[5A. Take action on a request by Kiew Kam, Triangle Engineering, on behalf of property owner Ibrahim Ballout, Ballout Real Estate LLC. for a replat of Lots 1R and 2R, Block A of Bubbus Addition No. 1. The 3.718-acre site is located at 7800 Rowlett Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

A. TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY KIE W CAM TRIAN ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER IBRAHIM BALOUT FOR A REPLAT OF LOTS 1 R AND 2 R BLOCK BUB US ADDITION NUMBER ONE. THIS 3.718 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT ROWLETT ROAD IN THE CITY OF

ROWLETT. >> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN MOSELEY AND COMMISSIONERS.

YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING, WE HAVE A REPLAT AS WAS READ PER LOTS ONE R AND 2 R BLOCK A BUBBUS. 7800 ROWLETT ROAD, ONE 90 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CASTLE ROAD AND ROWLETT ROAD. THIS ITEM CAME TO YOU MID YEAR LAST YEAR FOR REZONING TO TAG AN SUP FOR LIGHT VEHICLE SERVICE AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL C 1.

THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLAT IS TO ABANDON AND CREATE EASEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.

NEXT SLIDE LAURA. >> SO TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE IMAGE ON YOUR SCREEN, YOU WILL SEE A HASHED OUT EASEMENT, THAT IS A 15 FOOT WATER EASEMENT ALONG 2 R THERE.

THAT IS TO BE REPLACED BY NEW ACCESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT AND TO THE LEFT SIDE, YOU WILL SEE ANOTHER 15 FOOT WATER EASEMENT THAT WILL BE ABANDONED TO PREVENT CONFLICTS WITH THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT PROPOSED IN THE REPLAT. THE WATER LINE WILL BE REROUTE FROM THAT EASEMENT FURTHER TO THE SOUTHWEST. ACCESS TO THE SITE HAS NOT CHARGED. IT'S FROM TWO POINTS ALONG ROWLETT ROAD AND INTERNAL DRIVE

CONNECTION TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE >> NEXT SLIDE LAURA.

THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE REPLAT IN ITS ENTIRETY. NEXT SLIDE LAURA.

AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR THE REPLAT. ALL TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. NEXT SLIDE LAURA.

AND THAT COMPLETES THE PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE AND THE APPLICANT

AS WELL. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANYBODY HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON THIS REPLAT FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU DO.

[00:05:03]

I DON'T SEE ANY QUESTIONS. IT'S PRETTY CUT AND DRY. I WAS DRIVING BY THERE THE OTHER DAY. THEY TORE THE WHOLE HILL OUT OF THAT PLACE.

LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE READY TO ROLL. THAT BEING SAID, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION ON THE REQUEST FOR REPLAT. MR. COTE.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE REPLAT AS PRESENTED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR.

COTE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> MISS MCKEE SECONDS.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? LET'S TAKE THE VOTE, ALL IN FAVOR.

[5B. Consider and make a recommendation to City Council regarding an Alternative Landscaping Plan to modify the Primary and Secondary entryway for a proposed Single Family Development. The 17.07-acre site is located at 2,601 feet east of the Intersection of Rowlett Road and Big A Road in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM FIVE B, CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN TO MODIFY THE SECOND, MODIFY THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ENTRY WAY OF A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

THE SITE IS LOCATED 2601 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROWLETT ROAD AND BIG A ROAD IN

THE CITY OF ROWLETT. WHO IS PRESENTING? >> THANK YOU.

MS. BRADLEY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. AS YOU STATED THIS IS AN ALTERNATE LANDSCAPING PLAN TO REDUCE THE AREA FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ENTRY FEATURES AND ELIMINATE FOR THE MASONRY WALL ALONG BIG A ROAD. SECTION 77504.6 AND SEVEN OF THE RDC ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING TO BE MODIFIED THROUGH ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN.

THE APPLICANT IS PREPARING THE SITE FOR 33 RESIDENTIAL DOTS AND THREE COMMON AREAS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. THE SITE IS 17.07 ACRES AND IT IS ZONED SF 9.

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROWLETT AND BIG A ROAD. AND IT HAS APPROXIMATELY 740 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG BIG A ROAD. THE SITE DOES HAVE 3.69 ACRES OF FLOOD PLAN AND EXTENSIVE TREE CANOPY ON THE SITE. ACCESS CAN BE GAINED FROM TWO POINTS OFF INN -- INGRESS AND EGRESS. THOSE ARTICULATE THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.

WE HAVE THE PRIMARY ENTRY. REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 9000 SQUARE FEET THAT CAN BE DIVIDED TO 4800 SQUARE FEET AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF 80 FEET IN LENGTH AND 40 FEET IN WIDTH AND IT PROPOSES TWO CANOPY TREES FOR EVERY 500 SQUARE FEET AND MINIMUM 75 FEET OF THE AREA TO BE LANDSCAPED. ALSO THE SECONDARY REQUIREMENT, SECONDARY ENTRY REQUIREMENTS, THIS PROJECT DOES PROPOSE TO HAVE TWO ENTRIES SO YOU HAVE YOUR PRIMARY AND YOUR SECONDARY.

AND SO FOR THE SECONDARY, A REQUIREMENT IS A MINIMUM OF 6400 SQUARE FEET WITH 3200 SQUARE FEET OF LAND AREA, MEASURED AND REQUIRES TWO CANOPY TREES FOR 500 SQUARE FEET AND 85% WILL BE LANDSCAPED. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. ALSO WITHIN THAT REQUIREMENT FOR FRONT, FOR ENTRY FEATURES, ALSO IN SECTION 77504D 4 C REQUIRES A MASONRY WALL REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH SIDE, REAR YARD ADJACENT TO THE DRIVEWAY.

THEY DO PROPOSE TO HAVE HOUSES TO THE REAR NOT FACING BUT THE REAR WILL BE TO BIG A ROAD.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE FOLLOWING.

THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PROVIDE AN 8711 SQUARE FOOT AREA. AND WITHIN THAT AREA 1564 SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD AND MEASURED 57 FEET 11 INCHES IN LENGTH.

[00:10:04]

BY 32 FEET AND TWO INCHES IN WIDTH. ALSO PROPOSE 1373 SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA ON THE EAST SIDE AND MEASURED 57 AND EIGHT FEET BY 17TH IN WIDTH AND 53% LAND SCAPING AND PROVIDE ONLY TWO TREES. THEY ALSO DO PROPOSE THE LANDSCAPE MEDIAN WHICH IS 43 FEET IN WIDTH BY 10 FEET IN WIDTH.

THEY ALSO WILL PROVIDE A SECONDARY AGREE WAY HOWEVER THE ENTRY WAY WILL BE 6367 SQUARE FEET OF AREA DEDICATED TO THE ENTRY FEATURE AND 1109 SQUARE FEET ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET AND IT WILL MEASURE 65 FEET AND FOUR INCHES IN LENGTH AND 17 FEET IN LENGTH.

THE OTHER SIDE, THE MEASURE 59 FEET AND 17 FEET IN WIDTH AND ARE PROVIDING ONLY TWO CANOPY TREES PROPOSED. THEY ARE ALSO PROPOSING 52 LANDSCAPING ALSO.

ALSO WITH THAT AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR MASONRY WALL WITH A REAR AND SIDE. THEY ARE PROPOSING A 6 FOOT BOARD ON BOARD WOOD FENCE IN LIEU OF THE MASONRY WALL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. LAURA.

SO AGAIN ALSO IN ADDITION TO THE ENTRY FEATURES THEY ARE REQUIRING AS SHOWN ON THE PICTURES ON YOUR SCREEN, THEY ARE PROPOSING A 15 FOOT LANDSCAPING BUFFER ALONG BIG A ROAD IN LIEU OF THE ENTRY FEATURE REQUIREMENT. AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, THERE'S THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE WHICH SHOWS THE DIMENSIONS OF THE LANDSCAPING TO YOUR LEFT ON THE SCREEN AND THEN ALONG YOU WILL SEE THE 15 FOOT LANDSCAPING BUFFER.

AND THEN ALSO LOWER TO THE BOTTOM IS A SECONDARY ENTRANCE WHICH SHOWS THE REQUIREMENTS I MENTIONED BEFORE FOR THE SECOND ENTRY AND IT ALSO SHOWS THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AS WELL.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. SO WITH THAT REQUEST, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL NOT TO HAVE A MASONRY WALL BUT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A WROUGHT IRON OR DECORATIVE METAL FENCE WITH SIX FEET IN HIGH WITH LANDSCAPING TO CREATE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH DISTINCT CHARACTER AND SENSE OF PLACE AND DENIAL TO REQUEST THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.

WE BELIEVE THAT FALLS SHORT OF WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES WITH ENTRY FEATURES.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. THIS DOES COMPLETE STAFF'S PRESENTATION.

AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO AVAILABLE AND HAS A BIG

PRESENTATION AS WELL THEY WILL PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE ANYBODY THAT HAS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF THAT CAN'T WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE APPLICANT MAKES THE PRESENTATION? THEN, MISS BRADLEY. IN THE APPLICANT COULD MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND WE CAN EITHER ASK YOU OR THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS ONCE THAT'S DONE.

SO IF THE APPLICANT COULD GET ON HERE AND MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION, I TAKE IT IT'S M

BURLINGAME. >> MISDEMEANOR PATRICK FILSON. MY ADDRESSES 5200 STATE HIGHWAY ROADWAY IN COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ACCESS OUR LITTLE PRESENTATION.

>> LAURA -- >> I'M TRYING TO FIND IT. >> OKAY.

>> STAND BY SIR AND WE WILL GET THAT GOING HERE. >> OKAY.

>> I ASSUME WE'RE LOOKING THE PRESENTATION. >> YES.

I'M SORRY. BEAR WITH ME PLEASE. WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL

[00:15:45]

DIFFICULTIES LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. >> LAURA.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S HELPFUL IF I SHARE MY SCREEN. I HAVE IT.

WE'RE HAVING DIFFICULTY BRINGING IT UP. ONE SECOND PLEASE.

>> OKAY. HERE WE GO. OKAY, SIR.

IF YOU WANT TO JUST ADVISE STAFF WHEN TO CHANGE THE SLIDE. >> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LIKE TARA JUST MENTIONED, WE ARE REQUESTING AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN AT THIS TIME. AND THIS IS IN FRONT OF A UPCOMING PRELIMINARY PLOT THAT I HOPE TO BE BRINGING BEFORE YOU IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF SESSIONS. THIS IS A KIND OF A UNIQUE PROPERTY. WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. GIVE YOU AN OVER VIEW OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. OUR REQUEST, THE OPEN SPACE AND FLOOD PLAIN ON THE SITE AND OUR PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS IS JUST AN OVER VIEW OF THE AREA OF WHAT WE'RE, THE SITE WE'RE WORKING WITH AND YOU CAN SEE THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU CAN SEE THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE TREES AND THE FLOOD PLAIN AND THE STRAIN THAT PUTS ON THE PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY CAN SEE A CURSOR.

LIKE TARA MENTIONED, THERE'S 740 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG THIS PROPERTY BUT IN REALITY ONLY 527 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG BIG A ROAD, THE OTHER 250 FEET OF THE FRONTAGE FRONTS THE BACK OF THE TARGET FACILITY. AND THERE'S NOT AN EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY THERE TO TIE INTO.

SO WE'RE REALLY WORKING WITH A FAIRLY SMALL AREA AND TRYING TO PUSH THOSE DRIVEWAYS OUT AS FAR AS WE CAN AWAY FROM ONE ANOTHER TO MAXIMIZE THE USABILITY AND THE FUNCTIONALITY OUR DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE IN 33 LOTS NOW WHICH WILL REQUIRE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS AND OVERALL PROPERTY FROM A S - FUNCTIONALITY STANDPOINT. ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD JUST ADJACENT TO THE WEST HAS A VERY SIMILAR SET UP WITH A LANDSCAPE ISLAND IN THEIR PRIMARY ENTRANCE, APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET AND THEN THE SECONDARY ACCESS HAS NO LANDSCAPE ISLAND. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS AN OLDER DEVELOPMENT DONE PRIOR TO THIS CODE, BUT IT'S VERY SIMILAR TYPE SET UP WITH QUITE A BIT MORE FRONTAGE AND TWO POINTS OF ACCESS TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY. BUT THE SAME STANDARDS APPLY. THE SAME PROCESS APPLIES WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE SIMILAR THINGS WITH GETTING THE PEOPLE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

MAKING IT LOOK UNIQUE AND NICE AND CREATING A DEVELOPMENT THAT EVERYONE CAN BE PROUD OF.

NEXT SLIDE. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR IS A -- THE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN, PRIMARY MEDIAN REDUCTION AND THE LANDSCAPE 40 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF WIDTH.

WE HAVE A LITTLE LESS THAN THAT ON BOTH THE LANDSCAPE AREAS AND THE MEDIAN.

AND THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE SECONDARY ACCESS. THE MEDIAN REDUCTION AS WELL AS THE LANDSCAPE AREAS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DRIVE. WHICH BRINGS OUR OVERALL LANDSCAPE AREA DOWN FROM 75% REQUIREMENT DOWN TO 53 OR 52% FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY

[00:20:11]

ACCESS. NEXT SLIDE. HERE WE HAVE TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT THE AREA IN BLUE IS THE AREA THAT WILL BE ENCUMBERED BY THE FLOOD PLAIN EASEMENT, 3.1 ACRES.

THE FLOOD PLAIN EASEMENT WILL ENCROACH 4.1 ACRES AND THE OPEN SPACE OF .59 ACRES AND REALLY THAT'S A LARGE PORTION OF OUR SITE AND QUITE A BIT OF OPEN SPACE AND IT'S ALL HEAVILY TREED. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS PRESERVE AS MANY TREES IN THE AREA AS POSSIBLE AND NOT ONLY IN THE FLOOD PLAIN WHERE WE CAN'T DO ANY WORK BUT EVEN BEYOND THAT IN THE BACK OF THESE YARDS SO YOU CAN SEE THE LOTS ARE QUITE A BIT DEEPER THAN THEY NEED TO BE AND THE INTENT IS TO PRESERVE THESE TREES AND PRESERVE THAT TREE CANOPY AS BEST AS POSSIBLE AND USE THAT AS AN AMENITY FOR WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE THE FEEL OF THE PROPERTY AS IT IS TODAY AND NOT COLD CUT THE WHOLE THING AND START FROM A GROUND UP TYPE DEAL.

YOU SEE FROM OUR NOTES HERE THAT WE'RE ENCROACHING ON THE SITE 27% OF THE OVERALL PROPERTY IS DEVOTED TO OPEN SPACE AND FLOOD PLAIN. IT'S ABOVE THE AREA WE'RE PROVIDING FOR LANDSCAPING AT THE ENTRY WAYS AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO DRAW THAT LANDSCAPING NOT ONLY FROM THE ENTRY WAY FEATURES BUT DOWN INTO THE PROPERTY AND YOU KEEP THAT THEME THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. NEXT SLIDE. JUST LIKE TARA SHOWED, THIS IS OUR OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN. ALL THE DIMENSIONS SHE PROVIDED ARE ACCURATE AND CORRECT AND THIS IS THE PLAN THAT WE HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF QUITE A BIT BACK AND FORTH TO BRING BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. ULTIMATELY, WE WOULD HAVE LOVE TO HAVE HAD STAFF A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL ON BOTH OF SCREENING WALL AND THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T. WE WOULD LIKE TO GET YOUR APPROVAL AND BRING THIS ON TO CITY COUNCIL AND BRING A PLAT TO YOU. JUST AS YOU, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DETAILED AREA ON THE BOTTOM SECTION OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THE IMPACT WOULD TAKE PLACE IF WE HAD TO EXPAND THE LANDSCAPE OR THE MEDIAN BY THE PRIMARY MEDIAN BY 10 FEET, THE SECONDARY BY 16 FEET. AND THEN HAVE 40 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF BOTH THOSE ENTRY WAYS.

IT WOULD ALMOST BE THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE OR FEEL LIKE THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD BE PART OF THE LANDSCAPE ENTRY FEATURE.

AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WORKED WITH TARA FOR THE WROUGHT IRON FENCING, THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ALONG THAT. SO ABOVE THE REQUIRED STREET TREES THAT ARE REQUIRED ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, WE WILL HAVE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ALL ALONG THE FRONTAGE IN FRONT OF THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE TO CREATE THE LANDSCAPE AND STREETSCAPE WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THERE.

THAT'S REALLY OUR REQUEST. WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE APPROVAL HERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS CASE. AND WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE DEVELOPER AT THIS TIME? IF WILL RAISE YOUR HAND OR MAKE IT WHERE I CAN SEE IT. MS. ESTEVEZ. QUESTIONS?

YOU'RE MUTED I THINK. >> I DO THIS ALL DAY. YOU THINK I WOULD BE BETTER BY THIS TIME. IS THERE ANY WAY WITHOUT TOO MUCH TROUBLE WE CAN GO BACK TO STAFF'S FINAL SLIDE FOR THE APPROVAL OR DENYING APPROVAL. THE WORDING WAS DIFFICULT FOR MY

TO FOLLOW IN THE SPEED IT WENT BY. >> OKAY.

SO I GATHER YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY PROVIDE A WROUGHT IRON OR DECORATIVE METAL FENCE OF SIX FEET IN HEIGHT.

WITH LANDSCAPING TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. OR DENY IT.

[00:25:04]

>> OKAY. IS THAT WHAT Y'ALL MEAN BY THAT? TARA?

>> NO. TWO SEPARATE PARTS. SO YOU HAVE APPROVAL OF THEM

PUTTINGA, MOVING FORWARD NOT PUTTING A MASONRY WALL. >> OKAY.

INSTEAD WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THEY PUT A WROUGHT IRON WITH MASONRY COLUMNS ALONG THAT

WROUGHT IRON FENCE INSTEAD OF MASONRY WALL >> THE SECOND PORTION IS TO DENY THE LANDSCAPING DIMENSION REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING.

>> SO THE PERCENTAGE IS THAT, THE REDUCTION IN PERCENTAGE? >> YES.

AND THE DIMENSION. >> YOU ALSO JUST MENTIONED AND I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE

PARAGRAPH, MASONRY COLUMNS WITH THE DECORATIVE WALL. >> I'M SORRY.

IT'S A WROUGHT IRON FENCE. >> OKAY. >> SO YEAH, LISA, I'M A TAD CONFUSED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN OF WHICH STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AND A MODIFICATION OF THE FENCING, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT?

>> YOU'RE RECOMMENDING A DENIAL. THE WAY I SEE IT. WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT, IF, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE -- MR. COTE, YOU HAVE A QUESTION AND I WILL FIRE OFF LAST.

>> YES. THIS IS PROBABLY FOR THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'RE FALLING SHORT ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN IN THE PRIMARY ENTRY WAY, MY QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED TAKING THAT PRIMARY ENTRY WAY, THE DRIVE THERE AND POSSIBLY YOU MIGHT HAVE TO RECLAIM A PORTION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN WHICH YOU COULD TURN AROUND AND TAKE AWAY ON THE FARTHER NORTH IN THE AREA, BASICALLY JUST STRAIGHTEN THAT PRIMARY ENTRY SO THAT YOU CAN GET THE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR YOUR LANDSCAPING IN THERE.

AND THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST ASKING FOR EXCEPTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO THE SECONDARY LANDON

DON DONOVAN -- LANDSCAPING. >> IS IT APPLICABLE FOR ME TO

ANSWER? >> YEAH. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>> I LIKE THE QUESTION. WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT PRETTY WELL IN DEPTH.

IT'S REALLY NOT THE DEPTH OF THE PROPERTY AND THE FLOOD PLAIN CUTS THROUGH AT AN ANGLE AND WE HAVE TO WORK THAT ROAD AROUND IT. THAT'S REALLY TO STAY OUT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN AS LONG AS WE WANT TO. THE MEDIAN IN THE LANDSCAPE AREA

ISN'T A PRODUCT OF DEPTH. IT'S A PRODUCT OF WIDTH. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING

ESE TOO. >> MS. ESTEVEZ. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE SLIDE AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FLOOD PLAIN AREA OVER THE ENTIRE TRACT ALSO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT.

AND THIS IS MY PERSONAL VIEW BUT I WAS IN LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR A LONG TIME.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. I WOULD HATE TO SEE ANYTHING BUT A WROUGHT IRON FENCE GO IN LIEU OF THE MASONRY WALL. LOOKING AT THIS TRACT AND AFTER PURCHASING THE TRACT WHAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE, LOSING 20% OF THE LANDSCAPING IF THEY, I MEAN I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS AS LONG AS THEY GO IN WITH THE DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON FENCE SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. THE LANDSCAPING WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THEY'RE DEALING WITH ON

THIS PARTICULAR TRACT WOULD BE A PROBLEM FOR ME. >> OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OR THE DEVELOPER FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS?

>> MR. ENGEN. >> JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS AND THE DEVELOPER MADE THE COMMENT HE WAS GOING TO REDUCE IT FROM 75 TO 50% OF THE REQUIREMENT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF AGREED FOR 75%. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAN BE EXPLAINED OR CAN WE GO TO 75%

RATHER THAN THE TOTAL REDUCTION OF 50%? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

>> IT'S NOT A 75%, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR 75% OF THE REQUIREMENT OR 50% OF THE REQUIREMENT. IT'S OF THE TOTAL ENTRY WAY AREA.

OF THE ENTRY WAY AREA IS 75% HAS TO BE LANDSCAPING AND WE'RE REDUCING THAT DOWN, THE CODE ALLOWS US WITH P AND Z TO REDUCE DOWN BY 25% DOWN TO 50% AND WE'RE AT 52 AND 53

[00:30:01]

>> DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> YES, THAT'S FINE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS? STAFF, I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHERE IS THIS, WHERE DOES THIS PROJECT SIT RIGHT NOW? I KNOW WE VOTED ON THIS.

HAVE WE HAD, DO WE HAVE A PLAT YET? A FINAL PLAT OR WHAT?

>> NO WE DO NOT. RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT OUR ENTRY, EACH ENTRY FEATURES ARE BEING LAID OUT, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THAT APPROVED FIRST BEFORE WE CAN HAVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THIS IS OUR FIRST STEP AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW.

AFTER THIS GOES THROUGH CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED AND THE COMMON AREAS, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND YOU WOULD SEE HOWEVER IT TURNS OUT WITH CITY COUNCIL HOW THE AREAS WOULD BE FORMED OR SHAPED ON THE PROPERTY. THOSE PRIMARY ENTRY FEATURES.

>> ON THIS PROJECT, I WILL SAY THIS IS A PRETTY UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN OUR CITY.

I THINK I VOTED AGAINST THIS PROJECT ORIGINALLY. BUT SINCE IT HAS BEEN APPROVED, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE THE DEVELOPER IS COMING FROM ON THIS.

WE HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PROCESS IF THE SITE DEFINITELY NEEDS SOME KIND OF ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT WE HAVE IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PLACES. IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH BIG A ROAD, YOU GO, IF YOU'RE HEADING EAST ON BIG A ROAD, YOU'RE GOING DOWN INTO A VALLEY WHERE THE CREEK IS AND THEN UP KIND OF INTO THE REAR OF TARGET PARKING LOT THERE. RIGHT BY THE GRAVE YARD.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH FRONTAGE ON BIG A ROAD TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT AS WE HAVE IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. I JUST THINK THE DEVELOPER HAS PRESENTED A RELATIVELY REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE THAT I THINK WILL BE OKAY. I AGREE THAT WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THAT WOOD FENCES IS, YOU KNOW, NOT REALLY. BUT A DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND I KIND OF LIKE THE ONES WITH THE PILLARS THAT ARE BRICK AND THE IRON IN BETWEEN.

BUT YOU KNOW, I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO WHOEVER. BUT, I THINK I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

BECAUSE I THINK THE UNIQUE ASPECTS OF THIS SITE KIND OF THERE'S NO WAY YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE SEPARATION TO HAVE A WIDER ENTRY WAY AND A WIDER SECONDARY ENTRANCE I DON'T THINK. I DON'T THINK IT'S REASONABLE. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

AT THIS TIME. >> MR. COTE. YOU HAVE A COMMENT?

>> YEAH. I AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS CHAIRMAN MOSELEY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE THE PRIMARY ENTRY WAY. I DON'T THINK THEY TRIED VERY HARD AND I UNDERSTAND YOU THINK IT'S AN ISSUE ON THE WIDTH OF THE AREA NEAR THE MEDIAN.

I'M SAYING TO WEST OF THE EXISTING MEDIAN, TAKE THAT CURVE UP TO THE NORTHWEST, TO ALLOW YOU TO BRING THE MEDIAN FURTHER NTO THE PROPERTY AND LANDSCAPE IT CLOSER TO WHAT WE REQUEST YOU DO IN OUR CODE. AND IF YOU WOULD DO THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY.

>> DOESN'T THAT JACK AROUND THE STREET PLANNING?

>> NO. >> THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE MAKING THE ENTRANCE, SAY THAT AGAIN

BECAUSE I'M NOT FOLLOWING YOU 100%. >> YEAH.

ESSENTIALLY, YEAH. ESSENTIALLY IF WE TAKE THIS CURVE, THIS MEDIAN NEEDS TO RUN IN A LITTLE FURTHER FOR OUR CODE. IF WE TAKE THE CURVE THAT IS TO

THE WEST OF THAT MEDIAN, >> YES. >> AND TRAVEL NORTH JUST A LITTLE BIT FARTHER BEFORE IT TURNS TO EAST, PUSH THAT A LITTLE CLOSER OR POSSIBLY HAVING TO RECLAIM A LITTLE BIT OF FLOOD PLAIN, BEFORE YOU MAKE THAT TURB.

THAT ALLOWS YOU TO GET THE MEDIAN IN OVER INTO THE PROPERTY >> THAT MAKES SENSE.

ISN'T THAT A CREEK? IT'S NOT REALLY A FLOOD PLAIN. ISN'T IT A CREEK DOWN

>> >> DEVELOPER. ANYBODY?

>> YEAH. IT IS A CREEK. AND IT'S REALLY THE MAJOR TRIBUTARY IS ON THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS A FINGER THAT COMES OUT OF THE CREEK AND IT'S A MUCH SMALLER TRIBUTARY THAN WHAT IS ON THE NORTH SIDE.

[00:35:04]

IT'S A PRETTY WELL DEFINED CREEK. WE'RE CROSSING IT TWICE WITH THESE ROADS. THERE WILL BE SUBSTANTIAL STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES.

>> THE CREEK RUNS SOUTH TO NORTH? >> RIGHT, SOUTH TO NORTH.

OKAY. >> YEAH. MR. COTE, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IF THEY WOULD WIDEN JUST A LITTLE BIT, YOU COULD MAKE THE FEATURE LONGER AND MAYBE IF YOU WERE TO MAKE A MOTION INDICATING THAT, THAT MIGHT BE VIABLE.

OR MAKE A MOTION ON ANYTHING. >> I THINK THAT SOUNDS INTERESTING.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? COMMISSIONERS?

MISS ESTEVEZ. >> DOES CITY OF ROWLETT PLANNING STAFF FEEL LIKE THAT SUGGESTION IS VIABLE IN THAT AREA THAT THIS EXTENSION OF THE LANDSCAPING IS BEING PROPOSED BY P AND Z COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER ESTEVEZ AND COMMISSIONER COTE.

I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTARY. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ACHIEVE THE CODE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE AND MEET THE INTENT OF THE CODE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ■I DOWANT TO CLARIFY AS IT RELATES TO AGAIN I'M GOING TO PREFACE WITH THE MASONRY WALL, WE HAVE OUR CONCERNS WITH MASONRY WALLS. TO JUST HAVE WOOD FENCE IS BACKING UP TO BIG A WOULD COMPROMISE TO THE ASTH ETIC. THE JUSTIFICATION, WHAT IS THE INTENT TO DEVIATE FROM THAT, AND WHAT ALTERNATIVE ARE YOU GOING TO PROVIDE THAT ENHANCES THE LANDSCAPING IS WHAT AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS SUPPOSED TO DO. IT'S NOT A VARIANCE MECHANISM TO SAY WE'RE UNABLE TO DO THIS. IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES.

IF THIS INSTANCE IF THEY WERE TO INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE AREAS, OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD COMPROMISE THE DEPTH OR WIDTH OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS PROPOSED ON THAT PROPERTY.

THAT COULD COMPROMISE THE LOTS ON THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, IF WE FAST FORWARD AND WE LOOK AT IS THERE ANOTHER WAY TO MANAGE THIS AND MOVE THAT MEDIAN FURTHER NORTH OR INTO THE PROPERTY, WHAT ARE WE TALKING IN TERMS OF REALIGNMENT THAT MINISCULE REALIGNMENT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. CAN THEY ACHIEVE THAT AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS DEFINITELY

SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK INTO. >> I THINK WHAT MR. COTE IMPOSED DOES NOT CROACH ON ANY LOT.

>> I'M REFERRING TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. I MEAN IF THEY WERE TO MEET THE

REQUIREMENTS, IT WOULD CAUSE THEM TO POSSIBLY LOSE LOT AREA. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT THE ALTERNATIVE THAT MR. COTE PROPOSED, THE WAY I SEE IT, DOES NOT ENCROACH ON ANY PARTICULAR ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGN BUT WOULD MODIFY THE ENTRANCEWAY.

MR. DEVELOPER WHOSE NAME IS NOT BURLINGAME, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT?

>> FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR THAT MEDIAN IS, THE PRIMARY MEDIAN REQUIREMENT IS 24 FOOT WIDE BY 40 FEET DEEP. TWO LANDSCAPE AREAS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ENTRY WAY THAT ARE 40 FOOT WIDE BY 80 FEET WIDE. IT'S NOT THE MEDIAN ITSELF.

THE OVERALL SIZE IS NOT THERE BUT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE WIDTH.

IN ESSENCE, WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS AND IF IT'S GETTING THAT MEDIAN A LITTLE FURTHER OUT IN THE PROPERTY, CREATE A GRANDER, LONGER ENTRANCE ENCROACHING INTO THE FLOOD PLAIN. WE HAVE A MOTTO. WE'RE GOING TO FEMA WITH A LOAMER PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PERFORM ANYWAY. THAT'S A RELATIVELY SIMPLE AND EASY TASK TO DO. HOW MUCH DO WE WANT TO ENCOACH ON THE AREA? WE'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE FOR A COUPLE REASONS. ONE TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF

[00:40:06]

THE FLOOD PLAIN. MAKES THINGS SIMPLER THROUGH THE FEMA PROCESS.

THAT'S A LARGE PERK. THE NUMBER OF THE TREES AND THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF TREES.

THERE'S REALLY LARGE TREES AND A LARGE NUMBER OF THEM. SO WHERE THERE ARE AREAS WE ARE GOING TO PRESERVE THEM. OPEN UP THE VIEW CORRIDORS FROM BIG A ROAD INTO WHERE YOU LOOK INTO THIS SUBDIVISION. THEY LOOK MATURE WITH THE NUMBER OF TREES LOOKS LIKE IT HAS BEEN THERE A LONG TIME. IF WE HAVE TO LENGTHEN THE MEDIAN.

GIVE ME A NUMBER TO TARGET. 75 FEET IN DEPTH. >> MR. COTE, WE CAN'T REDRAW THE GUY'S PLAN. WHAT IS YOUR CONCERN? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO-WE CAN DEVIATE OFF THE 20%. WE HAVE THE 75% REQUIREMENT THERE. YOU KNOW LET'S TRY TO GET CLOSER TO THERE.

TO THAT POINT. YOU'RE RIGHT. I CAN'T SIT HERE AND REDRAW IT FOR HIM. THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEBT CLOSER TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR LANDSCAPING AND UNDERSTAND SECONDARY ENTRY WAY WOULD BE TOUGH.

SO WE AGREE WITH THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, NO MASONRY WALL AGREE WITH THE WROUGHT IRON WALL IN FACT THAT WOULD PROBABLY ENHANCE THE NICE VIEW OF THE TREES OUT THERE.

>> WE CAN ACHIEVE THE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN BY STAFF THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS CHANGES TO. WE CAN DENY IT. WE CAN, SOMEBODY CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DENY AND THEY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK. OR WE CAN APPROVE IT.

MR. CHAIRMAN. IF I COULD -- >> I'M SORRY, SIR, IF ANYBODY IN THE COMMISSION HAS QUESTIONS OR SOMETHING, THIS IS THE TIME. ACTUALLY MR. NOT BURLINGAME, IF

YOU CAN GO AHEAD. I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. >> IT'S VERY DIFFERENT NOT IN PERSON WHERE I CAN SEE, WE'RE STRUGGLING A LITTLE BITS HERE. THE ONE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE WAS IN RELATION TO THE 50% OF THE 75% REQUIRED. YES WE ARE DEVIATING IT'S BUT IT'S TAKING IN ACCOUNT THE BUFFER. WE WOULD END UP CLOSER TO THE

75% NUMBER. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS I'M READY FOR A MOTION. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL AS SUBMITTED. >> WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION AND

THAT INCLUDES FENCING. >> I'M SORRY. WITH, THANK YOU, JIM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A CORRECTION. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE WOOD BOARD ON BOARD FENCE WITH A SIX FEET HIGH DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON FENCE. WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE FENCE TO WROUGHT IRON FENCE. DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION?

>> THAT MOTION DOES NOT CARRY. >> YEAH, I GOT A QUESTION. YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO WHAT SHE'S ASKING. SO SHE'S ASKING FOR APPROVAL JUST TO GO TO A WROUGHT IRON AND

DENY THE ENTRY? >> NO. SHE'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN AS SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER AND A DENIAL OF THE FENCE PART

[00:45:05]

AND CHANGING THAT TO A DECORATIVE SIX FOOT FENCE.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? >> YES. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND FROM MR.ENGEN. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF MISS ESTEVEZ'S MOTION, RAISE YOUR HAND. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR.

THAT ITEM CARRIES 4-2. NEXT ITEM. >> 5 C, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING

[5C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council for a request by Adam Shiffer, Skorburg Company, to rezone the subject property from Single-Family Residential (SF40) District to Planned Development (PD) District for Single-Family Residential (SF-5) Uses to develop the site with 88 single-family homes and 3 common area lots. The 19.89-acre site is located on the southeast corner of Rowlett Road and Miller Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A REQUEST BY ADAM SHIVER SKORBURG COMPANY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SF 40 DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF 5. USES TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH 88 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND 3 COMMON AREA LOTS. THE 19.89 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF

ROWLETT ROAD AND MILLER ROAD AND THE CITY OF ROWLETT, TEXAS. >> I DON'T KNOW WHO IS HANDLING

THIS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. SO AS NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA.

SO AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS A PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLER AND ROWLETT ROAD AND IT IS BEING REQUESTED TO BE REZONED FROM 40 TO APD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SF 5 USES. THE DEVELOPER PROPOSES TO DEVELOP 88 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THREE COMMON LOT AREAS AND AS YOU CAN SEE WITH YOUR MAP THERE, THIS IS EXISTING ZONING AND WHICH IS GREEN AT THIS TIME RIGHT NOW. THE COLOR CODE AND THEN THE

PURPLE IF THIS IS APPROVED. >> NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA >> THE SITE IS 18.9 ACRES IN CONSISTENT WITH SEVEN EXISTING STRUCTURES INCLUDING A PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.

THE SITE HAS 946 FEET ON MILLER THE SITE IS ENCUMBERED WITH 3.764 ACRES OF FLOOD FOUL LANE THAT TRANSVERSE FROM THE SOUTHWEST TO THE SOUTHEAST PROPERTY ALONG BRANCH CREEK AND IT DOES DIVIDE THE PROPERTY IN TWO. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA.

A LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN. TO THE NORTH, IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT BUT THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS OCCURRING ON THAT PROPERTY.

AND THAT IS ALSO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SF 5 USES. TO THE EAST YOU HAVE SINGLE FAMILY SF 40. TO THE SOUTH YOU HAVE SF 40 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR R2 USES.

AND ALSO TO THE WEST ACROSS ROWLETT ROAD, YOU HAVE A VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND A C 1 WITH SUP FOR GAS STATION CAR WASH AND DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. JUST TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND ON THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT SURROUND THE AREA. THE SINGLE FAMILY SF 5, THEIR MINIMUM LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 4000 SQUARE FEET AND THE MINIMUM BUILDING IS 1500. AND TO THE EAST YOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING REQUIRES FOR SF 40 WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND A 2400 MINIMUM BUILDING DWELLING UNIT. THIS HAS BUILT OUT TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR SF 40, A LOT OF PROPERTIES ARE MORE THAN JUST AN ACRE. SOME ARE POSSIBLY TWO ACRES IN THAT AREA AS WELL TO THE EAST. THE WEST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE R1 USES ARE 4000. 1200 BUT SOME ARE LARGER IN SIZE.

AS WELL AS TO THE SOUTH, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R 2 WAS JUST COMPLETED AND YOUR MINIMUM LOT IS 7800 AND REQUIRE MINIMUM BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 1500.

THIS PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS FOR 4800 SQUARE FEET WITH A MINIMUM OF 1500

[00:50:07]

SQUARE FEET. NEXT SLIDE LAURA PLEASE. SO WHEN WE DO RECEIVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING PROPOSAL, WE DO LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SO WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN YOU CAN SEE THERE ON THE SCREEN, IT DOES DESIGNATE THE AREA AS STATE RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST AND RETAIL COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES TO THE WEST.

AND IT IS SEPARATED BY LONG BRANCH CREEK THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE SITE.

AS YOU KNOW, THE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL IS DEFINED AS LOTS OVER 20,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CLASSIFIED AS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE IT HAS LOTS LESS THAN 7000 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL COMPONENT. SO FROM THIS MAP HERE, IF IT IS APPROVED TO BE REZONED TO SF 5 PLAN USED DEVELOPMENT, THIS WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS IT STANDS TODAY. THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMERCIAL USE WILL BE LOST ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. SO WITH THIS TABLE HERE, THESE ARE PROPOSED CONSIDERATION GIVING YOU SIDE BY SIDE VIEW OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SF 40 DISTRICT AND THE ST 5. YOUR MAXIMUM DENSITIES WOULD CHANGE.

SF 40 WOULD HAVE ONE DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE AND FOR PD 1.4 PER ACRE, THIS IS REVIEWED BASED ON THIS BEING GROSS ACREAGE VERSE NET. FOUR MINIMUM SIZE WOULD BE 40,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR FOUR 800 SQUARE FEET.

YOU HAVE ALSO A MINIMUM DWELLING AREA WILL BE 2400 FOR THE SF 40. SF 5 WOULD BE 1500.

THE SETBACKS IN COMPARISON TO THE SF 5, YOU HAVE SF 5 REQUIRES ONE THOUSAND FEET.

THIS IS PROPOSING 120 FEET. THEY DO PROVIDE 70% LOT COVERAGE AND FOR THE SF 5, USUALLY REQUIRES 10 FEET FOR MINIMUM SETBACK AND INCORPORATES ALLEYS FOR SF 5 ZONING AS THEY WILL HAVE NO ALLEYS AND WOULD HAVE FRONT LOADED GARAGES 20 FEET. THE MINIMUM LOTS, THEY VALID A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET BUT OUR ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES REQUIRE 25 FEET AND THE SF 40 ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES 45 FEET IN THE PROPOSING FEET. THEY ARE NOT PROVIDING ANY ALLEYS AND EVERYTHING WILL BE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA.

THEY ALSO DID PLAN TO REDUCE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INTERNAL TO THE STREET BY 10 FEET.

THEY PROPOSED 50 INSTEAD OF 60 AND THEY WILL PROVIDE SIX FOOT HEIGHT MASONRY WALL.

THE LANDSCAPE AREA THEY DO PROVIDE PRIMARY ENTRY FEATURE OF 9000 SQUARE FEET.

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE NONSECONDARY ENTRY WAY AND THERE'S NO PRIMARY ENTRY MEDIAN AND THE SECONDARY MEDIAN ENTRY THERE WILL BE NONE AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO, MILLER AND ROWLETT ROAD ARE FOUR-LANE DIVIDED. THERE WILL BE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS FROM MILLER ROAD AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PLAN. IT SHOWS THE TWO OPENINGS THEY WILL BE PROPOSING. WITH THAT, THE WESTERN ENTRANCE IS LIMITED TO A RIGHT IN AND RIGHT OUT. THE EASTERN ENTRANCE ALLOWS FOR LEFT AND RIGHT TURN EGRESS.

IT IS CAPABLE OF ONE POINT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS. THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY

[00:55:04]

WILL BE THE ACCESS FROM ROWLETT ROAD BECAUSE THERE IS A SEPARATION FROM THE FLOOD PLAIN TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED CONNECTION BETWEEN EAST AND WEST. AND YOU WILL HAVE ABOUT 19 HOMES ON WILL BE ON THAT WESTERN PORTION THAT WOULD BE ACCESSING ROWLETT ROAD. SO TO SUM UP THE CONSIDERATIONS, THEY'RE PLANNING TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FROM 5000 SQUARE FEET TO 4800 SQUARE FEET AND THE SECOND ENTRY WAY AND PRIMARY SECONDARY ENTRY FEATURES FOR LANDSCAPING.

THEY DECREASED THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FROM 50 TO 40 FEET. FROM REDUCING FROM TWO STORIES TO 2.5 STORIES. THEY WILL DECREASE THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK THAT WILL CREATE A SMALLER LOT IF THEY SET THE HOUSE BACK 10 FEET AND DECREASE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM 60 TO 50 FEET AND ELIMINATE THE ALLY REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES WHICH THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING J SWINGS TO THAT EXIT. IT JUST WOULD BE FRONT LOADED GARAGES.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. SO, HERE WE HAVE A CONCEPT PLAN AND LANDSCAPING PLAN TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AS PROPOSED PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT. YOU WILL SEE UP TO THE TOP FROM MILLER ROAD, YOU WILL SEE THE TWO ACCESS POINTS FROM THERE. AS SOON AS YOU COME TO THE PROPERTY, WE WILL SEE THAT YOU WILL SEE HOUSING AND ALSO THE FLOOD PLAIN.

AND ALSO YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE THE CUL-DE-SACS THAT WILL ALLOW ONLY THE TWO INGRESS INTO THE PROPERTY BUT DO NOT ALLOW FOR CONNECTIONS TO ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND NOT EVEN TO THE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED TO THE EAST AND PORTION OF THE SITE. AND THEY WILL BE USING CUL-DE-SACS TO MITIGATE THEIR TURNING AROUND AND NONCONNECTIONS WITHIN THE SITE.

AND ALSO YOU SEE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AS TALKED ABOUT. THE ENTRY FEATURES.

I WILL SEE THERE'S A MASONRY COUPLE WALL PROPOSED AT THE TOP BUT MOST OF THEIR PLANTINGS WHEN THEY REPLANT WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING TREES AS WELL AND TO THE EASTERN PORTION WILL PROVIDE A RIGHT-OF-WAY BUFFER ALONG ROWLETT ROAD.

ALSO THEY DO PROPOSE TO HAVE A 10 FOOT TRAIL INSIDE THE PROPERTY.

BUT WITHIN THE PROPERTY, WOULD ONLY PROVIDE A CONNECTION INTERNAL TO THE SITE AND NOT CONNECT TO IT. THE PROPERTIES BELOW AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA.

SO JUST SOMETHING JUST A LITTLE BIT OF TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS ON HERE.

FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, THEYVILLE A TOTAL OF 962 TRIPS AND IT WILL BE GENERATED PER WEEKDAY AND THE TRIPS FOR A.M. AND P.M. AND 90 TRIPS DURING THE PEAK HOUR. AND ALSO TOO, THE BOTTOM WILL PROVIDE IT SPLITS THE TRIPS BETWEEN 926 TRIPS. YOU HAVE THE 463 INGRESS TRIPS AND 463 INGRESS TRIPS GENERATED PER DAY AND TOTALS TO THE TOTAL TRIPS GENERATED PER WEEKDAY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA.

SO, ALONG HERE THIS PROVIDES KIND OF THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ON SITE.

SO ACCESS ALONG ROWLETT ROAD IS LIMITED TO RIGHT IN AND RIGHT OUT TERMS. DOES NOT MAKE USE OF THE OPEN MEDIAN LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE SITE.

WHICH IS CIRCLED ON MAP. YOU CAN SEE DOWN THERE BELOW. THERE IS A MEDIAN BUT SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE ACCURATE INFORMATION AS TO HOW THIS MEDIAN WILL BE ACCESSED TO THIS SITE, WE'RE NOT SURE HOW BAD THE MEDIAN WOULD BE USED WITH DEVELOPMENT IF THIS SITE IS DEVELOPED.

ONE POINT OF ACCESS ALONG MILLER ROAD IS LIMITED TO RIGHT IN AND RIGHT OUT.

THE SECOND ALLOWS FOR RIGHT IN TURN AND EGRESS. IF YOU CAN, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE

[01:00:04]

LAURA. SO, THE 2015 MAST THOROUGH VIEW IS TYPE A ON ROWLETT ROAD AND TYPE B WITHIN THE 85 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON BOTH ROWLETT ROAD AND MILLER ROAD TO ACCOMMODATE A 250 FOOT BY 15 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY TURN LANE AND 250 BY 15 FOOT LANE RESPECTIVELY. BUT 100 FOOT LONG TRANSITION ON EACH ROAD.

ONCE THIS IS APPROVED, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AT TIME OF SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO AT TIME OF PRELIMINARY PLAT TO DETERMINE THE NUMBERS BECAUSE THESE, IT WOULD BE MORE CATERED TO THE ACTUAL PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED.

SO, AT THIS TIME, WE DO NOT HAVE A PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS BUT AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN IT WILL BE REQUIRED. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA.

ALSO ON IT SITE IT IS ENCUMBERED BY 3.76 ACRES OF FLOOD PLAIN BY BRANCH CREEK.

THEY PROPOSE 0.04 ACRES OF FLOOD PLAIN WILL BE RECLAIMED TO ACCOMMODATE AN INTERNAL CUL-DE-SAC PROPOSED STREET A AS WELL AS SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE HASHED LINE ON THE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE THERE. THE HASH LINE THAT'S PROPOSED ON THE EASTERN PORTION AND ALSO A PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOES CONCLUDE THAT THE PROPOSED WILL NOT LIKELY HAVE AN IMPACT ON WILDLIFE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA.

SO HERE'S JUST A DRAINAGE STUDY BECAUSE IT'S LOCATED ALONG THIS AREA.

ON THE LONG BRANCH CREEK AREA. LONG BRANCH CREEK IS ABOUT 2.6 MILES ALONG WITH 2.1 SQUARE MILE WATER SHED, PROPOSED PROJECT IS ABOUT 20 ACRES WHICH IS LESS THAN THE 1.5 IN THE WATER SHED.

SO DURING 100 YEAR STORM AT MILLER ROAD AND ROWLETT ROAD, THE FLOW IS PROPOSED TO BE 4800 FEET AND SO DURING THE 100 YEAR PROPERTY, THE DISCHARGE WOULD BE 65 FEET AND I WOULD HAVE JEFF COHEN TO ELABORATE ON THIS DETAIL ON THIS SLIDE AS WELL. SO THE DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO MITIGATE IMPACTS BY ELIMINATING DISCHARGE OF RUN OFF TO EXISTING LEVELS TO SHOW NO IMPACT AND THE PROJECT IS UNLIKELY TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO LONG BRANCH CREEK.

WE CAN ALSO TALK ABOUT THAT WITH JEFF BECAUSE JEFF IS HERE TO DISCUSS THIS AS WELL.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. SO THE SITE IS ALSO ENCUMBERED BY A NUMBER OF TREES AND WE ARE PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION PRIOR TO THE REZONING BECAUSE THESE TREES WILL BE DISTURBED AS YOU CAN SEE PER THE LAYOUT OF THE AREA, WHERE THE GREEN SPOTS ARE, THAT'S CURRENTLY TREES THAT ARE ON THE SITE AND WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, POSSIBLY ALL THE TREES THAT WOULD BE REMOVED IF THE REZONING IS APPROVED. A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN AND SURVEY WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF PRELIMINARY PLAT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS SLIDE JUST PROVIDES PHOTOS ALONG ROWLETT ROAD AND WE'RE LOOKING SOUTHEAST TOWARDS THE SITE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING SIDEWALK THERE THAT'S ABOUT FOUR FEET.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE SPANS OF TREES ALONG THIS SIDE AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA.

AND WE'RE LOOKING AT MILLER ROAD, LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD THE SITE.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. SO WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS ON JUNE 5TH AND WE SENT OUT WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS 31 NOTICES, 500 FOOT PUBLIC NOTICES VIA, 54, AND RESPONSES RECEIVED, WE RECEIVED 200, ONE IN OPPOSITION AND TWO IN FAVOR. THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED SINCE JUNE 19TH THAT WE HAVE MORE IN OPPOSITION AND FIVE MORE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION.

RESPONSES TO THE 500 NOTICE, THREE IN OPPOSITION AND ZERO IN FAVOR.

[01:05:04]

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. CHAIRMAN MOSELEY. IF I CAN INTERRUPT.

MY APOLOGIES. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE SLIDES PERTAINING TO THE LONG BRANCH STUDY AND THE FLOOD PLAIN AREA AND PERHAPS CHAT A LITTLE BIT LAURA, IF YOU DON'T MIND, TALK ABOUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION FOR OUR VIEWING AUDIENCE AS WELL AS YOURSELF, THE COMMISSIONERS. JEFF IS GOING TO ELABORATE ON THOSE FOUR. I THINK THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO STOP.

YES. PERFECT. START FROM THIS END.

JEFF WOULD YOU PICK IT UP FOR US PLEASE. JEFF COHEN.

COME IN, OVER. >> GOT IT. WELL, ACTUALLY, LAURA, COULD YOU PLEASE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE DEDICATIONS.

THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN DOES NOT IDENTIFY WHERE WE NEED EXTRA RIGHT-OF-WAY AT INTERSECTIONS AND THERE IS PLANNED A RIGHT TURN LANE FROM AN ADDITIONAL RIGHT TURN LANE FROM ROWLETT ROAD ON TO MILLER ROAD. WE DEDICATED A VERY SIMILAR AMOUNT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE NORTHERN TRACT WHEN THAT PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED AND THIS WOULD BE MIRRORED ON THIS PROPERTY. A 250 RIGHT TURN LANE.

250 FEET LONG AND YOU HAVE ABOUT 100 FEET TRANSITION ZONE AND THAT WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE THE SAME AMOUNT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATED ON MILLER TO ALLOW THE CARS TO MERGE.

AND THERE MAYBE SOME OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE MITIGATIONS NEEDED IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DO DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL WILL IDENTIFY THOSE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. OKAY.

SO THIS SLIDE REALLY JUST TELLS THE STORY ABOUT THE FLOOD PLAIN. AND LAURA, COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS SHOWS THE RELATIVE CONE TEXT OF THE SITE WITHIN THE WATER SHED OF LONG BRANCH CREEK. LONG BRANCH CREEK STARTS A LITTLE BIT NORTH OF LAKE VIEW PARK WAY. SH 66, AROUND THE SPROUTS AREA. AND WAL-MART.

AND THAT AREA AND IT FLOWS DOWN TO LAKE RAY HUBBARD CROSSING OF COURSE LAKE VIEW PARK WAY.

IT CROSSES MAIN STREET AND THE DART RAIL. IF EVENTUALLY FLOWS DOWN NEAR ROWLETT ROAD NEAR THE CEMETERY AND NEAR MILLER AND CROSSES KIRKY INTO LAKE RAY HUBBARD.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS AT THE CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLER AND ROWLETT ROADS.

RIGHT ABOUT WHERE OR NOT ABOUT, RIGHT WHERE LONG BRANCH CREEK CROSSES MILLER ROAD, THE CITY PUT IN LARGE 10 BY 10 CULVERTS UNDER MILLER ROAD. THOSE CROSSINGS, THOSE CULVERTS ARE STILL BACKING UP THE LONG BRANCH CREEK TO SOME DEGREE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MILLER ROAD.

EXCUSE ME, NORTH SIDE OF MILLER ROAD AND DURING THE EXTREME EVENT, THE HUNDRED YEAR EVENT, THE ANALYSIS, THE HYDRAULICS SAY THE FLOW WILL GO OVER MILLER ROAD ABOUT A FOOT DEEP AND THEN

[01:10:04]

RETURN TO LONG BRANCH CREEK ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF CULVERTS. IN TERMS OF WATER SHED, IT'S 2.1 SQUARE MILES AND THE PROJECT SITE IS A LITTLE LESS THAN 20 ACRES.

LESS THAN 1% OF THE TOTAL WATER SHED OF LONG BRANCH CREEK OF THE 4800 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND FLOW THAT'S PREDICTED IN LONG BRANCH CREEK COMES FROM THE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY THAT WAS UPDATED IN 2014. I BELIEVE THEY UPDATED THE HYDRAULICS BUT NOT THE HYDROLOGY. THIS WAS CARRIED OVER TO THE 2014 STUDY AND THAT'S THE NUMBER WE HAVE TO WORK WITH. AND A QUICK BALLPARK ESTIMATE OF THE 20 ACRES IN ITS NATIVE CONDITION IS ESTIMATED 65 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. ABOUT 1.5 % OF THE 4800 CFS COMING THROUGH LONG BRANCH AT THAT PROPERTY. RELEVANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT DEVELOPERS MITIGATE IMPACTS BY LIMITING THEIR DISCHARGE FROM THEIR PROJECT TO EXISTING FLOWS, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 65 AND WHEN WE GET INTO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WE LOOK AT THAT MORE IN DEPTH. THEY WILL BE HELD TO LIMITING THE FLOWS TO THE PREDEVELOP LEVELS WHICH BASICALLY WILL MEANS THAT THERE, LIKELY NOT BE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE LONG BRANCH CREEK DOWN STREAM OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE WHATEVER IS COMING OFF OF THE PROPERTY NOW WILL CONTINUE TO COME OFF THAT PROPERTY AND THERE SHOULD BE NO INCREASE IN THAT FLOW.

AND TO BASICALLY COVERS THE DRAINAGE ASPECT OF THIS PROJECT. >> THANK YOU, JEFF.

TARA, DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE OR? UNLESS MUNAL HAS SOMETHING ELSE?

>> NO, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO GO THROUGH THAT ONE MORE TIME.

IT'S SO MUCH INFORMATION AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE REITERATED FROM THAT.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. >> MISS BRADLEY. YOU WANT TO CONTINUE.

>> OF THIS REQUEST, WE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF 40 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY SF 5 USES AS A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND DEVIATIONS FROM THE ZONING DISTRICT ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING BUILT ENVIRONMENT OR THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN WHICH DOES DESIGNATE THE EASTERN PORTION AS COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES ALONG ROWLETT ROAD. AND ALSO THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO FULLY EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC INTO AND OUT OF ROWLETT ROAD.

THIS COMPLETES STAFF PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS YOU

MAY HAVE. >> THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION.

>> COMMISSIONERS IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH YOU, CAN WE LET THE APPLICANT HAVE THEIR

PRESENTATION AND WE ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK. >> THEN WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC

HEARING. >> AT THIS TIME, IF WE COULD HAVE A APPLICANT STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU CAN DO YOUR PRESENTATION RIGHT NOW.

>> GOOD EVENING, AGAIN, GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY. IT'S JOHN ARNOLD WITH SKORBURG COMPANY. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT THE CITY HAS.

THAT'S IT. WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT AS TARA SAID, THE SECOND PHASE OF VILLAS AT LONG BRANCH APPROVED I GUESS LATE LAST YEAR. LATE 2019.

WE ARE LOOKING TO DO THE SAME PRODUCT THAT WE HAVE DONE ALL ALONG MILLER ROAD AND MANORS ON

[01:15:09]

MILLER. WE PLAN TO DO THE SAME TYPE OF PROJECT WHERE WE HAVE THE FRONT ENTRY PRODUCT. IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

I WILL RUN THROUGH OUR FIRST SLIDES SINCE YOU HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY REMEMBERS WHO WE ARE.

WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SKORBURG PRIMARIES IN ROWLETT. MANORS ON MILLER IS DOWN THE STREET FROM THIS PROJECT. THAT'S ABOUT 39 LOTS. BUILDER IS WINDSOR HOMES, OUR HOME PRICES ARE FROM THE 300S TO 390'S. WILLOW ESTATES.

ALMOST SOLD OUT. 200S TO 300S. WINDSOR AND MERITAGE HOMES IN THE PROJECT OFF BEL AIR. WOOD SIDE ESTATES WHICH WAS APPROVED ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, THE HOMES ARE GOING UP NOW SINCE THE LAST TIME I TALKED TO Y'ALL ABOUT ZONING.

HOME PRICES, 200 TO 300S AND THERE'S LOTS RANGE FROM 115 TO 145.

NEXT SLIDE. VILLAS OF LONG BRANCH WHICH WE SAW LAST YEAR.

WINDSOR HOME SYSTEM OUR BUILDER IN THE PROJECT. THIS IS ACTUALLY AN OLD SLIDE.

WE PLANNED THOSE, WELL THE HIGH 200S TO MID 300S AND LOT SIZES, 40 BY 115.

THESE LOTS WILL BE LARGER. VILLAS ARE LONG BRANCH WAS A VERY TIGHT SITE.

WE TRIED TO MITIGATE AS LITTLE OF THE FLOOD PLAIN AS POSSIBLE. THE LOTS WE'RE PROPOSING NOW ARE 40 BY 120. MERIT VILLAGE HAS BROKEN GROUND. THIS IS A FOREIGN BASED CODE PROJECT WE'RE DOING. A MIXTURE OF 60 FOOT LOTS AND 40 FOOT LOTS.

YOU CAN SEE THE PRODUCT IN THOSE TWO PICTURES. THE 40 FOOT LOTS, WE ARE DOING ALLEYS PRODUCT. WINDSOR HOMES IS OUR BUILDER. THIS IS A SLIDE SHOWING THE PROJECTS WE WALKED THROUGH MANORS ARE MILLER AND WHERE WE PROPOSE VILLAS OF LONG BRANCH PHASE TWO. WILLOW WOOD ACROSS THE LAKE AND WOOD SIDE ACROSS THE LAKE.

NEXT SLIDE. SUBJECT PROPERTY TARA WENT OVER THERE QUITE A BIT.

YOU SEE THE NORTH VILLAS LONG BRANCH THE 40 FOOT BY 115 LOTS. TO YOUR WEST, IS A 40 FOOT BY 105. IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE TRIED TO ZONE THE PROPERTY RIGHT THERE BETWEEN THE 40 FOOT BY 105 FOOT LOTS. WE HAVE GREAT SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAD ABOUT 45 LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUT THE CITY REALLY WANTED TO HOLD ON TO THEIR COMMERCIAL AND WE'RE SEEING THAT AS A THEME AFTER WE READ THE STAFF REPORT SEEING THE CONCERN ABOUT COMMERCIAL. THERE'S 60 BY 120 AND TO THE EAST OF US, THERE'S ONE PROPERTY BIFURCATING US FROM THE SF 20 AND SF 40.

THE 40 FOOT BY 115 AROUND THAT INTERSECTION REALLY DOES COMPATIBLE.

IF YOU SEE WE HAVE 40 FOOT LOTS TO THE NORTH. 40 FOOT LOTS TO WEST.

WE'RE PUTTING ANOTHER SECTION OF 40 FOOT LOTS ON THE OTHER CORNER OF THIS PROPERTY.

AND YOU ALSO SEE THERE'S MULTIFAMILY TO THE NORTH. WE FEEL THIS IS COMPATIBILITY JUST AS WITH VILLAS OF LONG BRANCH. GOOD TIMING.

AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. YOU SAW WHEN TARA PUT IT IN HER PRESENTATION. AS I JUST SAID AND I TOLD TARA THIS EARLIER TODAY.

AFTER READING THE STAFF REPORT AND WORKING WITH OUR LANDOWNERS OVER THE LAST 24 HOUR, 48, 24 TO 36 HOURS, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON ACTUAL PLAN TO LEAVE THAT COMMERCIAL.

AND JUST ZONE THE EAST SIDE OF THAT TRIBUTARY. AS JEFF AND TARA AND MUNAL JUST

[01:20:09]

POINTED OUT, THERE'S A COUPLE ISSUES WITH THAT PLAN ON BUILDING SINGLE FAMILY ON THE OTHER SIDE. THERE'S ONE SEEMS LIKE A VERY BG CONCERN BUILT RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH THAT COMMERCIAL WE WOULD GIVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND LEAVE THE COMMERCIAL ZONING FOR A LATER DATE. THE FLOOD WAY RECLAMATION WOULD ALSO BE REDUCED.

AND WE POSSIBLY WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT A COUPLE, I WANT TO SHOW Y'ALL A PLAN TOWARD THE END OF THE PRESENTTION THAT HAS A LITTLE MORE OPEN SPACE UP FRONT AND FOR THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ENTRY WAYS. AND ALSO WILL HELP LINE UP THAT MEDIAN.

THIS IS ALL JUST KIND OF COME TOGETHER IN THE LAST 24 HOURS ONCE WE SAW --

>> CAN I STOP YOU RIGHT THERE. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IN YOUR PRESENTATION CHANGING WHAT YOU

PROVIDED TO STAFF PREVIOUSLY? >> I AM TALKING ABOUT A POSSIBLE CHANGE BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT

THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE PROPERTY IN THE ZONING. >> WE CAN, YOU KNOW WE CAN SG WITH WHAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED FROM STAFF TO US ON YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE HAVING TODAY OR YOU KNOW, YOU CAN WITHDRAW IT NOW AND COME BACK AT A LATER DAY WITH A REVISED PLAN.

IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU HAVE READ THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND WOULD LIKE TO REVISE YOUR PLAN AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE --

>> YES, SIR. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGING WHAT YOU

PROVIDED STAFF FOR THIS PRESENTATION? >> YES WE ARE.

THEN MUNAL. >> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION BEFORE WE MOVE ON REAL QUICK? WE'RE NOT GOING TO MOVE ON. I'M GOING TO ASK MUNAL WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS?

>> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN MOSELEY AND COMMISSIONERS. ADAM IS PRESENTING SOMETHING THAN WHAT WE ADVERTISED TO OUR RESIDENTS WITHIN THE 500 NOTIFICATION AREA.

IN FACT I THINK WE HAVE QUITE A FEW MEMBERS THAT ARE WANTING TO SPEAK.

THAT BEING SAID, IF SOMETHING DIFFERENT IS BEING PROPOSED FROM THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED WHEREBY THERE'S A POTENTIAL TO RETAIN THE RETAIL COMPONENT FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, THAT CHANGES THE NOTICE ITSELF AND THE REQUEST ITSELF AND SECONDLY IF THERE ARE CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH FRONTAGE AREAS AND INCREASING AND MAKING CHANGES TO LAY OUTS THEN YES WE VALID TO REVISIT THIS ZONING APPLICATION AND THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE WITHDRAWN.

THE APPLICANT CAN PROCEED AND THEN YOU KNOW -- >> APPLICANT, IF YOU, MR. ARNOLD, IF YOU WANT TO PRESENT WHAT YOU PRESENTED TO STAFF, WE CAN GO WITH THAT.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW YOUR APPLICATION AT THIS TIME, WE CAN GO WITH THAT TO AND YOU

CAN COME ABOUT WITH A REVISED PLAN. >> I WAS HOPING WE COULD

POSSIBLY. >> I WILL TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS ON THE FLY AND US TAKE A VOTE ON IT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

I WAS OPENING TO POSSIBLY TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING. >> THAT IS A SOMETHING THAT THE

STAFF IS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE MISS MUNAL, >> IF THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST IS CHANGING, THE APPLICATION WOULD HAVE TO BE A NEW APPLICATION.

>> WHAT IF WE'RE JUST CHANGING ONE PART AND REMOVING THE COMMERCIAL ASPECT.

>> IF THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS CHANGING, JUST AS CHAIRMAN MOSLEY IS ADDRESSING, I DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS THE SEMANTICS WITH A NEW CHANGE IN PUBLIC FORUM.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. >> MR. ARNOLD, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW THIS AND BRING THIS UP AT A LATER DAY, OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH WHAT WE HAVE ON PAPER RIGHT NOW AND OUR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

SO, I WILL LET YOU DECIDE THAT RIGHT THIS SECOND. >> OKAY.

WE WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST SHOW YOU WHAT WE HAVE AND ASK FOR A TABLE UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT --

>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO TABLE IT. EITHER PROCEED WITH IT OR WE'RE GOING TO YOU CAN WITHDRAW IT AND

WE CAN BRING IT BACK IN AT A LATER DATE. >> CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN

[01:25:06]

WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE? >> MISS MUNAL, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?

>> ADAM, IF YOU WITHDRAW YOUR APPLICATION, IT BECOMES NULL AND VOID, SHOULD YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD, WE WOULD NEED SOMETHING ON WRITING AND PUT ON RECORD YOU'RE WITHDRAWING YOUR REQUEST

AND A NEW APPLICATION WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR NEXT STEP. >> WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO

TABLE? >> WE'RE NOT GOING TO TABLE AND REDRAW.

WE'RE EITHER GOING TO VOTE -- DISCUSS WHAT YOU PRESENTED TO STAFF AND WHAT STAFF TALKED

ABOUT OR ELSE WITHDRAW. >> OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS TIMING.

>> I MEAN -- YOU KNOW, I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO REDRAW IT RIGHT NOW.

>> I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANYBODY TO REDRAW. WE'RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT MAKING A COMMERCIAL SECTION OR YOU KNOW, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND PROCEED ON THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO STAFF OR WE WILL, I AM GIVING YOU THE OPTION TO WITHDRAW AND

COME BACK AT A LATER DATE. >> IF WE GOT DENIED ON THIS CURRENT APPLICATION, WOULD WE BE

ALLOWED TO REAPPLY IMMEDIATELY? >> STAFF CAN YOU GET A READ ON THAT.

>> ADAM, IF THE PLANS AND REZONING DENIAL, YOU CAN WITH DRAW AND MOVE FORWARD TO THE CITY. ANY DEVIATIONS TO THE PLAN WHERE YOU TAKE OFF OR CHANGING OR MAKING ALTERATIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE A NEW APPLICATION. HOWEVER, IF THE P& Z DENIES YOUR APPLICATION AND IT'S A SUPER MAJORITY. IF THE CITY COUNCIL IS TO

APPROVE IT, THEY HAVE TO APPROVE AS A SUPER MAJORITY. >> IF WE GOT DENIED, COULD WE WITHDRAW BEFORE WE GO TO COUNCIL OR DOES IT HAVE TO GO TO COUNSEL?

>> IT YOU GET DENIED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TONIGHT, YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO WITHDRAW YOUR APPLICATION. YOU CAN WITHDRAW YOUR APPLICATION AT ANY TIME.

SO YOU'RE SAYING STAFF WOULD ALLOW US TO REAPPLY WITH A DIFFERENT APPLICATION AT THAT

POINT? >> RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT GONE TO THE, THE MOMENT, IF YOU WERE DENIED AT CITY COUNCIL LEVEL THAT'S WHO THOSE ELEMENTS KICK IN YOU'RE REFERRING TO. WHERE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COME BACK WITH THAT APPLICATION.

UNLESS IT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. THEN I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO

MOVE FORWARD. >> OKAY. THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR PRESENTATION MR. ARNOLD AND WE

WILL VOTE ON IT ACCORDINGLY. >> OKAY. NEXT SLIDE.

AGAIN BACK TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION, IF WE CAN LOOK AT THIS WE'RE BASICALLY LOOKING AT JUST THE EAST SIDE SINGLE FAMILY. THE WEST SIDE AS I JUST MENTIONED, WE WOULD HOPE TO BRING THAT BACK AS COMMERCIAL AT A LATER DATE.

THIS THERE'S A COMPATIBILITY WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THIS TIES IN ON THE NEXT PAGE.

NEXT SLIDE. YOU CAN SEE THE TWO PROPERTIES, VERY LOT SIZE AND PROJECTS.

NEXT SLIDE. ZONING REQUEST. WE'RE ASKING FOR 88 LOTS IN THIS PRESENTATION. ABOUT 4.24 UNITS PER ACRE, THE EAST SIDE IS I BELIEVE ABOUT 18 LOTS IN THE WEST SIDE AND ABOUT 70 LOTS. WE ARE ASKING FOR FRONTAGE, NO ALLEYS AND 10 FOOT, WE ARE ADDING A 10 FOOT WIDE TRAIL AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE GRAY AREA CONNECTING INTO THE SUBDIVISION. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE MAIN SLIDE.

I WANTED TO GET TO. IT COMPARES THE REASON I WANTED TO CONTINUE TO SHOW YOU THIS.

I WANTED TO COMPARE OUR ZONING WITH SF I VILLAS AT LONG BRANCH ONE AND TWO.

THE DENSITIES ARE SIMILAR. THE LOT DEPTH IS FIVE FOOT DEEPER, WE'RE ASKING THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IS ABOUT 200 SQUARE FOOT LARGER. WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SAME SIZE

[01:30:02]

AS SF SIZE LONG BRANCH ONE AND VILLAS OF LONG BRANCH TWO. THE SAME COVERAGE AND THE SAME FRONT SETBACK AS VILLAS OF LONG BRANCH PHASE ONE. THE SAME REAR SETBACK MINIMUM SETBACK AND SAME LOT WIDTH. AS VILLAS OF LONG BRANCH PHASE TWO.

WE ARE OFFERING MASONRY WALL. A SIX FOOT WOOD FENCE WOULD GO ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY AND THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY WHERE THERE'S LOTS A SIX FOOT DECORATIVE FENCE AND A LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG ROWLETT ROAD SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH OUR DISCUSSIONS OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. AND THE 10 FOOT HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL ALONG THE FLOOD PLAIN.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF LANDSCAPE SCREENING.

YOU HAVE ALL DRIVEN THROUGH OUR PROJECTS AND SEE OUR LANDSCAPE AND SCREENING.

I THINK WE KNOW THE HIGH QUALITY THAT WE BRING. NEXT SLIDE.

AGAIN, WE ARE ADDING EXTENDING THE 10 FOOT TRAIL THROUGH OUR PROPERTY.

THAT WAS REQUESTED BY STAFF AND IS ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION TRAILS MASTER PLAN.

WE ARE ADDING THAT IN. NEXT SLIDE. JUST TO ZOOM IN WHERE THE TRAIL IS. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS ANOTHER POINT OF THIS PROJECT THAT WE WILL BE AN ATTRIBUTE TO THE PROJECT. WE WILL BE CLEANING UP THE CREEK BED. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS WALKED DOWN THAT CREEK BED OR SEEN THIS AREA. THERE'S A LOT OF DEBRIS. WHAT LOOKS LIKE OLD TRAIN TANKERS, THE TRAIN TANKERS AND CONCRETE. SOME MORE PICTURES ON THE NEXT SLIDE SHOW HOW MESSED UP THIS AREA IS. WE WOULD BE PROVIDING THE BENEFIT OF CLEANING UP THIS AREA WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. YOU CAN GO TO RIVERS END PRODUCT. WINDSOR HOMES. 40 FOOT PRODUCT YOU SAW IN THE LAST PRESENTATION FOR VILLAS OF LONG BRANCH PHASE ONE. NEXT SLIDE.

REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT. NEXT SLIDE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND GOING THROUGH TO THE NEXT, ONE MORE. ONE MORE.

ONE MORE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD DRAWN UP LAST NIGHT.

THIS IS WHERE I WANTED TO GET TO AND THOUGHT OF DOING ONE SIDE OF THIS THING SINGLE FAMILY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT LINES UP THE MEDIAN BETTER. GIVES A COMMERCIAL AND DOES NOT

TOUCH THE FLOOD PLAIN. >> BUT THAT'S NOT BEING SUBMITTED TONIGHT.

>> JUST WANTED TO PUT >> OKAY. GREAT.

>> THANK YOU AND THAT'S OUR PERSONALITY EGG. PRESENTATION.

>> COMMISSIONERS THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, OR THE DEVELOPER PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR HAND, I WILL

RECOGNIZE YOU. MR. COTE. >> YOU'RE ON MUTE MR. COTE.

>> WELL SILLY ME. >> THIS IS REALLY URGENT DEVELOPER.

HE SAID THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR. I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOWED THAT

COMMENT. >> IF I COULD REPLY. >> SURE, GO RIGHT AHEAD IF I DID, I MISSPOKE, VILLAS OF LONG BRANCH PHASE ONE WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR.

THIS IS DIRECTLY SOUTH YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME PRIOR? YEAH, MS. ESTEVEZ.

YOO >> YOU'RE ON MUTE AS WELL. >> I WAS REALLY NOT HAPPY WITH LOSING THE COMMERCIAL PIECE AND SO, IF THAT COMES BACK, THAT WOULD MAKE ME HAPPY.

I WANTED TO ASK OUR ENGINEERS ON THE MEETING IF THEY FEEL LIKE THE, IF LOOKS LIKE THERE'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DEBRIS IN THE CREEK AREA, IF THEY FEEL LIKE THAT COULD UPSET OR CHANGE THE

FLOW OF WATER ON A POINT WHERE IT WOULD CAUSE A PROBLEM? >> MR. COHEN.

[01:35:03]

THAT'S PROBABLY TO YOU. >> AND YOU'RE ON MUTE. >> YEAH.

COMMISSIONER, IT WOULD BUT, THEY SAID THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CLEAN IT UP.

I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT IT. AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

RIGHT NOW IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WE AS A CITY STAFF OUGHT TO LOOK INTO IN TERMS OF CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES.

WE ARE LOOKING AT LONG BRANCH CREEK DOWN STREAM OF THIS AREA IN TERMS OF ON GOING EROSION AND BANK STABILIZATION ISSUES. BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THAT DEBRIS PILE WOULD AFFECT THAT OTHER THAN MAYBE TO BENEFIT THE ON GOING EROSION. MITIGATE TO SOME DEGREE.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE PROPER WAY TO MITIGATE ON GOING EROSION. >> I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN SOME

PROBLEMS WITH EROSION IN LOTS BACKING SCOTT ON SCOTT. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. YES. WE'RE LOOKING -- WE HAVE LOOKED INTO THAT. WE'RE COMPLETING THE STUDY ON THAT.

>> MR. COTE. >> I'M SORRY, MS. ESTEVEZ. I WANT TO THANK THE DEVELOPER FOR DOING THE COMPARISON BETWEEN PHASE ONE AND TWO. I LIKE THE FACT THE SIZES ARE A LITTLE BIT LARGER. THAT WAS A PART OF THE QUESTIONS IN MY MIND.

THAT'S IT FOR ME, JIM. >> THANK YOU, LISA. MR. COTE.

>> FOR MR. COHEN. TALKING ABOUT LONG BRANCH CREEK, WITH THE RECLAMATION OF THE PORTION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN THAT THE HOUSING SECTION NEXT TO ROWLETT ROAD AS, WOULD THAT NOT

INCREASE THE VELOCITY OF WATER FLOW? >> IT DEPENDS ON HOW THEY MITIGATE IT. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SHOW AND RISE IN THE WATER SURFACE AT THEIR, AT THEIR DOWN STREAM DISCHARGE POINT. THEY'RE ALSO NOT, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A RULE THAT PRESERVES FLOOD PLAIN STORAGE. IT DEPENDS ON HOW THEY MITIGATE IT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT OUR CODE ADDRESSES, WELL, ACTUALLY, I'M WRONG ABOUT THAT. YES IT DOES ADDRESS PHILOSOPHIES AS WELL.

SO, IT DEPENDOS WHAT THEY DO. >> RIGHT. >> SEEMS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WILL DO, IT'S HARD TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANY

OTHER COMMISSIONERS FOR THE STAFF OR DEVELOPER AT THIS TIME? >> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER. MR. ARNOLD, YOU KNOW, FAMILIAR FACE.

>> YES, SIR. >> I HAVE BEEN HERE MANY YEARS AND WE HAVE SEEN YOUR

PRESENTATIONS MANY TIMES. >> YES, SIR. DOES YOUR COMPANY BUILD PRODUCTS

WITH REAR ENTRY GARAGES? >> IF YOU BRING UP MY PRESENTATION, AGAIN, I CAN SHOW

YOU. >> WITH ALLEYS? >> YES, SIR.

WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING IT IN ROWLETT. I'M TALKING ABOUT SOMEWHERE

ELSE? >> YES. WE HAVE SOME IN NORTH RICH LAND

HILLS. MANSFIELD. >> IS THERE AND REASON WHY THIS, YOU KNOW, YOUR OTHER PRODUCTS IN ROWLETT ARE MUCH SMALLER THAN THIS.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I AM JUST CURIOUS WHY THIS WASN'T DESIGNED OUT TO MEET OUR ROWLETT

DEVELOPMENT CODE? >> I CAN ANSWER A COUPLE. >> YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR

YOUR TAKE ON THAT. >> IF YOU WOULD BRING UP THE PRESENTATION POSSIBLY.

THE ONE WHERE OUR ROWLETT PROJECTS ARE IF YOU COULD. >> THIS HAPPENS TO BE THE FIRST PROJECT AND PRESENTATION I DON'T HAVE THE MERITS OF ALLY VERSUS NON-ALLY IN MY APPENDIX SECTION.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH MANORS ON MILLER. WITH WILLOW WOOD OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS AND THIS IS THE FIRST ONE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BROUGHT IT UP FOR A WHILE IS OUR PRODUCT HAS BEEN POPULAR. SO WE HAVEN'T BROUGHT IT UP IN A WHILE AND THAT'S MY MISTAKE FROM LEAVING IT OFF. WHEN WE COME BACK, WE WILL DISCUSS IN MORE DETAILS.

[01:40:04]

FIRST WE'RE DOING IT IN MERIT VILLAGE. WE HAVE A COUPLE OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND DFW. WE DO, DO ALLEYS. I JUST LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT.

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHY YOU KNOW, I CAN UNDERSTAND NOT PUTTING IN ALLEYS.

THERE'S A COUPLE THING. MAINTENANCE THAT'S KIND OF A MAINTENANCE NIGHTMARE FOR US.

FOR THE OWNER, FOR THE CITY, IT'S ADDITIONAL CONCRETE TO WORK WITH.

THIS AREA IS MORE FRONT ENTRY. YOU CAN SEE. THIS ISN'T THE FORM BASED CODE AREA. WE HAVE THEM MORE OPEN TO FRONT ENTRY PRODUCT.

ONE MAINTENANCE, TWO, I LIVE IN AN AREA WITH ALLEYS AND WE BROUGHT THIS UP A COUPLE TIMES.

DOES NOT MITIGATE ON STREET PARKING. IF YOU LOOK DOWN MY STREET TONIGHT, MY NEIGHBOR HAS THREE CARS. IN A TWO CAR GARAGE, GUESS WHERE

THEIR THREE CARS ARE? RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSES. >> IS THAT WHY YOU'RE DOING IT? IS THAT THE REASONING YOU MATE THIS SUBMITTAL FOR NO ALLEYS. THE CONVENIENCE --

>> A CONSUMER PREFERENCE. ALSO MY OTHER PITCH, I SHOWED THE DEPTH OF THE BACKYARDS.

WE HAVE A DEEPER BACKYARDS IF SOMEBODY DOES A TWO STORY PRODUCT, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A DEEPER BACKYARD. MORE USEABLE.

YOU HAVE AN ALLY, YOU HAVE A SMALL SQUARE BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY TAKES UP HALF THE YARD.

YOU TAKE THAT AWAY -- >> AND DEPENDING ON WHAT STANDARD OF SIZE LOT YOU'RE BUILDING ON IT. INSTEAD OF SF 5, IF YOU'RE BUILDING SF 9 OR SF 15 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT, WOULDN'T IT?

>> SF 5S AND THESE PRODUCTS, YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE MULTIPLE PRODUCTS IN OUR OTHER SLIDE.

WE SHOWED IN MERIT VILLAGE WHEN I ASKED FOR ALLY WAIVER. WE SHOWED IN MANORS ON MILLER.

60 FOOT AND 40 FOOT PRODUCT, TAKES UP A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF YOUR BACKYARD.

TAKES UP 20 BY 18 OR 20 BY 20 IN YOUR BACKYARD IN ANY OF THOSE PRODUCTS.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR. THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU AT THIS TIME. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE DEVELOPER AT THIS TIME ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. AND AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GOING TO LET, I'M GOING TO TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO MISS HALL MARK WHO WILL HANDLE THE PUBLIC HEARING

PORTION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM. YOU HAVE THE COLUMN. >> JUST A NOTE FOR THE CALLERS ON THE LINE, PLEASE NOTE IF I SUBMITTED YOUR STATEMENT THROUGH CITIZEN INPUT AT ROWLETT.COM PRIOR TO THE 3:30 DEADLINE. IT WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO ITEM 5 C, FOR THE CALLERS ON THE LINE, PLEASE STAY YOUR FIRST NAME AND YOU WILL BE RECOGNIZED.

I'M SORRY. CALLERS, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE YOU ON AT A TIME.

AND I NEED YOU TO SAY YOUR FIRST NAME AND THEN YOU WILL BE RECOGNIZED AND GIVEN THREE

MINUTES TO SPEAK. >> CAN YOU NOT, BEFORE YOU START THIS, MISS HALLMARK, CAN YOU NOT

PICK PEOPLE TO SPEAK RATHER THAN THEM JUMPING IN? >> CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE SPEAKERS

BEFORE THEY START SPEAKING? >> YES, SOME OF THEM WE WILL TRY TO DO THAT.

>> SO, CALLER WITH LAST FOUR DIGIT, 1462, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS 5 C?

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> [INAUDIBLE] MY ADDRESSES 3802

MILLER ROAD. PROPERTY FOR SALE. >> GO AHEAD.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PROPERTY. I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO SELL MY PROPERTY. THE ZONING THAT WAS ACROSS THE MILLER ROAD WAS ZONED THE SAME AS MINE FOR DECADES. SO I DON'T SEE WHY THE PROPERTY ON MY SIDE SHOULD BE ZONED

[01:45:04]

DIFFERENTLY. I HAVE HAD TOWN HOME DEVELOPERS, I HAVE HAD RETIREMENT HOME BUILDERS APPROACH ME. AND THIS IS REALLY THE ONLY SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPER THAT HAS GOTTEN THIS FAR. AND I SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE ANY BUYERS IN ONE HOUSE PER ACRE.

I AM JUST REQUESTING THAT THE ZONING BE THE SAME AS THE ZONING IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

FROM MILLER ROAD. AND THIS DENSITY IS COMPARABLE IN REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO I'M JUST ASKING EVERYONE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING. THANKS.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MA'AM. LAURA, CAN YOU MUTE EVERYBODY

ELSE EXCEPT FOR THE SPEAKER. I KEEP HEARING TVS OR SOMETHING. >> YES WE'RE DOING THAT

>> THANK YOU. OKAY. YES.

CALLER WITH LAST FOUR DIGITS. 8551, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS ITEM 5 C? CALLER WITH THE LAST FOUR DIGITS 8551. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS ITEM 5 C? OKAY. THANK YOU.

CALLER 1503. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS ITEM 5 C?

OKAY. NEXT, CALLER >> YES.

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> MY NAME IS PATTY SIGHT, I LIVE AT 2902 WEANS WAY, ROWLETT TEXAS, 75088.

I'M SOUTHEAST OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. JUST OUTSIDE OF THE 500 FOOT RADIUS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOME NEARLY FIVE YEARS AGO, I DIDN'T ENVISION THE STABLES BEING THERE FOREVER, NOR DID I ENVISION HAVING TO PROTEST ZONING CHANGES MULTIPLE TIMES SINCE THEN. I KNOW THE PROPERTY IS ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

I DON'T WANT MY DECISION TO MOVE TO ROWLETT BE SULLIED BY THIS TRYING TO REZONE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. HAVING VOLUNTEERED AND SERVED ON HE BOARD OF ROWLETT FINANCING CORPORATION, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT'S BETTER SUITED FOR OTHER LOCATIONS NEARER TO THE PUBLIC TRANSIT LIKE THE NORTHEAST CORNER.

THE LACK OF WALKABILITY TO GROCERIES AND RESTAURANTS WILL CAUSE THIS CORNER TO HAVE INCREASED TRAFFIC AS RESIDENTS WILL HAVE TO DRIVE TO WHEREVER THEY NEED TO GO.

THERE'S NO DEDICATED TURN RIGHT LANES WHICH WILL FURTHER EXACERBATE TRAFFIC.

THE INCREASED CONCRETE WILL CHANGE THE WATER RUN OFF AND I UNDERSTAND THEY WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND TYPE OF MITIGATION PROCESS AND STUDIES, BUT THIS PROPERTY PROJECT ALSO LACKS AND KIND OF BUFFER BETWEEN OUR AREA AND THIS SECRETARY AREA GOING FROM TWO-AND-A-HALF STORIES TO THESE LARGE ESTATE PROPERTIES. THE ENTIRE PROPOSITION KEEPS RESURFACING WITH AN INTEREST IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ROWLETT COMHENCIVE PLAN. WHY DO WE TO TO CONTINUE TO PLAY SO MUCH OF OUR TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPORT A COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS THAT SPENDS THESE DOLLARS ON THE PLANS WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO BE TOSSED ASIDE IN THESE CONSTANT REZONING FIASCOS? THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALREADY LOWERS THE AREA FROM ONE ACRE SINGLE FAMILY TO LESS THAN HALF OF THAT AND NOW FURTHER REDUCTIONS TO 5000 SQUARE FEET. IT'S REALLY APPALLING.

PROPERTY DECREASES WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE TAX BURDEN. THIS PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE REZONED AGAINST THE ROWLETT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I AM AGAINST THE REZONING.

[01:50:07]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. CALLER 8551.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? OKAY.

CALLER LISTED AS GAIL FISHER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM?

>> THAT'S ME. CAN YOU HEAR ME? WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS

ITEM? >> I WOULD. MY NAME IS GAIL FISHER.

I LIVE AT 3314 MISTEL TOE LANE ROWLETT, TEXAS. MY HOPES ARE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECLINE THIS PROPOSAL SINCE GEORGE BUSH TURN PIKE HAS BEEN IN PLACE, THE TRAFFIC ON MILLER ROAD HAS BEEN EXCEEDINGLY HIGH AND CONGESTED, THE MILLER BRIDGE CROSSINGS TO DO LAKE IS STILL A TWO-LANE BRIDGE AND HEAVY WITH TRAFFIC ESPECIALLY AT THE LIGHT THERE AT KEACA AND MILLER ROAD. THERE ARE HIGH VOLUME PROPERTIES ALREADY BEING BUILT ON ROWLETT ROAD AND NOT YET RENTED OUT. THIS WILL UNDOUBTEDLY CAUSE MORE CONGESTION ON THE ROADS.

GIVING THE HIGH DENSITY OF STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS IN ROWLETT, THE CITY COUNCIL OWES IT TO OUR CITIZENS TO PLACE A STOP TO THE CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT YET FINISHED AND OCCUPIED TO SUPPORT ADDITIONAL HIGH DENSITY LIVING STRUCTURES IS NOT IN PLACE IN ROWLETT YET. PLEASE VOTE NO TO THE REZONING PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU CALLER. NEXT THE CALLER SHOWN AS LAURA SCOLA. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM?

>> YES HELLO, GOOD EVENING. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> MY NAME IS LAURA SKOLA, I LIVE AT 3803 HIDDEN VALLEY CIRCLE. MY PROPERTY WILL BE ADJACENT TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WITH HIGH DENSITY AND ENGINEERING PRACTICES. IF FOR THESE REASONS I'M WRITING THIS PROTEST LETTER AND SUBMIT TODAY ELECTRONICALLY AS WELL. SINCE THE NOTIFICATION OF THE REZONING APPLICATION, I SUPPORTED THE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THIS PROPOSAL LEAD BY OUR NEIGHBOR, TERRY MILLIGAN, 3802 HIDDEN VALLEY CIRCLE AS WELL. HE'S A HIGHLY ACCOMPLISHED CIVIL ENGINEER WITH DECADES OF EXPERIENCE WITH ZONING. OVER THE PAST COUPLE WEEKS, IT'S BEEN DISCOVERED THIS IS AGAINST THE STATE LAW, AGAINST DEVELOPMENT CODE AND PERSONALLY AFFECTS THE LARGER INVESTMENT I MADE FOR MY FAMILY. TERRY LOG AN SUBMITTED A LARGER LETTER AND I ASKED IT BE ADDED AS AN ADDENDUM TO MY LETTER. THIS WILL AFFECT EVERY NEIGHBOR ON HIDDEN VALLEY YET NOTIFICATION LETTERS WERE ONLY SENT TO THE 500 FOOT BOUNDARY. IT WILL AFFECT THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY AND SCHOOLING. WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOME A YEAR AGO TO THE MONTH, WE HAD DONE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH INTO ROWLETT AND WE WERE PLEASED WITH THE DETAILED CITY PLANNING ROWLETT HAD PERFORMED. AS AN EXPERIENCED PROJECT MANAGER MYSELF, I REALLY VALUE THE FOCUSED DETAILS CAPTURED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH ACCOUNTED FOR THE FUTURE VACANT LAND USE. AN ATTENTION TO THE WATER MOVEMENT AND PRESERVATION OF TRIES AND WILDLIFE, WE FELT SURE IN THE INVESTMENT OF OUR HOME. THE PASSING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO OCCUR AND ON TOP OF THIS, JUST LAST WEEK AT THE JUNE 16TH COUNCIL MEETING, THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES IS APPROVED.

IT'S OBVIOUS UPON REFLECTION TO DO BUILDER NEVER INTENDED TO KEEP THE TREES AND INDICATIVE OF THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES TO WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN THE BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY.

[01:55:07]

PLEASE KEEP ROWLETT BEAUTIFUL. THE CITY SHOULD THE NOT ALLOW THE VALUE OF MY HOME AND PROPERTY TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS REZONING. IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT THE ONLY OPTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. IF HOUSING MUST BE DEVELOPED PLEASE LET IT BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SUPPORTED BY COMMUNITY.

I REALLY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> YEAH.

AT THIS TIME, MISS HALMARK, CAN YOU MAKE A REMINDER WE HAVE A THREE MINUTE LIMIT.

NOBODY LIKES TO CUT ANYBODY OFF IN MID SENTENCE. IF THE PUBLIC DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING COULD PLEASE ADHERE TO THE THREE MINUTES, WE WOULD SURE APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU MISS SCOLA. >> THANK YOU MA'AM. NEXT CALLER LISTED AT GAIL MILL KEN. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ITEM?

>> I WOULD. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND DPRAES FOR THE RECORD.

I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS DEVELOPMENT. MOST CITIES DISCOURAGE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES TO DISTRIBUTION PARKED CARS, UTILITY TRAILS AND OPERATABLE VEHICLES.

OPEN GARAGE DOORS, FEES GARAGES FACING ROWLETT ROAD A MAJORLY TRAVELLED THOROUGHFARE DO NOT REPRESENT A NEAT FRONTAGE TO THOSE PASSING THROUGH THE CITY. SMALL, ALL HOMES RELY ON GARAGE STORAGE FOR ADEQUATE STORAGE SPACE. THE GARAGES FILL UP, CARS ARE PARKED OUTSIDE IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE OR IN THE STREET. IF GARAGES ARE LATER CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE INSIDE GARAGE PARKING BECOMES NONEXISTENT. THE PROPOSED LOTS ARE SO SMALL THAT ONLY 1 ON STREET PARKING SPACE IS AVAILABLE PER HOME. IF OCCUPANTS HAVE MORE THAN ONE CAR, THEY WILL BE PARKED ON THE STREET OR IF THEY HAVE VISITORS, THEY WILL BE PARKED ON BOTH SIDES. WITHOUT FINDING AN OPENING BETWEEN PARKED CARS FOR ONE CAR TO PULL INTO SO THEY CAN PASS EACH OTHER. THAT IS JUST INORDINARY TRAFFIC.

I DON'T KNOW HOW EMERGENCY VEHICLES SUCH AS POLICE, AMBULANCE AND FIRE TRUCKS CAN QUICKLY AND SAFELY NEGOTIATE THROUGH THE STREETS. ON THE SUBJECT OF SAFETY, THE FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK BARELY MEETING THE RESIDENTIAL CODE FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE FOR NONFIRE RATED HOMES. HOWEVER, THE SPACE BETWEEN THESE UNITS BECAUSE OF THEIR HEIGHT INVITE FIRES TO JUMP FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE. RAPID FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO FIRES IN THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ESSENTIAL. FOR THESE REASONS FRONT ENTRY GARAGES ON NARROW LOTS ARE NOT A GOOD IDEA AND DANGEROUS FROM FIRE PROTECTION STANDPOINT.

I WOULD LIKE TO QUICKLY ADDRESS THE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC. RIGHT NOW MORNING WESTBOUND TRAFFIC ON MILLER ROAD BACKED UP APPROACHING ROWLETT ROAD. THE LEFT TURN LANE FILLS EACH

MORNING TO BEYOND CAPACITY AND BLOCKS THE INSIDE LANE. >> 30 SECONDS REMAINING.

>> ACCORDING TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ADD 972 TRIPS PER DAY ON TO THE ALREADY OVER LOADED INTERSECTION. THIS WILL MAKE CONGESTION WORSE.

FURTHER, THE DEVELOPERS PLANS SHOW TWO ENTRANCES ON TO MILLER ROAD WITH NO MEDIAN BREAKS NOR LEFT TURN LANES. THEREFORE FOR A RESIDENT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT TO TURN EAST ON MILLER ROAD, THEY MUST TRAVEL WEST TO THE NEXT CURB BREAK AND MAKE A UTURN.

-- >> MISS MILLIKEN, YOUR TIME IS UP.

I'M VERY SORRY. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT WE HAVE TERRY MILLIKEN. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? MR. MILLIKEN. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> TERRY MILLIKEN, 3802 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD IN ROWLETT. >> MY NAME IS TERRY MILLIKEN AND I OWNED THAT HOME FOR 40 YEARS. THE LOT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ONLY 214 FEET FROM THIS PROPOSED

[02:00:09]

DEVELOPMENT. WE PURCHASED OUR PROPERTY IN 1978, BELIEVING THAT I COULD BUILD MY RESIDENCE IN REAR MY TWO CHILDREN IN A LOW DENSITY ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD BE SAFE FOR MY CHILDREN. HAD I KNOWN THAT THE CITY WOULD EVEN CONSIDER CHANGING THE ZONING TO THE HIGHEST DENSITY EVER ALLOWED IN ROWLETT, I THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE RECONSIDERED. AFTER 40 YEARS OF MY CAREER, I HAVE SERVED IN ENGINEERING AND PROVIDED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS TO CITY PLANNING AND ON CITY PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS AND IN THE PROCESS, I HAVE BECOME QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING PROCEDURE THAT HAVE EVEN WRITTEN CITY DEVELOPMENT CODES AND ZONING ORDINANCES. I HAVE REVIEWED THE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND IMPRESSED WITH THEIR FINDINGS. IN MY CAREER, I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A VIOLATION AGAINST CITY PLANNING AS PROPOSED HERE. WHERE IN BOTH CASES, THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY PROJECT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT TO VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND NEEDLESS TO SAY, I'M OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING AND ATROSITY OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THE FACT IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF CITY'S ORDINANCES.

EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT, A PROVING THIS REZONING WOULD VIOLATE TEXAS STATE LAW.

SECTION 211104 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IS VERY CLEAR.

IT STATES THAT ZONING REGULATIONS MUST BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY PLAN.

FOR THE FIRST TIME, THIS COMP PLAN INCLUDED A FUTURE LAND MAP AS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE COMP PLAN. A MAP WAS NOT CLUDEED IN THE PREVIOUS VERSIONS IN THE CITY'S COMP PLAN IS A MYSTERY. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CLEARLY SHOWS THE MAP ON THE EAST SIDE OF COMMERCIAL ON THE WEST SIDE AND PROPOSED AND INCLUDES NONE OF THESE USES.

FROM THE COMMENTS, THEY BELIEVE AS I DO, THEREFORE APPROVING THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ILLEGAL UNDER SECTION 2011.004 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE BECAUSE-OF

>> YOUR TIME IS UP. NEXT IS CALLER LISTED AT CHRIS HERRON.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? WE ARE UNABLE TO MUTE YOUR MIC.

>> NEXT IS JR SCOLA. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS JR SCOLA.

I LIVE AT 3803 HIDDEN VALLEY CIRCLE HERE IN ROWLETT. ALSO AS AN AEROSPACE ENGINEER, I WILL FAMILIAR WITH WRITING COMPLIANCE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE AREAS WHERE THERE PROPOSAL IS CLEARLY NOT COMPLIANT ABOUT LOCAL LAWS. THESE ARE INDIVIDUALLY COVERED BY SEVERAL OTHER SPEAKERS HOWEVER I WISH TO BRING UP A SEPARATE CONCERN.

EXCUSE ME. I SPOKE AT LENGTH WITH A WOMAN NAMED ELLEN GARDENER AT 8601 MILLER ROAD. A 92-YEAR OLD KIND AND & TRUSTING WOMAN.

ELLEN LIVES IMMEDIATELY NEXT DOOR TO THE VILLAS OF LONG BRANCH PHASE ONE.

I HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS DEVELOPER TREATS THOSE WHO OPPOSE THEM.

IT'S COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE DEVELOPER FAILED TO PROPERLY PLAN FOR DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON PHASE ONE AND HOSTILY ATTEMPTING TO PUSH ON TO HER PROPERTY. HE HAS BEEN STAKING OUT THE

[02:05:08]

EASEMENT WITHOUT HER PROPERTY. TRYING TO GET THEM TO FORCE THEIR MOTHER TO SIGN THE EASEMENTS. IT BREAKS MY HEART LISTENING TO MS. GARDEN HOW THE DEVELOPER IS TRYING TO SEND HER A MESSAGE TO GIVE UP THAT PROPERTY. TO AVOID BEING MISUNDERSTOOD, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT AGAIN A BIT MORE DIRECTLY. MRS. GARDNER FEELS THIS DEVELOPER IS THREATENING HER. THIS NONLOCAL DEVELOPER IS ONLY INTERESTED IN CRAMMING AS MANY DEVELOPMENTS AS POSSIBLE ON THE TINIEST LOT THE GOVERNMENT WILL ALLOW.

THE VALUE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS WAS GAINED THROUGH MANY YEARS OF LOCAL RESIDENTS INVESTING IN OUR CITY. ILLEGALLY CEDING THIS TO A NONRESIDENT DEVELOPER IS A TRAGEDY AND AT WHAT PRICE. ELLEN GARDNER DOES NOT HAVE TO SUFFER THROUGH ANOTHER HOSTILE REZONE IN ADJOINING PROPERTY. SHE'S BEEN THROUGH ENOUGH. COMMISSIONER MOSLEY HIT IT ON THE HEAD. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY YOU CAN'T FOLLOW THE CODE? CALLER LISTED AT JEFF LOT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ISSUE?

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, CALLER LISTED AS 2699.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? CALLER 2669, CAN YOU PLEASE MUTE

THE MEETING BEHIND YOU? >> NEED TO MUTE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. CALLER LISTED AS AMANDA HERRON. COULD YOU PLEASE UNMUTE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? OKAY.

THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL OUR SPEAKERS. CHAIRMAN.

>> THANK YOU. MS. HALLMARK. I APPRECIATE IT

>> I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME SUBMITTED STATEMENTS THAT SUSAN WILL READ INTO THE RECORD.

THAT'S FINE. ARE WE GOING TO DO THOSE AT THREE MINUTES AS WELL?

>> YES. I WOULD RECOMMEND WE DO THOSE AT THREE MINUTES AS WELL.

READ EACH ONE FOR THREE MINUTES? >> NOT AT THIS TIME MR. ARNOLD. NOT AT THIS TIME, WE'RE DOING A

PUBLIC HEARING. >> LAURA, CAN YOU >> YES.

>> OKAY. THIS IS FROM ELIZABETH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? 2905 WILLIAMS WAY. WE ARE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL. INCONSISTENT WITH ROWLETT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ONE OF MAIN THINGS RUNNING FROM THE ROWLETT CITIZENS WAS TO MAINTAIN A SENSE OF A SMALL TOWN. B, THE CITY NEEDS TO CREATE A ASTH ETICALLY PLEASING NEIGHBORHOOD. INCREASE RUN OFF EROSION OF LONG BRANCH CREEK. A, CURRENTLY RESIDENTS ON SCOTT ARE EXPERIENCING EROSION.

THREE, TRAFFIC CONGESTION. 88 HOUSES WILL CREATE MORE TRAFFIC WOES IN THE AREA.

FOR INCREASED AND CITY SERVICE, POLICE AND FIRE PERSONNEL, CREATING 88 HOUSEHOLDS COMPARED TO 20 WILL INCLUDE AN INCREASE IN CITY SERVICES AND WOULD NOTHE SEE AN INCREASE OF FUNDS INTO THE CITY COFFERS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS UNIQUE. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO SEEK OUT A BETTER ALTERNATIVE. THIS IS A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY

[02:10:11]

TO PROVIDE LARGER PROPERTIES. NOW IS THE CHANCE FOR THE CITY TO CREATE MORE OF THE SMALL TOWN FEEL AND FIND A DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THAT'S ALL ON THAT ONE. AND I HAVE ONE MORE. THIS IS DENNIS O'REILLY, 3810

HIDDEN VALLEY CIRCLE. >> I AM DENSIS O'REILLY. WE RECEIVED A 500 FOOT NOTICE.

WE FEEL THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED THE PAST FEW YEARS. THE LOT SIZES ARE VERY SMALL COMPARED TO THOSE EAST OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THERE NEEDS TO BE A GREATER CONSISTENCY WITH THE ADJOINING DEVELOPMENT. MOST HOMES HAVE REASONABLE FRONT BACK AND SIDE OFF SETS.

THE GIVEN LOT AND HOME SIZE PROPOSED. THIS WILL CREATE SMALL YARDS AGAINST INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ROWLETT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE HOUSE SIZE.

THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE TOLL RIDGE AREA TO THE SOUTH. EVEN GREATER IN THE HIDDEN VALLEY AND WILLIAMS WAY AREA. THE PROPOSED DENSITY MAY INCLUDE RUN OFF INTO THE CREEK.

THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE ROWLETT ROAD AND MILLER ROAD AND THE APARTMENTS WILL INCREASE THE RUN OFF INTO THE CREEK EXACE PERATING DOWN THE ROAD. INCLUDING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE THESE ROADS. UTURNS ARE ALREADY AN ISSUE ON MILLER AS A NO U-TURN SIGN HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE ROAD IN THE PAST YEAR. THE HOMES ON LONG BRANCH CREEK AND ROWLETT ROAD APPEAR TO BE SHOE HORNED INTO THE AREA. MANY HOMES WILL HAVE GARAGES FACING ROWLETT ROAD. THIS COULD BE REZONED COMMERCIAL FOR SMALL BUSINESSES WHICH WOULD INCONSISTENTLY WITH ROWLETT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SUPPORTED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. WE BELIEVE A HIGHER QUALITY PRODUCT CAN BE DEVELOPED.

AND MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE BUDDING AREA AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND BEING ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. WE OPPOSE AND AGREE THE REZONING REQUEST BE DENIED.

ONE FINAL THOUGHT. I HAVE SPOKEN TO OR CONTACTED BY ELECTRONIC MEANS 36 RESIDENTS ON HIDDEN VALLEY, WILLIAMS AND SCOTT TREAT. TWO INDIFFERENT.

THREE I'M NOT SURE OF THE POSITION AND 31 OR 86% WAS OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED ATTENTION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR DUE DILIGENCE ON THIS MATTER.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. MISS HALLMARK IS THAT EVERYBODY WAITING FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> COMMISSIONERS. DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA ITEM? IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE AGENDA ITEM PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND, I WILL JUST MR. ENGEN, DO YOU HAVE TO DISCUSS ON

THIS AGENDA ITEM? >> THERE'S A NUMBER OF CONCERNS WITH THIS PROJECT GOING ON.

AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE SAID. DEALING WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF AURORA, I'M NOT VERY EXCITED WITH WHAT I'M LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU, SIR.

MS. MCKEE, ANYTHING TO ADD? DISCUSSION? >> NOT MUCH TO ADD.

I HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS ESPECIALLY THE COMPREHENSIVE, FUTURE LAND USE PLAN BEING IN

DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THEM. >> MR. SEGARS. >> YES.

I STILL PREFER THE COMMERCIAL CORNER. HOWEVER I AM WILLING TO COME OFF THE SF 40 IF YOU CONSIDER A HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. NEVERTHELESS, I WILL NOT BE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR ANY ZONING CHANGE DOWN TO SF FY 5 WITHOUT A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE.

DUE TO THE LACK OF USEABLE LAND, SF 5 ONCE BUILT UP THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE VERY CONGUESTD AND AT TIMES LOOK UNKEPT BECAUSE OF THE CONGESTION. ALONGSIDE SF 5 IS IN THE

PICTURE, I WILL NOT CONSIDER THE APPROVAL. >> MR. COTE.

[02:15:03]

>> I HAVE TO AGREE WITH EVERYBODY AS STATED SO FAR. THIS IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS HONORING OR RESPECTING THE HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS THAT ARE TO THE EAST IN THEIR SF 20S OR 40S.

I AM NOT IN FAVOR. IT MENTIONED ABOUT ALL THE EXEMPTIONS TO SF 5 THAT THE

DEVELOPER WANTS TO MAKE WHICH, WHICH I'M NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH. >> VICE CHAIRMAN ESTEVEZ.

>> MUTED. >> YOU'RE MUTED VICE CHAIRMAN ESTEVEZ.

>> I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM AS SUBMITTED AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO AND DOING THE SAME PROJECT ACROSS THE ROAD THAT I THINK THEY'VE GOT MORE ROOM OVER THERE. I THINK THEY COULD PROBABLY DECREASE THE DENSITY AND STILL MAKE MONEY EVEN THOSE THERE'S A FLOOD PLAIN AREA AND I DEFINITELY LIKE SEEING THE

COMMERCIAL COME BACK INTO IT. >> MY CONCERNS ARE MANY. NUMEROUS TO INCLUDE NOT MEETING THE COMPREHENSIVE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THE DEVELOPER HAS SUBMITTED BASICALLY THE SAME TYPE OF HOUSES OTHER THAN THE FORM BASED CODE AREA THAT OTHER FOUR PROJECTS IN IT IS CITY ARE ALSO SMALLER FILL INS ODD SHAPE PIECES OF PROPERTY WHERE FRONT LOADED GARAGES MADE A LOT OF SENSE. THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ABSOLUTELY COULD FACILITATE ALLEYS, REAR GARAGE ENTRIES JUST AS DESIGNED IN OUR ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. I HAVE NO PROBLEM REALLY AS MR. SEGARS SAID, ABOUT REZONING POSSIBLY THE EASTERN HALF OF THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.

BUT I'M NOT GOING TO, I'M NEVER GOING TO SUPPORT A BUNCH OF SF 5 LOTS.

WITH NO ALLEYS. I'M JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT. IF IT'S A REALLY SMALL FILL-IN PROJECT OR IF SF 5 LOTS ARE PART OF A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT WHERE THERE'S SOME SF 5'S AND SOME SF 8S AND TENS. I COULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT.

BUT TO BUILD A WHOLE FLEET OF SF 5 SQUARE FOOT, SQUARE FOOT LOTS, IS A MESS.

AND I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AND I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THIS PLAN. THEREFORE I THINK EVERYBODY HAS HAD A CHANCE TO SAY SOMETHING

AND I AM READY FOR A MOTION. >> MR. COTE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION

TO DISAPPROVE THIS REQUEST. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION, TO DENY -- WE RECOMMEND THIS REZONING REQUEST BE DENIED. THAT IS THE MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> WE HAVE MANY SECONDS BUT I'LL JUST TAKE MR.ENGEN.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS DENIAL OF THIS RECOMMENDATION RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

[5D. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by David Meyerowitz for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow an accessory structure exceeding 500 square feet on property zoned Single Family Residential (SF-40) District. The 1.013-acre site is located approximately 150 feet south of Hickox Road and on the north side of Larkin Lane, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY DAVID MEYEROWITZ FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 500 SQUARE FEET ON A SINGLE FAMILY SF 40 DISTRICT. ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LARKIN LANE IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS. STAFF, I'M NOT SURE WHO IS PRESENTING THIS

>> WHO? MR. ROBERTS? >> YES, SIR.

THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SAYS. S.

BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

TO REQUEST A 1400 SQUARE FOOT CAR PORT THAT WILL BE VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC STREET ON A

[02:20:01]

PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED SF 40 DISTRICT. THE CODE SECTION 77303 C7 OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR PORTS VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC STREET. EXCEED 500 SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION AND DEVIATE FROM THE DESIGN STANDARDS THEREIN WHEN WE WILL GET INTO DURING THIS PRESENTATION.

AS WE SPOKE EARLIER, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS JUST OVER AN ACRE. AND HAS ACCESS DIRECTLY ON TO LARKIN LANE. CURRENTLY EXISTING ON PROPERTY IS A 4250 SQUARE FEET PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT WITH TWO EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. ONE OF WHICH IS A 13 FOOT TALL ENCLOSED BUILDING THAT'S 990 SQUARE FEET. ANOTHER IS A 10 FOOT TALL ENCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IS 640 SQUARE FEET. BOTH OF WHICH ARE LOCATED TO THE YEAR. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE AS PART OF THE SITE DATA SECTION THAT CONSTRUCTION ON FRAMING FOR THIS CAR PORT THAT'S BEING BROUGHT TO YOU WITH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT DID BEGIN HOWEVER AFTER THE APPLICANT BECAME AWARE OF THE PROCESS, CONSTRUCTION HAS CEASED PENDING APPROVAL OF THE SUP. WHEN WE GET TO OUR CONSIDERATIONS, CAR PORTS ARE DEFINED AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OPEN ON A MINIMUM OF THREE SIDES AND USED TO SHELTER VEHICLES.

THE APPLICANT INDICATED THIS WILL BE OPEN ON FOUR SIDES AND IS FOR THE STORAGE OF HIS PERSONAL VEHICLES AND BOAT. IS THERE ARE A CAR PORT. THE SAME CODE SECTION GOES ON TO LAY OUT A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR CAR PORTS AND ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THOSE REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THIS CAR PORT DOES DEVIATE FROM THOSE AND THEY ARE LISTED ON YOUR SCREEN. FOR THOSE DETACHED THERE'S A HEIGHT LIMITATION OF EIGHT FEET.

THIS PROPOSED 16 FEET. THIS IS NOT INTEGRATED INTO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND DOES EXCEED THE 500 SQUARE FOOT FOR A CAR PORT. NEXT SLIDE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR SETBACKS, THE PROPOSED CAR PORT IS SETBACK 8 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 88 FEET FROM THE SOUTH. JUST OVER 275 FEET FROM LARKIN LANE WHICH WILL BE THE FRONT SETBACK AND 50 FEET FROM THE REAR SETBACK.

THIS DOES MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY, THE LARGEST HEIGHT OF 16 FEET WILL RESULT IN A SLIGHTLY LARGER VISIBILITY COMPONENT AS COMPARED TO THE EXISTING 13 AND 10 FEET FOOT ACCESSORY ON SITE. ACCESS TO ALL THERE'S OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY, SHOULD ALSO BE SAID THAT THE PROPOSED CAR PORT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OVER THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND WILL THEREFORE NOT INCREASE IMPERIUS ON THE PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE LAURA PLEASE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SCREENING, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ENCLOSED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES BY EIGHT FOOT WOODEN FENCE. TO THE EAST, BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE THERE IS THE NORTH HAVEN DEVELOPMENT. THIS PROPERTY LINE IS SCREENED BY AN EIGHT FOOT BOARD ON BOARD WOODEN FENCE. THERE IS A 20 FOOT BUFFER AND SIX FOOT WOODEN FENCE THAT WILL SERVE AS THE WESTERN MOST PROPERTY LINES TO THE NORTH HAVEN PROPERTIES.

PROPERTIES TO THE EAST WILL HAVE TWO FORMS OF SCREENING. FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. THIS IS AN IMAGE FROM THE NORTH HAVEN SITE.

YOU CAN SEE THE TWO SCREENING MECHANISMS THERE AS WELL AS THE EXISTING 13 FOOT AND 10 FOOT STRUCTURES. THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THE MATERIAL AND COLOR SCHEME THE MATCH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITE. TO PROVIDE CONTINUITY WITH THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE FRAMING HAS BEGUN.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH LOOKING SOUTH SHOWING GENERALLY WHAT WOULD BE THE LOCATION SHOULD THIS SUP BE APPROVED. THAT BUILDING THAT THE CURRENT LIE SITTING NEXT TO IS 13 FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA.

[02:25:06]

ON JUNE 5TH, WE SENT OUT 14, 200 FOOT NOTICES AND 15 COURTESY NOTICES.

WE RECEIVED ONE IN OPPOSITION AND THREE IN FAVOR FROM THE 200 FEET RADIUS.

TWO IN FAVOR OF THE 500 FOOT RADIUS. THAT IS TO BE UPDATED WITH THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED TODAY WHICH IS ANOTHER 500 FOOT IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSAL.

THERE'S A CORRECTION MADE TO THE STAFF REPORT THAT SHOWS FOUR IN FAVOR FROM THE 200 FOOT.

ONE OF RESPONSES REQUESTED CLARIFICATION. IT WAS COUNTED AS IN FAVOR HOWEVER AFTER AND CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE DRAINAGE OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO OPPOSITION. AS FAR AS STAFF'S RECOMMEND, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SUP TO ALLOW ALL DEVIATIONS THAT INCLUDES THE 1400 SQUARE FOOT AREA FROM THE 500 MAXIMUM, THE 16 FEET IN HEIGHT, OVER THE 8 FEET AND ALLOW FOR THE DETACHED CAR PORT THAT WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. WE FEEL THE PROPOSED CAR PORT WILL NOT COMPROMISE THE INTENT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY SF 40 DISTRICT LIKEWISE THE MATERIAL AND THE USE OF THE STRUCTURE ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE THAT ALREADY EXIST ON SITE AND ARE ALREADY BUILT OUT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THAT COMPLETES THE PRESENTATION. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>> I HAVE ONE COMMENT BEFORE WE MOVE ON AND THAT IS I WOULD APPRECIATE IT AND THIS IS FOR ALL THE PLANNING STAFF, WHEN Y'ALL SHOW THAT GRAPHIC THAT HAS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND 200 AND 500 AND WE GET THE INPUT FROM THE CITIZENS WHETHER YOU KNOW THEY ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL, IT USED TO BE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE ON THAT GRAPHIC WHO EXACTLY WAS REQUESTING THAT. IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED, WE ARE THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AGAINST IT.

I KNOW IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IT'S DIFFERENT. IN THE FUTURE FROM NOW ON.

WHEN WE GET THESE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDING OPPOSITION TO ANY AGENDA ITEM, IF THOSE COULD BE HIGHLIGHTED SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS WILL KNOW IF THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS FOR INSTANCE ARE FOR OR AGAINST A PARTICULAR PROJECT BECAUSE THAT WEIGHS HEAVILY ON THE DECISION MADE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THAT SAID, MR. ROBERTS, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? >> YES, HE IS.

>> DOES HE HAVE A PRESENTATION? >> THEY DO NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION.

HOWEVER THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND >>

>> I'M HERE. >> OKAY. ARE YOU MR. --

>> MEYEROWITZ. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME OR WE CAN DO THAT LATER IF YOU LIKE? ANY QUESTIONS RAISE YOUR LAND AND I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU.

SEEING NONE, AT THIS TIME, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO MISS HALLMARK THAT CAN HANDLE TO DO PUBLIC HEARING PORTION.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE SPEAKERS. >> WE DO HAVE SOME CALLERS ON THE LINE STILL.

I WILL ASK FOR THE CALLERS IN YOU HAVE ALREADY COMMENTED ON THE ITEM YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON AND YOU'RE JUST LISTENING, IF YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO SEE OR HEARING THE MEETING IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND HANGING UP. OTHERWISE WE WILL PROCEED THROUGH THE LIST.

GAIL FISHER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM?

NO. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE NEXT ITEM WHEN IT COMES UP? >> I THINK SHE'S GOING TO

ADDRESS 5 E AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> LET'S JUST ASK EVERYBODY OUT THERE THAT'S LISTENING RIGHT NOW TO TELL MISS HAL MARK. IF YOU'RE HERE TO ADDRESS ITEM 5

D, PLEASE TO SO NOW. >> AMANDA HERRON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? YOU WILL NEED TO UNMUTE YOURSELF IN YOU DO. CALLER LISTED AT, JR SCOLA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? PLEASE UNMUTE IF YOU WOULD.

[02:30:06]

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER THAT'S THE END OF OUR CALLERS.

SUSAN DO YOU HAVE ANY SUBMITTED COMMENTS? >> I DO HAVE ONE.

COMMISSIONERS THIS NOTICE WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET BUT THEY ASKED FOR IT TO BE READ AS WELL.

KEN AND REGINA ROW MAIN AT 3000 LARKIN LAKE. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEW ROOF AND PROPER DRAINAGE. I'M ASKING THE RAINWATER DOES NOT RUN OVER MY SEPTIC SYSTEM.

THIS WILL BE THE FOURTH ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE SINCE THE 70S.

OVER THE PAST YEAR STANDING RAINWATER AND RAINWATER DRAINAGE AT THE YEAR OF MY PROPERTY HAS BECOME A PROPERTY. REQUEST TO CORRECT THE RAINWATER ALONG HICKOCK AND THE NEW BAR DITCH AND NEW NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST. HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR. CURRENTLY AFTER A GOOD RAIN, WATER STILL STANDS IN THE REAR CORNER THAT IS COMMON WITH DAVIS LOT. SEEMS LIKE THE NEW BUILDINGS, ROOF RUN OFF RAINWATER NEEDS TO BE DIRECTED INTO THE LOT AND NOT JUST MY FENCE.

I'M NOT SAYING THE BUILDING SHOULDN'T BE BUILT. JUST REQUESTING RUN OFF WATER BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM MY PROPERTY AND SEPTIC DISCUSSION. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH STAFF, THEY HAVE INDICATED TO BE OPPOSED. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> IS THAT EVERYBODY FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM IN THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> YES, SIR. COMMISSIONERS, DECISION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM?

I WILL START WITH MR. ENGEN. ANYTHING TO SAY? >> NO.

I I'M FINE. JUST READING THROUGH THIS. IT PASSES REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LOCATION. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH RAINWATER RUN

OFF. >> MS. MCKEE. MR. SEGARS.

ANY DISCUSSION? I'M GOOD WITH IT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN INSTALL

GUTTERS ON IT. JUST A THOUGHT. >> I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

>> JUST A SECOND. HE WILL ASK YOU A QUESTION IF HE'S GOT ONE.

MR. COTE. >> YOU'RE MUTED SIR. >> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS

THE RAIN OFF WITH THIS PARTICULAR ROOF? >> I HAVE NO PROBLEM PUTTING A GUTTER ON IT AND RUNNING IT OFF THE BACK TO WHERE THE DRAINAGE IS TO THE BUFFER.

>> THANK YOU. >> VICE CHAIRMAN ESTEVEZ? ANY DISCUSSION? NO. I THINK I WOULD PROBABLY RECOMMEND PROTECTING ON THE WATER RUN OFF AS WELL. AND MAYBE INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN A MOTION.

I WILL JUST SAY THAT I THINK WHOEVER MAKES A MOTION, IF THEY MIGHT INCLUDE SOME SORT OF LANGUAGE ABOUT PROVIDING A CORRECT RUN OFF SO IT DOESN'T HEAD TOWARD MR. ROMAINE'S FENCE, THAT WOULD BE IDEAL AND HOPEFULLY THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPLICANT.

AND I THINK THAT IF THAT WAS IN THE, I WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A MOTION.

SO THAT BEING SAID, EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM.

I AM READY FOR A MOTION. MR. COTE. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH THE ADDITION OF HAVING GUTTERS AND TO DIRECTING THAT RUN OFF TO THE

BAR DITCH AT THE REAR OF THE HOME. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND ON MR.

COTE'S MOTION? >> MISS MCKEE SECONDS THE MOTION.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? >> ALL IN FAVOR OF MR. COTE'S MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE ADDITION OF A GUTTER, DIRECTING THE WATER TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, AND NOT TOWARDS MR.

ROMAINE'S PROPERTY, SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND AT THIS TIME. >> THAT ITEM CARRIES

[5E. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council for a request by Kevin Harrell, Skorburg Company, on behalf of property owner Brian Hyatt, Corner Assembly of God, to rezone the subject property from Single-Family Residential (SF-10) District and Limited Office (O-1) District to Planned Development (PD) District for Single-Family Residential (SF-5) Uses to develop the site with 99 single-family homes and 2 common area lots. The 21.65-acre site is located on the west side of Dalrock Road, approximately 760 feet south of Schrade Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU SIR. MOVE ON TO OUR LAST ITEM, ITEM 5 E. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT ITEM CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, I'M SORRY. CONTACT A PUBLIC HEARING AND

[02:35:01]

MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A REQUEST BY KEVIN HARRELL ON BENEFIT OF BRIAN HINT TO REZONE FROM SF 10 DISTRICT AND LIMITED OFFICE 01 DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF 5. USES TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH 99 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TWO CMMON AREA LOTS. THE 21.65 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DALROCK ROAD APPROXIMATELY 750 FEET OF SHRADE ROAD IN ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS.

>> THIS WOULD BE ME. MS. BRADLEY. >> YES, THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM SF 10 AND LIMITED OFFICE 01 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF 5 USES. THE PROPOSAL IS TO DEVELOP THE 21 ACRE SITE WITH 99 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TWO COMMON AREA LOTS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAUER A. FOR THE SITE DATA AND ACCESS, THE 21.65 ACRE TRACT HAS TWO ZONING SF 10 AND 01 DISTRICTS.

SITE HAS 326.42 FEET OF FRONT AN ALONG DALROCK ROAD TO EAST. DALROCK IS A FOUR LANE WITHIN A 110 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY AND MATURE TREE CANOPY THAT EXISTS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF THE PROPERTY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN AND ZONING DISTRICT ARE AS

FOLLOWS >> THE NORTH IS PRESCHOOL WITH SF 10.

ROWLETT FIRE STATION, SF 10. MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AGE RESTRICTED LIMITED COMMERCIAL C 1. DAY CARE AND CHURCH WHICH IS LIMITED COMMERCIAL C 1 DISTRICT SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. TO THE EAST IT'S A VACANT WITH LIMITED OFFICE RETAIL 01 DISTRICT. CEMETERY FOR LIMITED OFFICE 01 DISTRICT. SINGLE FAMILY USE ACROSS DALROCK ROAD, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY SF 10 TO THE SOUTH IS SINGLE FAMILY USE PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY R1 USES TO THE WEST IS SINGLE FAMILY USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R 1 USES.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE LAURA. THE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICTS SURROUNDING THE DEVELOPMENT, THERE TO EAST IS SINGLE FAMILY SF 10 AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF SF 10 IS 10,000 SQUARE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. WITH A MINIMUM BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 2100 SQUARE FEET.

TO THE SOUTH IS SINGLE FAMILY R 1 USES. MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND MINIMUM BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 1800. WEST IS PD FOR SINGLE ARE 1 AND THE MINIMUM SIZE IS 7200 AND THE PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS MINIMUM SQUARE FOOT 1500.

THE SPECIFICS FOR SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS BASED ON THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.