSIONER. SO THEY REQUESTED FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION. YOU CAN APPROVE IT FOR ONE YEAR OR TWO YEARS, AND YOU HAVE THE DISCRETION IN THIS BODY TO SET THAT TIME HOWEVER YOU SEE FIT. I WOULD SAY THAT WHILE THIS ACTION DOESN'T IMMEDIATELY TRIGGER ANYTHING , THE FACT THERE WAS AN ACTIVE PLAT DID IMPACT MY DECISION NOT TO RECOMMEND FOR REOPENING REZONING, AND FOR THE SUBDIVISION, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN AN AMENDMENT TO THE PD TO MAKE THE CHANGES BECAUSE THEY WERE PRETTY CLEAR CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL PD.

>> THANK YOU. >> NOW, I GUESS THAT RAISES ANOTHER QUESTION. WHO IS ASKING FOR THESE CHANGES, OR YOU KNOW, WHO IS INQUIRING OR ASKING IF THESE CHANGES CAN BE MADE?

>> POSSIBLE FUTURE BUYERS. I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE UNDER CONTRACT OR WERE POTENTIALLY UNDER CONTRACT.

LIKE I SAID, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL LARGE GROUP DISCUSSIONS ON THIS

PROJECT. >> AND JUST FOR OUR KNOWLEDGE IF THE ROWLETT HOUSING COSPONSORSHIP CORPORATE IS

INVOLVED? >> THEY HAVEN'T BEEN IN ANY OF THE CONVERSATIONS ON THIS SO FAR FAR.

>> MR. FRISBIE. >> YOU MENTIONED THAT -- SO

THIS IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE WHEN? >> OCTOBER 25TH IS WHEN IT WAS

[00:40:02]

>> SO WE'RE THERE RIGHT NOW, AND YOU MENTIONED YOU HAD SOME THINGS GOING ON THIS SUMMER -- I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE WAS A TIMELINE WE COULD HAVE HOPPED ON TO THIS THING A

COUPLE MONTHS EARLIER? >> SO IT WAS BROUGHT UP TO ME SHORTLY AFTER I STARTED IN JUNE. I CAME IN THE END OF MAY.

THE PROJECT WAS BROUGHT UP TO ME, AND AT THE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THE OWNER OR A FUTURE BUYER, BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE EXPIRATION OF THE PD, SO THEY WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE WHOLE THING EXPIRED IN JULY, AND THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO TO EXTEND IT. WE VERIFIED THAT THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED IN JULY OF 2022 SO IT REACHED THE THRESHOLD OF TWO YEARS, WHICH UNDER THE CURRENT POLICY, IT'S ASSUMED WE WOULD BRING THAT BACK AS A REZONING.

THE WAY THE PD WAS THEN, IT DID NOT. SO AT THE, I DID NOT RECOMMEND A REZONING BUT THE PLAT WOULD EXPIRE IN OCTOBER AT THE TWO YEAR MARK. SO WE TALKED ABOUT IT, READ THROUGH THE CODE. THERE'S THE ABILITY TO REQUEST IT ONLY WITHIN 60 DAYS OF EXPIRATION. SO THEY COULDN'T REQUEST IT EARLIER.

THEY HAD TO WAIT WHEN THEY WERE IN THE 60 DAY MARK AND ALLOW THEM TO REQUEST A REINSTATEMENT AFTER THE PLAT EXPIRED SO THEY KNEW THEIR WINDOW WAS TWO MONTHS BEFORE OR AFTER TO EXPIRE TO COME TO YOU WITH THE REQUEST, WHICH IS WHY YOU HAVE

IT NOW. >> AND THE ONE YEAR EXTENSION IS REQUESTED BY THE CURRENT OWNER, BUT WE AS A BODY CAN RECOMMEND SOMETHING DIFFERENT, CAN WE PUT CONDITIONS ON THAT?

>> YOU CAN PUT TIME CONDITIONS IN PLACE.

>> APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OR CHANGE THE TIME?

>> YES, LESSER OR GREATER . >> I'M NOT INCLINED TO APPROVE INDEFINITELY. AND I THINK A YEAR IS A LITTLE BIT OF A STRETCH. I WOULD BE -- AND I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS AND FEEDBACK FROM THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, BUT I WOULD BE OKAY WITH SIX MONTHS, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT WE'VE DONE IN SIMILAR CASES IN THE PAST JUST TO ALLOW A POTENTIAL NEW BUYER TO FINISH GETTING WHATEVER FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS IN ORDER .

IT IS A LITTLE TROUBLING TO ME THAT THE -- WHAT IS THE NAME OF

THE DEVELOPER. >> THE ROWLETT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. I WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY THAT THAT GROUP TO UPDATE US, BECAUSE THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON WHY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COUNCIL WAS MOVING THIS FORWARD, BUT

THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING . >> THE ONLY WAY I KNEW HFC WAS INVOLVED IS READING BACK MINUTES WHEN THE MEETING WAS APPROVED AT THE. SO I WISH I COULD SPEAK TO WHAT THE STATUS IS OF THAT. WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT.

>> THANK YOU . >> BECAUSE THIS IS COMING UP ON TWO YEARS, AND THERE'S BEEN NO MOTION IT APPEARS, AND THE PD IN FACT COULD HAVE EXPIRED YOU KNOW, SIX MONTHS AGO. HOLD ON. I GOT TO TAKE MS. WILLIAMS FIRST. GOT TO TAKE MS. WILLIAMS FIRST.

>> IT SAYS THE OWNER CAN COMPLY TO THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL. DID

THE OWNER COME MIGHT? >> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE ANY CONDITIONS NECESSARILY ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THERE WERE MANY CONDITIONS APPLIED IN THE PD, BUT I LOOKED AT THAT LANGUAGE REALLY CLOSELY, BECAUSE I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT IS MEANT

[00:45:04]

>> SO WE DON'T KNOW THE REASON OF THE LAPSE AND IF THE OWNER CAN COMPLY TO ANY OF THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE A DECISION, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING -- I REMEMBER WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE HFC BROUGHT THIS TO THE COMMISSION. IT WAS AN HFC COMMISSION CHANGING THE ZONING FROM SF-9 TO THE CURRENT ZONING . AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS PROPERTY IS SOLD AND IT'S NO LONGER -- HFC IS NO LONGER /SROFPLD, NOW I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OR INCORRECT

UNDERSTANDING . >> I CAN ONLY STAY WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD THUS FAR WHICH IS THERE IS SOME DESIRE TO EXTEND THE PLAT. THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD WAS CHOSEN BY THE APPLICANT, AT LEAST MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE BASED ON SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS IS THAT THE GOAL WAS TO GIVE THEM ENOUGH TIME TO WORK OUT AN ARRANGEMENT WITH THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE ROAD EXTENSION AND TO THEN WORK THEIR CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS SO THAT THEY COULD BID THE PROJECT OUT TO GET STARTED, AND SO THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A LONG ENOUGH TIME PERIOD TO TAKE ALL

THE NECESSARY STEPS. >> AND ONCE AGAIN, THE ROAD EXTENSION BEYOND WHAT THEY WERE ALREADY COMMITTED TO DO --

>> JUST THE PORTION TO GET TO THEIR PROPERTY THEY'RE REQUESTING ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY FOR THAT PIECE, FOR THE

SECOND POINT OF EGRESS. >> I'M PRETTY SURE WHEN THE PD CAME IN FRONT OF US, THEY WERE TAKING THAT ON.

>> THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PD .

>> WOW . MR. FRISBIE . >> AGAIN, THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING ON THE PART OF OWNERSHIP ASK TRANSITION, BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO CREATE A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH POTENTIAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WE WERE TOLD ABOUT AND NOW I'M NOT HEARING THAT WE HAVE ANY OF THAT KIND OF INVOLVEMENT, SO THAT'S TROUBLING. PART OF ME IS JUST INCLINED TO DENY IT OUTRIGHT AND I FIGURE IN THREE MONTHS, THE OWNER WOULD GET THE MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR, AND IF THEY GIVE US A CLEAR EXPLANATION, THAT PUTS US IN A BETTER POSITION TO DECIDE WHERE WE GO FROM HERE SO I WILL BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN MAKING A MOTION NOT FOR A YEAR BUT FOR THREE

MONTHS. >> I WILL BE REALLY CLEAR. I AM NOT REQUESTING AN EXTENSION NOR DO WE ASK YOU TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION. THIS IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING FORWARD AN APPLICATION FROM THE OWNER AS THE CODE ALLOWS FOR, SO THEY SUBMIT THE REQUEST, AND WE'RE BRINGING IT BEFORE YOU.

>> AND THAT'S TRUE, BECAUSE THIS IS MERELY THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, SO I MEAN, IF WE THREW THAT OUT, THEN ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS REDRAW IT AND RESUBMIT IT.

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY NEW APPLICATION FEES.

>> WELL, ABSOLUTELY , BUT IT ALSO PUTS A FIRE UNDER THEIR

[00:50:03]

IT. MS. WILSON. >> I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT TO INCONVENIENCE THE APPLICANT WHO IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY ADDITIONAL FEES, AND THERE WILL BE NO CHANGES REGARDLESS IF YOU APPROVE IT TONIGHT OR DISAPPROVE IT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING, IS THAT CORRECT? SO IF WE CHOOSE TO DENY IT, ALL HE HAS TO DO IS RESUBMIT, AND HE'S ASKING FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION AND THAT WILL BE THE TIMELINE WHETHER WE APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE IT. RUSHING HIM, HE STILL MIGHT NOT MEET THE DEADLINE IF WE REQUIRE THAT OR NOT.

>> BUT THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN TERMS OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER THAT IS FINANCIAL APPROVAL WHICH THE CITY TO CONTRIBUTE OR CHANGING THE LAYOUT TO NOT REQUIRE THE EXTENSION SO FAR, ANY OF THOSE THINGS WOULD REQUIRE MULTIPLE STEPS, GOING BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND WOULD REQUIRE A RESUBMITTED PRELIMINARY PLAT IF THE LAYOUT OF THEIR PLAT CHANGES AT ALL, SO THEY HAVE TO THEN RESUBMIT A PRELIMINARY PLAT.

>> IF THE LAYOUT OF THE LOT OR THE PD CHANGES, THEY WOULD BE

COMING BACK TO US? >> THROUGH YOU AND THE THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE IT'S A ZONING CHANGE FOR AMENDING THAT PD, BUT FOLLOWING THAT ALSO THEY WOULD RESUBMIT THAT. SO IT WOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT TO INITIATE A ZONING CHANGE WITH AN ACTIVE PLAT IN PLACE, WHICH THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE YET, SO WE WOULD LEAVE IT FOR A WHILE UNLESS WE HAVE A REQUEST FROM YOU OR CITY COUNCIL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REZONING.

>> WHICH IS ANOTHER REASON FOR US GOING AND LETTING IT EXPIRE.

>> NOTHING PREVENTS THEM FROM SUBMITTING A NEW PRELIMINARY PLAT IF IT EXPIRES UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING WHILE IT'S STILL IN PLACE, THEY CAN STILL RESUBMIT IT. THEY MAY MOVE FORWARD WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BEFORE RESUBMITTING IF THIS ONE

DOES EXPIRE. >> RIGHT. OKAY. MS. WILLIAMS.

>> DID THE ZONING EXPIRE IN JULY?

>> IT HAS A TWO-YEAR MARK IN JULY. IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE THE WAY THE PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES, SO WE HAVE NOT INITIATED A REZONING BECAUSE OF THE ONGOING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE PLAT EXTENSION BECAUSE THE PLAT WAS STILL ACTIVE, AND SO IT'S HARDER FOR ME WHEN WE HAVE -- IN SOME CASES IN THE NEW PDS, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE DISCRETION TO NOT APPROVE THE REZONING. THAT WAS MORE OF A RECENT ZONING CHANGE SO WE BRING THOSE TO YOU AFTER TWO YEARS. THIS WAS NOT WRITTEN THAT WAY. THIS INDICATES AT MY DISDIRECTION, I MAY BRING FORWARD A REZONING CONSIDERATION BEFORE YOU AND COUNCIL TO CONSIDER REZONING BACK TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OR ANOTHER APPLICABLE USE. THE PROPERTY SURROUNDING THAT ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY -- THE SINGLE FAMILY, SF-9 ARE CLOSE TO IT, 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, SO IF WE MOVE FORWARD TO BRING CONSIDERATION FOR REZONING, WE WOULD LIKELY REQUEST THAT ACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONING.

>> I THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, WITH THAT BEING SAID, THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, SO IF IT GOES AWAY, THAT CLEARS THE PATH AND ALLOW STAFF TO TAKE CARE OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY WITHOUT

ANY -- >> WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT

HERE NOW. >> I'M SORRY.

>> I DIDN'T REALIZE HE CAME IN BEHIND ME. WE HAVE THE

APPLICANT HERE. >> IS THIS THE OWNER?

>> THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY STILL.

>> OKAY. WELL, WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED. SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS US? THANK YOU. YOU'RE MUHAMMAD ALI.

[00:55:05]

>> YES, VICE-CHAIRMAN. AND COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. WHEN WE BOUGHT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, WE HAD NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE HISTORY ABOUT THE HFC AND THEN THE PERSON THAT SOLD THE PROPERTY TO US , AND WE WERE NOT FULLY AWARE OF THE EXTENT -- OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE OWNER TO BUILD OUT WILSON ROAD. THAT'S BEEN THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE, AND RECENTLY, WE'VE COME TO FIND OUT THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF TREES ON THAT WILSON ROAD EXTENSION THAT HAVE TO BE CUT DOWN AND PROBABLY EVEN THE TREE MEDIATION PLAN HAS TO COME IN. SO THIS IS THE BIGGEST WRENCH IN THE WORKS FOR US. AND WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS. YES, WE DRAGGED OUR FEET BECAUSE THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE IS THIS WILSON ROAD EXTENSION. I REQUESTED THE ONE YEAR EXTENSION SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU AGAIN FOR ANOTHER EXTENSION. WE'VE DONE ALL THE COSTING FOR WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO BUILD UP WILSON ROAD. WE DON'T HAVE THE COSTING FOR CUTTING ALL THE TREES AND THE TREE MEDIATION PLAN. WE DON'T PLAN ON CHANGING THE PLAT, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE 24 LOTS. WE'RE WILLING TO ALSO COMMIT TO WHAT THE CITY ASKED OF US WITH THE DOG PARK, THE WALKWAY, I THINK THERE'S A GAZEBO, ALL OF THAT, WE'RE PERFECTLY OKAY.

IT ENHANCES THE SMALL SUBDIVISION WE PLAN TO BUILD.

AND THAT'S REALLY -- YES, WE SHOULD HAVE MOVED ON THIS A LITTLE FASTER. WE APOLOGIZE THAT WE COULDN'T FOR FINANCING REASONS FOR SOME OF THESE OTHER -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY HURDLES BUT CHALLENGES. BUT WE'RE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS. I BOUGHT THIS WITH THAT VISION. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY. I LOVE IT. EVERYBODY THAT'S SEEN IT LOVES IT.

CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ]

>> WOULD DO REALIZE THAT CITY HAS FOR THE LOWER INCOME HOUSING SO THAT'S THE DIFFICULTY . . WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP THE PRICES LOW TO MEET THE CITY GOALS OF LOW TO MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING. THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN THE CHALLENGE. THE COMMISSIONERS, YOURSELF, MR. CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN, AT LEAST GIVE US A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION AND YOU WILL SEE SOME VERY QUICK MOVEMENT. YOU CAN PUT SOME CONDITIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE, WHATEVER. IN THAT TIMEFRAME . WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TALKING MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH KIMBERLY HORN , WHO'S BEEN ENGAGED . BRYCE , YOU CAN TALK TO BRYCE. HE'S DONE MULTIPLE REVISIONS OF WHAT IS GOING TO TAKE OUT WILSON ROAD.

WE ARE VERY SERIOUS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND WE ARE READY TO

MOVE FORWARD. >> I'M GLAD TO SEE WE ARE ABLE

TO COME SEE US. >> I'M SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE

DONE THIS EARLIER. >> NO PROBLEM. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. AMIN ? MISS WILSON . WILLIAMS, EXCUSE

ME. >> I'M CONFUSED . ARE YOU GOING TO MOVE FORWARD OR ARE YOU SELLING THE PROPERTY.

>> WELL, EVEN IF IT IS A SALE, IT'S GOING TO BE A JOINT DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO PRESENT THE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, I HAVE ALREADY ASKED -- COREY . COREY IS EASIER . TO HELP ME PUT TOGETHER THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE PACKAGE, I WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT TO GET APPROVAL. I

[01:00:01]

FINANCIER. >> MISS WILLIAMS .

>> OKAY. IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, WILSON ROAD GOING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO BE AT THE COST OF THE DEVELOPER. THE CITY WASN'T GOING TO HAVE TO , WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE COST IN ANY WAY BECAUSE IT TOOK A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS -- NINE AND THEY PUT IT INTO THIS VERY SMALL LOT, OKAY, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL A BIGGER LOT BUT THE HFC WAS INVOLVED AND IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT , NOTHING WAS EVER MENTIONED ABOUT THE CITY MAKING ANY KIND OF

CONTRIBUTION. BECAUSE -- >> WHAT I READ, AND I WAS NOT THERE, I APOLOGIZE. THE DEVELOPER , PLEASE FORGIVE ME, I'M , MY PARAPHRASING IS THAT THE DEVELOPER MAY ASK THE CITY FOR FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.

THAT WILL -- LITTLE ONE-LINERS.

>> IT WAS IN THE MINUTES FROM THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FROM THE APPLICANT STATING THAT THEY WOULD, DUE TO FINANCIAL, CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER BUT THAT THEY MAY REQUEST FUNDING FROM THE CITY. THERE WAS NEVER ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY SO WE'VE HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, WITH THE CITY MANAGER, JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY THOSE THINGS AND KIND OF DIRECT ON THE PATH FORWARD THAT IF THERE WERE SOME CONSIDERATION FOR FINANCIAL INCENTIVE ON THE ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION , THAT WOULD NEED TO COME FROM THE DEVELOPER FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. THERE'S NOTHING IN OUR CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE, OUR CURRENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AT LEAST INTERNALLY THAT WE DISCUSSED THAT WOULD MAKE THIS SOMETHING THAT WE RECOMMEND.

LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS BUT CERTAINLY, ANY PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL.

>> THIS PROJECT SEEMS TO BE TAKING ON A DIFFERENT NATURE THAN WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, BECAUSE I KEEP HEARING YOU SAY THAT YOU WORK WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO BUILD HOMES AND LOTS AND WHATNOT IS SO ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED IN THE

CURRENT PD WILL BE MET . >> THAT IS CORRECT. IT WILL BE

MET. >> MISS WILLIAMS.

>> I GUESS I JUST NEED CLARIFICATION. ON THE REASONS

FOR THE LAPSE. >> ON THE REASONS, SO IN THE COMMISSION , GOING TO, KIND OF GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERATION ON WHETHER THEY WOULD APPROVE A PLOT -- PLAT EXCEPTION OR NOT

[01:05:08]

SPEAK TO THAT. >> SO I WANTED TO DO THE DEVELOPMENT MYSELF, WITHOUT ANY PARTNERS, WITHOUT EVEN BANK HELP. IT DIDN'T WORK OUT. FOR WHATEVER REASON. SO I SOUGHT A DEVELOPMENT PARTNER WHO WAS QUITE ACTIVE . MET WITH THE CITY, FOLKS AND, IF YOU NEED NAMES, I CAN GIVE YOU THE NAMES. AND HE , SORT OF DID SOME OF HIS DUE DILIGENCE FOR THE LAST MAYBE SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS. AS SOON AS HE HEARD THAT THE CITY NOT ONLY WANTS TO HAVE THE DEVELOPER BUILD WILSON ROAD TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF OUR LAND , THE CITY ALSO WANTS US TO REMOVE ALL THE TREES AT OUR OWN COST , DO ALL THE REMEDIATION POSSIBLY AT OUR OWN COST. WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET BUT HE JUST BACKED OFF TOTALLY. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE REASON WHY THERE'S BEEN A LAPSE OR WE DIDN'T APPLY FOR THE EXTENSIN EARLIER, IF THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION. WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AT ALL.

>> NORTH OF THE DEVELOPMENT . >> NO, JUST TO THE NORTH EDGE OF THE DEVELOPER. I THINK WILSON ROAD GOES ABOUT HALFWAY NORTH IN OUR DEVELOPMENT, THE EXTENT TO THE NORTH.

>> IT'S TO EXTEND IT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT.

>> NOT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. IT GOES STRAIGHT UP.

>> OH, STRAIGHT TO LAKE NEW PARKWAY?

>> IT'S GOING TO STOP. >> ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY TO THE TOP PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND THEN THAT ALLOWS TO INGRESS,

EGRESS AT THE TOP . >> OH, OKAY. SO BACK UP TO THAT

APARTMENT COMPLEX . >> THE STREET CONNECTION WOULD ESSENTIALLY ONLY RUN ADJACENT TO THEIR SUBDIVISION AND WOULD THEN ALLOW THEM TO HAVE ANOTHER POINT OF, WILL YOU GO ONE MORE SLIDE BACK, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THIS HERE BUT THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES A STREET RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE ALL THE WAY UP AND THEN IT YOUR BACKS OVER TO THE RIGHT AND CONNECTS TO WILSON ROAD RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.

THE REQUIREMENT AND THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS FOR A ROADWAY EXTENSION ALL THE WAY ALONG ONLY THEIR PROPERTY, NOT FURTHER THAN THAT BUT THE LIMITS OF THEIR PROPERTY FOR

THE ROADWAY EXTENSION. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I MEAN , I KNOW WE ONLY APPROVE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT , THE EXTENSION OF WILSON ROAD TO THE NORTH END OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT AND I GUESS AT THAT TIME, NOT YOUR DEVELOPMENT, SOMEBODY ELSE'S DEVELOPMENT. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO HAVE TWO INGRESS EGRESS ROUTES TO THE PROPERTY. SO SUPPOSEDLY THAT WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN ON BY THE DEVELOPER. I CAN UNDERSTAND IF YOU PURCHASE A PROPERTY AND DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THEN TURN AROUND AND -- TREE MITIGATION PLAN FOR ALL THAT ROADWAY. THAT MAY BE A BIT TO CHEW OFF. BUT YOU ARE STANDING HERE IN FRONT OF US TODAY SAYING YOU ARE WILLING TO GO AHEAD AND DO ALL OF THAT?

>> YES, WE ARE. NOW IF THAT RESTRICTS ME FROM COMING BACK

AND ASKING FOR HELP -- >> NO, IT DOES NOT.

>> I'M NOT DOING THIS, BY THE WAY.

>> WE AS PLANNING AND ZONING CAN'T -- BEYOND THAT.

>> OKAY. I WILL COME BACK FOR, I AM GOING TO BE FRANK AND HONEST. I WILL COME BACK REQUESTING FOR ASSISTANCE. OF

[01:10:06]

AND I DEVELOPER. I'M A BUSINESS PERSON. YOU CAN DO THE MATH. 400,000 APIECE. WE ARE GOING TO SPLIT THAT 400,000 ACROSS THE 20 HOMES, THEREBY INCREASING THE PRICE OF THE HOMES, WHICH MAKE DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF YOUR ORIGINAL PLAN TO MAKE IT AFFORDABLE FOR LOW TO MIDDLE INCOME HOMES. THAT MONEY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. I'M BEING VERY

HONEST AND TRANSPARENT. >> I AGREE WITH YOU.

>> BOUGHT IT FROM SONOMA HOUSING , MR. BILL FISHER. YOU KNOW, HERE WE ARE. I HAVE NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE HISTORY -- EXCUSE ME, WHAT'S THE NICE WAY TO PUT IT?

>> RUMORS . QUESTIONS . >> RUMORS, QUESTIONS, ALMOST SOME DISAPPOINTMENT, I'M SORRY, THAT IS WHAT I'M FEELING HERE AND I DON'T KNOW WHY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE

BACKGROUND. >> IF THERE IS DISAPPOINTMENT, IT'S DISAPPOINTMENT ON OUR SIDE. WHEN WE ORIGINALLY SAW THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHAT IT WAS PRESENTED TO US AS , YOU KNOW, AND WHAT IT PROMISED TO BRING TO THE CITY, WE MAY SEE IT KIND OF SLIPPING AWAY AND THAT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. IT IS , OKAY.

>> IF I MAY ADD ONE MORE THING. I'M VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT. I'VE EVEN GOT A WEBSITE WITH THE HOMES IN THE VIDEO. I WOULD LOVE TO SHARE IT WITH YOU. THIS IS OUR VISION FOR THAT SUBDIVISION. AND I PUT SOME MONEY INTO IT. I PUT SOME SKIN IN THE GAME QUITE A BIT SO I AM HERE TO SEE IT THROUGH.

>> MISS WILLIAMS? >> I JUST , I DID THE ARITHMETIC, 400,000÷24 HOMES IS ONLY 16,006 66 -- $16,666.

PERHAPS. IS THAT GOING TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE?

>> SORRY? >> IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A BIG

NUMBER TO ME. >> A HOMEBUYERS FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS LOW TO MIDDLE AND -- INCOME HOMEBUYERS, IT MAY OR MAY NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE. YOU KNOW, STILL, THE ECONOMICS ARE NOT THAT GREAT. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE HURTING.

>> REMEMBER, A MEMBER THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS FOR THE WORKFORCE HOUSING . MR. FRISBY ?

>> THE FIRST THING I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS THANK YOU FOR COMING IN, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A LITTLE LATE IN THE GAME, THE INFORMATION THAT YOU ARE PROVIDING US IS GREATLY APPRECIATED , WE APPRECIATE YOUR HONESTY, YOUR TRANSPARENCY , THE FACT THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO SHARE A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION TO US WHERE YOU ARE NOW AND COUNTING THE BACKGROUND. I HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE BODY'S TREPIDATION BECAUSE IT CAME BEFORE US TWO YEARS AGO. IT WAS A DIFFERENT ANIMAL THAN WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW. YOU KNOW, WE ARE HERE TO REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY THAT WE LIVE IN AND SO OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE TRYING TO REPRESENT OR PROTECT THE INTEREST OF OUR COMMUNITY . SO CLEARLY, THIS IS A DIFFERENT ANIMAL. JUST , AS I UNDERSTAND, YOU ARE A BUSINESS PERSON , YOU WHO ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP THIS AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL , TO YOUR POINT, THIS IS A VERY NICE LITTLE TRACT OF LAND. IT'S A CREEKSIDE PROPERTY . IT IS IN A VERY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD AND AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD AND VERY CLOSE TO A SCHOOL SO IT'S GOT A LOT OF THINGS GOING FOR IT. I WOULD HATE TO SEE THIS KIND OF GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD FROM SCRATCH . SO I WOULD

[01:15:04]

THAT SAID, I WOULD BE WILLING TO PROPOSE GIVING YOU SIX-MONTH

EXTENSION . >> THANK YOU.

>> MISS WILLIAMS? >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT .

>> I'M SORRY? >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION BECAUSE OF HIS TRANSPARENCY.

>> WELL, I SUPPOSE WE ARE GOING TO BE DONE WITH DISCUSSION.

QUESTIONS? IN WHICH CASE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. JUST

PUSH IT ONCE. >> IT WANTS ME TO EXIT AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO.

>> NO, EXIT, GO TO THE HOME SCREEN. THERE YOU GO. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE BY MR. FRISBIE . TO EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SIX MONTHS . DO WE HAVE A, AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY MISS WILLIAMS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, LET'S CALL THE VOTE. AND

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.