[00:00:04]
>> IT IS 7:38 AND WE HAVE RECONVENED TO OUR REGULAR
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
SESSION. LAURA, ARE WE OKAY TO START?IN ORDER TO START OR INVOCATION, OR START OUR MEETING WITH OUR INVOCATION. COUNCIL WOMAN BROWN HAS
GRACIOUSLY AGREED TO DO THAT. >> LET'S PRAY.
FATHER IN HEAVEN, WE COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO SEEK YOUR WISDOM AND GUIDANCE AS WE CONSIDER THE ISSUES BEFORE US, FOR PROSPERITY, HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS.
WE ASK YOU TO PROTECT US AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING US SAFE AND HEALTHY AND ALSO THOSE WHO PROVIDE THE SERVICES WE DEPEND ON EVERY DAY. LORD, WE REMEMBER THOSE THAT ARE HURTING AND THOSE THAT HAVE EXPERIENCED LOSS IN OUR CITY.
WE ASK YOU TO HELP US COME TOGETHER AS WE'VE ALWAYS DONE.
WE ASK YOU TO HELP ONE ANOTHER. I ASK AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED HAND OF PROTECTION AND BLESSING UPON OUR CITY.
>> AMEN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MARTHA.
WE START, I FORGOT TO ASK COUNCIL ABOUT CITIZEN INPUT SO WE'LL JUST DO IT WHEN WE GET THERE.
[5A. Update from the City Council and Management: Financial Position, Major Projects, Operational Issues, Upcoming Dates of Interest and Items of Community Interest. ]
WE'LL START OUR EVENING WITH ITEM 5A WHICH IS UPDATE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MANAGEMENT PLAN ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST.DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU DO. BRIAN OR LAURA, ANY
>> NEXT IS CITIZENS INPUT. THIS IS A POINT IN THE MEETING WHEN ANY CITIZEN CAN PROVIDE INPUT ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER TO PROVIDE COMMENTS FOR THE MEETING WE NEED TO SEND SAN E-MAIL TO CITY OF ROWLETT.COM BY 3:30 DAY OF THE MEETING.
WE HAD LOTS OF CITIZEN INPUT FOR TONIGHT BUT IT'S ON A PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING. INCLUDES AN ANNUAL $7 MILLION
[7. CONSENT AGENDA]
[8A. Consider all matters incident and related to the issuance and sale of “City of Rowlett, Texas General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020 and City of Rowlett Waterworks and Sewer System Revenue Bonds, Series 2020,” including the adoption of Ordinances authorizing the issuance of such bonds and approving all other matters incident thereto.]
DEBT ISSUANCE FUNDING STRATEGY THAT SUPPORTS THE STABILITY, INFRASTRUCTURE.OUR - THE PROJECT TO BE FUNDED WITH THIS ISSUE ARE LISTED ON YOUR SCREEN AS SERIES 2020 PROJECTS AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH FISCAL YEAR 2020 ADOPTED BUDGET THAT[00:05:04]
THE CITY PASSED THIS PAST YEAR. ADDITIONALLY PRODUCTS 7 MILLION ISSUANCE WITH ALSO PROVIDED ON THE SCREEN AND ALL PROVIDE IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.TODAY WE RECEIVED FIVE BIDS ON OUR WATER AND SEWER SALE ENDING WITH TRUE INTEREST COST OF 1.73, ESTIMATED RATE WE'VE BEEN PREPARING FOR WITH OUR FINANCIAL ADVISERS FOR THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS HAS BEEN 2.19%. THAT WAS IN YOUR PACKET AS THE ESTIMATE FOR TODAY'S CELL. THIS IS GREAT NEWS.
IT WILL SAVE US $270,000 WHEN COMPARED TO THE 2.19% PROJECTION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. ADDITIONALLY WHILE BEING DEPOSITED TO THE PROJECT FUND WILL BE THERE BECAUSE THE BONDS WERE SOLD AT A PREMIUM. THIS COUPLED WITH THE LOWER INTEREST RATE THAT I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED WILL COVER THE COST OF INTEREST ALSO THE INCREASED RESERVE FUND BALANCE THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE DEBT SERVICE FOR THE WATER AND SEWER BOND AND LOWERS THE OVERALL FINAL DEBT SERVICE ON BONDS BY 426,000 WHEN COMPARED TO THE PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE AT THE 2.19% PROJECTION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SHIFTING OVER TO THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, THE SUCCESSFUL BOND REFERENDUM BACK IN MAY OF 2018 AUTHORIZED $59.91 MILLION IN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ALLOCATING 41 TO STREET, 8.9 MILLION TO PARKS AND 9.5 MILLION TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND FACILITIES.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AT THE JANUARY 2018 -- JANUARY 18, 2018 COUNCIL WORK SESSION, COUNCIL DISCUSSED AND DETERMINED THE FINAL SLATE OF PROJECTS IN FUNDING FOR THE PROJECTS RECOMMENDED BY THE CIAB OR COMMUNITY INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD. BASED ON COUNCIL DIRECTED DIRECTED PRIORITY AND TIMING OF THOSE PROJECT, STAFF DEVELOPED A THREE-YEAR PROJECT, FUNDING SCHEDULE OF APPROXIMATELY $20 MILLION EACH YEAR. TONIGHT SERIES 2020 ISSUANCE IS REPRESENTED AS THE THIRD AND FINAL YEAR COST OF THE PROVIDED THREE YEAR SCHEDULE OF PROJECTS THAT IS BEFORE YOU INCLUDING $16 MILLION FOR PAVING AND DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, $800,000 FOR TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND $3.1 MILLION FOR FIRE STATION 2 CONSTRUCTION.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE RECEIVED TEN BIDS ON OUR BOND STATE COMPARED TO FIVE BIDS LAST YEAR AT THIS TIME ENDING WITH A TRUE INTEREST COST OF 1.6% WHICH IS PROBABLY THE LOWEST FINANCING COST THE CITY EVER RECEIVED ON 20 YEAR DEBT.
THE ESTIMATED BREAK THAT WE'VE BEEN PREPARING FOR THESE BOND ISSUE ANNE WAS 2.12%. LIKE THE WATER AND SEWER BONDS THESE WERE SOLD AT A PREMIUM BRINGING OUR FINAL DEBT SERVICE ON THESE BONDS DOWN $1.33 MILLION FROM THE PRELIMINARY NUMBERS PROVIDED IN TONIGHT'S PACKET THAT YOU REVIEWED.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? THE AMOUNT OF PROCEEDS THAT WILL BE DEPOSITED INTO THE PROJECT FUND WILL BE $20.255 MILLION TO COVER THE SLATED PROJECTS THAT THE CIAB AND COUNCIL APPROVED AND THE BONDS WERE SOLD AT $2.3 MILLION PREMIUM RESULTING IN THE DEB SERVICE FOR THE PRINCIPAL OR PAR AT $18.185 MILLION.
THAT WAS GREAT NEWS THAT BOND SALE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND BACK IN 2015 THE CITY LAUNCHED A THREE YEAR BOND STRATEGY TO FUND MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND THIS WAS A FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT OF THE STRATEGY AND IT WAS TO PRESERVE THE INS OR DEB PORTION OF THE TAX RATE AT ITS CURRENT LEVEL OF 22.
THE 2020 ISSUE THAT WE WOULD E APPROVING TODAY WILL MAINTAIN THAT STRATEGY AND OUR FINANCIAL ADVISERS TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE US FINANCIAL PLAN UPDATES TO MAINTAIN THIS STRATEGY OR ANY CHANGES TO IT THAT COUNCIL DECIDES THEY WANT TO TAKE IN THE FUTURE FOR OUR BONDING CAPACITY. WITH THIS BEING THE THIRD AND FINAL ISSUANCE OF THE 2018 BOND ELECTION, THE CIAB IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF VETTING FUTURE BOND ELECTION PROJECTS TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL FOR THE MAY 2020 ELECTION NEXT YEAR AND WILL BE PROVIDING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU IN THE NEAR FUTURE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AND BEFORE I ASK FOR COUNCIL'S ACTION ON EACH OF TONIGHT'S TWO DEBT ISSUANCES, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR FINANCIAL ADVISER.
[00:10:03]
IF YOU HAVE ANY -- SHE'S GOING TO DISCUSS DETAILS OF THE BOND RATING RESULTS SALE THAT WE HAD. THE BOND RATING RESULTS FROM A COUPLE WEEKS AGO AND ALSO THE DETAILS OF THE SALE WITH YOU.I'M GOING TO PASS THAT OVER TO HER.
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION AN OVERVIEW OF THE RESULTS. WE THINK YOU SHOULD BE VERY PLEASED. AS PART OF THE NORMAL BOND ISSUANCE PROCESS, THE CITY DID HAVE TO ACQUIRE A BOND RATING FOR EACH ISSUE, WHICH MEANS STAFF HAD TO MEET WITH STANDARD&POOR'S AND MOODY'S RATING AGENCIES AND HAD TO PROVIDE A TON OF INFORMATION AND ANSWER A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS SO EACH AGENCY COULD CONDUCT A FULL ASSESSMENT ON THE CITY.
I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT BOTH RATING AGENCIES DID AFFIRM THE CURRENT RATINGS OF THIS. GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT IS AA FROM STANDARD&POOR'S AND DOUBLE A3.
THEY'RE EXCELLENT RATINGS FOR A CITY OF YOUR SIZE.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THERE'S ONLY TWO NOTCHES ABOVE THAT FOR WHICH YOU CAN BE BETTER. SO, AGAIN, EXCELLENT RESULTS.
AND THE RATINGS FOR THE WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS WERE A PLUS FOR STANDARD AND POOR'S AND TRIPLE A FOR MOODY'S.
SOMETIMES ON THE REVENUE SIDE ARE ONE NOTCH OR TWO NOTCHES BELOW. THE BONDS ARE SAID TO BE MORE CYCLICAL IN NATURE, MEANING THERE ARE ELEMENTS BEYOND YOUR CONTROL, WEATHER PATTERNS. THE GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT HAS THE FULL TAXING SECURITY PLEDGE BEHIND IT.
THAT IS YOUR FULL FAITH IN TAXING POWER.
BOTH RATING AGENCIES RELEASED FULL WRITEUPS ON THE CITY AND THEY DID HIGHLIGHT THE VERY STRONG MANAGEMENT, STRONG BUDGETARY FLEXIBLE AND VERY STRONGRY QUIDDITY OF THE CITY.
AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT OR SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE CREDIT RATINGS OF THE CITY ARE JUST LIKE YOU OR IT'S PERSONAL CREDIT RATING. THE HIGHER YOUR CREDIT RATING IS, THE LOWER YOUR COST OF BORROWING IS WHEN YOU ARE APPLYING FOR A MORTGAGE OR PURCHASING A CAR.
SAME HOLDS TRUE FOR THE CITY. HIGHER YOUR RATING, LOWER YOUR COST OF BORROWING. SHE ALREADY SAID IT, BUT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IT AGAIN. THIS IS PROBABLY YOUR LOWEST BORROWING COST YOU HAVE EVER RECEIVED.
THIS IS THE FINAL STEP OF THE BOND ISSUANCE PROCESS.
SO BY APPROVING ADOPTING THE ORDINANCES BEFORE YOU, YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY ACCEPTING THESE RESULTS AND LOCKING THESE RATES INTO PLACE FOR THE LIFE OF THE BOND.
SO WE JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON AN INCREDIBLE RATE AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MARTI. WE CAN'T SEE YOU, IF YOU ARE NOT
AWARE OF THAT. >> I APOLOGIZE.
>> THERE YOU ARE. >> I HAD MY VIDEO OFF.
CAN YOU SEE ME NOW? >> WE CAN.
THANK YOU. >> YOU MISSED MY PRESENTATION.
>> GREAT NEWS. >> I'M SO GLAD YOU ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE 20 MILLION AND NOT THE 10 MILLION.
OH, THAT'S THE SECOND TIME I WAS WRONG.
THAT'S REALLY GOOD NEWS. >> YOU BEAT US TO THE PUNCH.
>> KUDOS TO BRIAN AND WENDY AND YOUR ENTIRE STAFF ON THE BOND
RATINGS. >> WE ALWAYS GET GOOD ADVICE FROM HILLTOP. BETWEEN MARTI AND THEIR TEAM, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE ABOUT. THEY HAD TO EVEN HOLD OUR HANDS AT TIMES BECAUSE WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE MARKET CONDITIONS. THEY HELD THEIR GROUND.
THEY SAID WE THINK YOU'LL BE FINE.
AND WE WERE. KUDOS TO THEM, TOO.
>> GOOD JOB, EVERYONE. >> SO, COUNCIL, I ASSUME
EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE? >> YES.
I THINK WE NEED A SPECIFIC MOTION, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I DO HAVE SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR THE NEXT TWO SLIDES, IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO USE THOSE. >> I DO HAVE THOSE AS WELL.
>> OKAY. >> COUNCIL, ARE YOU OKAY MOVING TO THE MOTION? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILMAN BROWN.
>> YEAH. SO SHOULD I MAKE THE MOTIONS ONE AT A TIME? I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION.
[00:15:03]
>> YES. >> I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF CITY OF ROWLETT TEXAS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2020 AND APPROVE ALL OF THE
MATTERS RELATED THERETO. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR PHYSICAL HAND. THAT IS 7-0.
DO I HAVE A SECOND MOTION, COUNCIL WOMAN BROWN?
>> I DO. I MOVE TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF CITY OF ROWLETT TEXAS WATER WORKS AND SEWER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS 2020 AND IMPROVING ALL OF THE MATTERS RELATED THERETO.
>> DO YOU WANT TO SECOND THAT? >> SECOND.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT PASSES 7-0.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MARTI. THANK YOU, WENDY, BRIAN.
>> THANK YOU, MARTI. >> THANK YOU.
WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THE CITY.
>> GARY, GET BUSY. I DON'T THINK GARY HEARD ME.
>> I DID. I WAS TRYING TO FIND MY UNMUTE
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 8B CONDUCT
[8B. Conduct a public hearing and take action 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.]
PAUB LICK HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY DAVID MEYEROWITZ FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 500 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTIES OWNED IN ARESIDENTIAL ZONING. >> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE OBLIGE WITH THE SLIDES.
THANK YOU. WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS REFLECTED IN THE RED RECTANGULAR AREA.
IT IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY 40 DISTRICT.
ONE OF THE LARGEST SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOWS FOR A MYRIAD OF RESIDENTIAL COURSE, AG TYPE USES.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THAT SUBJECT SITE. BECAUSE IT EXCEEDS 500 SQUARE FEET THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUIRES APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PERMIT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IMAGE PROVIDES A GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT IS THE SURROUNDING LAND USE PATENT AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES THAT FRONT ON TO LARKIN. YOU CAN SEE LARGER SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE ONE ACRE TRACT, AS I MENTIONED, HAS ACCESS OFF OF LARKIN, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE PRIMARILY 4200 SQUARE FEET.
THERE ARE ALSO TWO ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES, TWO EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE SITE, ONE IS 13 FEET IN HIGH, 990 SQUARE FEET IN AREA, AND THERE'S ANOTHER THAT'S TEN FEET IN AREA AND 640 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INSTALL A CARPORT ON HIS EXISTING PAD THAT IS SAD JAY SEPB OR ABUTTING ONE OF THE STRUCTURES.
I HAVE PICTURES TO SHOW TO YOU. APPLICANT STARTED FRAMING THE STRUCTURE BUT FOUND OUT THAT A PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
IT EXCEEDS HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AND IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AS I INDICATED, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT ARE OPEN ON THREE SIDES AND ARE DESIGNED OR USED FOR VEHICLES ARE DEFINED AS CARPORTS BASED ON OUR ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSED CARPORT DEVIATES FROM THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE HEIGHT, PROPOSED HEIGHT OF 16 FEET.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET. THE PROPOSED CARPORT ROOF IS NOT INTEGRATED WITH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRITERIA. AND THE SITE THAT EXCEEDS 500 SQUARE FEET IN AREA. THE SITE PLAN -- CAN WE GO BACK ONE SLIDE. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, AS YOU CAN SEE. RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS CLOSER TO THE STREET. THEN YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE, THE BLUE AREA. WHERE THERE'S AN EXISTING PAD.
THEN THE RED RECTANGULAR AREAS REFLECT THE TWO EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCK KHURS. THANKS, LAURA.
[00:20:04]
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WANT TO GIVE A BIT OF AN ILLUSTRATION OR IDEA OF HOW THESE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES.THE PROPOSED FACILITY, PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WOULD E EIGHT FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, STRUCTURES A AND B THE EXISTING ONES, THEY'RE SET BACK, TOO. IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THIS FROM THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS 88 FEET.
HOWEVER ONE OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IS ABOUT 45 FEET AWAY. THEN THERE IS A DISTANCE OF 276 FEET FROM LARKIN LANE ITSELF. WHILE THE REQUIRED SET BACKS ARE THE LARGER HEIGHT OF 16 FEET DOES RESULT IN GREATER VISIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE COMPARED TO THE OTHER TWO STRUCTURES. I HAVE A SLIDE TO SHOW THAT, TOO. NO ADDITIONAL CONCRETE WILL BE POURED. THE PROPOSED CARPORT WILL BE PUT UP OVER THE EXISTING DRIVE WAY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AN 8 FOOT STEEL FENCE EXISTS ON THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINES WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED HERE YET.
THERE IS ALSO A PROPERTY TO THE EAST.
IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE SUBDIVISION HAS ITS OWN PRIVACY FENCE 6 FEET IN HEIGHT AS WELL. SO THERE'S ADDED SEPARATION AND SCREENING MECHANISMS TO MUTE THE VISIBLE FEELING OF THE ACCESSORY, PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS GIVES YOU ANOTHER VIEW OF THE EXISTING TEN FOOT AND 13 FOOT STRUCTURE SO YOU CAN SEE THE TALLER ONE, THE ROOF IS MORE VISIBLE THAN THE OTHER STRUCTURE. THIS WAS JUST A VISUAL AID.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS WHAT THE FRAMING, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN PUT IN PLACE AND THAT'S WHEN THE APPLICANT FOUND OUT THEY NEEDED AN SUP, THIS GIVES YOU A REALLY GOOD VISUAL OF THE HIGH ON THE STRUCTURE AND HOW IT WILL BE VISIBLE FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. BECAUSE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT WITHIN 200 FOOT REQUIRED RADIUS ALL A COURTIOUS RADIUS. ONE OPPOSITION LETTER WAS RECEIVED. THREE WERE IN FAVOR.
THERE WERE TWO IN FAVOR RESPONSES RECEIVED WITHIN 500 FOOT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
THEY DID RECOMMEND UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS THAT GUTTERS BE INSTALLED ON THE STRUCTURE, WHICH THE APPLICANT AGREED.
WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUP WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT 1400 SQUARE FOOT CARPORT BE PERMITTED.
THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THE STRUCTURE AREA WOULD BE. ALSO, WE'VE INDICATEED WHAT THE HIGH OF THE CARPORT WOULD BE, WHICH IS 16 FEET IN HEIGHT.
THEN BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, PROPOSED CARPORT WILL NOT COMPROMISE THE INTENT OF THE REZONING DISTRICT OR STATE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION BECAUSE IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PATENT THAT WE SEE HERE THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER. THEY ARE APPROPRIATE FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WE ARE SEEING. IT IS ALL A PRE-ENGINEERED BUILDING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL TRY AND ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, COUNCIL. THE APPLICANT IS ALL PRESENT SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF H
COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, I'LL TAKE A MOTION.
>> MAYOR, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> BEFORE WE TAKE A MOTION, SINCE THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. TURN THE MEETING OVER TO LAURA TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION HERE FOR THE PROCESS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THOSE TUNING IN EITHER BY PHONE OR BY THE APP. TO LET THEM KNOW HOW THIS PROCESS WILL WORK. IF YOU'RE CALLING IN AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO ONE OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS PLEASE MUTE ALL
[00:25:02]
ELECTRONICS IN THE BACKGROUND. CALLERS WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY THE LAST FOUR DIGITS OF THE PHONE NUMBER USED TO CALL IN OR BY THE NAME LISTED THROUGH THE APP.ONCE RECOGNIZED, YOU WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK AND YOUR SOUND WILL BE MUTED AT THE END OF YOUR TIME.
FIRST CALLER 0835, DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?
>> CALLER 2249, DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?
>> NO, I DO NOT. >> THANK YOU.
>> CHRISTOPHER OHER, DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? WE ALSO HAVE SOME DELAY ISSUES WITH HOW PEOPLE VIEW OR LISTEN DIFFERENTLY. OKAY.
NEXT CALLER, DOLORES, DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?
>> NO, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
NEXT PG, DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?
>> NO, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
AND THAT'S ALL THE CALLERS WE HAVE, MAYOR.
>> GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, LAURA.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR ARE YOU JUST RAISING YOUR HAND FOR A MOTION?
YOU'RE MUTED, DEAR. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> NO.
>> OKAY. SO COUNCILMAN, MARGOLIS, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? >> APPROVE THE ITEM AS READ.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.
ANY STKUG? ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
THAT PASSES 7-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS 8C CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND
[8C. Conduct a public hearing and take action on a request by Kevin Harrell, Skorburg Company, on behalf of property owner Brian Hiatt, Cornerstone 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.]
TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY KEVIN HARRELL AND SKORBURG TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT 2 PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR SANINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, FIVE USES, TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH 99 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TWO COMMON AREA LOTS.21.65 SITE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 765 FEET SOUTH OF SCHRADE ROAD, CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL, BRIAN. WE CAN GO TO THE SECOND SLIDE, PLEASE. YOU INDICATED MAYOR, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT IS OUTLINED IN RED TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES. THE CURRENT ZONING REFLECTS MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THE ROAD TO BE ZONED ONE.
THERE IS SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSAL IS TO CARVE OUT AND LEAVE A PORTION OF ZONING.
JUST TO REITERATE, THE AREA IN PURPLE IS THE IMAGE ON YOUR RIGHT, REFLECTS THE AREA THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE. THE AREA WITH 99 SINGLE FAMILY HOME SUBDIVISION WITH TWO COMMON AREAS THAT WILL FLANK THE FRONT EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS INDICATED IS APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES. THERE ARE TWO ZONING DESIGNATIONS ON THE PROPERTY. THE SITE HAS APPROXIMATELY 326 FEET OF FRONTAGE. IT'S CURRENT CONDITION, DOW ROCK IS 110 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY. THERE IS A POCKET OF CANOPY COVERAGE TO THE EAST, SOUTH AND WEST OF THE PROPERTY.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I WANTED TO PROVIDE A SYNOPSIS OF THE SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN.
AS YOU CAN SEE, PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WE HAVE USAGE FROM
[00:30:07]
ROWLETT FIRE STATION AND TRAINING FACILITY, MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND DAY CARE. ZONING RANGES FROM SINGLE FAMILY 10 TO C-10 ZONING DISTRICT. C-1 ARE A CHURCH AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE. COVERAGE TO THE EAST A PORTION OF VACANT PROPERTY, SINGLE FAMILY SOURCES AND SOUTH AND WEST WE HAVE SINGLE FAMILY USES, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.NEXT SLIDE. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SOME SEMBLANCE OF WHAT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT IS, WE CONDUCTED SOME RESEARCH ON THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND THE BUILDING ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE 250 FOOT RADIUS ON THE PROPERTY, THE AVERAGE DWELLING FOR THIS SURROUNDING HOMES WAS APPROXIMATELY 2123 SQUARE FEET. AND THE LOT SIZE AVERAGE WAS ABOUT 10,600 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S REFLECTED ON YOUR SCREEN, BASICALLY IDENTIFIES THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT AND THE MINIMUM LINE UNIT SIZE BASED ON THE ZONING.
TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH, WE HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET WITH A MINIMUM BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 2100 AND 1800 SQUARE FOOT RESPECTIVELY.
AND TO THE WEST, WE HAVE 7400 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE WITH A 1500 SQUARE FOOT. AS INDICATED THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ZONING 5, PROPOSING A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET AND MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE OF 1500 SQUARE FEET.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN HAS TWO ZONING DESIGNATIONS OR VISION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY THAT FACES DALROCK ROAD RECOMMENDS MULTIFAMILY USES AND THEN TO THE RAOEUR OF THAT IT RECOMMENDS LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, GIVEN THE PARAMETERS THAT THE APPLICANT IS GIVEN IS DEEMED AS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE IT HAS LOT SIZES LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET. IT DOES NOT PROPOSE A MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS ON WHAT IS PROPOSED AND WHAT THE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS ARE STRAIGHT ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT, AS WELL AS THE EXISTING ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
AS FAR AS DENSITY IS CONCERNED, APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 4.57 PER ACRE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE ANY SUBPLAN OR COMMON AREA, GROSS AREA. THE DISTRICT DOES ALLOW A HIGHER DENSITY. MINIMUM LOT SIZE PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT IS 6,000 SQUARE FEET. THE DISTRICT PERMITS 5,000 MINIMUM SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT. AGAIN, THE EXISTING ZONING IS 10,000 SQUARE FEET. MINIMUM DWELLING IN THE AREA 2100 AND IT IS 1500 BASED ON THE PROPOSED REQUEST.
THE LOT COVERAGES AND THE LOTS ARE IDENTIFIED THERE WHICH AREN'T A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING. MINIMUM FRONT YARD SET BACK UNDER THE DISTRICT 25 FEET. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 20 FEET.
INTENT OF THE 20 FEET IS TO DEVIATE OR SEEK A VARIANCE FROM THE ALLEY REQUIREMENTS SO THEY WILL THEN HAVE A LARGER SET BACK IN THE FRONT TO ACCOMMODATE A FRONT LOADED PRODUCT.
THEY ARE PROPOSING A TEN FOOT REAR YARD SET BACK AS WELL, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER THAN THE REAR SET BACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE BASE ZONING AND THE CURRENT ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
I HAVE GOT A LOT OF TABLES TODAY, BUT I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME SYNOPSIS OF JUST A COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING ZONING AND THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IDEALLY ADDRESSES THE RIGHT OF WAY REQUIREMENTS, 60 FEET FOR RESIDENTIAL, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 50 FEET.
WE HAVE IN THE PAST AS A CITY LOOKED AT THIS ELEMENT AND APPROVED 50 FOOT. THIS IS THE AMOUNT THAT THE
[00:35:02]
WIDTH OF THE RIGHT OF WAY ITSELF BUT NOT ALL THE DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY. AGAIN, THEY'RE PROPOSING A FRONT ENTRY PRODUCT. ZONING ORDINANCE STATES IF YOU DO SEEK A VARIANCE FROM THE ALLEY REQUIREMENT, THEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE HOMES IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE.SIX FOOT HEIGHT SCREEN WALL WOULD BE REQUIRED ON DALROCK ROAD, APPLICANT WOULD COMPLY. THE LANDSCAPE, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A DEVIATION, APPROVAL OF DEVIATION FROM THE REQUIREMENT.
THE LANDSCAPE AREA, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE MINIMUM 600 SQUARE FEET OF PRIMARY ENTRY WAY.
APPLICANT IS NOT GOING TO PROVIDE, WHICH THEY COMPLY WITH.
SECOND ENTRY WAY IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 6400 SQUARE FEET. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THE APPLICANT, AS I MENTIONED, HAS REQUESTED A FEW VARIANCES FROM THE FF5 DISTRICT. USING THE DISTRICT TO BE ABLE TO BILL SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA BUT WITH THE PD.
THEY ARE ELIMINATING THE SECOND REQUIREMENT AND ALTERING THE DIMENSIONS WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE -- I CAN READ THAT PROPERLY. ALTERING THE DIMENSIONS OF THE MEDIAN FROM 24 FEET IN WIDTH AND 40 FEET IN DEPTH TO 12 FEET IN WIDTH AND 76 FEET IN DEPTH. I HAVE A VISUAL THAT WILL SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT. INCREASING THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 35 FEET TO 36 FEET. AND DECREASING THE MINIMUM SET BACK FROM 25 FEET TO 10 FEET. AND DECREASING THE RIGHT OF WAY FROM 60 FEET TO 50 FEET. AND REQUESTING THE WAIVER TO THE ALLEY REQUIREMENTS AND FRONT LOAD AND PROPOSING FRONT LOADED GARAGES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS SLIDE BASICALLY IDENTIFIES FOR YOU WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED ON THE DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU CAN SEE, I HAVE ATTACHED THE SITE PLAN TO PROVIDE YOU A VISUAL ON WHAT THE VARIANCES LOOK LIKE. ALL THOSE PRODUCTS ARE REFLECTED ARE FRONT LOADED SO THEY WILL ALL HAVE FRONTAGE ON THE STREETS. THERE ARE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS PROPOSED TO THIS PROPERTY. THEY ARE ALSO USING THE FRONT COMPONENT OF THE PROPERTY THAT FRONTS DALROCK AS A COMMON AREA, WHICH IS SEPARATED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE REST OF THE SUBDIVISION. IT WOULD JUST BE A GREEN AREA AT THE FRONT OF THE COMMUNITY. THEY'RE PROPOSING THE LANDSCAPING AREAS THAT ARE REFLECTED THERE.
THE PRIMARY ENTRY WAY WHERE YOU CAN SEE MEDIAN ENTRY OFF DALROCK ROAD, THAT HAS BEEN REDUCED AN AREA, BUT THE APPLICANT DOES REQUIRE WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS. SECONDARY REQUIREMENT POINT, THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROVIDING ANY LANDSCAPE TREATMENT IN THAT AREA. THEY ARE PROVIDING THE INITIAL COVER. WANTED TO GIVE COUNCIL AND OUR VIEWING AUDIENCE AN ILLUSTRATION ON HOW THE SITE WILL BE ACCESSED IF IT WERE TO DEVELOP. BASICALLY, AS YOU CAN SEE, WITH THE TWO GREEN ARROWS, AGAIN, THERE ARE TWO ACCESS POINTS TO THE SITE ON DALROCK ROAD WILL BE FROM TWO POINT OF INTKPWRES AND EGRESS. BOTH TO BE CONSTRUCTED FROM THE APPLICANT. THE NORTHERN ENTRY POINT WILL ALLOW FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS. THAT'S THE GREEN ARROWS THAT YOU SEE. THE SOUTHERN ENTRY POINT WOULD BE RIGHT IN AND RIGHT OUT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AS IT RELATES TO DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS, PRELIMINARY REVIEW SHOWS THAT THE EXISTING STORM AND INFRASTRUCTURE ON DALROCK ROAD EXISTS, MULTIPLE SUBOUTS TO MAKE SURE THE PROPERTY ARE THERE AS WELL. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, OUR ASSISTANT TO THE ENGINEER IS HERE TO ASSIST.
ON THE EAST SIDE OF DALROCK ROAD, BASICALLY AS THE RECORDS INDICATE, THERE IS EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
I MENTIONED THERE WERE THREE STAMPS TO THE EAST ENTRANCE.
THEY WILL LIKELY BE AFFECTED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT.
TREES AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE TO THE SOUTH AND WEST MAY ALSO BE IMPACTED IN ORDER TO INSTALL PRIVACY SCREEN FENCE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT. THE APPLICANT DID CONDUCT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THEY PROVIDED TO US A PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON WILD LIFE BASED ON THEIR STUDY.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS PHOTOGRAPH BASICALLY GIVES
[00:40:03]
YOU A VANTAGE POINT TO SEE THE CANOPY COVERAGE JUST NORTH OF THE CEMETERY SITE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.THIS IS A VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ALLEY TO THE WEST. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AND THEN VIEW OF THE EXISTING FIELD TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT PER THE REQUIREMENTS 200 AND 500 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. RESPONSES TO THE 200 FOOT LEGAL NOTICE, NINE RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION WERE RECEIVED AND ONE IN FAVOR. IN TERMS OF THE 500 FOOT COURTSY NOTICE, SEVEN IN OPPOSITION AND ONE IN FAVOR WERE RECEIVED.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED AT THE JUNE 23RD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
THE COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE REQUEST. AS FAR AS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS CONCERNED, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES.
THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REZONING TWO ZONING DISTRICTS SF10 AND OFFICE DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT OR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. PROPOSED PD REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE RDC PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT.
FURTHERMORE THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT INTEGRATE INNOVATIVE USE OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RESULTING IN A BETTER QUALITY DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR NEIGHBORHOOD MORE DENSE THAN SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS CONTRARY TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND LEAVE A REMNANT OF SF10 ZONING WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPEDIMENTS TO DEVELOPING THAT PROPERTY UNDER THAT ZONING.
SHOULD THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED BY YOURSELF, A VOTE OF 3/4 WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL. WITH THAT, I WILL TRY AND AN ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. I BELIEVE THE APPLICATION ALSO
HAS A PRESENTATION TONIGHT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION? I'M NOT SEEING ANY SO WE'LL MOVE
TO THE APPLICANT, PLEASE, MANUL. >> IS THAT YOU, KEVIN?
>> IT'S ADAM. KEVIN HARRELL'S NAME IS ON MY
SCREEN. >> WHAT WAS YOUR NAME AGAIN?
>> MY NAME IS ADAM VIEWCHECK WITH SKORBURG COMPANY.
ADDRESS IS 8214 WESTCHESTER DRIVE SUITE 710, DALLAS, TEXAS,
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL AND STAFF AND RESIDENTS WHO ARE JOINING US TONIGHT.
WE ARE HERE TO CERTAINLY UNDER NO ILLUSION THAT WE HAVE A TALL MOUNTAIN TO CLIMB HERE TO SHOW YOU THE QUALITY THAT WE ARE PROPOSING FOR LAKESHORE VILLAGE. THAT IS MY HOPE AND GOAL AND OBJECTIVE HERE TONIGHT AND THEME IS REALLY ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT AND THE DEMAND FOR THE PRODUCT THAT OUR BUILDING COMPANY, WINDSOR HOMES, WHICH IS A PROVEN HOME BUILDING COMPANY AND HAS A GREAT TRACK RECORD, AT LEAST I HOPE YOU FEEL THAT WAY.
WE DO AND WE LOVE ROWLETT. WINDSOR HOMES IS OUR BUILDING'S SISTER COMPANY. I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH OUR BRIEF SLIDE SHOW. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
I'M SORRY. WE'LL, JUST IN CASE ANYBODY IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH OUR PRODUCT, WE'RE VERY PROUD OF IN ROWLETT.
WE'RE GOING TO TOUCH BASE ON THAT.
THEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION.
I WON'T SPEND MUCH TIME ON THAT SINCE STAFF CERTAINLY COVERED THAT. THEN WE'LL GO INTO SOME HIGH LIGHTED POINTS OF THE ZONING REQUEST.
THE SCREENING PLAN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND THE PROJECT VIRTUES AND ELEMENTS AND THEN WE HAVE SOME SHOTS OF REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A FEW CLOSING POINTS AND WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THAT COUNCIL OR RESIDENTS MAY HAVE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO SKORBURG PROPERTIES IN ROWLETT, THE FIRST EXAMPLE IS MANOR ON MILLER WHICH WE ARE BASICALLY BILL OUT OF, JUST ABOUT. WINDSOR HOMES BUILT THAT.
DID VERY WELL. BEAUTIFUL LITTLE COMMUNITY.
I PUT THIS ONE FIRST BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY THE SIMILAR, MOST
[00:45:02]
SIMILAR ONE THAT WE'VE DONE THAT WE ARE HOPING TO EMULATE FOR THE LAKESHORE VILLAGE PROJECT. WHERE WE SAW PROPERTY THAT HAD A BEAUTIFUL OPEN SPACE AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE, LOOKS FANTASTIC AND WE WANT TO PRESERVE THAT NATURAL BEAUTY WITH THE MATURE TREES. WE'VE INCORPORATED THAT SAME IDEA INTO OUR PROPOSAL TONIGHT. BUT MANORS ON MILLER, WE BUILT CLOSE TO 400,000 ON 115 BY 15 SIZE LOTS WHICH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ARE ASKING, LITTLE SMALLER THAN WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TONIGHT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.IT IS ABOUT 15 1/2 ACRES. LITTLE CLOSER IN SIZE TO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE. WE HAVE 59 LOTS.
LITTLE SMALLER THAN THE SITE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.
WINDSOR HOMES AND MERITAGE ARE THE TWO BUILDERS.
WE ARE STILL ACTIVELY BUILDING IN THE COMMUNITY AND IT'S BEEN A VERY SUCCESSFUL PROJECT FOR US. THOSE ARE ON 50X125 SIZE LOTS.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WINDSIDE ESTATES IS A SMALL NEED PROJECT. IT WAS A SINGLE LOADED EXISTING STREET NEAR THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF CHEESEA AND WOODSIDE. WINDSOR HOMES IS BUILDING IN THAT COMMUNITY AS WELL. HIGH 200S, TO 300S AS WELL IN THAT COMMUNITY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
MORE RECENTLY, WE HAVE A PROJECT CALLED VILLAS OF LONG BRANCH.
IT'S NOT DELIVERED YET. WE ARE JUST STARTING CONSTRUCTION. 32 LOTS AT MILLER ROAD AND ROWLETT ROAD. WINDSOR HOMES IS THE BUILDER FOR THAT COMMUNITY AS WELL. WE ARE ON SMALLER LOTS.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. MERIT VILLAGE, VERY PRIVILEGED TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY AS WELL.
IT'S ABOUT 33 ACRES. WE HAVE 131 LOTS ON CASTLE DRIVE. WE HAVE THREE BUILDERS.
IT'S A LARGER PROJECT. WINDSOR IS ONE BUILDER.
WE ALSO HAVE BREEZE AND PULTE IN THERE.
WE PROJECT BEING HIGH 200S TO 300S, MAY GET SOME 400S AS WELL.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO THIS IS JUST A MAP THAT SHOWS YOU LAKE SHORE VILLAGE IN RELATION TO THOSE OTHER EXAMPLE PRODUCTS THAT WE HAVE A TRACK RECORD. WE BELIEVE IT IS A GOOD TRACK RECORD. WE CERTAINLY FEEL THAT THEY'VE BEEN GREAT QUALITY PROJECTS AND HAVE DONE WELL AND SOLD WELL.
WE HOPE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING LAKESHORE TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT AS WELL. IT'S LOCATED JUST TO THE SOUTHEAST RELATIVE TO THE OTHER PROJECTS I JUST SHOWED YOU.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE ZOOM IN OF THE AREA.
THIS SLIDE IS I THINK PERTINENT BECAUSE IT REALLY SHOWS HOW THIS FITS IN AS A NATURAL TRANSITION RELATIVE TO THE SURROUNDING EXISTING USES OF THE PROPERTY. TO THE WEST, WE HAVE -- AND THE SOUTH, WE HAVE THE PENINSULA. THE PENINSULA HAS A HYBRID OF LOTS. WE HAVE 19 ADJACENT HOMES AGAINST OUR IMMEDIATE BOUNDARY OF WHICH REALLY TWO-THIRDS OR 12 OF THE 19 ARE ON A 7200 SQUARE FOOT OR 65 FOOT WIDE LOT.
THE OTHER SEVEN ARE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WHICH ARE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT MINIMUM. SO, AGAIN, TWO THIRDS OF THEM ARE 65 BY 115 WITH 1500 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE ON THE FRONT PENINSULA. THEN ONE THIRD OF THE ADJACENT HOMES WITH AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE.
TO THE NORTH, HIGHER INTENSITY USES.
HAVE FIRE, TRAIN FACILITY. GOT AGE RESTRICTED MULTIFAMILY AND SOME COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE. SO WE'VE GOT -- DALROCK ROAD IS A BUSY ROAD. WE HAVE THE CORNER STONE CHURCH PROPERTY THAT THEY PLAN TO IMPROVE AND BUILD AND RETAIN.
SO THIS IS A SITE THAT IT'S -- IT'S TRANSITIONING FROM THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL TO THE DALROCK ROAD, IT'S A NATURAL FIT AND LOGICAL TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF LOT SIZE, ESPECIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS EMBRACING THE TYPE OF QUALITY WINDSOR BRINGS TO THE TABLE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
[00:50:02]
WE ARE WORKING WITH THE CORNER STONE CHURCH OF ROWLETT TO CREATE A LONG LASTING HIGH QUALITY COMMUNITY, JUST LIKE WE'VE DONE THESE OTHER ONCE. IT IS A LOGIC AL PROJECT IN THE EXISTING FAMILY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE PD, 99 LOTS WITH A 50X120 FOOT LOT SIZE. 21.6 ACRES 4.57 UNITS PER ACRE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS A TABLE COMPARISON.
AS I MENTIONED, OUR OTHER PROJECT, WE REALLY THINK THIS ONE, WE ENVISION LAKESHORE TO BE SIMILAR IN SCALE.
WE SHOWED THE BASE ZONING. WE HAVE HIGHER STANDARD THAN THAT. SO I JUST WANTED TO HIGH LIGHT THIS AND HAVE A COLUMN NEXT TO IT.
LAKESHORE IS LOWER DENSITY THAN MANORS ON MILLER.
WE HAVE AN EXTRA FIVE FEET OF DEPTH ON THE LOT SIZE.
6,000 VERSUS 5750 IN MANORS. PD HAS A 1500 SQUARE FOOT LOT WHAT I WANTED TO IMMEDIATELY PUT OUT THERE IN THIS PRESENTATION AND FOR COUNCIL THAT WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO MATCH MANORS ON MILLER. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, PLANNING TO DO. WE'RE HAPPY TO COMMIT TO AN 1850 MINIMUM SQUARE FOOT HOUSE SIZE. THE REASON THAT'S SIGNIFICANT IS BECAUSE THAT NOT ONLY MEETS EVERY ED AIED A JAY ADJACENT O EAST BUT THE WEST. THIS WOULD NOT BE ABOUT HOUSE SIZE. THIS WILL NOT BE ABOUT PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT, PRICE POINT. IF IT'S ABOUT LOT SIZE, CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE AS I OUTLINED.
THIS SHOULD BE A TRANSITIONAL PROPERTY.
BUT WE ARE HAPPY TO MAKE THE 1850 SQUARE FOOT COMMITMENT TONIGHT. THE REST OF THE ITEMS ARE PRETTY MUNDANE. THE REASON FOR THE REAR SET BACK REQUEST OF TEN FEET FROM MANORS ON MILLER IS BECAUSE THAT WILL ENABLE US TO DO A LARGER MIX OF ONE STORY PRODUCT, WHICH I KNOW IS VERY MUCH IN HIGH DEMAND. WE HAVE A 20 FOOT SET BACK.
IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO ELIMINATE SOME OF OUR ONE STORY PLANS. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO DO TEN FEET.
IF THAT'S MAJOR PROBLEM FOR COUNCIL, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.
BUT THAT'S THE REASON FOR IT. NOTHING THAN TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME MORE ONE STORY FLEXIBILITY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SCREENING PLAN. ON THE BLUE LINE AROUND THE CEMETERY WE HAVE A SIX FOOT WALL WITH COLUMNS.
AND WE HAVE A SIX FOOT WOOD FENCE BY THE DEVELOPER ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE NORTH ENTRANCE AS SEEN ON THE SLIDE.
YELLOW WOULD BE A SIX FOOT FENCE BUILT BY THE HOMEOWNERS.
AND THE DECORATIVE METAL FENCE WITH COLUMNS TO SHOW THE BEAUTY OF THOSE EXISTING MATURE TREES THAT WE HAVE THERE.
WE HAVE SOME SLIDES ON THE PRESENTATION, TO SHOW HOW ATTRACTIVE THAT AREA IS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF THE TYPES OF MASONRY COLUMNS AND STEEL FENCING DECORATIVE FENCING, COLUMNS THAT WE BUILD AND WE'VE BUILT IN THE CITY.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO PROJECT VIRTUES AND ELEMENTS.
I REALLY TOUCHED ON THIS A LOT BUT I JUST WANTED TO RESEND THAT MESSAGE. THE HIGH QUALITY TRANSITION ZONING BETWEEN THE PENINSULA AND HIGH INTENTY USES THAT THIS LAKE SHORE PROJECT WILL BRING TO ME IS A NO BRAINER.
IT IS THE BEST USE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
WHEN 1850 SQUARE FOOT, IF COUNCIL DESIRES, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO IT. THAT'S WHAT WE BUILD ANYWAY.
SO WE WOULD BE HIGHER THAN THE PENINSULA, WHICH IS 1800 SQUARE FOOT TO THE SOUTH ON 80 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AND 50 TO THE WEST.
AGAIN, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. OUR PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT WILL BE RANGING FROM 120 TO 175 A SQUARE FOOT.
I READ A LOT OF COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS, CONCERN ABOUT QUALITY AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS KNOWN THAT WE ARE A QUALITY HOME BUILDER AND THAT IS THE PRICE POINT THAT WE ARE EXPECTING.
THAT WOULD BRING PEOPLE UP, NOT DOWN.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE PHOTO OF THE FRONT ENTRANCE WE ARE CATERING OUR CONSOLIDATED OPEN SPACE TO PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE BEAUTIFUL TREES AS POSSIBLE
[00:55:03]
RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID ON THE MANORS.VERY ATTRACTIVE AREA. WE WANT TO MAKE THIS THE SHANGRI LA. YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL HOW DEN THESE TREES ARE IN THE FRONT.
WE'D WANT TO MAXIMIZE THAT TREE PRESERVATION.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AS WE WRAP IT UP, I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU SOME SHOTS OF OUR PRODUCT.
HERE ARE A COUPLE HOMES. ONE STORY, TWO STORY.
YOU HAVE A MIX OF GREAT PRODUCT, FRESH PRODUCT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THESE WILL GIVE YOU A GREAT MIX OF ONE AND TWO STORY HOMES. YOU'VE SEEN OUR PRODUCT AND WHAT WE BUILD. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AGAIN JUST SQUARE FOOTAGE PROJECTIONS FROM MINIMUM TO THE HIGHER END OR UPPER END OF THE RANGE. 1850 TO 3200 WILL ENCAPSULATE.
YOU COULD DO BIGGER, BUT 3200 WOULD BE TYPICALLY THE LARGEST SIZE HOUSE WE WOULD BUILD ON THESE LOTS.
PROJECTED PRICE WILL BE WELL INTO THE 300S.
WE HAD OPTIONS TO GET INTO THE 400S, BUT WE REPRESENT BASE PRICING. IF PEOPLE WANT OPTIONS, WHICH IS TYPICAL, SOME LEVEL OF OPTIONS, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE ON TOP OF THE PROJECTED PRICE RANGE.
WE HAVE 117 TO 173 A FOOT. THAT'S A GREAT QUALITY PRODUCT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. I TOLD YOU IT WAS SHORT AND SWEET. I WOULD HAVE A FEW CLOSING COMMENTS. FIRST THING, READING THE STAFF REPORT AND I MIGHT RESPOND AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS AND LETTERS THAT CAME IN. FOR CONCERNS ABOUT THE VALUE, THE CITY KNOWS OUR QUALITY. WE ARE PROVEN IN THE CITY.
YOU HAVE A GREAT IDEA HAVING THE PRIVILEGE TO DO FOUR, FIVE PROJECTS IN THE COMMUNITY. SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS REITERATED. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE A HIGHER THAN THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
ONE OF THE PAGES THE STAFF REPORT PUT OUT THAT CONSTANT PLAN SHOWS MAINTAINING THE EXISTING FOUR FOOT WIDE ON DALROCK. I JUST WANTED -- THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET. I JUST WANTED TO GO ON RECORD FOR COUNCIL THAT WAS JUST AN OVERSIGHT ON OUR PART.
WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO INSTALL A FIVE FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT. AGAIN, THAT WAS JUST AN OVERSIGHT. NEXT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY ACCESS TO THE 2.9 ACRES THAT WOULD REMAIN 01 AS POINTED OUT BY STAFF WAS REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL.
TRAFFIC PATTERN, EGRESS AND INGRESS, IT IS NOT IN THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE THE CHURCH WANTS TO KEEP THIS LAND FOR ITS EXPANSION PLANS. THAT WAS DRIVEN BY THE CHURCH.
THEY HAVE PLANS FOR THAT. IT IS NOT AN UNUSABLE PARCEL.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT CONTEXT THAT THEY HAVE PLANS FOR THAT PROPERTY. IT IS NOT A PARCEL THAT COULDN'T HAVE SOMETHING DONE WITH IT. THE PENINSULA I JUST WANT TO REITERATE DOES NOT HAVE ALL 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.
IF WE'RE HAVING TO DO THAT, WE'RE HAVING BIGGER LOTS BETWEEN MULTIPLE FAMILY AND THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY.
THAT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE IN THIS SITUATION.
I HOPE COUNCIL WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK I HOPE YOU WILL GIVE ME DIRECTION, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS PLAN, I WOULD HOPE TO GET SOME DIRECTION FROM YOU.
WE THINK THE PRICE POINTS, PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT WOULD BE JUST PERFECT FOR THIS PROPERTY. I'D JUST REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS ANY COMMENTS WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING MAY BRING UP.
IF I HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE SO. AND IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER ADJUSTMENTS THAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE ME TO MAKE OR TO CONSIDER OR IF YOU WANT TO TAKE ACTION TONIGHT, WE WOULD BE MORE THAN CONVERSATIONS.THOSE - I WOULD HAVE TO CONFER WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT RIGHT NOW I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PLAN.
[01:00:03]
I HOPE YOU AGREE. BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR GUYANCE AND DIRECTION. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ADAM. APPRECIATE THAT.
COUNCIL, BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, I WOULD ASK IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT?
BLAKE, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP. >> YEAH.
HAS THERE BEEN CONSIDERATION FOR A LEFT-HAND TURN LANE NORTHBOUND ON DALROCK? I'M NOT SURE HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS. I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T DONE A TRAFFIC STUDY YET. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BEEN CONSIDERED AT THIS POINT. IT WOULD BE FOR MEDIAN CURB CUT.
>> WE HAVE CERTAINLY ABSOLUTELY CONSIDERED IT.
FIRE MARSHAL LOOKED AT THAT AND DID NOT ANTICIPATE -- IT'S SO CLOSE TOGETHER ON THE SOUTH ENTRANCE.
SO WE CAN GO NORTH AND SOUTH BOUND OUT OF THE NORTH ENTRANCE.
IF WE TRY TO DO A CURB CUT SO CLOSE NORTH AND SOUTH BOUND IN THE SOUTH ENTRANCE, IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THE FIRE MARSHAL WAS WANTING FROM US. IT WAS LOOKED AT, BUT IT' NOT SOMETHING THE FIRE MARSHAL THOUGHT WE SHOULD DO.
>> OKAY. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT VEHICLES TURNING LEFT THERE WOULD CAUSE AN ACCIDENT OR TRAFFIC DELAYS FROM SLAMMING ON THEIR BRAKES AND TURNING LEFT WITH NO TURNING
LANE, NO SECURED LANE. >> I THINK RIGHT TURN ONLY LANE ON THE SOUTH EXIT WOULD MAKE IT SAFER.
THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TWO INTERSECTIONS GOING LEFT AND RIGHT. HAVING ONLY ONE THAT'S A BETTER TRAFFIC PATTERN BASED ON THE FEED BACK WE GOT FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL RATHER THAN TRYING TO DO TWO CLOSER TOGETHER THAT COULD GO EITHER DIRECTION. THERE WILL HAVE TO BE TWO POINT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS EITHER WAY.
THIS WAS THE SAFEST AND MOST DIRECT -- THIS WAS THE DIRECTION WE THOUGHT WE COULD WORK WITH STAFF ON.
>> DID YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD.
IN FACT, WE DID MAKE THAT COMMENT DURING ONE OF THE FIRST REVIEWS. WE DID SAY THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONFIRMED BY A TRAFFIC STUDY, OF COURSE.
THAT ROAD WINDS UP WITH THE ROAD ACROSS, ON THE EAST SIDE OF DALROCK, THAT NORTHERN ENTRANCE. THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO HAVE A MEDIAN CUT AND A LEFT TURN LANE.
SO THERE WOULD BE FULL MOVEMENT IN AND OUT, LEFT AND RIGHT TPRRBG THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT THAT MORE THAN ENTRANCE.
THAT IS A STREET, REMEMBER, NOT A DRIVEWAY.
AND THE SOUTHERN ROAD WOULD BE A RIGHT ONLY.
RIGHT IN AND RIGHT ONLY ACCESS POINT.
>> THERE WOULDN'T BE A LEFT TURN LANE NORTHBOUND INTO WEST BOUND,
INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. >> NO, NO.
WE ARE CALLING FOR THAT. WE DON'T KNOW THE DIMENSIONS.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY WOULD SHOW.
WE HAVE MADE THAT COMMENT. THAT'S ON THE PLANS.
>> OKAY, GOOD. >> I APOLOGIZE IF I MISUNDERSTOOD. ABSOLUTELY, THE NORTHERN ENTRANCE WE WILL OBVIOUSLY SUBMIT AND ADHERE TO WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY ARE TO PROVIDE A LEFT TURN LANE TO THE NORTH ENTRANCE. I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT
THE SOUTHERN ENTRANCE. >> THE ONE OFF DALROCK.
>> YEAH. >> IS THERE A REASON WHY, MY LAST QUESTION. IS THERE A REASON WHY THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE PRIMARY, OR I'M SORRY, SECONDARY LANDSCAPE NOT BEING PART OF THE PLAN? THAT'S NOT BEING DONE FROM THE PACKET THAT I READ, THAT'S NOT A THING Y'ALL ARE INTERESTED IN
DOING. >> I GUESS I'LL SAY, IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE US TO LOOK AT, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO IT. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT STAFF IS REFERRING TO, IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE.
IF STAFF CAN CONTRIBUTE OR TELL ME WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.
I KNOW WE DON'T WANT TO DO LANDSCAPING THAT WOULD DISTURB ROOT SYSTEMS OF THE CHURCH TREES.
IT DEPENDS WHERE THOSE ARE. IF THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS THAT STAFF WOULD LIKE US TO ENHANCE, WE'D BE HAPPY TO DO IT.
WE DID THAT ON MANOR. >> THE REASON I'M BRINGING THAT
[01:05:02]
UP IS BECAUSE IT SAID IN THE PACKET THAT AS AN AMENDMENT, YOU WOULDN'T DO LANDSCAPING FOR THE SECONDARY ENTRANCE.SO IF IT WAS REQUIRED BY CODE, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT Y'ALL FOLLOW
THAT CODE. >> I THINK THAT FOR THE RECORD, AND IF THERE'S -- AGAIN, WE CAN COME BACK.
IF COUNCIL WOULD BE SO INCLINED, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO SUBMIT A MORE DETAILED AND ENHANCED LANDSCAPE PLAN OFF THE SOUTHERN ENTRANCE AS WELL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T CONFLICT WITH ANY EXISTING TREES.
WE COULD DO THAT TO MAKE IT LOOK GREAT ANYWAY.
WE'RE NOT INTENDING TO DO NO LANDSCAPE, NO IRRIGATION.
IT'S GONNA LOOK GREAT. IF WE NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF ILLUSTRATING THAT, WE WILL GET ON IT AND DO SO.
>> MANUL, DO YOU HAVE ANY BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON WHY
THAT WAS AN AMENDMENT? >> FROM WHAT I CAN DISCERN, COUNCIL MEMBER, MARGOLIS, THAT SECONDARY ACCESS THAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS AN OFF SET ACCESS INTO THE SUBDIVISION.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE FEEL THERE'S A DISCONNECT, OR THE PLANS ARE DISCONNECTED, WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE TWO POINTS -- THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO POINT OF ACCESS INTO THE SUBDIVISION, BUT THE SECOND POINT OF ACCESS, THE SOUTHERN ELEMENT, AS YOU CAN SEE, LACKS THE AESTHETIC IMPORTANCE THAT IT NEEDS. BASED ON THE APPLICANT, THAT WAS PART OF THEIR REQUEST AND THE PD LANGUAGE THAT THEY REQUESTED TO NOT HAVE THOSE ELEMENTS REFLECTED WITHIN THAT SECONDARY
ACCESS. >> WE ARE GOING TO DO A NICE LANDSCAPING ON BOTH ENTRANCES. VERY NICE.
CEMETERY IS ON ONE SIDE, SO WE HAVE TO WORK AROUND THAT.
WE ALL HAVE TO WORK AROUND EXISTING TREES THAT WE'RE PRESERVING. WE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO RESUBMIT THE STAFF A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT -- I DON'T KNOW WHY THERE WASN'T SOMETHING. IT WILL LOOK GREAT.
WE NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF CLARIFYING THAT.
WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THAT AND RESUBMIT SOMETHING FOR STAFF TO SEE THE EXTENT OF THE LANDSCAPING ON BOTH ENTRANCES.
PART OF THE QUESTION COULD HAVE BEEN BECAUSE -- AGAIN, I HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DIRECTLY MYSELF SO I DON'T WANT TO MISSPEAK, BUT I DO KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE SECONDARY ACCESS ROAD BEING BUILT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THAT'S BEEN CLARIFIED WITH THE CHURCH. WE ARE BUILDING THAT ROAD.
IT'S REQUIRED. STAFF INCLUDED THAT IN THEIR REPORT. THERE SEEM TO BE SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT ROAD WAS BEING BUILT WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE BUILDING BOTH ENTRANCES FROM THE GET GO. PERHAPS THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON THE LANDSCAPE ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE WASN'T AS DETAILED AS THE NORTH ENTRANCE BECAUSE PERHAPS THAT WAS NOT AS CONFIRMED OR SOLIDIFIED WITH THE CHURCH.
WE DO KNOW WE CAN DO THAT NOW, SO WE ARE HAPPY TO RESUBMIT SOME
ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING PLANS. >> THANK YOU, BLAKE.
MATT, WE'LL GO TO YOU NEXT. >> MARTHA HAD HER HAND UP, BUT I DON'T MIND GOING FIRST. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
I THINK THE QUALITY OF HOMES THAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN BUILDING HERE IN ROWLETT HAVE BEEN REALLY HIGH STANDARD.
ONE QUICK NOTE I'LL MAKE ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN WHEN WE REDID THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WE DID NOT LOOK AT THIS SITE SPECIFICALLY. RIGHT NOW IT SHOWS MULTIFAMILY.
I DO NOT THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD SPOT TO PUT MULTIFAMILY.
I REALLY LIKE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO PRESERVE THE TREES.
ONE ISSUE I DO HAVE IS THE TEN FOOT MINIMUM REAR SET BACK ESPECIALLY ON THE HOMES BUTTING UP AGAINST THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOODS. IS THERE ANY ABILITY THERE TO DO LARGER SETBACKS? AND ALSO, SECOND QUESTION IS ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHTWHAT THE EXTRA FOOT IS FOR.
TWO STORIES TO TWO AND A HALF STORIES? IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT.
SO THAT'S TWO QUESTIONS. >> ABSOLUTELY.
YES, SIR. TO AN YOUR QUESTION, YES, WE CAN GO TO A 20 FOOT SET BACK IF COUNCIL LIKES ON ALL THE HOMES ADJACENT TO THE PENINSULA. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF -- WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. IF WE GO TO A TEN FOOT, 20 FOOT REAR SET BACK, THEN THE NUMBER OF ONE STORY PLANS DROPS.
WE COULD STILL DO ONE STORIES, BUT IT ELIMINATES SOME OF OUR PLANS. SO I -- WE HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AT THE CHURCH WITH NEIGHBORS THAT WAS PRETTY WELL
[01:10:05]
ATTENDED. SOME FOLKS SAID I LIKE THE QUALITY OF WINDSOR HOMES. WE KNOW WINDSOR HOMES.COULD YOU DO A ONE STORY? WE ARE OPEN TO IRE ONE.
WE COULD DO A 20 FOOT REAR SET BACK.
I KNOW SOME FOLKS WOULD RATHER HAVE THAT.
BUT THE OTHER THING WE COULD DO IS DO A ONE STORY AGAINST THOSE FOLKS. IT'S EITHER/OR.
WE'RE FLEXIBLE. I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE COUNCIL
WOULD WANT. >> I WANT ONE STORY WITH BIGGER SET BACKS. SORRY.
>> THE OTHER QUESTION, SIR, WAS -- I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE OTHER
QUESTION? >> THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
>> WE HAVE SOME PLANS THAT COULD GO AN EXTRA FOOT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S WRITTEN AS 2 1/2.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OVER TWO. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE IT AT 35 AND LEAVE IT AT THAT, WE CAN MAKE IT WORK.
WE HAD SOME HOMES GO TO 36 FEET. IT DOESN'T ADD A STORY THOUGH.
IT'S JUST A LITTLE MORE THAN TWO STORIES.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU ANSWERING THAT.
RIGHT NOW I WANT TO SAY WE HAD ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO ASK STAFF, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A COMMUNITY MEETING THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL BE TALKING TO THE COMMUNITY, THAT YOU LET US KNOW.
THOSE ARE THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT I WILL MAKE SURE THAT I GET TO BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE REAL INPUT IS COMING TO.
>> IS THE BEST WAY FOR MY EDIFICATION IS TO HAVE THEM
BLAST IT OUT TO COUNCIL? >> OR YOU CAN GO TO THE WEBSITE
AND E-MAIL ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS. >> OKAY.
OKAY. >> DID STAFF KNOW ABOUT THIS
>> I DIDN'T. I DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT IT.
>> I'M ASKING IF STAFF KNEW ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY MEETING?
>> WE FOUND OUT LATER THROUGH A NOTICE THAT CAME IN THEY WERE
HAVING A COMMUNITY MEETING. >> OKAY.
SO YOU DID KNOW ABOUT IT AHEAD OF TIME OR DID NOT?
>> WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT AHEAD OF TIME.
>> THE WHOLE PROCESS IS MESSED UP.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN. >> SO, ADAM, THE OPTION THAT YOU HAVE OFFERED US OF GOING FROM 1500 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM TO 1850, WAS THAT OPTION PRESENTED TO PNZ?
>> IT WAS. THERE WASN'T MUCH DEBATE OR
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE -- >> I THINK I MAY HAVE SAID 1800.
I WENT TO WINDSOR'S FOLKS, THE SISTER COMPANY, AND WE WERE ABLE TO ADD ANOTHER 50 FEET TO BE EXACTLY ON PAR WITH MANOR'S.
>> THE INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS AN OPTION THAT WAS
>> TO CONSIDER IN THEIR DECISION.
>> IT WAS. IT WAS MENTIONED BY THE
APPLICANT BUT NO DISCUSSION. >> RIGHT.
THANK YOU. >> BROWNIE, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP
AND YOU TOOK IT DOWN. >> YEAH, I DID.
I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED BY BLAKE'S TALKING ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE ON THE SECOND ENTRANCE BECAUSE THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ABOUT LANDSCAPING THE SECOND ENTRANCE OF ANOTHER AREA.
I WAS JUST WONDERING, HIS DISCUSSION CONFUSED ME, SO I WAS WONDERING IF HE GOT CONFUSED WITH WHICH ITEM WE WERE TALKING
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THANK YOU, BROWNIE.
I DON'T THINK YOU WERE CONFUSED, BLAKE, WERE YOU?
>> NO. I SAW IT ON THE PACKET ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM THAT THE SECONDARY ENTRANCE, THEY WERE NOT WANTING
TO DO THE LANDSCAPING. >> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, BROWNIE. COUNCIL, BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN THE MEETING OVER TO LAURA.
YOU'RE GOING TO CHECK WITH THE PEOPLE ON THE PHONE FIRST, LAURA, AND THEN I'M GOING TO READ THE PREPARED COMMENTS, IS
>> CALLER 2249, DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?
>> YES, I DO. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
[01:15:04]
>> MY NAME IS PASTOR BRIAN HIATT.
I LIVE 8210 WOODSIDE ROAD IN ROWLETT.
I PASTOR CORNERSTONE CHURCH SCHRADE ROAD, ROWLETT.
GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL, MADAM MAYOR.
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS ZONING CHANGE.
I WANT TO GIVE YOU INSIGHT ON WHY THIS REZONING ISSUE NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT. CORNERSTONE CHURCH, SKORBURG, WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL FOR YOUR COMMUNITY, ALL FOR THEIR COMPANY.
THE COMMUNITY SIMPLY IS THIS. THE WINDSOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HAVE EXCELLENT CRAFTSMANSHIP AND THEY WILL FIT THE NEED OF THE HOMEOWNERSHIP IN OUR COMMUNITY NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.
AS YOU'VE HEARD THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE IS ABOVE, EQUAL TO OR ABOVE THE SURROUNDING AREAS OF THE 6,000 FOOT LOT FIT THE CRITERIA OF WHAT THE GENERATION NOW IS LOOKING FOR.
THEY WANT MORE HOUSE WITH LESS YARD TO MAINTAIN.
I STRONGLY BELIEVE THIS WILL DRAW YOUNG FAMILIES INTO OUR COMMUNITY WHO ARE LOOKING FOR A LAYOUT OF WHAT THEY ARE OFFERING. LOT SIZES AND SQUARE FOOTAGES, THE HOMES MAKE THIS POSSIBLE. LIVING ON WOODSIDE ROAD, I WALK BY THE DEVELOPMENT THERE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM PIERSON ELEMENTARY. THEY ARE THE FRONT ENTRY HOMES WITH NO ALLEY ENTRANCE. THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL.
I KNOW THEY'RE SELLING QUICKLY. THE CURRENT VALUES OF THE HOMES IN LAKESHORE, PROPOSED LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT HINDER THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL ALL BRING TACK REVENUE TO THE CITY.
THAT'S WHERE IT LANES NOW FOR SURE WITH THE PANDEMIC.
THE HOA AND EVERYTHING THAT WILL BE GOING ON AT LAKESHORE WILL MAKE SURE THE PROPERTIES ARE WELL MAINTAINED.
THERE'S A REASON WHY ROWLETT IS RANKED AMONG THE BEST CITIES TO LIVE IN IN OUR NATION. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ADD TO IT.
AS A CHURCH, OUR NEW CAMPUS IS BEING BUILT DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND OFFERS A UNIQUE COMMUNITY FOR US TO PARTNER WITH SKORBURG. IT WILL HELP OUR MINISTRY AS AN EXISTING COMMUNITY AROUND US. THIS REZONING WILL HELP US AS A CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS WE CONTINUE TO STRIVE TO BE ALIVE IN THE COMMUNITY. THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS CITY COUNCIL TO SUPPORT A MEASURE THAT WILL NOT ON HELP OUR COMMUNITY, BUT WILL HELP OUR CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE PROCESS. WE PRAY FOR YOU GUYS AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR FRIENDSHIP AND YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, PASTOR. >> THIS IS MAYOR DANA-BASHIAN.
I NEED TO INTERVENE. LAURA, WOULD YOU PLEASE PULL UP THE ZOOM MEETING. SORRY.
THIS IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL, FOLKS. WE'VE HAD ONE COUNCIL MEMBER HAVE TO EXIT THE MEETING AND WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE THAT'S ASKING THE EXIT FOR HEALTH REASONS. THIS ITEM REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE WHICH WILL NOT BE EVEN POSSIBLE WITH THE ABSENCE OF TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO AT THIS TIME, I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO STOP THE MEETING AND RESCHEDULE THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. I APOLOGIZE IMMENSELY TO EVERYONE ON THE CALL. I WILL TELL YOU IF WE DON'T DO THIS, THIS HAS NO CHANCE OF PASSING BECAUSE WE WILL ONLY HAVE FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE MEETING.
THESE ARE UNUSUAL TIMES. WE ARE SO, SO SORRY.
THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN QUESTION HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THEY POSSIBLY CAN DO TO STAY ON THIS CALL.
I'M VERY, VERY CONCERNED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS GOING TO GO ON FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AND WE'RE GOING TO LOSE OUR SECOND COUNCIL PERSON. ANY QUESTIONS, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY, DAVID, BEFORE WE RESCHEDULE?
>> YES. WE ARE NOT ADJOURNING OR CLOSING. WE ARE SIMPLY RECESSING IT IN ORDER TO AVOID THE REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLICATION AND RENOTICING AND TO MEET THE STATUTORY DEADLINES THE PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD BE OPENED BACK UP AGAIN AT THE NEXT MEETING WHICH WOULD BE AUGUST 4TH AT 7:30 P.M. I THINK WE NEED TO AFFIRM THAT
OFFICIALLY. >> DO I NEED A VOTE OF THE COUNCIL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING OR TO --
[01:20:01]
>> RIGHT NOW WE'RE SIMPLY RECESSING THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
>> OKAY. >> AND THEN YOU CAN TABLE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSIDERATION AND ORDINANCE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO, IF YOU WANT TO, ADJOURN THE BALANCE OF THE MEETING. YOU CAN MAKE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT.
COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN OBJECTION IF THEY WANT TO, BUT POINT OF ORDER.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS NOT ADJOURNING OR CLOSING.
THIS IS JUST RECESSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UNLESS THERE'S AN OBJECTION FROM ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COUNCIL, I THINK THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED.
>> COUNCIL, I WOULD LIKE TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND RECONVENE ON AUGUST 4TH. IS THAT THE NEXT MEETING? AT 7:30 P.M. IS THAT THE NEXT TUESDAY
MEETING, BRIAN? >> AUGUST 4TH WOULD BE THE DAY.
AND THEN COUNCIL, I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT WE DELAY THE REMAINING,
OR -- WHAT'S THE RIGHT WORD? >> TABLE.
>> TABLE THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR FUTURE CONSID CONSIDERATION.
>> THE LAST TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, DO WE HAVE TO DO THOSE
OR CAN THOSE WAIT UNTIL AUGUST. >> WE THINK IT'S OKAY TO WAIT UNTIL AUGUST IN VIEW OF THE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE GOING ON
RIGHT NOW. >> I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANYTHING ELSE I NEED TO DO,
UNLESS ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS, I THINK THAT'S
ALL WE NEED. >> PASTOR HIATT AND APPLICANT AND EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE CALL AND ON THE PHONE, AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE IMMENSELY. WE REALLY HAVE TRIED TO HANG IN THERE AS LONG AS WE POSSIBLY CAN AND WE DO NOT THINK THAT WE CAN KEEP THIS SUPERMAJORITY HERE FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME IT'S GOING TO NEED TO FINISH THIS CONSIDERATION.
IN ALL FAIRNESS TO YOU, I THINK WE NEED THOSE BODIES TO MAKE A DECISION, OR ELSE THE ITEM WILL NEVER PASS FOR SURE.
>> OKAY. >> I HOPE EVERYBODY GETS OKAY.
>> ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE WILL ADJOURN FOR THE EVENING. IS THAT CORRECT, DAVID?
THANKS, EVERYB
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.