Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

>> WELCOME TO THE CITY OF ROLLA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2020.

FIRST THING IS THE CITIZENS INPUT SECTION OF THE MEETING. IF ANY CITIZEN WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM, I WILL GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES A PIECE.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU. SEEING ON I WILL CLOSE THE

[CONSENT AGENDA]

CITIZENS INPUT SECTION AT THIS TIME. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE MINUTES AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2020.

DID EVERYBODY GET A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE MINUTES? ANY ISSUES ON THE MINUTES?

I'M READY FOR A MISSION. >> WILL MAKE A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? TAKE THE BOAT.

THE ITEM CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

[5A. Consider a Replatof Lot 1, Block A, of the Heritage Church Addition to Lots 1R-17, Block A, of the Heritage Estates Addition. The 4.422-acre site is located approximately 150 feet southeast of the intersection of Auburn Drive and Miller Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

THE FIRST ITEM IS 58 CONSIDER A REPLAT OF WHAT 1 GLOCK A OF THE HERITAGE CHURCH IN ADDITION TO LOTS 1R ã17 GLOCK A OF THE HERITAGE ESTATES ADDITION. THE 4.422 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION POF AUBURN DRIVE AND MILLER ROA IN THE CITY OF ROLLA DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS. MS. BRADLEY?

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. AS YOU STATED, THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT IS TO CREATE 17 LOTS PER SINGLE-FAMILY AND TO COMMON AREA LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MILLER ROAD AND THE ZONING IS SF EIGHT RESIDENTIAL. WITHIN THIS, THEY ARE DEDICATING A 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT BISECTING THE PROPERTY. THE TWO COMMON LOTS WILL BE LOCATED ALONG MILLER ROAD AND THERE WILL ALSO BE A 15 FOOT SANITARY SEWER AND A 50 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE AND ALSO TO THE REAR TO THE SOUTH WILL BE A 20 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. WITH THIS, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REPLAT BECAUSE IT MEETS ALL OF THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE RELATIVE DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND MAIL HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED WITHIN THIS REVIEW OF THE PLAQUE. THIS COMPLETES STAFF DOES NOT PRESENTATION AND AM AVAILABLE

FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS ON THE REPLAT? HAVE ONE SHORT QUESTION. I AM JUST CURIOUS THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED A LONG TIME IS THERE A REASON WHY THIS REPLAT IS ONLY GETTING DONE NOW?

I'M CURIOUS >> I KNOW FROM A PREVIOUS STATEMENT THE PROGRAM IS PUTTING IN SITE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE JUST COMPLETED THE INFRASTRUCTURES

ISSUE. >> ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN A LONG, SLOW PROCESS BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ACTUALLY ãTHEY HAVE THE LANDSCAPING DONE AND EVERYTHING.

>> THE NEXT STEP WILL BE BUILDING PERMITS. >> SINCE WE HAVE NO FURTHER

QUESTIONS ON THIS A REQUEST FOR REPLAT, READY FOR EMOTION. >> I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL

OF THE REPLAT OF THIS PROPERTY. >> AND I WILL SECOND >> WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MS. ESTEVEZ.NY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? LET'S TAKE THE BOAT.

THE ITEM CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

[5B. Consider approval of a Final Plat for Northaven Phase II. The property is located at 3200 Hickox Road, being 27.886 acres of land in the Reason Crist Survey, Abstract 225, City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

ITEM 5B. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT FOR NORTH HAVEN PHASE 2.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3200 HICKOX ROAD BEING 27 POINT 886 ACRES OF LAND IN THE RECENT CRYSTAL SURVEY ABSTRACT 225 CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> WE ARE HAVING LOTS OF ELECTRICAL ISSUES TONIGHT, I

THINK. >> AS YOU STATED THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO CREATE 101 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, FIVE COMMON AREA LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.HICH IS ATTACHED TO PHASE ONE OF NORTH HAVEN. TO THE SOUTHEAST OF IT.

[00:05:03]

IT IS LOCATED 400 FEET NORTH EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARKET-LEADING AND HICKOX ROAD.

THE ZONING IS NEW NEIGHBORHOOD AND ACCESS TO THE SITE IS PROVIDED FROM THE EXISTING NORTH HAVEN PHASE ONE OF TWO POINTS. THERE IS A STUB OUT AND IN THIS SLIDE YOU WILL SEE IT'S TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY OCCUR.

I'M SHOWING IT HERE TODAY WHILE AT THIS SITE. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF HIS FINAL PLAT OF ALL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE CODE RELATIVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. I AM OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU

MAY HAVE. >> COMMISSIONERS?QUESTIONS? >> I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I AM READY FOR EMOTION.

MR. SWIFT? A MOTION TO APPROVE. FINAL PLAT.

WE HAVE A SECOND.NY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? LET ME PRESS THE RIGHT BUTTON HERE. TAKE THE BOAT. BUT ITEM CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

[5C. Conduct a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a request by Skorburg Company, on behalf of property owners Leslie and Tommy Kearney, for a Major Warrant to Appendix 2.1 of the Form-Based Code to eliminate the garage offset and allow for garages to be aligned with the front of the home on 31 of the 78 Estate lots. The 33-acre site is located along Castle Drive, between Miles Road and Merritt Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

ITEM 5C CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST BY SKORBURG COMPANY ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS LESLIE AND TOMMY KEARNEY FOR A MAJOR WARRANT TO APPENDIX 2.1 OF THE FORM-BASED CODE TO ELIMINATE THE GARAGE ALL SET AND ALLOW FOR GARAGES TO BE ALIGNED WITH THE FRONT OF THE HOME ON 31 OF THE 78 ESTATE LOTS. THE 33 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG CASTLE DRIVE BETWEEN MILES ROAD AND MERRITT ROAD IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

>> >> THANK YOU FOR READING THAT. I WILL BE BRIEF SINCE YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD MOST OF THESE ã MOST OF THIS ITEM. WE ARE HERE TO ELIMINATE THE GARAGE ALL SET AND ALLOW FOR GARAGES TO BE ALIGNED WITH THE FRONT OF THE HOME IN 31 OF 78 ESTATE LOTS. TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, YOU HAVE HEARD THIS ITEM BEFORE. YOU MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO WHICH THE APPLICANT DID RESPOND AT CITY COUNCIL WITH EXTRA CONSIDERATIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL REALIZING THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE EXTRA CONSIDERATIONS THAT THEY WANTED YOU TO HEAR AS WELL AND SO THE EXTRA CONSIDERATION, AS WE STATED THERE, IS FOR GARAGES TO BE ALIGNED ON 31 OF THE 78 STATE LOTS AS BRIEFLY STATED BEFORE, IT WAS ALL THE ESTATE LOTS.

ALL 78. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON 33 ACRE LOT AND COMPRISED OF TWO PARCELS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS AND IT IS ON NEW NEIGHBORHOOD FOR FORM-BASED.

ACCESS IS FROM CASTLE DRIVE AND CONNECTS TO MONGOLIA LANDING PHASE 2 TO THE SOUTHEAST.

THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 33 ACRE TRACT WAS APPROVED ON NOVEMBER 14 AND IT REFLECTS 78 ESTATE LOTS, 26 COTTAGE LOTS AND 27 COTTAGE ON MUSE THE ORANGE REPRESENTS THE ESTATE LOTS WHICH WE WILL BE SPEAKING TO TODAY. SECTION 2.32 OF TWO OF THE CODE STATES FRONTLOADED GRUDGES HAVE TO BE LIMITED TO LOTS WHICH ARE AT LEAST 60 FEET WIDE AND THE GARAGE HAS TO BE SET BACK AT LEAST 20 FEET FROM BUILDING THE CORNER.

THE REQUEST INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FROM THIS 20 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK FROM THE FRONT BUILDING CORNER OF HOMES FOR 31 OF THE ãOF 78 ESTATE LOTS AND INSTEAD OF PROVIDING A 10 FOOT SETBACK FOR ALL THE LOTS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY STAFF THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO HAVE 47 OF THE 70 ESTATE LOTS TO MEET THIS 10 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE APPLICANT HAS JUSTIFIED THE REQUEST STATING THERE IS A LIMITED FLOW OF HOMEBUILDERS ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE 20 FOOT OFFSET REQUIREMENT AND THAT THIS HOMEBUILDERS HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THEMSELVES IN ROWLETT AND ARE LOOKING TO EXTEND THEIR SERVICE FURTHER. AS STATED ABOUT THE 10 FOOT OFFSET THE APPLICANT WAS

[00:10:03]

PROVIDED AS ALTERNATIVE AS PART OF A MODEL WARRANT. IN LIEU OF THE 20 FOOT REQUIREMENT. THEY ãBUT THEY ARE SEEKING FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS SO THAT THEY CONVERT MORE OF THEIR FULL PANTS. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT REQUESTED TO ELIMINATE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT COMPROMISES THE IDENTITY OF THE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED NEIGHBORHOOD AND OFFERS NO SUPPLEMENTARY ADVANTAGES WITH IN THIS COMMUNITY. ADHERENCE TO SECTION 2.3.2 F2 OF THE FORM-BASED CODE THE DRIVEWAY SHALL NOT EXCEED 12 FEET IN WIDTH WHEN THE INTERSECT WITH THE SIDEWALK WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE 4 AT LEAST WILL BE DIFFICULT SHOULD A MARK BE GRANTED.

PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT ORIGINALLY 200 FOOT RADIUS AND 500 FOOT RADIUS HOMES OF WHICH WE ONLY RECEIVED ONE OPPOSITION AT A 200 FOOT RADIUS. A COURTESY NOTICE WAS SENT ON FEBRUARY 4 FOR WHICH NO RESPONSE IS HAPPENS RECEIVED. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR DENIAL OF THE MAJOR WARRANT TO APPENDIX 2.1 OF THE FORM-BASED CODE TO ELIMINATE THE GARAGE ALL SET AND ALLOW FOR GARAGES TO BE ALIGNED WITH THE ESTATE LOTS.

PLACING THESE GARAGES FORWARD WOULD RESULT IN HOMES LOSING THEIR FORM AND CREATE A PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WERE VEHICLES THAT GARAGES DOMINATE THE SPACES ALONG THE STREET AND ATTENTION TO THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE WILL BE COMPROMISED. FURTHERMORE, THE ADDITIONAL MINOR WARRANT TO ALLOW THE 10 FOOT SETBACK COMPANY WITH A 10 BY 10 FOOT PORCH IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MAJOR WARRANT RESULTED IN A PRODUCT THAT IS VISUALLY LESS DESIRABLE AND DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE FORM-BASED CODE. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND HAS A

PRESENTATION. >>

>> LET ME TURN ON MY MICROPHONE. JOHN ARNOLD SKORBURG COMPANY.

DALLAS, TEXAS. I APPRECIATE YOU ALL HAVING ME BACK TONIGHT.

I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS PART KIND OF QUICKLY AS CARLOS HAS ALREADY SAID.

WE HAVE SEEN THIS ONCE JUST BACK BASED ON RECOMMENDATION OF COUNSEL.

LET ME JUST FLIP THROUGH REAL QUICK.UR PROPERTIES IN ROWLETT WE KNOW ABOUT WILLOW IN THE STATES OUTSIDE THE STATES AND THE VILLAS AT LONGBRANCH THAT WE ARE HOPING TO START THIS SPRING IF WE CAN GET THROUGH ENGINEERING. ONE THING I WANT TO SAY ABOUT THIS PROJECT IS THEY ARE ALL WINTER HOMES PROJECTS, ONE OF THE PROJECTS ACTUALLY HAS MERIT ãYOU WILL JUST PAST THE PLOT IN NORTH HAVEN. SO OUR PRODUCT YOU ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH. THERE FRONT ENTRY PRODUCT IMAGES PAST OUR 40 FOOT PRODUCT. BASICALLY THE REASON I TOLD YOU WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS REQUEST IS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD SOME OF OUR PRODUCT. WINTER HOMES JASON LANNING SOME OF OUR FRONT ENTRY PRODUCT. THIS PLAT YOU JUST APPROVED ACTUALLY HAS THIS MAJOR WARRANT FOR ALL OF THEIR LOTS, ALL OF THEIR 60 FOOT LOTS. SO I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE ARE ASKING FOR ANYTHING OUT OF THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY. SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN PASSED BEFORE. MADE ALL THE POINTS TO COUNSEL. YOU KNOW WHERE THE PROJECT IS.

CARLOS DID A GOOD JOB DESCRIBING THAT. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL MOTION FOR US TO COME BACK TO PNC FOR RECOMMENDATION ON THE PERCENTAGE OF SETBACKS.

ONE OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS ACTUALLY IT WAS THE ONE WHO RECOMMENDED 40 PERCENT OF LINE GARAGES AT 60 PERCENT AND YOU WILL SEE THAT'S WHERE THE 37 IT CAME FROM.

WE ARE NOT ASKING TO BASICALLY ãWE ARE NOT SAYING IT'S EXACTLY 31 LOTS OUR WINTER PRODUCT WITH THE FRONT ENTRY. WE ARE ASKING FOR THE OPTION. WE ARE ASKING FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE OPTION TO HAVE A 10 FOOT SETBACK. THEY LIKE OUR PRODUCT ãIF THEY WANT TO BE ALLOWED TO MOVE ONE THEM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT OPTION.

SO IF WE CAME IN AND WE SOLD LOTS AND EVERYTHING WAS A 10 FOOT SETBACK THAT SO IT WOULD BE. IF EVERYBODY CAME AND SAID WE WANT A J SWING OR THE FURNITURE PRODUCT WE COULD GO UP TO 31 AND THE REST WOULD HAVE TO BE 10 FOOT ALSO.

AGAIN WE ARE REQUESTING 31 PERCENT. THAT'S WHERE THE 31 COMES FROM.

THE REMAINING 60 PERCENT WITH A 10 FOOT ALSO APPEARED AGAIN, I THINK I'VE EXPLAINED THE MAJOR

[00:15:02]

WARRANT WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE THOSE OPTIONS GREATER ASSORTMENT OF PRODUCT TO CHOOSE FROM AND GET THE COMMUNITY 60 FOOT LOTS AND BE ABLE TO BUILD THE PRODUCT THAT WE ARE BUILDING, BUILD THE PRODUCT THAT MERITAGE IS BUILDING. WE CAN GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN.

MAJOR WARRANT ON A REQUEST FROM LAST TIME THING THAT ALLOWS FOR IS A PRODUCT THAT ALLOWS FOR SOME LARGER USABLE BACKYARDS WHEN YOU PRESS BACK THE GARAGE THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE GOING TO LOSE OUR FOOTPRINT. YOU PUSH BACK THE GARAGE AND HE PUSHED BACK THE WHOLE BUILDING.

HE PUSHES BACK INTO THE LOT. REMEMBER THAT LAST TIME. SHOWED YOU TWO DIAGRAMS WITH THE BACKYARD IS GOING TO BE SMALLER. WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE WIDER VARIETY. I THINK I HAVE SOME PICTURES. SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE PICTURES. MANNERS ON MILLER YOU CAN SEE OUR BACKYARDS ARE AT LEAST 20 FOOT AND EVERY YARD. YOU CAN LOOK AT BAYSIDE. THOSE ARE 15 FOOT AND SOME ARE ALL THE WAY BACK TO 10 FOOT BACKYARDS IF THEY GO BACK TO OUR FULL FOOTPRINT.

WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR DIFFERENT SETBACK. WE ARE ASKING FOR WHERE THE GARAGES. THIS WILL BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH ALL OF THE SETBACKS THAT WE HAVE ON OUR OTHER PROJECTS. THESE ARE VIEWS OF MAYORS ON MILLER.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S CARS PARKED AND THERE'S A CAR PARKED OVER THERE.

CLEAR WALKING PATH AND ROOM IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE. TYPICAL DRIVEWAY DIMENSIONS 18 FOOT IN LENGTH, STANDARD CART 16 FOOT IN LENGTH. AGAIN, BACK TO NORTH HAVEN.

THIS ISN'T SOMETHING OUT OF THE NORM. THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED FOR WE ARE JUST ASKING 4 AT THIS POINT JUST A PARTIAL APPROVAL FOR AN OPTION TO BE ABLE TO DO OUR WINTER PRODUCT AND SO OF THE FRONT ENTRY PRODUCT.

AND AGAIN PICTURES OF NORTH HAVEN, WHERE THEY HAVE FLAT FRONT AND THIS IS PRODUCTS ON THE GROUND RIGHT NOW. AND YOU CAN FLIP THROUGH SOME OF OUR PRODUCT AND SEE LAST TIME AND YOU SEEN IT BEFORE. THESE ARE HOMES WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD ON WITH THIS PRODUCT. WE CAN LEAVE IT THERE. THAT'S THE CONCLUSION.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR WE CAN HOLD OFF UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. . AT THIS TIME THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKER STARTS HERE BUT IF THERE IS A HABIT ã I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND I WILL GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION. SEEING NOTABLE CLOSE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. COMMISSIONERS, DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS? I WILL START AT THE SECOND WITH MR. SWIFT? STAFF? DEVELOPER?

MINE. >>

OR SEDAN IS 16 FOOT. >>

>> ARE YOU DRIVING A TRUCK OR A ãTYPICAL THING WE HAVE ANOTHER SUBDIVISION THAT WAS JUST HERE TONIGHT THAT HAS THE SAME SETBACKS, SAME DRIVEWAYS, MY OTHER PROJECTS IN ROWLETT, AT THE 20 FOOT SETBACK AND IT'S A

[00:20:09]

VERY TYPICAL SETBACK. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM? DISCUSSION?

QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? >>

>> MISS ESTEVEZ, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? AND IF YOU HAD QUESTIONS FOR

MR. MANZO OR MR. ACEVEDO? >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HEAR WHAT PLANNING CONCERNS ARE ABOUT THIS.> SURE. SO BECAUSE NOW THERE ARE TWO REQUESTS ON THE TABLE WE WILL SPEAK TO EACH INDIVIDUAL. THE FIRST REQUEST IS REGARDING A ZERO SETBACK, AND THAT ZERO SETBACK MEANS THAT THE FACE OF THE GARAGE WILL BE ALIGNED WITH THE FACE OF THE HOUSE.

CURRENTLY, THE CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 20 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE FACE OF THE HOUSE.

SO THAT WILL TUCK THE CAR BACK BEHIND THE FACE OF THE HOUSE. AND SO AS FAR AS THE FIRST PART OF THE REQUEST, IT'S THE SAME CONCERN WE HAD, KIND OF THE FIRST TIME AROUND WE JUST WANT TO BRING THE GARAGE RIGHT UP TO THE FACE OF THE HOUSE, YOU DO MINIMIZE THE AREA WHERE YOU CAN PARK, OBVIOUSLY, AND IT IS TRUE A TYPICAL 20 FOOT DIMENSION FROM THE HOUSE TO THE SIDEWALK USUALLY IS WHAT'S DONE, AND DEPENDING ON THE NEIGHBOR, DEPENDING ON THE PERSON WHO IS PARKING THERE, THEY WILL TUCK THEIR CAR UP AGAINST THE GARAGE WHERE THEY WILL NOT CARE AS MUCH ABOUT THE SIDEWALK. SO THAT'S A CONCERN BECAUSE THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR SIDEWALK TO BE BLOCKED AND SO IT DOES DISRUPT THE PEDESTRIAN REALM.

REALLY, IN BOTH CASES THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GETTING AT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE INTENT IN THE FORM-BASED NEIGHBORHOODS IS THAT THE PEDESTRIAN REALM IS SOMETHING THAT IS VALUED AS MUCH AS THE AUTOMOBILE. AND SO TO KIND OF KEEP THOSE TWO SEPARATED IS REALLY THE GOAL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THAT'S THE GOAL OF THE 20 FOOT SETBACK.

IN THE CASE OF A MINOR WARRANT THAT WAS ISSUED, THERE WAS A TRADE-OFF BETWEEN ALLOWING THE GARAGE AND YOU CAN SEE IN THIS DIAGRAM, ALLOWING THE GARAGE TO COME FORWARD BY 10 FEET.

FORM-BASED CODE LOOKS AT DIFFERENT PEDESTRIAN ELEMENTS, AND ONE OF THE PEDESTRIAN ELEMENTS IS THE FRONT PORCH WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO KIND OF MEET YOUR NEIGHBORS AND HAPPY SEMI PUBLIC AREA. NOW THEY FORM-BASED CODE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ONLY REQUIRES 20 PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT FRONT PORCHES. AND SO THE REASON WHY WE ISSUED A MINOR WARRANT TO ALLOW THE GARAGE TO CREEP FORWARD IS BECAUSE THE MINOR WORK INCLUDED A PROVISION THAT SAID ANYTIME THAT GARAGE IS BROUGHT UP TO 10 FEET, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A SEVEN FOOT BY 10 FOOT PORCH. SO THAT ENSURES THAT PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT IS MUCH HIGHER.

IF ALL OF THE GARAGE IS SET AT 10 FEET YOU WOULD HAVE AN ENTIRE FRONT PORCH.

THAT HELPS TO SHIELD THE CAR FROM THE PEDESTRIAN ROUND AND IT ALSO DOESN'T BRING THE CARS FOR FORWARD. SO THE REASON WHY WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING FAVORABLY IS BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH SOME OF IT'S STILL HAS THAT MINOR WORK COMPONENT, WE FELT THAT WAS KIND OF THE MAXIMUM, WHICH KIND OF TIPS THE SCALES BETWEEN WAS A MINOR WARRANT AND WAS A MAJOR WORD. WE FEEL THAT THE ZERO WITHIN FURTHER COMPROMISE THE PUBLIC REALM ALSO KIND OF CREATE A LITTLE CONFUSION WITH THE SETBACKS BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE ZERO AND THEN YOU HAVE 10 FOOT ZERO AND 10 FOOT. IT KIND OF COMPROMISES THE

PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT OF WHAT'S INTENDED IN THE CODE. >> IN YOUR OPINION, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD MAKE IT LESS SAFE FOR CHILDREN? NO.

AS FAR AS SAFETY IS CONCERNED, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PERCEIVED SAFETY CONCERN WITH CHILDREN ALONG THE SIDEWALK WHERE PEOPLE POTENTIALLY CAN BACK INTO THE SIDEWALK, BUT I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE SORT OF THE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

I WOULD JUST SAY FROM SORT OF AN URBAN DESIGN STANDPOINT, IS MORE DISRUPTIVE.

IT CREATES MORE POINTS OF CONTACT BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE AND SIDEWALK.

IN THAT SENSE, ã >> THEY SIDEWALK IS BLOCKED BY VEHICLE.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE MORE INCLINED ã >> THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS YOU HAVE MORE CONTACT POINTS BETWEEN THE AUTOMOBILE AND THE SIDEWALK.

IN THAT SENSE YOU ARE ãIT'S AT LEAST DISRUPTED AS YOU TRAVEL DOWN THE BLOCK.

[00:25:10]

>> AND WHY WAS THIS APPROVED IN SOME AREAS AND IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS AND NOT A MUSLIM?

>> YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE, I ã IT'S BEEN A WHILE AND SO MAJOR WORDS ARE STANDALONE, YOU KNOW, PER PROJECT AND THERE WERE CONCESSIONS IN THOSE OTHER PROJECTS THAT I WON'T NECESSARILY GET INTO DETAIL. I DON'T REMEMBER AT THE TIME BUT I KNOW THERE'S USUALLY KIND OF A TRADE-OFF BETWEEN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AND THAT MAJOR WARRANT SO I BELIEVE THAT HAD

SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. >> THAT REPRESENTS THE 31 LOTS THAT THEY WANT MORE.

>> SO THE APPLICANTS PROPOSED ANOTHER SOLUTION AS FAR AS THE CONDITION.

PREVIOUSLY THEY WERE REQUESTING 100 PERCENT OF THE ESTATE LOTS BE ABLE TO HAVE A ZERO SETBACK.

THE GARAGE WOULD BE AT A ZERO SETBACK. DURING THE MEETING THE APPLICANT PROPOSED ãTHE REST OF THEM WILL BE THE 20 FOOT SETBACK AND SO CITY COUNCIL FELT THIS WAS A BIG ENOUGH DEVIATION THEY WOULD RECOMMEND IT BACK TO PNC FOR RECOMMENDATION. IT WAS A LITTLE MUCH AS FAR AS WHAT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED.

>> THIS IS GOING TO BE A MIXTURE OR A 20 BUT SETBACK? >> OR SOME ARE GOING TO BE

LOCATED TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY? >> IT ALLOWS UP TO A 10 FOOT SETBACK FOR 60 PERCENT OF THE LOTS AND UP TO A ZERO SETBACK FOR 40 PERCENT LOTS

>> TO CLARIFY, THE DEVELOPER HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED A MINOR WARRANT ON THIS ISSUE, IS NOT CORRECT, REGARDLESS ãWE ARE REVIEWING A MAJOR WARRANT. A MINOR WARRANT HAS ALREADY

BEEN GRANTED THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE? >> I REALLY APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. A COUPLE OF THINGS. IF WE HAVE TO GO BACK IN ORDER TO SOLVE THE PUZZLE, WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE FIRST REQUEST. IF YOU RECALL IN THE FIRST REQUEST, ONE OF THE FLEXIBILITIES THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT/DEVELOPER WAS LOOKING AT PROVIDING THAT PORCH, THAT SEVEN BY 10 PORCH WITH THE 10 FOOT OFFSET FOR ALL OF THOSE ESTATE LOTS. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT CHOSE NOT TO PURSUE THAT AND WANTED TO GO WITH THE ZERO SETBACK THAT WE ARE REFERRING TO NOW. FAST FORWARD AGAIN RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHICH WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND UPON DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, THE APPLICANT AT THAT POINT SUGGESTED HOW ABOUT AN ALTERNATIVE AND WHAT IF I DID A 4060 SPLIT. CITY COUNCIL FELT LIKE THAT WAS TOO MUCH OF A CHANGE FROM THE ORIGINAL REQUEST THAT CAME BEFORE YOU GUYS AND IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY REMANDED THIS BACK. SO AS WE EVALUATED THIS AND WE SAT DOWN WITH THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT WAS VERY CANDID WITH US AND WE DID APPRECIATE THAT AND SAID WELL, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO DO THE 10 PERCENT SETBACK, BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO DO THE ZERO SETBACK. AND SO THE EVALUATON THAT OCCURRED WAS TO UNDERSTAND THE APPLICATIONS TO UNDERSTAND THE AESTHETIC OR VISUAL OR VIEWPOINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CONDITION NOW BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THE APPLICANT CHOSE NOT TO PURSUE THE MINOR WARRANT THAT WE CALLED OUT. BUT THEN WHEN YOU PUT THE ENTIRE PROJECT TOGETHER AND YOU VISUALIZE A MAJOR WARRANT TO HAVE A ZERO SETBACK TO THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING AND HAVE A 10 FOOT SETBACK AND THEN IT BECOMES AN ISSUE OF HOW WILL THIS PLAY OUT FOR THE ENTIRE VISUAL CORRIDOR AND HOW WELL ã YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SETBACK AND IF THERE IS BLEED OVER OF THE VEHICLES INTO THE SIDEWALK, LET'S SAY, OR TYPICALLY HAVE TWO VEHICLES.

WE FELT IT WAS CREATING THAT CONFLICT OR REDUCING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT IDEOLOGIES FROM STRAIGHT ZONING AND THE BASE CODE.

>> SO THE MINOR WARRANT IS JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THOSE PAYING ATTENTION AT HOME, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN HANDLE THE DOESN'T COME TO PLANNING AND ZONING, IS THAT CORRECT?HAT WAS SOMETHING THAT STILL IS POSSIBLE REGARDLESS OF THE PROCEDURE.

[00:30:05]

IT'S NOT A GIVEN BUT IT'S SOMETHING YOUR OFFICE COULD DEAL WITH THE DEVELOPER ON AS FAR AS THIS MINOR WARRANT OF THE 10 FOOT WHATEVER. BUT WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING TONIGHT IS THE ZERO OFFSET OF THE MAJOR WARRANT OF THE 31 HOUSES.

COMMISSIONERS ARE REAL THERE? WE ARE JUST DISCUSSING THE MAJOR WARRANT RIGHT NOW.

WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING A MINOR WARRANT. MY ONLY ãYES MA'AM.

>> I'M GOING TO ASK DANIEL TO CLARIFY WHY THE MINOR WARRANT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN FOLDED INTO THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT PLAYS IN IMPORTANT ROLE WITH THE MAJOR WARRANT.

WE WANT TO BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION AS PART OF THIS REQUEST, ABSOLUTELY AS MAJOR WARRANT UNDER MAJOR CONSIDERATION BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS

OF THAT MINOR WARRANT IN RELATION TO THE MAJOR WARRANT. >> YOU COULD STILL DEAL WITH THE MINOR WARRANT SITUATION POST PLANNING AND ZONING. ALL RIGHT.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND THE DEVELOPER, YOU'VE DONE ãSOME OF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE VERY NICE THAT WE'VE GOT YOUR BANNERS ON MILLER YOU KNOW THEY ARE WHAT YOU T. THOSE ARE SMALL FILL IN NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IS A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE E NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. AND I THINK WHAT MIGHT WORK AND WHAT MIGHT BE ãI WOULD PERSONALLY FEEL MORE FLEXIBLE ON A SMALLER SCALE PROJECT OF CHANGING AND AUTHORIZING MAJOR WORDS ON THE MAJOR DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS I AM LESS ãI AM LESS WILLING TO DO THAT. I'M FULLY SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF I RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS MAJOR WARRANT. TO MY COMMISSIONERS INTO CITY HALL. I'M SORRY, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WE'VE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO TALK. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

I AM READY FOR MOTION. MR. CHO TAKE? >> I MAE A MOTION TO

DISAPPROVE >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THE MAJOR WARRANT.

TO HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND >> WAY OF A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ? COMMISSIONERS, A YES VOTE IS A VOTE TO DENY. AT THIS TIME WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE TO BE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.