[3B. Consider approval of a Final Plat Take action on the Grayhawk Ranch Subdivision Final Plat submitted by Patrick Filson, Kirkman Engineering, on behalf of property owners Paragon Realty Group, LLC and Chantara Ventures, LLC. The property at 4401 Big A Road is described as consisting of approximately 17.053 Acres of land out of the J.M. Thomas Survey, Abstract No. 1478, located 2,601 feet east of the intersection of Rowlett Road and Big A Road in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

COMMISSION OR OR CITIZEN MAY REQUEST THE ITEMS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

CURRENTLY AT NOTHING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, FOR ITEM 3B FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT 3B? I HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION. NO? MR. KING, I DON'T WANT YOU TO GO TO THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION TO ANSWER ONE QUESTION, I KNOW YOU WOULD BE, I THINK EVERYBODY ELSE WOULD NOT BE. ON WHAT THEY WANT TO HAVE AS A FINAL PLAT , MY QUESTION WOULD BE, PAGE 2 STATES THAT -- I CANNOT PULL IT UP , IT IS NOT ON HERE. MAYBE IF WE OPEN YOUR PRESENTATION, LOOK AT PAGE 2 OF THE PLAT . I HAVE BEEN SCHOOLED IN THE FINE ART OF

OPERATING MY ELECTRONICS HERE. >> CAN YOU MAKE IT LARGER ?

[00:10:11]

>> THAT IS PAGE 1. I NEED PAGE 2. IT DISCUSSES THE FORMATION OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION , SPECIFICALLY THE COVENANT AND THE WORDING IN THE COVENANT CONCERNING THE FACT THAT THEY WILL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE DRAINAGE IN THAT AREA. AND THE COMMENTS READS THAT THAT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION COVENANT NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. AND THAT -- THE WAY I READ IT, THA SHOULD BE DONE BEFORE WE APPROVE THE FINAL DOCUMENT. I JUST WANT TO KNOW, IS THE COVENANT WRITTEN

AND APPROVED? >> I DO NOT HAVE THAT, SIR .

>> YOU DO NOT HAVE WHAT? OH. OKAY.

>> ARE THOSE COMMENTS INDICATED ON THE PLAT ITSELF?

>> YES . >> I DO NOT KNOW IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE BUT WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS IN THE SITUATION WITH SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERS PREPARE THIS, THEY WILL BRING OVER LANGUAGE THAT THEY COMMONLY USE THEM NOT STANDARD LANGUAGE WE HAVE. PROBABLY LANGUAGE CARRIED OVER BY THE CONSULTANT THAT PREPARED THE ACTUAL PLAT EXHIBIT .

>> NONETHELESS, THAT HOA, IF THEY AGREE, WILL BE PROVIDED BEFORE OUR DIRECTOR SIGNS IT , BEFORE YOU SIGN IT, SIR.

>> OUR PRELIMINARY MARK ON THE FINAL PLAT WILL BE GONE ?

>> IF YOU CHOOSE TO APPROVE THIS, FINAL PLAT, YOU CAN WITHHOLD YOUR SIGNATURE FROM IT UNTIL YOU SEE THAT COVENANT

AGREEMENT. >> LET ME MAKE SURE --

>> I AM JUST ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION WHETHER OR NOT I

AM READING THAT CORRECTLY. >> THE COMMENT IS ON THERE, BUT TRADITIONALLY, CITY COUNCIL AND PNZ DO NOT HAVE TO APPROVE HOA LANGUAGE AS IT RELATES TO A NEW SUBDIVISION AND THE ITEMS THAT GO BEFORE PNZ AND CITY COUNCIL WILL BE THE ASSOCIATED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN , IF THERE IS ONE , THE FINAL PLAT , AS THIS COMMISSION KNOWS, THE FINAL PLAT IS APPROVED AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAGE ONLY. AGAIN, THAT REFERENCE LANGUAGE IS PROBABLY LANGUAGE CARRIED FORWARD BY THE ENGINEER-SURVEYOR FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION THAT HAS THIS REQUIREMENT BUT DID NOT REMOVE IT BECAUSE THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY OF

ROWLETT . >> IF I GO DOWN AFTER THAT AGREEMENT THAT SAYS THE OWNER'S COVENANT AND AGREE THAT SUCH A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE CREATED PRIOR TO THE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY, THE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY IS WHEN THE CIVIL PLANTS ARE ACCEPTED AS FINAL AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN , THAT IS NOT A CONDITION OF THE PLAT .

>> NOT REFERRING TO THE FINAL PLAT ?

>> RIGHT, THE CIVIL ENGINEERING SIDE OF IT BEING COMPLETED.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ? IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MR. POLLARD ? >> I WILL MOVE THAT WE EXCEPT PLAT AS PRESENTED -- ACCEPT PLAT AS PRESENTED.

>> THAT PASSES, 6-1. WHO IS THE ONE?

[00:15:14]

>> WHITE. >> ANY REASON?

>> I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAND-USE.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU . THAT PASSES. MOVING ON TO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION , FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE FOLLOWING ALONG ON THE AGENDA, THE ITEMS ARE NUMBERED DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY ARE IN THE PACKET, ITEM 4A IS 4A, 4B IS 4C IN THE PACKET AND 4C IS 4B IN THE PACKET, AGENDA WISE, 4A, 4C -- CONDUCT A

[4A. Conduct a public hearing and take action on the Quail Glenn request for a subdivision variance submitted by Vance Liles, MTG Associates, on behalf of property owner Estex Homes Inc. The property is located southwest of Quail Ridge Dr. and Quail Creek Dr. and more particularly described as Block A Lot 1 of Leal Addition City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION VARIANT BY VANCE LILES, MTG ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER ESTEX HOMES INC.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF QUAIL RIDGE DR. AND QUAIL CREEK DR. AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS BLOCK A LOT 1 OF LEAL ADDITION CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

>> PLANNING MANAGER FOR THE RECORD THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION VARIANT TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH REQUIREMENTS PER SECTION 77-603 C2, TO PROVIDE NO ALLEYS , AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH PER SECTION 77-603C$B, SITE IS SOUTHWEST OF QUAIL RIDGE DRIVE AND THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY ADDRESSED AS 8101 -- 2.67 ACRES. THE APPLICANT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS MTG ENGINEERING AND SERVICE BECAUSE THEY TEND TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF 10 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITHIN THE QUAIL GOOD COMMUNITY AND THREE PAIRS REQUESTED INSTITUTE TO EXCEED THE 600 FOOT LIMIT BY PROPOSING A MAXIMUM FEET OF 872 FEET FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH , TO PROVIDE NO ALLEYS IN THE SUBDIVISION AND TO REDUCE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH FROM 60 FEET TO 50 FEET. WORTHY OF NOTE, IN MARCH OF 2025, THE APPLICANT'S FIVE ORIGINAL BERRIES REQUESTS WERE INCORRECTLY HURT AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BUT STAFF LATER DISCOVERED THAT THREE OUT OF THE FIVE VARIANCES WERE SUPPOSED TO BE BY CONSIDERED BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THAT IS WHY THERE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. THE SITE IS COMPOSED OF UNDEVELOPED VACANT LAND SURROUNDED BY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS LOW-DENSITY , RESIDENTIAL 7000 TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET AND THIS CATEGORY TYPICALLY INTENDED TO PROVIDE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, DWELLINGS MAY BE ATTACHED OR DETACHED THAT EACH UNIT SHOULD BE LOCATED ON ITS OWN LOT AND THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. THE EXISTING ZONING , PROPERTY IS OWNED SINGLE-FAMILY SF8, THIS IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE PRIMARILY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 8000 SQUARE FEET PER LOT . THE APPLICANT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. SO, HERE ON YOUR SCREEN IS A PICTURE OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN , AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE APPLICANT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE 10 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH ONE OPEN SPACE LOT, A 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END, WITH NO IMMEDIATE ALLEY ACCESS AVAILABLE. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY AT 8723 TAO ROCK ROAD DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO A ROAD, THEY HAVE TO ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY THROUGH THE ALLEY. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO GIVE THEM DIRECT ACCESS WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC. HERE, WE HAVE A

[00:20:08]

CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND YOU SEE THE BUILDING ELEVATION PROPOSAL FOR APPLICANT. THE VARIANCE REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING IS PERTAINING TO THE CUL-DE-SAC AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH AND ALLEY ACCESS , PARTICULARLY PERTAINING TO THE MAXIMUM CUL-DE-SAC, THE APPLICANT -- THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUFFERS FROM ADDITIONAL LENGTH WHICH STEMS FROM THE PROPERTY'S ELONGATED SHAPE AND THE NEED FOR IT TO CONNECT TO DEAD-END STREETS AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE A CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END AND EXTENDED FURTHER AS THE MAXIMUM OF 600 FEET IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THAT ACCESS TO THAT DEAD-END STREET. THE PROPERTY'S NARROW WIDTH PROVIDES HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH, LOT DEPTH, ALLEY ACCESS AND REQUEST A VARIANCE TOLD LOWER THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH TO MEET THE MINIMUM DEPTH. THREE, THE PROPERTY'S NARROW WIDTH CREATES HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE BOTH THE REQUIRED WIDTH, LOT , AND ALLEY ACCESS TO SUPPLEMENT THIS, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO CONNECT ALLEY ACCESS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE CUL-DE-SAC , THROUGH THE CUL-DE-SAC, SECTION 77-806 I SAYS THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT APPROVE VARIANCES UNLESS IT SHALL MAKE FINDINGS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO EACH SPECIFIC CASE . THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH, WELFARE, OR INJURIES TO OTHER PROPERTY. CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IS BASED ARE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AT ARE NOT APPLICABLE GENERALLY TO OTHER PROPERTY . AND, BECAUSE OF THE PARTICULAR PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS, SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS OF THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY, A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER WOULD RESULT AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE INCONVENIENCE AT THE STRICT LETTER OF THESE REGULATIONS IS CARRIED OUT. THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE SUBDIVISION ALIGNS WITH SECTION 77-806I, SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS LIKE WIDTH, SHAPE DEMONSTRATE UNIQUE HARDSHIPS IN THE PROPOSAL INCLUDING A CONNECTION FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC TO THE ADJACENT ALLEY FOR SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS, ADDRESSING CONCERNS THAT CAME UP FROM OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT DURING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEW. THAT BEING SAID, STAFF HAS FOUND NO ADDITIONAL DETRIMENTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH, AND WELFARE . THE JUSTIFICATION BEFORE YOU TODAY ARE IN PHYSICAL NECESSITIES RATHER THAN YOUR PREFERENCES .

WITH ALTERNATIVES OTHER FEWER LOTS REDESIGN ACCESS, THE PROPOSAL DOES SUPPORT ORDERLY INFILL AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS BY PROVIDING DIRECT ACCESS TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY, GIVING YOU DIREC ACCESS. ON OCTOBER 17TH, STAFF SAID THAT PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS TO THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND WITHIN 200 FOOT PUBLIC NOTICE AREA . AS OF TODAY, WE RECEIVED ONE NOTICE IN OPPOSITION IS ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO NEUTRAL. WITHIN THE 500 FOR COURTESY BUFFER AREA, WE RECEIVED FOUR RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION, ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE A NEUTRAL. IN CONCLUSION, THE GOVERNING BODY TODAY MAY APPROVE , BUT WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND DO HAVE A PRESENTATION

. >> HANG ON, YOU DID NOT GET OFF THAT EASY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I LIVE, YOU DID GET OFF THAT EASY. MR. POLLARD AND I AM SORRY.

>> I AM ON. ALL RIGHT, EXPLAIN TO ME, HOW THIS IS HARDSHIP AND

NOT AN INCONVENIENCE . >> WELL, THE HARDSHIP LIES IS THE LOT WIDTH, IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH AND THE APPLICANT CANNOT PROVIDE ALL OF THE NECESSARIES -- NECESSITIES THAT THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES, THE 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, 110 FOOT LOT DEPTH, AND THE ALLEYWAY ACCESS ALL REQUIRED UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES BUT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH LOT WIDTH TO PROVIDE THE REQUIREMENTS . ADDITIONALLY, WITH THE

[00:25:01]

CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH, THE CUL-DE-SAC BEING PROVIDED AT THE NORTHERN END IS WHERE THE APPLICANT CAN FIT IT AT THE TIME. SO, -- THERE IS A HARDSHIP WITH REGARDS TO THE REQUEST FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC AS WELL, EXTENDING THE MAXIMUM LENGTH TO PROVIDE LANDLOCKED PROPERTY DIRECT ACCESS .

>> IF I CHOSE TO REDO THIS, IT MAY MAKE THE LOTS WIDER, AND REDUCE THE STREET LENGHT, I WOULD CONFORM, I CAN ON THIS PROPERTY, CONFORM WITH THE CORRECT CODE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT . >> WHAT THAT WOULD DO IS, I

WOULD LOSE SOME LOTS. >> YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. AGAIN, HOW IS IT A HARDSHIP AND NOT ONE OF INCONVENIENCE? IF IT IS INCONVENIENCE, I COULD RESOLVE THAT , MAKING THE LOTS WIDER. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU LOOK

AT THAT AS A HARDSHIP. >> I WOULD SAY THAT THE CUL-DE-SAC WOULD BE IN THE SAME SPOT REGARDLESS OF THE WIDTH OF

EACH OF THOSE LOT . IT'S >> CORRECT, WHEN SPEAKING OF A HARDSHIP, MORE SO ABOUT THE CUL-DE-SAC , ESPECIALLY THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH WOULD BE LANDLOCKED , GIVEN THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO ANY PUBLIC STREET AND HAVE TO ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY TO THE ALLEYWAY. THAT IS IN HARDSHIP. BY PROVIDING CUL-DE-SAC AND DIRECT ACCESS, THE APPLICANT IS INTENDING TO ALLEVIATE THAT HARDSHIP TO NOT ONLY THEMSELVES BUT THE PROPERTY

OWNERS TO THE NORTH. >> OKAY.

>> MR. HERNANDEZ? >> YOU MENTIONED A SPECIFIC ADDRESS THAT WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE ALLEYWAY, WHICH ? NOT ON

A LOT , A SPECIFIC ADDRESS? >> THE LOT THAT THE CUL-DE-SAC IS CONNECTED TO, THE CUL-DE-SAC IS SPLIT BETWEEN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE LOT DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MR. WHITE?

>> LOT TO THE NORTH THAT DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE MAIN ROAD, THIS CUL-DE-SAC -- IT IS NOT A HARDSHIP OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, A HARDSHIP OF THAT LOT , EXISTING TO THE NORTH , THEY ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING WITH ONLY ALLEY ACCESS ?

>> CORRECT . SOMEWHAT OF A BENEFIT BUT NOT TO THIS BUILDER.

SINCE THEY OUR BUILDING IS CUL-DE-SAC .

>> CORRECT . >> LASTLY, IS THE LOT OWNER TO THE NORTH -- ARE THERE HOMES THERE?

>> YES, A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THERE.

>> HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST ? >> I BELIEVE SO, YES, SIR.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. APPLICANT? YOU HAVE TO LEAN INTO YOUR MIC WHEN YOU WANT TO TALK .

>> THANK YOU FOR HEARING THIS CASE . WE DO HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION TO EXPLAIN THE THREE VARIANCES AND THE PURPOSE OF EACH . THE DEVELOPERS ARE HERE AS WELL. THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ARE SUBDIVIDING, THIS IS THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH, THEY CURRENTLY LIVE -- THEIR DRIVEWAY CONNECTS TO THE ALLEY NEXT-DOOR . I WILL GET INTO MORE DETAIL HOW THIS GOT ROPED IN TOGETHER. AND WHY WE ARE REQUESTING THE CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH VARIANCE . VANCE LILES WITH MTG IN GREENVILLE, TEXAS. THE ORIGINAL GOAL WHEN THEY BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN 2023 WAS TO DEVELOP JUST THEIR TRACK OF LAND , WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS LAST

[00:30:03]

YEAR WITH CITY STAFF, WE STARTED WORKING ON A PRELIMINARY PLAT, THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS SUBMITTED IN JANUARY , AT THE TIME, REJECTED AND TOLD HIM WE NEEDED VARIANCES. WE PREPARED A VARIANCE SUBMITTAL AND IT WAS PROCESSED BACK IN MARCH. WHEN WE MADE THAT REQUEST, ALL OF OUR VARIANCES GOT PUSHED TO ADJUSTMENTS, THEY ALL WENT FORWARD TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, THE ONLY ONE THAT DID NOT APPROVE WAS GARAGES WE ACCEPTED THAT, NO ISSUES . OUR ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL WAS ACTUALLY RIGHT AROUND THAT 600 FOOT LENGTH , WE WERE NOT REQESTING THE EXTENSION OF THE CUL-DE-SAC. WHEN THE PUBLIC NOTICE WENT OUT FOR THAT VARIANCE REQUEST, THAT WAS WHEN WE WERE MADE AWARE OF OUR NEIGHBORS. AND HOW THEY HAD PREVIOUS ISSUES WITH PREVIOUS DEVELOPERS AS THEY CAME FORWARD , WITH TRIED TO ALLOW THEM ACCESS, RIGHT NOW, THIS PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP HAS A 24 FOOT FIRE LANE -- OR FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS , CURRENTLY DIRT, NOT IMPROVED, BUT IT IS THE FIX FOR THEIR RESIDENCY. SINCE THE FIRE EMERGENCY ACCESS, THIS EASEMENT WAS DEDICATED, I DO NOT KNOW WHEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DEDICATED, BACK IN THE 1980S ? SINCE THEN, IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED.

>> GO TO THE MICROPHONE AND SAY YOUR NAME .

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME ? DEBORAH, 8723, THERE WAS A VERY GOOD INAUDIBLE ] WHEN THE ALLEYWAY WAS REDONE, THE COMPANY THAT REDID THE ALLEYWAY , I GUESS WAS NOT INFORMED BY THE CITY AND THEY GRADED THE GRAVEL AND ACCIDENTALLY PUT IT ON OUR NEIGHBOR'S YARD ALSO, OUR ROCK ROAD , THEREFORE, THEY REMOVED THE ROCK ROAD THAT WAS TALLER THAN THE LAND AND THEY GRADED IT DOWN TOWARDS THE ALLEY. IT WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE CITY, ACCIDENTALLY NOT INFORMING THE COMPANY BECAUSE THEY TOOK ALL OF

OUR ROAD OFF. >> THANK YOU .

>> WHEN SHE REACHED OUT TO US, SEVERAL OLDER CONVERSATONS FROM BACK BEFORE WE HAD THE PROPERTY STARTED COMING UP. WE TALKED TO CITY STAFF, IT RESULTED IN US CHANGING OUR SITE PLAN TO EXTEND YOUR PROPERTY, GIVING THEM STREET ACCESS, AS WELL AS PROVIDING A SEWER CONNECTION AND WATER CONNECTION AND REMEDYING THIS ISSUE, WHETHER TECHNICALLY OUR BATTLE TO FIGHT OR NOT, WE WERE BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS, EXTENDING IT AND TAKING CARE OF

THE ISSUE AT THE TIME. >> LET ME ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION , THE CURB CUT AT THE PLANT NORTH SIDE -- PLANNED NORTHSIDE, THE ONE GOING TO THEIR HOUSE, NORTHWEST, NOT THE RED ONE, THE OTHER ONE IS GOING TO THEIR HOUSE?

>> YES. >> HOW WIDE?

>> STANDARD DRIVEWAY WIDTH, MINIMUM 15, WE WILL LEAVE THE CURB CUT, WHEN THE REROUTE THEIR DRIVEWAY , THEY CAN EXTEND THEIR

DRIVEWAY. >> ALL YOU'RE DOING IS

PROVIDING THE CURB CUT? >> YES.

>> HOW DOES THAT RESOLVE THE ISSUE A FIRE TRUCK?

>> YOU -- >> TO THEM?

>> YOU CAN GET A FIRE TRUCK INTO THE CUL-DE-SAC WHERE IS RIGHT NOW THEY CANNOT GET NEAR THEIR PROPERTY.

>> DO YOU NEED MY NAME AGAIN? >> NO.

>> THERE IS INFORMATION ABOUT THAT, WHATEVER -- THE HARDSHIP FOR THE PROPERTY IS, WE HAVE A 24 FOOT FIRE LANE, WHOEVER BUYS THE PROPERTY, HAS TO HAVE OUR EASEMENT OR WE HAVE TO HAVE AN EASEMENT MOVED THAT WILL BE THE ROAD ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. RIGHT NOW, FOR THE FIRE TO GET TO US, WHEN YOU BUILD IT UP TO THE 600 FOOT , I WAS TOLD IN THE MEETING, IT WOULD TAKE THREE FIRE TRUCKS TO BE ABLE TO DROP OFF THE HOSES , THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO OUR HOUSE UNTIL THEY GOT ALL THE HOSES UP. AND TO ASSIST US IN FIRE, THE SECOND THING I RECEIVED ON THE FIRE MARSHAL, HE WOULD NOT LET ANY OF THE FIRETRUCKS RESPOND TO OUR HOUSE RIGHT NOW, EXCEPT FOR MILLER FIRE STATION, BECAUSE THAT HAS A SMALLER FIRETRUCK. WHEN I DISCUSSED THIS WITH HIM

[00:35:08]

RECENTLY, HE SAID THE FIRETRUCKS WOULD HAVE 1000 FEET, IF WE HAVE THE CUL-DE-SAC THERE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAYBE GET THE HOSES TOGETHER IN LESS TIME TO REACH US, SO THE FIRETRUCK , THE FIRE

WILL BE ON THIS CUL-DE-SAC. >> THANK YOU NOT SURE THAT CLARIFIED MUCH AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

>> WE ARE STILL IN PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN STAGE . IF A DRIVEWAY NEEDS TO BE CONNECTED NOW, AS PART OF OUR DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THEM TO DO THEMSELVES, SOMETHING TO BE WORKED OUT . OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE TRYING TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH ENGINEERING PLANS. IT HAS BEEN A BIT OF A PROCESS TRYING TO GET GOING ON THE RIGHT TRACK. AFTER MAKING THE SUBMITTAL OUR FIRST VARIANCE REQUEST IS, FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC IN EXCESS OF 600 FEET, REALLY THE MAIN OPPOSITION WE HAVE BEEN GIVING WAS, IF THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY AND FIRE DEPARTMENT SHUT DOWN THE CUL-DE-SAC, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY OUT, SINCE THAT CONVERSATION, DIRECTLY WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL, WE DID ADD THE OUTLET TO THE EXISTING ALLEYWAY , IN THAT EXHIBIT IN RED, THAT SATISFIED THE EMERGENCY STANDPOINT. THERE HAS BEEN SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT CROSS ACCESS OF PEOPLE JUMPING FROM THE STREET ONTO THE ALLEYWAY, WE HAVE SAID WE ARE WILLING TO BUILD A GATE IF THAT IS AN ISSUE. FROM A STANDPOINT , WE NEED TO KEEP THAT SHUTDOWN DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS. WE ARE WILLING TO PUT THAT DATE IN THEIR I DID INCLUDE AN IMAGE OF THE NEIGHBOR FARTHER NORTH OF THEM , THAT HOME WAS BUILT IN 2021 . IT WAS THE SAME INSTANCE AS THEIR HOUSE, THEY HAD TO BUILD THAT WONDERFUL DRIVEWAY FOR DIRECT STREET FRONTAGE RATHER THAN CONNECTING TO THE ALLEYWAY. WE ARE TRYING TO PREVENT , IF FOR SOME REASON, THEY DO NOT WANT TO REBUILD THE HOUSE OR HOW TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT, THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION LIKE THAT, WE ARE GIVING AT LEAST THE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THIS ISSUE. THE SECOND REQUEST WAS FOR NOT REQUIRING ALLEYWAYS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS A SMALL PROJECT ON A RELATIVELY SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY , WE ARE ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY MEETING THE CURRENT ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY . ADDING ALLEYWAYS AND PEOPLE'S EXISTING BACKYARDS AGAINST THEIR FENCES, IF THAT WAS MY BACKYARD I WOULD BE UPSET IF YOU ARE PUTTING A PUBLIC ALLEYWAY AGAINST MY FENCE THAT HAS NOT BEEN THERE. WE POLITELY REQUEST TO NOT HAVE TO PUT ALLEYWAYS FOR THESE 10 HOMES BECAUSE THE LIMITED ACCESS AND, NOT HAVING TO PUT THEM IN EXISTING BACKYARDS. THE THIRD REQUEST IS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY REDUCTION, CURRENTLY, THIS PROPERTY IS 270 FOOT WIDE.

ZONING REQUIRES OUR LOTS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 110 FOOT . IF WE HAVE TWO -- 210 FOOT LOT AND A 206 -- 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY , WE PHYSICALLY CANNOT FIT SFA LOTS, EITHER REQUEST OR RIGHT-OF-WAY REDUCTION, OR DO EITHER A PLAN DEVELOPMENT OR ZONING CHANGE, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. IN OUR ORIGINAL DRC MEETING LAST YEAR, RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A VARIANCE TO DO A RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDUCTION TO 50 FOOT, THERE WILL NOT BE ANY CHANGE AS FAR AS THE ROAD THAT GETS BUILT, UTILITIES THAT ARE BUILT, 10 FOOT LESS OF PROPERTY THAT IS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY . THAT ALLOWS US TO MEET ALL THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR SF8 HOUSING AND NOT COME BACK FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE ZONING OR A CHANGE OF ZONING. JUST IN SUMMARY, THIS PROJECT 'S HAS TAKEN A WHILE TO GET TO THIS POINT, THE DEVELOPERS ARE HERE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE COME UP THERE LOOKING TO GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE GROUND AND START BUILDING HOMES. OF COURSE THEY ARE READY TO GO , SO FAR, WE HAVE TRIED TO TAKE EVERY PIECE OF ADVICE FROM THE CITY , ANY COMMENTS, WE HAVE ADDRESSED THEM AS BEST WE COULD. WE HAVE NOT PUSHED BACK ON ANYTHING . EVERYTHING WE HAVE SHOWN YOU SO FAR, WE HAVE NOT BOUGHT BACK ON ANYTHING . WE HAVE TRIED TO DO

[00:40:01]

THE BEST WE CAN TO GET THE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD, THEY ARE SMALL, CONFINED PROPERTIES THE REASON THEY HAVE SAT FOR SO LONG . I HAVE SEEN TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT PLANS WERE PREVIOUS OWNERS HAVE TRIED TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY AND HAVE FALLEN THROUGH. WE ARE LOOKING TO MOVE THIS PROJECT FORWARD. I AM GOING TO TURN IT OVER , SHE WANTED TO SAY WHY THE CUL-DE-SAC VARIANCES IS NECESSARY FOR THEM . IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, I AM HAPPY TO

ANSWER THEM. >> THANK YOU.

>> I THINK THE HARDSHIP FOR THE PROPERTY IS BECAUSE, NO MATTER WHAT, THE HARDSHIP FOR THE PROPERTY IS THAT WE WILL HAVE A 24 FOOT FIRE LANE FOR OUR EASEMENT, WE HAVE AN EASEMENT AND WE NEED EASEMENT, THE ONLY THING WE HAVE , WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE, THE CITY SAYS, YOU HAVE AN EASEMENT, IT HAS ACCESS TO THE STREET, WHEN THE CITY DID APPROVE OUR ADDITION TO OUR HOME , THEY TOLD US THAT, WITHOUT THE STREET TOUCHING OUR PROPERTY, THEY DID NOT KNOW HOW TO PLAT IT, IT WAS TOO CONFUSING AT HAVING THE STREET WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE CITY TO PLAT .

THERE HARDSHIP IS, THEY HAVE A 24 FOOT EASEMENT, THAT WILL HAVE TO BE SOMEWHERE FOR US, IF IT IS A ROAD, THAT MAKES IT EASIER .

THE >> LET ME ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION, I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING THAT SHOWS THE EASEMENT , WHERE IS THAT EASEMENT SUPPOSEDLY AT?

>> IT IS ON THE SIDE, A 24 FOOT FIRE LANE EASEMENT , COMBINATION UTILITY , AND ON A PLAT FROM JOE WHEN HE PLATTED IT. A DOTTED

LINE. CALLED A -- >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> THESE FOUR LOTS WERE DEDICATED TO THE EASEMENT THAT IS HILL CREEK AND QUAIL RIDGE THAT GO DALROCK,TO THAT WAS THERE EASEMENT , THE OTHER LOT HAVE ATTACHMENTS TO THE ROADS EXCEPT FOR HOURS AND THAT IS WHY WE HAD EASEMENT. IF YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO THE HISTORY. THAT MAKES WHOEVER PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY HAVE A HARDSHIP ON TRYING TO DEVELOP IT AND ACCOMMODATE OUR EASEMENT . FOR US TO HAVE AN EASEMENT THAT IS MUCH BETTER THAN THE 24 FOOT FIRE LANE AND RESIDENTIAL, A STREET IS MUCH BETTER. IT WILL GET BETTER ACCESS TO ANY FIRE EMERGENCY THAT GETS CLOSE TO US, THAT GETS TO TOUCH OUR PROPERTY . HE MENTIONED THAT MAYBE WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AND CREATE A DRIVEWAY. WHATEVER IS THERE IS PERMANENT AND TO PERMANENTLY

HURT US OR PERMANENTLY HELP US. >> THANK YOU. YOU ARE SAYING YOU ARE GOING TO VACATE THAT EASEMENT ?

>> ONLY IF WE HAVE ANOTHER EASEMENT , WHICH WOULD BE A ROAD ON A CUL-DE-SAC, WE CANNOT VACATE IT WITHOUT SOMETHING THAT IS AT LEAST MINIMUM ACCOMMODATING AND TOUCHES OUR

PROPERTY. >> THAT IS WHAT I AM GETTING AT.

THE DEVELOPER REALLY WANTS TO DO THIS, WHY WOULD WE JUST HAVE A CURB CUT IN A CUL-DE-SAC AND WHY NOT HAVE A ROAD TO THE HOUSE? HAVE YOU ALREADY AGREED TO VACATE THAT EASEMENT?

>> I WILL VACATE IT IF WE HAVE A ROAD, MY LAWYER WILL HAVE TO GET

INVOLVED. >> THANK YOU.

>> MY NAME IS JOHN, THIS IS MY WIFE, WE CURRENTLY TO HAVE A DIFFICULT SITUATION , OUT OF CODE COMPLIANCE AND THE STREET THAT COMES TO THE CORNER IS 1000 FEET FROM OUR HOUSE 500 FEET FROM OUR PROPERTY LINE. LIKE THEY SAID, THEY HAVE HAD MULTIPLE DEVELOPERS TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING PRIOR TO THIS, THEY FAILED. THIS DEVELOPER HAS REALLY FORTHCOMING IN WORKING WITH U ON TRYING TO COME UP WITH A SOLID SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. IT SEEMS LIKE, FROM WHAT WE HAVE SEEN , THIS IS THE BEST SOLUTION THAT WE COULD HAVE TO HELP RESOLVE OUR ISSUE. TO HAVE ROAD ACCESS, NOW IN CODE COMPLIANCE, IF WE EVER WANTED TO DO ANYTHING WITH OUR PROPERTY, CURRENTLY, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT . WE HAVE TO COME UP HERE AND GET YOUR TEAM TO VOTE IN EXCEPTION , WHEREAS, OTHERS ARE ALREADY CODE COMPLIANT . THIS WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM FOR US. AT LEAST , AT A MINIMUM, GETS A

[00:45:06]

FIVE -- GETS A FIRE TRUCK 500 FEET CLOSER IT SOLVES OUR BIGGEST CONCERN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE FOR US.

>> NO, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS COMMITTEE QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? MR. POLLARD? >> I WILL ASK THIS BACKWARDS FROM WHAT I INTENDED TO DO, HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED HERE?

>> STEP UP TO THE MIC. >> TWENTY YEARS, 15 FOR 20 YEARS, I AM SORRY, I AM GETTING OLD AND TIME GOES BY FAST.

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT . TO THE DEVELOPER, THAT IS ALL I NEED FROM YOU, THANK YOU. AZTECS, CORRECT PRONUNCIATION?

>> YES . >> HOW LONG HAVE THEY OWNED THE

PROPERTY? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS 2023 WHEN

THEY PURCHASED IT. >> WHO DID THEY BUY IT FROM?

>> I DO NOT KNOW OFFHAND. >> THEY BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH A VERY UNIQUE PROBLEM. LANDLOCKED .

>> YES, SIR. >> AND, GOING BACK TO YOUR VARIANCES, THAT YOU HAVE ASKED FOR, THE 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY , THE CONTENTION IS TO STAFF, THAT IS A HARDSHIP , BECAUSE YOU CANNOT GET THE DEPTH OF THE PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE

STREET. >> WE CAN'T MEET SF8 ZONING.

>> I AM GOING TO ASK, I MENTIONED THIS TO STAFF, LET'S SAY EITHER SIDE OF THE STREET, LOST THE HOMES OVER THERE, YOU COULD HAVE THE 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY .

>> IF YOU LOST ALL OF THE HOMES ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, --

>> YOUR VARIANCES IS BY ONE OF ELECTION AND NOT BY HARDSHIP OF SAYING , I WANT TO DOUBLE LOAD THE STREET ? I WANT HOUSES ON

EACH SIDE? >> YES.

>> IF YOU LOST ONE OF THOSE, YOU CAN MEET ALL OF YOUR -- WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LENGTH OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, YOU CAN MEET CITY

CODE? >> YES, YOU COULD. IF YOU CUT

THE LOTS IN HALF. >> THAT WILL DO IT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ? THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? YOU MUST BE SITTING OUT THERE FOR SOMETHING ELSE. I KNOW IT IS NOT ENTERTAINMENT . WE WILL GO OUT AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION . SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. POLLARD. YOU STILL NEED TO HIT THE RTS.

>> I AM ON. I MOVE THAT WE VOTE TO DENY THE REQUEST.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION ? MISS WILLIAMS SECONDS THE MOTION, A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST WITH A SECOND. ANY

DISCUSSION? >> DISCUSSION.

[00:50:05]

>> MR. POLLARD? >> OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THE PLIGHT OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. BUT WE HAVE REGULATIONS IN THE CITY .

FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY, WHEN EITHER ONE OF THE SUBDIVISIONS ON OTHER SIDE OF THIS, WAS BUILT , IT WAS NOT INCLUDED. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT WASN'T . LANDLOCKED PIECE OF PROPERTY. STILL, WE HAVE REGULATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN THERE DATING MANY YEARS AGO, PROBABLY WHEN THIS WAS BUILT.

SO, I DO NOT SEE HARDSHIP, I SEE ONE BY THE DEVELOPER OF CHOICE .

I UNDERSTAND IT WILL PROBABLY NOT BE FEASIBLE FOR THE THEM TO-- BUILD IT THEY CANNOT BUILD THE NUMBER OF HOUSES THEY WANT, AT THE SAME TIME, THOSE WAYS EXISTED, BACK INTO THE 1980S. IT IS ONE OF CHOICE TO HAVE -- TO DO WHAT HE DID, HE CAN LOSE LOTS AND STILL DEVELOP, I DO NOT SEE THIS AS A HARDSHIP.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I DO.

>> I DO. >> SORRY. SEAT NUMBER NINE, THAT IS THE LAWYER , YOU CANNOT TALK RIGHT NOW.

>> I HAVE TO PUSH THE BUTTON TO LET YOU TALK. WE CAN'T DO A MOTION TO DENY, IT IS ONLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. HENCE, WE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD ON A MOTION TO DENY, ONLY APPROVAL AND IT

CAN FAIL FROM THERE. >> UNDERSTAND, UNTIL WE GET TO THE POINT OF VOTING, WE WILL HAVE SOME DISCUSSION. THANK YOU.

MS. WEIS? >> THINKING ABOUT THE STAFF ANALYSIS WE HAVE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED, THERE IS DISCUSSION THAT A 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD SUFFICE FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE , NO DETRIMENT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, OTHER PROPERTIES, THIS LOT HAS BEEN THERE QUITE A LONG TIME. I AM CONSIDERING THE STAFF ANALYSIS , TO REVIEW, DID NOT FLAG. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, WE HAVE RULES FOR A REASON. I WANTED TO STATE THAT

FOR THE RECORD. >> I BELIEVE WE HAVE RULES SO WE CAN BREAK THEM. MY ANALYSIS IS A 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, IF THE CITY APPROVES THAT, AMENDABLE TO THAT, THE UTILITIES -- THAT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM , AS FAR AS ALLEYS ARE CONCERNED, LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ADJACENT TO THAT, ONE OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS HAS NO ALLEYS, THIS MAKES IT COMMENSURATE WITH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THE CITY ORIGINALLY REQUESTING ALLEYWAYS ON ALL PROJECTS JUST CREATE A MAINTENANCE ISSUE THAT I THINK EVERYBODY HERE CAN PROBABLY SAY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE TO MAINTAIN. I AM NOT AT ALL OPPOSED TO APPROVING A VARIANCE ON NO ALLEYWAY. THE FINAL ITEM , THE LENGTH OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, I CANNOT EVEN CALL THIS A CUL-DE-SAC BECAUSE THERE WAS ANOTHER EXIT FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC. EXCUSE ME, FROM THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE. AGAIN, I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT EXCEEDING 600 FEET. WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID, AS OUR COUNSELOR SAYS, THIS IS NOT A GOOD MOTION. I JUST REJECTED THAT MOTION. ANOTHER MOTION? WE

[00:55:23]

NEED TO HAVE -- >> YOU CAN ERASE.

>> REALLY? >> THERE WE GO. SO, I AM WILLING TO ENTERTAIN AND OTHER MOTION. MS. WEIS?

>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE FINDINGS AND GRANT THESE VARIANCES. BECAUSE IT IS NOT A DETRIMENT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE, HINDRANCE TO OTHER PROPERTY , CONDITIONS ARE BASED ON THE UNIQUE PROPERTY IN THIS AREA.

THERE ARE UNIQUE PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS AND SHAPE AND CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY, AND I DO NOT SEE A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP -- WELL, A HARDSHIP WOULD BE THE RESULT, IF NOT APPROVED, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE INCONVENIENCE. ON THAT BASIS, I RECOMMEND WE GRANT THE SUBDIVISION VARIANCE REQUESTED.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO GRANT, THE VARIANCES. AND I HAVE A SECOND WITH MR. HERNANDEZ. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE

MOTION ? MR. POLLARD? >> I WILL SAY THIS, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO NOT HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE LENGTH. OR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PER SE , WHAT I AM SAYING , MY CONDITION IS, THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY, THEY KNEW IT HAD PROBLEMS, AND, THERE IS A WAY TO ALLEVIATE PART OF THE PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY ALLEYS, I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ALLEYS AT ALL , THAT IS A COST FACTORS THAT CITIES CAN PICK UP IN THE FUTURE FOR MAINTAINING AN ALLEY ON ONE SIDE. WITH THAT SAID, WE STILL HAVE STANDARDS, THEY KNEW WHAT THE STANDARDS WERE WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, OR SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE DEVELOPER. I DO NOT SEE IT AS A HARDSHIP. IT IS ONE, YES, DEFINITELY AN INCONVENIENCE.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE REQUIREMENTS , REGULATIONS , STANDARDS , TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, FOR INFILL PROPERTY, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE AGILE ENOUGH TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT. WE DO HAVE A HOUSING SHORTAGE, AND WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THIS PROPOSED SOLUTION, STILL SF8 WITH 110 FOOT DEEP LOTS,

>>> A LOT OF EFFORT IS BEING PUT TO MAKE SURE THE HOMES OR DEVELOPMENTS ARE COMESIRATE WITH THE AREA. SO NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. LET'S CALL THE VOTE FOR AN APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES.

AND THAT PASSES 4- 3.

OKAY MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM 4C WHICH IS 4B IN THE PACKAGE.

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY CHAVALI DESAI, BRIDGE TOWER HOMES ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER GENERAL AGENCY

[01:00:04]

INCORPORATED. GARLAND 21. APPROVE A REGULATING PLAN, I'M

[4B. Conduct a public hearing and take action on the Woodmere request for subdivision variance submitted by Vance Liles, MTG Associates, on behalf of property owner Estex Homes Inc. The property is located north of Westover Dr. and southwest of Fairfield Dr. and more particularly described as James Saunders Abstract 1424, Page 030, Tract 19.2, commonly known as 7300 Woodmere Drive.]

SORRY. DID I MESS THIS UP. YES I DID. I WANT TO DO, ITEM 4B ON THE AGENDA WHICH IS 4C IN THE PACKET. OKAY. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE AN ACTION ON WOOD MERE REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION VARIANCE SUBMITTED BY VANCE LOWELL ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS SD HOMES INCORPORATED. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF WEST OVER DRIVE AND SOUTHWEST OF FAIRFIELD DRIVE AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS JAMES SAUNDERS ABSTRACT 1424, PAGE 030 TRACK 19.2. COMMONLY KNOWN AS 7300 WOODMERE DRIVE.

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THIS REQUEST IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM CUL-DE-SAC LINK REQUIREMENTS PER SECTION 77-6036. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS 6.3-ACRE SIGHT IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF FAIRFIELD DRIVE AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS WEST SAUNDERS ABSTRACT 727. THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT IS MTG SURVEYORS. THE APPLICANT TENDS TO TAKE 20 FAMILY LOTS WITHIN THE LAKE VIEW, TO COMPETE 600 FEET BY PROVIDING 781 FEET.

CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPED, IT WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS APPROVED A FEW YEARS PRIOR. WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING OF FF RESIDENTIAL 8 DESIGNATION. AND IT IS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE SITE IS COMPOSED OF UNDEVELOPED VACANT LAND SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL UNDER 7,000 SQUARE FEET. -- UNDER 7,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE DWELLINGS MAY BE ATTACHED OR DETACHED BY EACH UNIT SHOULD BE LOCATED ON ITS OWN LOT. THE EXISTING ZONING FOR THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SF8 AS I MENTIONED PRIOR, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WAS RECENTLY APPROVED IN 2017 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 25 LOTS.

HERE ON YOUR SCREEN WE HAVE A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN. AND THE APPLICANT AS YOU CAN SEE THE APPLICANT IS STILL PROPOSING TO DEVELOP 25 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. THEIR INTENTION IS TO COMPETE AND JOINING ROAD BY CONSTRUCTING A RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC INFILLING. AND IT MAINTAINS A PROPOSED RESIDENCE OF 8. 9 DWELLINGS PER ACRE. ON YOUR SCREEN WE HAVE SITE ELEVATIONS HERE IS WHAT THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WILL LOOK LIKE ONCE DEVELOPED. AS MENTIONED PRIOR, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH BY 185 FEET. THEY ALSO PLAN TO PROVIDE AN EXTENSION TO THE NORTHEASTERN ALLEY TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO SATISFY INITIAL CONCERNS FROM OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT. WITH REGARDS TO SECONDARY ACCESS. SECTION 77-801I STATES THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT APPROVE VARIANCE UNLESS THERE'S SUFFICIENT -- WHERE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PROPERTY.

AND BECAUSE OF THE SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS OF THE

[01:05:05]

SPECIFIC PROPERTY INVOLVED A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER WOULD PROPOSE FROM A MERE INCONVENIENCE IF THE STRICT LETTER OF THESE REGULATIONS IS CARRIED OUT. STAFF FINDS THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR WOODMERE ESTATE APPEAR TO FULLY ALIGN WITH 77-807-I. SUCH AS WIDTH, SHAPE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS DO DEMONSTRATE HARDSHIP. AND A CONNECTION TO THE CUL-DE-SAC FOR AN ADDITIONAL ALLEY. JUSTIFICATIONS ARE ROOTED IN PHYSICAL NECESSITIES RATHER THAN MERE PREFERENCES. AND WHILE THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES THAT DO EXIST, FOR EXAMPLE FEWER LOTS OR REDESIGN ACCESS, THE PROPOSAL DOES SUPPORT ORDERLY INFILL AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS. STAFF SENT OUT PUBLIC NOTICES ON OCTOBER 17, 2025. AS OF TODAY, WE RECEIVED THREE NOTICES IN OPPOSITION WITHIN A 200 FEET RANGE AND 0 IN FAVOR. FOR THE COURTESY NOTICES WE RECEIVED ZERO IN OPPOSITION, ZERO IN FAVOR. THE RECOMMENDING BODY MAY APPROVE THE PERMISSION OR DENY

THE REQUEST. >> THANK YOU, SIR. I HAVE ONE

QUESTION FOR YOU. >> YES, SIR.

>> WHAT'S THE DENSITY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT? AND WHAT'S THE DENSITY OF THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS?

>> I'M NOT SURE AT THE MOMENT. COULD I GET THAT TO YOU.

>> YEAH, I CAN WAIT ON THAT. >> OKAY, GIVE ME A SECOND.

>> IS THE APPLICANT HERE? >> VANCE LYLES OUT OF GREENVILLE

TEXAS. >> SO I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND GIVE THE INTRODUCTION. WHILE THEY'RE GETTING THE PRESENTATION UP. THIS IS THE SAME DEVELOPMENT GROUP THAT I WAS UP HERE WITH. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST PROPERTY THEY WERE LOOKING AT ROWLETT WHEN THEY WERE LOOKING AT INVESTING IN THIS TOWN. THEY HAVE OTHER PROJECTS IN OTHER CITIES AND THEY REALLY LIKE THE AREA. THIS IS THE FIRST PROPERTY. THERE WERE FULL ENGINEERING PLANS, PRELIMINARY PLAQUES, AND APPROVED PD THAT WAS IN PLACE WITH THIS PROJECT OR WITH THIS PROPERTY. WE REVIEWED ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS. WE HAD MEETINGS WITH PREVIOUS CITY STAFF. THEY ARE NO LONGER HERE. AND THEY SAID, YOU KNOW EVERYTHING LOOKED GREAT. WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT KIND OF BRING IT BACK TO LIFE. THE PREVIOUS OWNERS HAD STARTED EARTH WORK IN 2019. I'M UNAWARE OF WHY THEY CANCELED THE PROJECT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAPPENED TO BE AROUND THE TOWN OF COVID OR IF IT WAS BUSINESS PROBLEMS. I WASN'T AWARE OF ANY OF THOSE, ISSUES. SO I CAN KIND OF SKIP YOU KNOW THIS FIRST PAGE HERE. SO, THEY WENT THROUGH THE DUE DILIGENCE. WE MET WITH THE CITY A COUPLE OF TIMES. WE WENT THROUGH THE PROPOSED PLAQUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. IT WAS APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY PLAQUE BEFORE THEY DID CLOSE, BEFORE THEY CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY. WE HAD A DRC MEETING WHERE WE BROUGHT UP THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT. THAT I'VE INCLUDED HERE. THERE WERE SEVERAL ISSUES THAT CAME UP FROM CITY STAFF REGARDING THE MULTIPLE CUL-DE-SACS. SOME ISSUES WITH THE WAY THIS SITE WAS LAYED OUT REGARDING DRAINAGE AND DEAD END WATER LINES AND UTILITY ISSUES. WE WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. AND CAME UP WITH A NEW LAY OUT. IT WASN'T SOMETHING WE WERE ORIGINALLY PLANNING TO DO, BUT WE WENT AHEAD AND MOVED FORWARD WITH A NEW LAY OUT BEFORE THEY DID COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY AND CAME UP WITH THE LAY OUT THAT WE'VE INCLUDED HERE. IT'S VIRTUALLY THE SAME DEVELOPMENT. IT'S JUST A LITTLE MORE KIND OF OPTIMIZED, THE DRAINAGE HAS IMPROVED. THE UTILITIES ARE MORE STREAMLINED TO ALIGN WITH WHAT PUBLIC WORKS WAS LOOKING FOR. WE GOT RID OF THAT INTERMEDIATE CUL-DE-SAC THAT WAS AN ISSUE. BUT WE STILL

[01:10:02]

IMMEDIATE ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUD. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A PD IN PLACE FOR JUST THIS PROPERTY, AND IN ANY KIND OF MODIFICATION TO THAT COULD BE AN ISSUE TO GET PASSED. SO, THE MAIN ISSUE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IS MAINTAIN THE LOT COUNT. WE WERE TOLD THAT, MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAY OUT SINCE THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL PD, THE SITE PLAN SINCE IT WAS PRELIMINARY COULD BE MODIFIED AS LONG AS WE STILL MET ALL THE OTHER CRITERIA. THE PD WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE MODIFIED. WE STILL MEET ALL OF THE LOT DEPTH, WIDTHS, LOT COUNTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THAT ORIGINAL -- IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THAT NUMBER OF LOTS WE DO HAVE TO HAVE THE VARIOUS OF THE CUL-DE-SAC LINKS, OUR CUL-DE-SAC IS NOT ANY LONGER THAN WHAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PD THAT WENT THROUGH COUNCIL AND GOT APPROVED. SO REALLY WHEN THE DEAL CLOSED ON THIS PROPERTY, WE WERE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION AND BASED ON SOME STAFF GUIDANCE AT THE TIME THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY VARIANCES NEEDED WITH THIS PROPERTY. EVEN THOUGH WE HAD CHANGED THE SITE PLAN. WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. LIKE THE OTHER PROJECT WE HAD ACTUALLY SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION BACK IN JANUARY. AND AT THAT TIME THERE WAS SOME APPARENT INTERNAL DISCUSSION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THIS PROPERTY NEEDED A VARIANCE. SO WE MADE A VARIANCE SUBMITTAL SO BACK IN FEBRUARY WAS WHEN THIS VARIANCE SUBMITTAL WENT IN. AT THE TIME PREVIOUS CITY STAFF HEN DETERMINED THAT THA VARIANCE WAS NOT REQUIRED. SO THEN WE RETRACTED OUR VARIANCE REQUEST. AND WE MOVED BACK FORWARD WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT. CURRENT STAFF GOT AHOLD OF IT.

WE WORKED THROUGH IT. WE ALL GOT ON THE SAME PAGE AND IT WAS DETERMINED THE ONLY VARIANCE THAT WAS NECESSARY WAS FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC LINK AT THAT TIME. SO WE HAD OWNED THIS PROPERTY CLOSE TO 18 MONTHS BEFORE WE EVEN TRULY KNEW THAT A VARIANCE WAS GOING TO BE NEEDED TO THE EXISTING PD. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY ANY TIME YOU'RE DEALING WITH AN INFILL PROJECT, ESPECIALLY SOMETHING OF THIS NATURE, YOU RUN THE RISK OF ANY ZONING CHANGE OR ANY REQUEST IS GOING TO BE MET WITH A LOT OF OPPOSITION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW THERE'S 40 OR 50 HOUSES THAT BACK UP TO THIS PROPERTY THAT SET VACANT FOR YEARS. SO, IF WE HAD KNOWN, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO THAT THERE WOULD BE A VARIANCE ISSUE. THAT COULD HAVE COMPLETELY CHANGED THIS WHOLE DEAL. SO, IT WAS VERY UNEXPECTED, BUT WE'RE HERE NOW.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET YOU KNOW THIS ONE PUSHED THROUGH. WE'RE NOT REQUESTING ANYTHING NEW THAT HASN'T ALREADY REALLY BEEN THROUGH COMMITTEE BEFORE. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MEET THE EXISTING PD THAT'S IN PLACE. THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT KIND OF FELL THROUGH THE CRACKS BACK IN 2017 OR YOU KNOW FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME. SO THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. MUCH LIKE THE LAST PROJECT AS WELL.

THERE WAS SOME ISSUES FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AS FAR AS A DEAD END CUL-DE-SAC WITH NO EXTRA OUTLET. WE ALREADY HAD A COMMON AREA BETWEEN THOSE TWO LOTS TO FIT WATER BECAUSE THE WATER IS GOING TO GO OUT AND LOOP, LOOP FROM, I CAN'T, STREET NAMES ARE ELUDING ME AT THE MOMENT. BUT BASICALLY FROM THAT GOLD STAR ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE OTHER EXTREME. SO WE HAD TO PROVIDE SOME COMMON AREA FOR THAT ANY WAY. SO WE WILL BE PROVIDING THAT SECONDARY ACCESS POINT IN THAT COMMON AREA BETWEEN LOTS.

IT WON'T BE IN AN EASEMENT SO THERE WON'T BE ANY WORRIES OF NEIGHBORS FENCES IMPEDING ON WATER LINE IMPROVEMENTS OR THE ALLEY WAY. AND MUCH LIKE THE LAST PROJECT, THESE GUYS ARE DEVELOPERS AND HOME BUILDERS, YOU KNOW THEY'RE LOOKING AT THESE SMALLER PROJECTS. THEY'RE NOT OUT TO DO THESE GIANT PROJECTS. THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THESE SMALL INFILL PROJECTS.

WHERE THEY CAN MOVE IN, BUILD A QUALITY PRODUCT AND MOVE OUT.

KIND OF FILL A LITTLE HOLE. WHERE PROPERTIES LIKE THIS THAT MAY HAVE CHALLENGING KIND OF GET OVERLOOKED, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING TO THRIVE. SO IF THERE'S ANY

QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OH, MY, MY. MR. HERNANDEZ.

>> JUST ONE QUESTION. THE LOTS ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THE STREET. WAS THERE ANY WAY TO GET THOSE TO CONNECTED TO THE ALLEY

WAY. >> THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, THERE CAN BE ACCESS TO THE STREET OR TO THE ALLEY. THESE ARE NOT FINAL SITE PLANS WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE HOMES UNTIL WE GET ENGINEERING APPROVED FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

[01:15:01]

I BELIEVE SEVERAL OF THOSE HOMES WILL END UP CONNECTING TO THE ALLEY JUST TO LIMIT THE CONGESTION ON THE STREET. A SITE PLAN CHANGE AND THEN WE'RE BACK HERE TRYING TO GET A VARIANCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I WASN'T SURE IF I DIDN'T SHOW THEM CONNECTING TO THE STREET NOW IF THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE IN

THE FUTURE. >> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PLANS SOUTH AND THEN PLAN EAST AS WELL. YEAH, OKAY. THANK YOU.

MRS. WILLIAMS. >> WILL THE NEW HOMES FACE DIRECTLY INTO THE BACKYARDS OF THE EXISTING HOMES?

>> THE NEW HOMES WILL ALL FACE THE INTERNAL STREET. SO ANY WHERE THAT WE'RE BACKING UP TO AN EXISTING HOME IT'LL BE EXISTING HOMES BACKYARDS LOOKING AT NEW HOMES BACKYARDS.

>> WILL YOU PROVIDE ADEQUATE GREEN BUFFER FOR PRIVACY TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE QUIET NEIGHBOROOD?

>> SO ALL THESE HOMES WILL PLEAT THE REQUIRED SET BACKS. SO THEY'LL ALL HAVE BACKYARDS THAT BACK UP TO THOSE EXISTING BACKYARDS. THE E, LET'S SEE THE WESTBOUND WEST BOUNDARY.

>> THERE'S NO REQUIRED BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN THE TWO.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. ADDITIONALLY, THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF A PD. SO THE ISSUES LIKE GREEN SPACE, THEY WERE HASHED OUT DURING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AS

WELL. >> RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> MR. POLLARD.

>> I HAVE THREE QUESTIONS THEN A COMMENT. ONE, ACCESS TO THIS AREA IS FROM A STREET THROUGH AN ALLEY WAY BETWEEN COUPLE OF HOUSES INTO YOUR SUBDIVISION, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> NO, SIR, IT'S AN EXISTING DEAD END STREET THAT HAS ALLEY WAYS GOING OFF EITHER SIDE OF IT.

>> OKAY, ALL RIGHT. AND SECOND OF ALL, ALL THE LOTS THAT YOU SHOW ON YOUR PLAN HERE: THEY'RE ALL AT LEAST 5,000 FEET.

>> NO, THE PD IS I THINK 6,000. >> SO WHAT MIXTURE DO YOU HAVE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LOTS OR ARE THEY ALL BARELY 6,000 SQUARE

FEET. >> NO, SIR THEY'RE NOT ALL BARELY 6,000. I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. JUST BECAUSE IT WASN'T AN ISSUE OF TONIGHT. BUT I BELIEVE IT PROBABLY AVERAGES AROUND 7,000. OKAY WE COMMENT THE OTHER

PROJECT. >> IT WENT OFF FOR SOME REASON.

>> THE OTHER PROJECT THAT YOU HAD, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU STAYED WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF WHAT THE EXISTING ZONING IS. ON THIS, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A, A PD8000 SQUARE

FOOT IS THAT CORRECT? >> IT IS A PD THAT IS BASED ON 8,000 SQUARE FOOT BUT AS PART OF THAT PD IT WAS REDUCED DOWN TO

6,000. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> YES, SIR. >> MR. WHITE.

>> I WAS LOOKING AT THE, YOUR PLOT PLAN HERE. SO THE WIDTH OF THE LOTS YOU'RE SAYING LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE CONSIDERABLY SMALLER THAN THE HOUSES, THE WIDTH AND SURROUNDING AREA,

CORRECT. >> I BELIEVE THE PD REDUCED IT

BY 5-FOOT FROM SF8. >> AND IS SPACING FROM THE

HOUSING WAS REDUCED. >> I DON'T BELIEVE THE SET BACK

WAS REDUCED. >> THE SET BACK FROM THE FRONT

OF THE HOME. >> I THOUGHT THE SIDE. WE'RE STILL TRYING TO GET THROUGH THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THINGS. WE WERE MOVING FORWARD WITH HOUSE PLANS AND ENGINEERING PLANS WHEN WE WERE KIND OF PUT ON HOLD WAITING TO GET A VARIANCE APPROVED THAT WE WEREN'T AWARE THIS PROPERTY NEEDED. BECAUSE

[01:20:06]

OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE, THE THIS PROPERTY CAN'T MOVE

FORWARD WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT. >> MY CONCERN IS YOU'RE TRYING TO PACK AS MANY HOUSES AS POSSIBLE IN THAT SMALLISH AREA.

SEEMS LIKE WE'RE JUST JAMMING IT ALL IN.

>> THE FOOTPRINTS OF THE HOMES CAN STILL BE ADJUSTED.

>> LET ME INTERRUPT YOU PLEASE. >> YES, SIR.

>> BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SITTING HERE CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW IS THE VARIANCE. THE PD HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE CAN GO BACK AND SAY NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT. OKAY SO WE NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON THE VARIANCE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS. THANK YOU, SIR, APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO AT THIS TIME WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE ONE

SPEAKER. PLEASE. >> MY NAME IS GREG DUNCAN I LIVE AT 6421 FAIRFIELD DRIVE. HERE IN ROWLETT. ONE OF MY PROPERTY ACTUALLY BACKS UP TO THIS ONE. I'M THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY SOLD THAT PROPERTY TO PHASE ONE. AND THEN I GUESS HE MUST HAVE SOLD IT TO EAST TEXAS. I HAD TO ACTUALLY APPLY FOR THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE FOR THAT REDUCTION OF THE LOT SIZE. BUT WHAT I APPLIED FOR, WAS THE REDUCTION OF THE LOT SIZE FOR THE SIX OR SEVEN LOTS THAT SHARE THE ALLEY WITH WEST OVER. MY INTENTION WAS BACK THEN, AND SO I BELIEVE WAS PHASE ONE, THAT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE APPLIED TO EVERY LOT IN THERE. AND I WANT TO GO ON RECORD, I AM POSED TO THAT EXTRA ALLEY WAY THAT CONNECTS THAT CUL-DE-SAC TO THE ALLEY WAY THAT SHARES WITH FAIRFIELD AND I THINK IT'S MILTON. SO THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NO OTHERS, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. OR WE CAN SIT HERE

FOR A WHILE. MRS. WISE. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO EXTEND THE DRIVEWAY TO THE REQUESTED

781 FEET. >> I'M SORRY, I THINK THAT WAS

TOO SHORT. >> BECAUSE I FEEL THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE TO THE SAFETY, THE SPACE ARE UNIQUE TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY -- BECAUSE THE PARTICULAR PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS, SHAPE AND TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY INVOLVED, IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS A HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER WOULD RESULT AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE INCONVENIENCE. SO IF THE STRICT LETTER OF THESE REGULATIONS IS CARRIED OUT AND ON THAT BASIS GRANT THE SO DIVISION VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE MOTION THAT I'M MAKING.

>> THANK YOU MRS. WISE. WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. HERNANDEZ.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. POLLARD.

>> AGAIN, I'LL EXPRESS THE SAME RATIONAL, THAT'S ON THE RECORD THAT YOU KNOW WHEN THEY BOUGHT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY THEY KNEW IT HAD CHALLENGED OF INGRESS AND EGRESS AND THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE IS ONE OF THEIR CHOICE NOT BECAUSE OF A HARDSHIP. IT'S

ONE OF, OF CHOICE. >> AND I MIGHT AGREE WITH THAT EXCEPT, THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AND REQUIREMENT IS ACTUALLY WAS IMPOSED ON A POSTAPPROVAL. SO IT'S KIND OF, NOW IT IS THEIR

[01:25:06]

HARDSHIP. AND I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I SHOULD HAVE ASKED WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD A DENSITY ANSWER FOR ME.

>> THANK YOU CHAIR, THE DENSITY IS 3. 3.93 AND THAT IS WHAT WAS

APPROVED. >> DO WE KNOW WHAT THE

SURROUNDING DENSITY IS. >> NO, SIR BUT WE DO KNOW THAT IT IS SURROUNDED WITH SF8 WHICH IS CLOSE TO WHAT THE APPLICANT

IS PROPOSING. >> RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.

AND THIS VARIANCE PASSES 5-2.

[4C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Shaivali Desai, Bridge Tower Homes, on behalf of property owner General Agency Inc. Garland, to 1) Approve a Regulating Plan 2) Amend the Comprehensive Plan from Employment Center to Medium Density Residential 3) Approve a minor access warrant to Section 2.10.3 of the FBC to connect to Merritt Road. The site is located north of Merritt Road and west of the President George Bush Highway. The site is addressed as 8500 Merritt Road, being 23.673 acres in the James M. Hamilton Abstract Number 0544 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

>>> MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM 4C WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE PACKET AS 4B. ON A REQUEST BY SHAVALI. YES, THANK YOU. THIS A BRIDGETOWN HOMES ON BEHALF OF THE AGENCY INCORPORATED GARLAND 2, 1 APPROVE A REGULATING PLAN. TWO AMEND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. TO SECTION 2.10.3 OF THE FBC TO CONNECT TO MERIT ROAD. THE SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF MERIT ROAD AND WEST OF THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH HIGHWAY. THE SITE IS ADDRESSED AS 8,500 MERIT ROAD BEING 23.673 ACRES IN THE JAMES M. HAMILTON ABSTRACT NUMBER 0544 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS

COUNTY TEXAS. MR. KING. >> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN, MICHAEL KING, CITY PLANNER, CITY OF ROWLETT. SO, MR. COTE, OR CHAIRMAN COTE READ THE REQUEST. THIS SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF MERIT ROAD, WEST OF THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH HIGHWAY.

THIS SITE IS ADDRESSED AS 8500 MERIT ROAD. IT'S ABOUT ALMOST 24 ACRES, IT'S A I WANT TO CALL IT A SQUARE DONUT OR RECTANGULAR DONUT. GIVE YOU A BETTER VIEW OF IT. OH, SORRY. THE REQUEST IS TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REGULATING PLAN. CONSIDER AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE FROM EMPLOYMENT CENTER TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A MINOR ACCESS WARRANT IN ACCORDANCE TO SECTION 2.10.3 OF THE FORM BASE CODE TO CONNECT TO MERIT ROAD. SO THIS IS AN UPDATE A FEW WEEKS AGO. THIS WAS HEARD INITIALLY. ON OCTOBER 15, COMMISSIONERS VOTED 2-2 BUT FAILED TO SECURE A MAJORITY VOTE OF APPROVAL.

COMMISSIONERS WENT ON TO VOTED TO TABLE THE ITEM TO HEAR IT WITH THE FULL COMMISSION TONIGHT. AND SO, THAT PASSED 2-1. SO GIVEN THE IDEA OF THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS MULTIPLE PARCELS. TAKING UP, THESE I THINK SIX OR SEVEN PARCELS ARE GOING TO COME UP TO BUILD THE APPLICANT WANTS TO BUILD 185 TOWNHOMES OF THE TOWNHOME TWO TYPE DESIGN CRITERIA THAT IS SET FORTH IN A FORM BASE CODE. THE COMMERCIAL CENTER THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS THE AREA AS AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER. THIS SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 24 ACRES, MOST OF IT IS VACANT LAND, FARMLAND.

THERE'S SOME LAY UP BARNS AND STUFF LIKE THAT ON THE PROPERTIES. THERE'S THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE GOING TO REMAIN IN THE CENTER. THEY'RE NOT A PART OF THIS REQUEST SO THAT'S THE, CENTER OF THAT RECTANGULAR DONUT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL USES AND VACANT LAND FORM BASE CODE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH.

[01:30:03]

COMMUNITY CENTER TO THE SOUTHEAST AND WEST. SO IN ORDER TO DO THIS, WE'VE GOT TO, APPROVE THE REGULATING PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT. WE'VE GOT TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH IS THAT FUTURE LAND USE TO TAKE IT FROM BEING AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER TO MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING. THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROPOSED PLAN ALSO REQUIRES MINOR ACCESS WARRANT TO CONNECT TO MERIT ROAD. THAT'S JUST A PART OF THE FORM BASE CODE. THAT DEALS WITH ACCESS TO LARGER THOROUGHFARES. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE A KIND OF MIX OF ZONING AND FORM BASE COMMERCIAL CENTER. FORM BASE COMMERCIAL CENTER REQUIRES PEDESTRIAN STREET SCAPE. THE RESIDENTIAL -- WHAT YOU REALLY WANT TO SEE IN COMMERCIAL CENTER IS RESIDENTIAL ABOVE RETAIL OR OTHER EMPLOYMENT USES RETAIL OR OFFICE SERVICE USES. SO, THE REGULATING PLAN YOU CAN SEE HERE SHOWS 185 TOWNHOMES. THEY ARE INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED. IT'S ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITHIN THIS, WITHIN THIS DISTRICT. PARKING, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT AND GARAGES. AN ADDITIONAL 90 VISITOR SPACES ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDED. THE ACCESS IS VIA MERIT ROAD IN FAYETEVILLE AVENUE. SO FAYETEVILLE AND PLANNED NORTH, ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS PROJECT CONNECTS TO HICOX ROAD. THE PROPERTY WILL BE MANAGED AND MAINTAINED BY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION POA OR AN HOA. SO WHAT THE NEXT STEP, IS ALSO AFTER YOUR REGULATING PLAN YOU NEED TO AMEND YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO WHAT YOU SEE ON YOUR LEFT IS EMPLOYMENT CENTER AND WHAT IS PROPOSED IS ON THE RIGHT IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. OF NOTE IS THE PROPERTY JUST TO THE NORTHWEST, THE TOWNHOMES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. THAT IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND IT, PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AT A LATER DATE. THE MINOR WARRANT IS WHAT YOU CAN SEE WITH THESE RED ARROWS. THE APPLICANT WANTS TO ADD TWO DRIVE IN ENTRANCES TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO USE THE HICOX ROAD INTERSECTION. THEY PLAN ON DOING ENHANCED CROSSWALK. FEATURES, AT HICOX AND MERIT. THE RED ARROWS INDICATE THE CONNECTION TO MERIT IF IT WAS A LITTLE CLEARER ON THIS PHOTO, YOU COULD SEE ONE OF THE ARROWS IS ALREADY AN EXISTING DRIVE ENTRANCE. AND ONE IS VERY CLOSE TO AN EXISTING DRIVE ENTRANCE THAT'S ON MERIT.

SO IT'S NOT MUCH CHANGING ON A STREET SCAPE. OUR OVER ALL -- THE APPLICANT WANTS TO ENHANCE -- TO CREATE A MORE WALKABLE COMMUNITY. THE TOWNHOME USES ARE ALLOWED BY COMMERCIAL CENTER ZONING DISTRICT AMENITIES AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET. THE HOA IS GOING TO MAINTAIN ALL THOSE AMENITIES AND OPEN SPACE. ALLEYS AND GARAGES, THIS IS AN INTERESTING CORPORATION BETWEEN ROWLETT FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE DEVELOPER.

ALLEYS ARE GOING TO BE WIDER TO ACCOMMODATE BETTER FIRE PROTECTION. INSTEAD OF A 15-FOOT WIDE ALLEY THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE 24-FOOT WIDE ALLEYS TO ALLOW FIRE TRUCKS AND LARGER VEHICLES TO GET AROUND. THE SINGLE TOWN FAMILY WITH TWO CAR GARAGE PRESERVES A STREET SCAPE. SO YOU WILL STILL HAVE THAT STREET SCAPE THAT'S DESIRED THROUGHOUT THE NORTH SHORE. THE STREETS IN PRIMARY ENTRY LAKE LANDSCAPING, DUE TO THE DESIGN OF THE SITE, IT'S FOLLOWING THE NORTH SHORE STREET SEGMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF THE JOGGING PATHS, THE WALK WAYS.

THE BICYCLE PARKING. THE BICYCLE RACKS ALL OF THAT GOOD STUFF THAT COMES WITH FORM BASE CODE STREET SCAPE DESIGN. WE REQUIRE 9,600 FEET OF LANDSCAPING AT A FRONT ENTRANCE TO A DEVELOPMENT.

[01:35:03]

THE APPLICANTS ACTUALLY GOING TO PROVIDE 26,000 SQUARE FEET ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF ON MERIT. AND THEN, ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE ALONG MERIT IS ANOTHER21,700 STPAOET. 21,700 -- SQUARE FEET.

SO A LOT OF LANDSCAPING AROUND MERIT ROAD. OUR PUBLIC NOTICES WENT OUT ON OCTOBER 17TH. ADDS OF TODAY STAFF HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED 10 NOTICES IN FAVOR. WE HAD ONE COME IN LATER TODAY. SO WE HAVE 10 NOTICES IN FAVOR. ZERO NOTICES IN OPPOSITION WITHIN 200 FEET WE HAD ZERO NOTICES IN FAVOR AND ZERO NOTICES IN OPPOSITION IN THE 200 TO 500-FOOT RANGE. THE COMMISSION MAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL. APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF. MR.

POLLARD. >> ANY OVER LAY IN THE NORTH

SHORE AREA FOR BUSINESSES? >> THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP HAS AN OVERLAY OF EMPLOYMENT CENTER. IN THE DESIGN, I CAN COME BACK HERE, RIGHT HERE. THAT'S THE ONLY OVERLAY RIGHT NOW. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF HOMES IN NORTH SHORE.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE AT THAT POINT YET. I DON'T THINK THIS

185 GETS US TO THERE YET. >> SO THERE IS NO OVERLAY AS

MUCH AS FAR AS ZONING ITSELF. >> NO THE ZONING ITSELF IS, BACK HERE, IT'S THE FORM BASE COMMERCIAL CENTER. SO THAT IS

THE, THE DISTRICT. >> SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THERE IS NO OVERLAY FOR THIS ENTIRE NORTH SHORE DISTRICT AND THE ZONING IN PLACE IS AND CAN BE BY RIGHT NEW NEIGHBORHOOD, ORGAN VILLAGE, COMMERCIAL CENTER, WHATEVER THE ZONING ON THE GROUND IS.

CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> MR. HALL, DID YOU. >> JUST FOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION. THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER ISN'T AN OVERLAY, IT IS A LAND USE. WE HAD OVERLAY DISTRICTS IN THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE SUCH AS THE INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT IS SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 66 OR ROUT 66. BUT FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THIS IS A LAND USE OF EMPLOYMENT CENTER.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

>> COMMENT. >> MR. POLLARD.

>> A COMMENT, MR. HALL. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. ON THE, IT'S A COMPONENT OF THE COMMERCIAL CENTER MAYBE BUT NOT OF THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER. THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER, ANY HAVING BEEN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE CENTER EMPLOYMENT CENTER WAS MAINLY VAST MAJORITY A BUSINESS WITH ONLY A TINY POTENTIAL PORTION TO BE CONNECTED TO ANY BUSINESS THAT CAME IN. NOT SEPARATELY. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS IS TOTALLY SEPARATE. HAS NO BUSINESS COMPONENT.

>> RIGHT, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. COMMISSIONER POLLARD. AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR AREA, THIS IS LOCATED IN THE NORTH SHORE PLANNING AREA OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SPECIFIC TO THE LAND USE HOWEVER, THIS IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT WITHIN THE NORTH SHORE PLANNING AREA AS A LAND USE OF EMPLOYMENT CENTER. THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF NORTH SHORE PLANNING AREA, WAS TO HAVE A COMBINATION OF EMPLOYMENT CENTERS AS WELL AS SUPPORTING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES.

BUT, JUST ADDING CLARITY WHEN WE SPEAK OF OVERLAYS, OVER LAYS ARE

[01:40:05]

TYPICALLY CODIFIED IN OUR ZONING ORDNANCE. THEY CAN BE IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION THAT THIS ISN'T PARTICULARLY AN OVERLAY. IT'S AN ACTUAL LAND USE. SO THE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT IS TO GO FROM EMPLOYMENT CENTER WHICH IS PRIMARILY DOMINATED BY EMPLOYMENT USES TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE UNDER LINING ZONING WHICH IS FORM BASE

COMMERCIAL CENTER. >> I WOULDN'T ARGUE THAT POINT.

THAT YOU JUST MADE. AND THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT IS -- I THINK IF YOU'RE POINTING BY RIGHT, THEY CAN

BUILD HERE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR

STAFF. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WELCOME.

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO PRESENT OUR PROJECT. WHICH IS NAMED MERIT CROSSING AT 8500 MERIT ROAD.

>> STATE YOUR NAME. >> SHAVALI DESAI. I'M THE

DIRECTOR OF ENTITLEMENT. >> CITY OF RESIDENCE.

>> SORRY. >> YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE.

>> FRISCO, TEXAS. >> THANK YOU.

>> WANTED TO SHOW THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE.

IT'S AS MICHAEL MENTIONED IT'S ABOUT 24 ACRES OF SITE. THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. IT HAS VACANT SIDE AND ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO THE EAST. VACANT SIDE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. AND IT HAS RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS ASPEN SQUARE. WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY CALLED MARABILAS. 60 TOWNHOMES AND A MULTIFAMILY LOT TO THE WEST OF THIS SITE. WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING HERE TODAY IS THE APPROVAL OF REGULATING PLAN.

APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO MEET DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND APPROVAL OF MINOR ACCESS WARRANT TO HAVE ACCESS DRIVE CONNECT TO MERIT ROAD. WE DID WANT TO POINT THAT WE ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY ZONING CHANGE IN OUR PROJECT TOWNHOME TWO IS AN ALLOWED USE UNDER CURRENT ZONING.

>> SHOWING THE CONCEPT PLAN. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY FOR ALMOST MORE THAN A YEAR. THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS ITERATIONS OF THIS DESIGN. YOU KNOW DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT KINDS OF LAY OUT AND, FINALLY, ADDRESSING ALL OF THE CITY'S INPUT, CITIES COMMENTS, THIS PLAN WAS DEVELOPED. WHERE WE ARE PROVIDING 185 TOWNHOMES WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. OF THE ZONING ORDNANCE FOR FORM BASE COMMERCIAL CENTER, WE ARE MEETING THOSE STANDARDS. AS THIS SHOWS IN THE PROJECT DATA, THAT WE'LL BE PROPOSING 185 ATTACHED UNITS UNDER THE FOREIGN BASED COMMERCIAL CENTER. THE MINIMUM READING HEIGHT TWO STORIES, WE ARE MEETING ALL THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. WHICH IS TWO PER LOT IN THE GARAGES AS WELL AS PROVIDING 90 SPACES ON THE STREET NETWORK AS WHAT IS SUGGESTED BY THE FOREIGN BASED CODE. I WANTED TO BRING THIS TO ATTENTION THAT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TOWNHOME TWO, ALL THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHICH ARE THERE IN THE FORM BASED CODE, WE ARE MEETING, MEETING ALL THOSE STANDARDS. AND THE INTENT OF FORM BASE CODE OF AND ALSO AS MICHAEL MENTIONED WE ARE PROVIDING ALLEYS WHICH FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIRED US TO MAKE IT BIGGER. SO ALL THE ALLEYS ARE MINIMUM 24 FEET WIDE. SOME OF THEM ARE EVEN 31 FEET WIDE. SO

[01:45:01]

THAT THERE IS, THERE IS ENOUGH SPACE FOR FIRE TRUCK MOVEMENT THROUGH THE SITE. FOREIGN BASE COMMERCIAL STANDARDS ALLOW USE AND IT ALSO MENTIONED THIS AREA REQUIRES A HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT WITH OPEN SPACE AND SHADE FOR OUTDOOR AND PROVIDING ESSENTIALLY, INTENSE RESIDENTIAL FABRIC AND THESE ARE THE SAMPLES FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO MEET.

SURROUNDING APPROVED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ARE THE ASPEN SQUARE. WHICH IS 60 TOWNHOMES AND OXEN THREE WHICH IS 145 HOMES. BOTH OF THESE PROJECTS, FUTURE LAND USE IS ALSO AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER. AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO PROPOSE IS ALSO BASICALLY COMPLIMENTARY TO THE SURROUNDING USES AND THE EXISTING USES AROUND THIS SITE. WE WANTED TO SHOW THIS NEAR BY INDUSTRIAL PARK WHICH IS, WHICH IS RIGHT ON THE EAST OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE ROAD. IT'S ALMOST 1.8 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL PARK. AND WE ARE HOPING THAT OUR PROJECT WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE RESIDENCES WHICH, WHICH CAN BE FOR THE EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD BE WORKING IN THESE, IN THIS INDUSTRIAL PARK. ALSO, CITIES MASTER PLAN IT REQUIRES FAYETTEVILLE TO BE FULLY BUILT. AS WELL AS IT REQUIRES A 94-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY KIND OF BISECTING THROUGH THE SITE. AS PART OF OUR PROJECT, WE ARE PROVIDING THAT. WE ARE MEETING THAT MASTER THOROUGHFARES REQUIREMENT OF BUILDING FAYETTEVILLE THROUGH OUR SITE AS WELL AS PROVIDING THAT 94-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL. WE ARE ONLY REQUESTING A MINOR WARRANT TO CONNECT TO MERIT ROAD. AND THAT ALSO WANTED TO EXPLAIN THERE IS ALREADY AN EXISTING FAYETTEVILLE INTERSECTION AT MERIT ROAD. AND THE SECOND DRIVE INTERSECTION IS ALSO THERE. ONLY THING IS WE ARE WIDENING THAT INTERSECTION AND WE ARE PROVIDING ONE MORE NEW ENTRANCE FOR BETTER CIRCULATION THROUGH THE SITE. WANTED TO SHOW THIS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER LAND USE IS PROJECTED TO HAVE -- AND I APOLOGIZE. IT'S NOT VERY CLEAR.

THE YELLOW PORTION THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED. BUT AS PER ROWLETT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER IS TO HAVE -- THE CURRENT EXISTING AND PROPOSED HOUSING UNITS IN THIS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY, 1,600. WHICH STILL LEAVES ABOUT 1,400 UNITS OF WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS ABOUT 185 OF THOSE 1,400 UNITS. AT 7.7 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. IN DENSITY KIND OF MORE IN LINE WITH THE LOWER DENSITY, BETWEEN THE LOWER DENSITY AND MEDIUM DENSITY. BECAUSE LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS ABOUT SIX DWELLINGS AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL IS 12 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE.

ALSO EMPLOYMENT CENTER USE NORMALLY MEANS LIKE A LARGE PARCEL WHICH IS LIKE THE LAKE VIEW BUSINESS PARK IS ABOUT 165-ACRE. STATE FARM AT CITY LINE IS ABOUT 100-ACRE. OUR SITE IS 23-ACRE. IT IS NOT REALLY LARGE ENOUGH TO BUILD THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER USE. BUT WE DEFINITELY THINK THE USE WE ARE BUILDING, WOULD BE, WOULD SUPPORT THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. WE ARE MEETING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS GOALS AND PRINCIPLE OF ENSURING THE ORDERLY GROWTH AND SUPPORTING THE, IN SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE. AS WE ARE BUILDING AS PER CITY'S MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN. DIVERSITY STRENGTHENING HOUSING AND ECONOMY AND POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. ALSO, AS PER

[01:50:04]

ROWLETT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT TALKS ABOUT, THERE IS A NEED FOR ALMOST AROUND 1,200 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN ROWLETT.

THIS FULFILLS THE NEED OF THE GROWING POPULATION OF ROWLETT WHICH HAS GROWN AND 8.6% SINCE 2020. SOME OF THE UNIQUE FEATURES AND THE AMENITIES OUTSIDE IS WE ARE PROVIDING 14% OF GREEN SPACE. WHICH EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM 10% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. BASED ON THE FORM BASE CODE. WE ARE PROVIDING SUFFICIENT ON STREET PARKING IN ADDITION TO THE TWO PARKING SPACES IN THE GARAGE. ANOTHER INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY WHICH WE THINK IS GOING TO BE REALLY USEFUL AND VERY POSITIVE FEATURE IS PROVIDING A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TO CROSS MERIT ROAD AT FAYETTEVILLE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT INTERSECTION DOES NOT HAVE ANY PEDESTRIAN CROSSING. SO THIS WOULD DEFINITELY ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT THAT LOCATION. AGAIN, BASED ON THE FOREIGN BASE CODE, ALL THE RESIDENCES WILL HAVE THAT BUILT ZONE OF 18 TO 26 FEET FROM BACK OF THE CURVE IT WILL HAVE MINIMUM SIX FEET OF AMENITY ZONE. WITH STREET TREES, STREET FURNITURE, PEDESTRIAN LEVEL STREET LIGHTING AND THEN IT WILL ALSO HAVE MINIMUM 6--FOOT CLEAR1 SITE AREA AND THE 4--FOOT DISMOUNT BASED ON THE FORM BASE CODE. WE WILL BE BUILDING AN AMENITY CENTER WITH THE POOL.

WITH THE BAR-BE-QUE AREA, SO THERE WILL BE A LOT OF AMENITY AND OPEN SPACES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. THESE ARE JUST SOME REPRESENTATIVE ELEVATION IMAGERY FOR THE PROJECT. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >> WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL MR. POLLARD COMES BACK. BECAUSE HE USUALLY LEADS OFF.

>> COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. MR. HERNANDEZ.

>> WAS THERE ANY THOUGHT OF EFFORT MADE TO POSSIBLY PUT SOME KIND OF COMMERCIAL WITHIN THE AREA. CORNER STORE, RESTAURANTS

ANYTHING TO THAT NATURE? >> NO. THAT WAS NOT WHAT WE WERE

PLANNING ON DOING ON THIS SITE. >> OKAY, MY STRUGGLE HERE IS, IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET ON FAYETTEVILLE AS YOU MENTIONED THERE'S THE, TOWNHOMES THAT ARE GOING IN THERE. AND THEN ALL THE RENTAL UNITS ON THE OPPOSITE AREA. SO WHILE I KNOW WE HAVE A HOUSING SHORTAGE, THIS AREA, I HOPE THIS AREA WOULD BUILD OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE AS FAR AS EMPLOYMENT GOES. YOU KNOW WITH THE EVENTUAL HOPE THAT AT THE CORNER OF MERIT AND GEORGE BUSH, WE GET SOMETHING YOU KNOW LIKE AN HEB OR A CENTRAL MARKET.

HINT, HINT. BUT YOU KNOW, I WAS KIND OF HOPING TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR WALKABILITY SAKE. ANYBODY MOVING TO THIS AREA, SOMETHING THEY COULD WALK TO NOT NECESSARILY WALK AROUND.

>> ANY OTHER OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF MR. POLLARD HAD ANY QUESTIONS. SO IF YOU WILL BARE WITH US FOR JUST A SECOND.

>> NO PROBLEM.

NOT A PROBLEM. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO?

>> NO. >> I'M FLOORED. THANK YOU VERY

MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO AT THIS TIME WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY INPUT, THREE. PLEASE. CAROL HOOKS.

[01:55:08]

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.

>> MY NAME IS CAROL HOOKS. MY HUSBAND JESSE AND I LIVE AT 8522 MERIT ROAD. AND I'M SURE MANY OF YOU HAVE RECEIVED AND READ MY E-MAILS AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT. I AM NOT SPEAKING IN HOPES THAT BOTH THE BOARD AS WELL AS THOSE TONIGHT IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL AND THOSE POSTING ON SOCIAL MEDIA, CAN UNDERSTAND HOW DEEPLY THIS ACTUALLY AFFECTS OUR FAMILIES. WE BUILT OUR HOME IN 1990, IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT WHERE MY HUSBAND'S GRANDFATHER'S HOME HAD STOOD FOR GENERATIONS. IT WAS NEXT DOOR TO MY HUSBAND'S MOTHER BETTY WHO DIED ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO. NOT LONG BEFORE WE COMPETED OUR HOME, THE CITY REZONED US TO TECHNICAL RESEARCH. OVER 30 YEARS AGO. AND WE HAD NO CHOICE IN THAT DECISION. LATER IT BECAME THE NORTH SHORE.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND AROUND 2010 THE CITY, IMMINENT DOMAINED OUR LAND FOR THE WIDENING OF MERIT AND WE ESSENTIALLY BECAME THE SERVICE ROAD BETWEEN MILES MERIT AND MERIT LIBERTY ROAD CONNECTOR. AND SINCE THEN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF VISION FOR THE NORTH SHORE. SOME BUILDING LIKE OVER A MILLION SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSES. THE LAND NEXT TO US WAS REZONED AT SOME POINT TOWNHOMES AND APARTMENTS. WE HAD NO NOTICE BECAUSE WE WERE ACTUALLY MORE THAN 500 FEET AWAY. AND THERE WERE NO SIGNS REQUIRED AT THAT TIME. THEY ARE NOW BEING BUILT.

IMAGINE THIS. YOU BUILT YOUR HOME WHEN YOUR CHILDREN WERE SMALL. ONE IN THE FIRST GRADE AT THE BRAND NEW ENIE KEALY ELEMENTARY. 35 YEARS LATER THAT CHILD IS 40 YEARS OLD. YOU'RE IN YOUR MID-70S WITH GRAND KIDS AND GREAT GRAND KID AND YOU'RE TOLD YOU CANNOT SELL YOUR HOME. THERE'S STILL SO MUCH OPEN LAND AROUND US, NEAR US. ALONG I90 THAT WOULD BE BETTER SUITED FOR RETAIL AND OTHER USES FROM THE WAREHOUSES, ACROSS THE STREET.

TARGET SHOPPING CENTER, 190 AND MAIN. ALL OF THIS BEING SAID, WE SUPPORT THE BRIDGE TOWER PROPOSAL. BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT IT IS THE BEST AND MOST REASONABLE PATH FOR THREE FAMILIES, JUST THREE FAMILIES DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS. AFTER GENERATIONS OF LIVING AND WORKING IN THIS COMMUNITY, BEING CITIZENS OF ROWLETT, WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING FOR THE DIGNITY AND FREEDOM TO BE SEEN. NOT AS PARCELS OF LAND, BUT FAMILIES WHO WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD. WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE VOTE YES FOR THESE MOTIONS AND LET US FINALLY HAVE

A CHOICE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> NAM PHAM. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.

>> MY NAME IS NAM PHAM AND I LIVE ON 8822 MERIT ROAD, ROWLETT, 75089. I OPPOSE THIS ITEM 4C. FOUR YEARS CITY LEADERSHIP HAVE SAW THE VISION OF NORTH SHORE AS A COMMISSION.

WITH LIGHT MANUFACTURING, HEALTH CARE AND OTHERS. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TWO VACANT WAREHOUSES ON THE SERVICE ROAD AND NOTHING ELSE. SO FAR, ALL THE EXISTING APPROVED PLANS HAVE BEEN CHIPPING AWAY THE ORIGINAL VISION THAT WAS SOLD TO US. WE HAVE SEEN COUNTLESS APARTMENTS AND RENTALS DOWN THE ROAD AND MORE TRYING TO GET IN. WE ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED AT THE APPROVALS OF THESE PROJECTS. THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WAS NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT. AS YOU HAVE SEEN, THERE IS NO EMPLOYMENT CENTER WITHIN 1,000 ACRES. WHY WOULD YOU BUY A 23 ACRES AND CALL IT A EMPLOYMENT CENTER. IF IT'S NOT ENOUGH WHY DO YOU WANT TO BUY IT AND WANT TO DEVELOP ON IT. THE REQUEST THAT YOU CHANGE

[02:00:06]

IT TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT WE'VE SEEN. SO FAR WE ARE NOT SEEN NORTH SHORE MOVING TO ANY OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I WANT TO OPPOSE THIS PLAN UNTIL WE SEE, THE CITY FOCUS ON MORE OF THAT AREA AND FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL PLANS. SO THANK YOU

VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> JAMES RONE. >> HI SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR

NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. >> JAMES RONE, 8814 MERIT ROAD.

AND I HAVE LIVED IN ROWLETT ALL MY LIFE. AND AT 8814 FOR 46

YEARS. >> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT INTO

THE MICROPHONE. >> I HAVE LIVED IN ROWLETT ALL MY LIFE, AND I HAVE LIVED AT 8814 MERIT ROAD ALL MY LIFE. AND YOU TALKED ABOUT YOU HAD ZERO OPPOSITION CARDS SENT OUT. I KNOW FOR A FACT, WE DIDN'T GET ONE AND SEVERAL, AT LEAST SO OF MY NEIGHBORS THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS DID NOT RECEIVE A COMMENT CARD. BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE 10 VOTES FOR SURE NO. AND THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS, THE COMMUNICATION WHATEVER, WAS NOT, NONE OF MY NEIGHBORS KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE COMMENT CARDS. AND IF YOU SAY I GOT ONE, I DIDN'T. SO, I'M REQUESTING YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS. WE HAVE PLENTY OF APARTMENTS ON MERIT ROAD RIGHT NOW. THE RENT HOUSES AT CASTLE AND MERIT. AND THEN THE BIG PROJECT OF APARTMENTS FURTHER NORTH OF CASTLE. SO, THAT IS MY FEELINGS ON THE SUBJECT. I WISH

YOU WOULD VOTE NO. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

%C1 >> ANY OTHER SPEAKERS. NO, THANK

YOU. >> DAN HOOP.

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.

>> MY NAME IS DAN HOP. I LIVE AT 6414 TRAVYVON AND ROWLETT. I JUST WANT TO SAY, ROWLETT HAS LIMITED PROPERTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT. IF THIS WAS A MULTIUSE DEVELOPMENT, RETAIL STORES AND HOUSING IN THE MIX I THINK WE WOULD ALL BE FOR THAT.

THIS IS WHAT THE ROWLETT NORTH SHORE ENVISIONED. THERE'S ALREADY OXENFRIE THAT'S DOWN THE STREET AND THERE'S A MASSIVE COMPLEX GOING IN AT MERIT AND GEORGE BUSH. I'VE LIVED IN ROWLETT FOR 20 YEARS. THAT SEEMS TO BE A TOPIC OF SAYING HOW LONG WE'VE LIVED HERE. I USED TO RIDE MY ROAD. I SAW WATER VIEW BEING BUILT. IT'S A GREAT SINGLE FAMILY PLACE. GREAT POOL, GREEN SPACE, SIDEWALKS. YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHAT SUBURBS ENVISION NOT SO MUCH CITY LIFE. JUST WANT TO IMPLORE YOU GUYS, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE LIMITED LAND. AND PLEASE LET'S DO NOT MAKE ANOTHER MISTAKE LIKE SAPPHIRE BAY.

THAT'S JUST AN ANCHOR ON ROWLETT'S LEG THAT I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE EVER GOING TO GET OVER. GOD IS NOT MAKING ANY MORE DIRT. SO WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL WITH WHAT WE CHOOSE TO BUILD ON WHAT WE HAVE. PLEASE BE SMART. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALYSSON FELDERHOFF. PLEASE

[02:05:08]

STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.

>> GOOD EVENING I'M ALYSSON FELDERHOFF AT 6606 MONTGOMERY.

SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW LONG WE HAVE ALL BEEN IN ROWLETT. I HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE I WAS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND I'M 36 YEARS OLD. AKA BUILD TO RENT COMMUNITIES. THAT LOOK LIKE TOWNHOMES BUT FUNCTION LIKE APARTMENTS. THEY PITCH TOWNHOMES TO MUNICIPALITIES SO THAT EACH UNIT HAS ITS OWN LOT. THAT WAY ONCE FULLY LEASED THEY CAN BUNDLED THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT AND SELL IT OFF TO DEVELOPERS. THE PATTERN IS VERY CLEAR IF YOU HAVE GOOGLE. BUILD TO RENT DEVELOPMENTS MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO BECOME HOMEOWNERS. BY CREATING NEW HOUSING EXCLUSIVELY FOR RENTAL PORTFOLIOS, THESE COMMUNITIES REMOVE POTENTIAL ENTRY LEVEL HOMES FROM THE MARKET WHICH REDUCES A SUPPLY OF HOUSES AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE. NO ONE IS AGAINST THIS LOVELY FAMILY SELLING THEIR PROPERTY, BUT THE BUYERS DO NOT WANT TO BUY IT IF THEY CAN'T GET APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A BUILD TO RENT COMMUNITY. BUILD TO RENT COMMUNITIES AFFECT CITIZENS, NEIGHBORS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SCHOOLS. AND WE KNOW WE'VE GOT PROBLEMS WITH ALL OF THOSE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT BRIDGE TOWERS TRACK REPORT IT RAISING SERIOUS RED FLAGS. THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU LISTS MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS AND FAILURE TO RESPOND TO CONSUMERS CONCERNS. THIS IS THE NAME ON -- BEYOND THE REPUTATION THIS PROPOSAL VIOLATES THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE NORTH SHORE AREA WAS DESIGNED AS A DRIVER FOR COMMERCE, INVASION, JOBS.

REPLACING THAT VISION WITH ANOTHER HIGH DENSITY BRINGS TRANSIENTS AND DECLINING PROPERTY VALUES NOT OPPORTUNITY.

WE DON'T WANT THE NORTH SHORE TO TURN INTO BAY SIDE 2.0. IT'S UP TO YOU AND OUR CITY COUNCIL TO STICK TO THE PLAN AND VISION FOR NORTH SHORE AND THE LONG TERM FUTURE OF ROWLETT. WE DESERVE RESPONSIBLE GROWTH, REAL HOMEOWNERSHIP AND QUALITY BUILDERS WHO INVEST IN OUR COMMUNITY NOT CORPORATIONS DISGUISING RENTAL COMPLEXES AND GLORIFIED APARTMENTS. I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO DENY THIS REQUEST AND STAND BY THE VISION THAT MAKES ROWLETT STRONG, SUSTAINABLE AND PROUD OF ITS FUTURE. I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO BACK TO BRIDGE TOWER, ASK THEM TO CHANGE IT. HOW ABOUT MULTIFAMILY.

LET'S CREATE SOME JOBS FOR OUR ZIT ENS. -- CITIZENS. IF WE KEEP BUILDING THESE BIG RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS, WHERE IS EVERYBODY GOING TO WORK? AND THAT CROSSWALK THEY PRESENTED TO YOU, IS A CROSSWALK TO NOWHERE. LOVE THAT HEB SUGGESTION, LET'S BRING SOME JOBS TO NORTH SHORE. THANK YOU.

>> CANDY WILLIAMS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.

>> THANK YOU, I'M CALEY WILLIAMS AT 8620 MERIT ROAD. I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY ADDRESS YOU AS I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE A DIFFICULT JOB AND DECISION TO MAKE HERE. MY POINT IS NOT TO BE DISRESPECTFUL IN MY, WHAT I MENTION HERE AS SOME HAVE ALREADY DONE. AS MENTIONED EARLIER THIS CODE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR 30 YEARS AND NOTHING HAS HAPPENED AS FAR AS AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER CONCERN SO FAR. I WISH EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE, YOU KNOW, IT'S EASY TO BE A KEYBOARD WARRIOR. WE ALL KNOW THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF GOOGLE SEARCHES AND MAYBE WEBSITES THAT WERE MENTIONED. BUT WHEN ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADE WE'VE HAD SEVERAL DEVELOPERS WHICH I ALSO WISH THE AUDIENCE COULD ALWAYS HEAR THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN REJECTED IN THE PAST. HAVE PRESENTED THE CITY IN THE PAST ACTUALLY THE LAST 2-POINT 1/2 YEARS BEFORE THIS COMPANY EVERYONE ADDRESSED THIS, CAME TO US AND CAME WITH A PLAN, SPOKE WITH THE CITY, CHANGES WERE MADE. THE LAST THING THAT THIS LAST DEVELOPMENT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF US WAS GOING TO DO,

[02:10:07]

THE CITY WANTED MORE RESIDENTIAL. THEY TALKED ABOUT GROCERY STORE, THEY TALKED ABOUT MEDICAL, THEY TALKED ABOUT RETAIL, THEY TALKED ABOUT RESTAURANTS. THE LAST THING THE CITY HOPED FOR WAS TO GET MORE RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THERE IS THE SHORTAGE THAT IS GOING TO BE NEEDED WHEN THESE THINGS COME INTO PLACE. ALSO AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. THE NEARLY EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ARE ALL 100 PLUS ACRES SO THE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN PLACE NEED 100 PLUS ACRES. THIS IS ALMOST A 24-ACRE SLOT. IT JUST SIMPLY CANNOT HOLD THIS. AND TO THE SOUTH, THE EAST AND THE WEST ARE ALL GOING TO BE USED FOR THE SPECIFIC THAT COULD ALSO ACCOMPANY THIS COMMUNITY, OR THIS COMMERCIAL CENTER THAT NEEDS THIS AMOUNT OF SPACE. AND SHE KEPT MENTIONING THE HIGH DENSITY. ACTUALLY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY DEFINITION WHICH IS WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IS BY DEFINITION FILLING THE GAP BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND HIGH RISE APARTMENTS. I FEEL LIKE IT'S A NICE HAPPY MEDIUM.

FOR NEW YOUNG HOMEOWNERS IN WHICH WE ALL WANT TO SEE COMING TO OUR AREA. AND ESPECIALLY IN A TOUGH ECONOMIC SITUATION. I FEEL LIKE, NOT ONLY DO NEW YOUNG HOMEOWNERS WANT LESS MAINTENANCE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT WHEN YOU HAVE LOWER DENSITY. HOUSING AVAILABLE. LET'S SEE I DON'T WANT TO MISS ANYTHING. THIS IS NOT GOING AGAINST ANYTHING THAT HAS ALREADY WITHIN FORM BASE CODE. ALL THIS IS ALLOWED THERE. SO I JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO REMEMBER EXACTLYWHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON HERE AND NOT BE SKEWED BY THINGS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY PERTINENT. ANOTHER MENTION --

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE. LAST CALL. SEEING NO OTHERS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. WHICH CAN BE DISAPPROVED.

>> MR. HERNANDEZ. >> FOR THE ROBERT RULES, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE REGULATING PLAN.

>> WE HAVE THREE THINGS THERE. GO AHEAD.

>> TO APPROVE THE REGULATING PLAN TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO APPROVE THE MINOR WARRANTS AS WRITTEN.

>> THANK YOU, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MIGHT I REMIND COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE FOR IT TO SECOND IT. SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT THEN VOTE ON IT. BUT WE DO NEED A SECOND.

>> I SECOND. >> MR. WHITE SECONDS IT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED. SECONDED BY MOTION AND A SECOND. SO LET'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS. MR. WHITE. MR. HERNANDEZ.

>> JUST TO KIND OF, REITERATE HERE. MY NUMBER ONE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT IT'S NOT FOLLOWING WHAT THE FORM BASE PLAN ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. YOU KNOW WE NEED EMPLOYMENT AREAS AS WELL. I DON'T WANT THIS TO NECESSARILY BE A, JUST A SLEEPER TOWN. I THINK THERE COULD BE A LOT MORE EVEN WITH JUST 24 ACRES. AS THEY SAID, THEY WANT IT TO BE WALKABLE. WELL WALKABLE TO WHAT.

I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE BETTER THAN THIS, I THINK.

[02:15:01]

>> MRS. WEIS. >> I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE IS A MIXED USE. SHOPS BELOW AND RESIDENTS ABOVE. SOME COMBINATION. WHICH ISN'T REQUIRED BUT THAT'S KIND OF

WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MR. POLLARD I'M AMAZED YOU'RE QUIET.

>> I MADE ALL OF MINE TWO WEEKS AGO.

>> WELL, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO -- OF US WHO WEREN'T

HERE. MR. POLLARD. >> I FORGOT WHAT I DID TWO WEEKS AGO. BUT, I UNDERSTAND, THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND THE FAMILY THAT'S TRYING TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY. AND I WAS PART OF THAT DECISION BACK IN 1995 TO TERM THIS AND TAKE THAT LAND AND SUGGEST IT TO CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE IT THE TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH DISTRICT. AND YES, IT HAS SIT THERE SINCE 1996 WHEN THE COUNCIL ACTED AND CHANGED THE ZONING. WITH THE CURRENT, AT LEAST, BUILDINGS THAT'S OUT THERE WE'LL HAVE HOPEFULLY AT LEAST TWO OCCUPANTS. ONE FOR SURE, THE OTHER ONE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE APPROVED IN THOSE BUILDINGS. THAT HOPEFULLY NOW OUR TIME HAS COME IN ROWLETT TO GET SOME BUSINESSES. TO TAKE THE TAXES OFF OF THE ROOFTOPS, AS IT WAS MENTIONED WAY BACK IN THE 90S. AND IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS TOWN, IT'S EITHER BASICALLY 66 FOR ANY RETAIL OR BUSINESSES FOR EMPLOYMENT. OUT BY THE HOSPITAL OR SAPPHIRE BAY IS BEING TAKEN UP TO WHERE THE ONE SMALL BUSINESS COMPARED TO ALL THE OTHER BUSINESSES OR EXCUSE ME, THE RESIDENTIAL BOTH ON THE NORTH SIDE AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE. SO, NORTH SHORE AS IT WAS RENAMED DURING MAYOR SHANE JOHNSON'S ERA, WAS AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER. AND YES, I WAS ON THE COMP PLAN OF 2019 AND MANY DISCUSSIONS OF A YEAR AND HALF OR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR.

THAT WE BROUGHT IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THAT TO BE AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER. WHAT I'M SEEING HERE BEFORE US TONIGHT, ALTHOUGH BY RIGHT OF THE ZONING THAT IS THERE, THEY CAN BUILD THIS. IT HAS NO COMPONENT TO IT TO HAVE ANY KIND OF REALLY EMPLOYMENT TO HELP THIS CITY. WE CAN, PEOPLE OUT THERE IN THE NORTH SHORE I KNOW THEY'VE HELD IT FOR A LONG TIME AND ALL THOSE PROPERTIES CAN TOPPLE AND GO VERY QUICKLY RESIDENTIAL. AND

I'M JUST NOT FOR IT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY MY TWO CENTS WHICH REALLY ISN'T TWO CENTS BUT PROBABLY, A PENNY. IS THAT ACCORDING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LET'S BEAT THIS ONE DOWN. THIS WAS THE SUPPOSEDLY THE AREA WHERE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER OR THE AREA THAT WE DESIGNATE AS AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER. AS MR. POLLARD DOES, I SINCERELY UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT SOMEBODY WHO PURCHASED LAND IN THIS AREA IS RUNNING UP AGAINST WITH THE VARIOUS CHANGES IN ZONING AND VARIOUS CHANGES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BUT AGAIN, FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT TRYING TO, MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AN AREA THAT WOULD ATTRACT

[02:20:03]

LARGE, A LARGE BUSINESS OR A NUMBER OF FOLKS INTO AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER IS IMPORTANT FROM THE TAX BASE. AND SO, UNFORTUNATELY AS MENTIONED, WHAT WE HAVE PRESENTED IN FRONT OF US HAS NO COMPONENT OF THAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.

>> WHOA, WHOA. >> YEAH.

>> CAN YOU RESET MINE, PLEASE. IT IS NOT WANTING TO.

>> TELL YOU WHAT, BY A SHOW OF HANDS. LET'S JUST GET RID OF THIS TECHNOLOGY. BY SHOW OF HANDS, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE. THE ITEM IS PRESENTED BY A SHOW OF HANDS, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU AGREE WITH APPROVING THE MOTION.

SEEING NONE, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU VOTE NO FOR THE MOTION. ARE

YOU GUYS GOING TO VOTE OR NOT. >> OH, I'M SORRY. THIS IS THE

NO VOTE. >> THIS IS THE NO VOTE.

>> WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL ISSUES.

>> FAILS 0-7. THANK YOU MR. POLLARD.

[4D. Yardly-Edgewater Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Jerry Sylo, JBI Partners, Inc. on behalf of property owner Deepak Datwani Kumar, DFW Asset Management, LLC to 1) Amend the Comprehensive Plan, 2) Rezone the subject property from Single Family - 40 (SF-40) District to Planned Development (PD) District for MultiFamily Attached Residential Duplex (PD-MF-2F); 3) Approve a Concept Plan to construct 170 single-family homes; and 4) Amend the official Zoning Map of the City. The property is located generally north of Miller Road and west of Chiesa Road, consisting of a 21.412-acre tract describes as a portion of the James Hobbs Abstract No. 571, Page 721, Tract 19, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

>> I HIT NO. >> YEAH, YEAH, YEAH YOU'RE RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM 4D. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY JERRY SHILO ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS DEPACK DAWANI KAMAR. DFW ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT LLC21. AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TWO REZONE THE PROJECT TO SINGLE FAMILY SF40 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MULTIFAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL DUPLEXES PDMF2F. THREE APPROVE THE CONCEPT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 170 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND ZONE THE SITE OF THE CITY. GENERALLY NORTH OF MILLER ROAD AND WEST OF CHESA ROAD CONSISTING OF 21.2-ACRE TRACK. PAGE 721, TRACK 19 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT,

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> GOOD EVENING AGAIN COMMISSIONERS. I'LL BE PRESENTING ON THIS ITEM. SO THIS IS THE ITEM TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY JERRY SHILO, JBI PARTNERS INCORPORATED ON BEHALF OF DEPACK WITH DFW ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC TO ONE AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TWO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO SINGLE FAMILY 40 DISTRICT. IT'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH MULTIFAMILY ATTACHED MULTIFAMILY DUPLEX. THREE CONSTRUCT 170 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED GENERALLY NORTH OF MILLER ROAD AND WEST OF CHISA ROAD. AS MENTIONED THE PROPERTIES ADDRESS IS 3399 CHISA ROAD. THE CURRENT ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS SINGLE FAMILY 40 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THE FEATURE LAND USE IDENTIFIES THIS AS OPEN SPACE, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL COMMERCIAL OFFICE. THE REQUEST IS FOR A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO DEVELOP A MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITY AT THIS LOCATION. TO THE NORTH AND NORTHEAST OF THE PROPERTY THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD BY THE NAME OF CANTEBURRY COVE WHICH A NEW