Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:05]

>> I HAVE GOT 6:30 SO AT THIS TIME I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT TUESDAY, 28TH OF JULY.

FIRST ITEM IS CITIZENS INCUT SECTION AND THAT IS WHEN CITIZENS OF ROWLETT CAN SUBMIT ITEMS, CAN SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES ON ANY ITEM WHETHER IT'S ON THE AGENDA OR NOT TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT HAS SUBMITTED ANYTHING TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO SPEAK TONIGHT?

>> NO, SIR. >> OKAY.

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. 3A CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 14, 2020.

ANY ISSUES? GREAT PROMOTION.

READY FOR A MOTION. >> I'D LIKE TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL

OF THE MINUTES. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND FROM MR. SWIFT.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HANDS.

>> WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION. HOW MANY? ONE, TWO, THREE -- QUINN, YOU'RE VOTING TONIGHT BECAUSE WE'RE MISSING ONE. HOW MANY IS THAT? ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR -- OH, THERE'S STEVE.

FIVE. 5-1.

THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT.

[4A. Take action on a request by David Bond, Spiars Engineering, on behalf of property owner Scott Remphrey, Lakeview 66 Crossing, LP, for a replat of Lot 2R3, Block 1 of Dalrock Sixty-Six Addition. The 1.586-acre site is located approximately 425 feet west of the intersection of Dalrock Road and Lakeview Parkway, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

NEXT AOEUTD EM, ITEM 4A INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY DAVID BOND, SPIARS ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER SCOTT REMPHREY, LAKEVIEW 66 CROSSING LP FOR A REPLAT OF LOT 2R3 BLOCK 1 OF DALROCK SIXTY-SIX ADDITION. THIS 1.586-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 425 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DALROCK ROAD AND LAKEVIEW PARKWAY IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. WHO IS HANDLING THAT ONE?

MR. ROBERTS, GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. AS WAS JUST READ, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO TAKE ACTION ON THE REPLAT OF 2R3 BLOCK 1 OF DALROCK 66-6 ADDITION. THAT REPLAT CAME IN EARLIER THIS YEAR. JUST OVER 1.5 ACRE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 425 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DALROCK ROAD AND LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. IT'S ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL GENERAL USES AND PURPOSE OF THE REPLAT IS TO FURTHER SUBDIVIDE THAT LOT INTO TWO PLOTS FOR COMMERCIAL USES.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WATER WILL BE ESTABLISHED TOWARD THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THAT NEW LOT 2R3.

ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED FROM NEUTRAL ACCESS EASEMENT FROM LAKEVIEW PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE IS A COPY OF THE PLAT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL AS ALL OF THE PERMITS OF THE CODE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE. >> ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS? MR. ENGEN?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE NORTHERN REPLAT.

IS THAT THE GENERAL DOLLAR ST

STORE? >> YES, SIR.

THE EASTERN MOST LOT THAT'S BEING ESTABLISHED IS THE DOLLAR GENERAL STORE WHICH WOULD BE THE LEFT MOST UNIT ON THAT LARGER

UNIT. >> ALL RIGHT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN. IT'S VACANT NEXT TO THAT.

THAT'S ALL I WAS WONDERING. THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN

A BUILDING IN BETWEEN. >> THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS REPLAT? I DON'T HAVE ANY.

I'M READY FOR A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO

RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >> MOTION TO APPROVE BY MISS ESTEVEZ? SECOND BY MISS MCKEE.

[00:05:03]

ALL IN FAVOR OF REPLAT, RAISE YOUR HAND.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN.

7-0, UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[4B. Make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Will Gietema, Arcadia Realty Corp., to amend the Homestead at Liberty Grove Regulating Plan. The approximately 199.1-acre subject property is located northwest of the intersection of Homestead Boulevard and Liberty Grove Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

ITEM 4B, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON A REQUEST BY WILL GIETEMA, ARCADIA REALTY CORP TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD AT LIBERTY GROVE REGULATING PLAN. THE APPROXIMATELY 199.1 ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HOMESTEAD BOULEVARD AND LIBERTY GROVE ROAD, CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. WHO IS TAKING THE LEAD ON THIS ONE? CARLOS.

FIRE AWAY. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> I CAN HEAR YOU. >> COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. AS YOU HAVE -- I WANTED TO MAKE A CORRECTION, IT IS WILL GIETEMA.

WE ARE HERE TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOMESTEAD PLAN.

WE NORMALLY DON'T SEE REGULATING PLANS.

BUT THIS BEING KIND OF OUR FIRST PROJECT AND ALSO THE CONNECTION TO THE ECONOMIC INNOCENTIVE THA WAS PROVIDED BY THE CITY, IT DOES ALLOW US THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IT BEFORE P AND Z FOR CONSIDERATION. AND SO JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY, WE ARE HERE TO ASK P&Z TO MAKE THIS ACCOMMODATION.

NEXT SLIDE. LITTLE BACKGROUND.

FEBRUARY 19, REGULATING PLAN WAS APPROVED -- 2016, RATHER.

THE REGULATING PLAN WAS APPROVED FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THE PLAN REFLECTS THE DISTRIBUTION OF BUILDINGS, STREETS, NETWORK, OPEN SPACE, ALLOCATIONS, ALL EXHIBITS WITHIN THE PACKET THAT YOU RECEIVED. THREE YEARS BEFORE THAT, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED A RESOLUTION WITH AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE AGREEMENT WITH ARCADIA REALTY CORPORATION PERTAINING TO THE LIBERTY GROVE DEVELOPMENT. IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE APPLICANT RECEIVED THE COST FOR WATER, SEWER AND ROADWAY FOR PHASES ONE, TWO AND THREE. WHICH RECOMMENDED AT $2.573 MILLION. AND IT WAS ALL IN THE ALLOCATOR FOR THOSE INITIAL PHASES WHICH WERE SHOWN IN THE EXHIBIT TO YOUR RIGHT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

APPROXIMATELY 190 ACRE SITE INCLUDES CURRENTLY TWO PROPERTIES WHICH TOTAL 260 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.

I LOST THE SCREEN. OF WHICH 165 HAVE RECEIVED A PERMIT AND WE ARE CONTINUOUSLY GETTING THOSE PERMITS.

WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY IS TO DISCUSS THIS AMENDMENT WHICH DOES POSE SOME CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL IN TERMS OF THE PHASING PLAN ARRANGEMENT, THE SEQUENCE. WE'RE HERE TO CONSIDER THE REDISTRIBUTION OF BUILDING TYPES AND LOT QUANTITIES, LOCATION AND FUTURE OPEN SPACE WHICH REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE TO AN EXTENT AND SOME REORIENTATION OF THE STREET NETWORK AS IT PERTAINS TO THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND SO THIS WILL BE FAIRLY QUICK. YOU'VE SEEN MOST OF OUR REPORT, BUT COMPARISON WHAT IS CURRENTLY APPROVED AND TO RIGHT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. YOU CAN SEE PHASES ONE, TWO AND THREE WERE FOCUSED ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE WITH PHASE ONE BEING CENTRAL AND CLOSEST TO LIBERTY GROVE ROAD.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSED PLAN, YOU SEE THAT IT GOES IN A COUNTER CLOCK WISE MOTION STILL WITH PHASE ONE BEING CENTRAL TO THE PROJECT. AND SO THIS FIRST IT'S SIGNIFICANT SIMPLY BECAUSE PHASES ONE, TWO AND THREE IN THE ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PACKAGE WERE SHOWN TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE LOT AND NOW THERE'S A SLIGHT DIFFERENT DISTRIBUTION OF SITE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. IN TERMS OF ZONING, THE ZONING

[00:10:02]

IS THE SAME IN TERMS OF THE LAND AIL CO-KAEUGS.

YOU HAVE YELLOW. THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD BYES STRICT AND RED OR PURPLE DEPENDING ON WHICH PLAN YOU'RE LOOK AT BEING THAT URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT, EXCUSE ME.

THE REASON THOSE ARE THERE ARE TO SHOW SOME OF THE CHANGES WHICH WE CAN DISCUSS LATER ON AT THE INDUSTRY NETWORK PORTION.

IN TERMS OF PARK SUMMARY, THIS IS A COLORED COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO. AS WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON THE YELLOW AND THE LARGER LOTS AND KIND OF THE BLUE AND PURPLE HUES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO THE SUMMARY SHOWS LARGER ESTATE LOTS SHOWN IN YELLOW AND INCREASES SMALLER VILLAGE AND COTTAGE LOTS.

THIS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY REDUCING MINIMUM LOT DEPTH OF ALL TYPES TO UNIFORM 110 FEET AND CREATING NARROWER LOTS.

BEFORE THEY HAD A VARIABILITY BETWEEN 110 AND 130, I BELIEVE, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE AND NUMBER OF LOTS.

ESTATE LOTS WHICH HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM 65 TO 10 FEET AND LOTS HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM 45 TO 35 FEET.

THIS REDUCTIONS ARE WITHIN THE CODE AND I HAVE SHOWN THE TABLE BELOW TO ENSURE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE PARAMETERS OF EACH LOT ARE FOR THE FORM BASED CODE. YOU'LL SEE THE REDUCTION FROM 45 TO 35 FOR THE CASITA LOTS, IT'S STILL WELL WITHIN THE MEANS OF WHAT ARE THE LOTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THE IMPACT OF THE LOT WIDTH REDUCTION RESULTS IN FEWER TYPE I LOTS. REDUCED FROM 367 TO 290 UNITS.

NUMBER OF COTTAGE UNITS INCREASE FROM 127 TO 279 AND THEN CASITA AND TOWN HOMES BEING INCREASED FROM 135 TO 163 COLLECTIVELY.

THE EXISTING REGULATED PLAN REFLECTS 625 UNITS AND A PROPOSED PLAN REFLECTS 732 UNITS AN INCREASE OF 103.

IT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FORM BASED CODE STATES AT LEAST 20% OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED WILL BE COMPRISED OF EACH CATEGORY. 25% OF CATEGORY I, MINIMUM CATEGORY II AS WELL AS CATEGORY III.

TYPE I PRODUCT WAS REDUCED TO 39.6%.

PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION DOES CONTINUE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FORM BASED CODE.

YOU CAN SEE ON THIS TABLE BELOW A MORE SUCCINCT COMPARISON OF WHAT THE CHANGES ARE FOR EACH PRODUCT TYPE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AS PER THE STREET NETWORK, YOU'LL SEE MOST OF THE CHANGES, AND I PLOTTED IT IN THE ZONINGS WHERE YOU'LL SEE MOSTLY EXHIBITS WILL HAPPEN IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITES WHICH IS NORTHWEST OF THIS EXHIBIT I'M CIRCLING THAT YELLOW AREA MOSTLY BECAUSE THAT IS A MAJOR PORTION OF THIS SITE THAT HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED IN TERMS OF THE STREET AND CONNECTIVITY. THERE USED TO BE THIS OPEN SPACE THAT FUNCTION OF THE COMBINATION OR CULMINATING VISTA FOR THE PROPERTY AND WITH THE DISTRIBUTION, THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE WHICH YOU WILL SEE ON THE MAP TO YOUR RIGHT.

BESIDES THAT, YOU WILL SEE THE STREET SECTION REMAINS THE SAME IN TERMS OF THE STREET AS WELL AS MAINTAINING THE BIKE LANE THAT GOES FROM LIBERTY GROVE AND IT'S DETERMINED BY THE DARKER BLUE LINE TO THE RIGHT OF BOTH MAPS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SPEAKING OF OPEN SPACE, YOU'LL SEE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WERE SPEAKING ABOUT IN THE LAST EXHIBIT, BUT YOU'LL SEE THAT CENTRALIZED OPEN SPACE TO THE

[00:15:02]

TOP LEFT OF THE PLAN ON THE APPROVED PLAN WHICH FUNCTIONS AT THAT TERMINATING BASE, THAT CULMINATING POINT.

THANK YOU, LAURA. AND THEN A COUPLE OTHER KIND OF OFF SHOOT PARKS WITHIN THAT NORTHERN AREA.

PROPOSED PLAN WE HAVE A SMALLER PARK CURRENT, BUT WE DO HAVE LARGER OFF SHOOT PARKS THAT FUNCTION AS MORE CENTRAL TO THOSE DIRECT LOCATIONS. SO INSTEAD OF THATTING THAT CENTRALIZED PARK, WE'RE REDISTRIBUTING IT FOR DIFFERENT PARKS IN THAT AREA. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

EVERY AREA OF OPEN SPACE WAS REDUCED FROM 51.9 ACRES TO 45.5 ACRES WHICH 22.8% IS STILL WELL ABOVE THE 14% REQUIRED BY THE FORM BASED CODE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

RECOMMENDATION, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THIS PROPOSED REVISED PLAN, AS THE PROPOSED PLAN CHANGES FOLLOWING THE FORM-BASE CODE REQUIREMENTS.

ALL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS REFLECT AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS AND AN INCREASE IN OPEN SPACE.

THE PLAN STILL PROVIDES DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOTS AND THE PARAMETER OF THE LAND AREA TO BE DEDICATED AS OPEN SPACE AND EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FORM-BASED REQUIREMENT.

BECAUSE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO -- CONCERT WITH THE PHASE SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER AGREEMENT, IT IS ON APPROPRIATE THAT REVISIONS BE REFERRED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ACTION WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION BUT THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND HAS A PRESENTATION

OF HIS OWN. >> IS IT OKAY IF THE APPLICANT MAKES HIS PRESENTATION? IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, WE CAN ADDRESS IT TO EITHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? CARLOS, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT DO THEIR PRESENTATION NOW.

THEN WE'LL ASK QUESTIONS. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> WILL GIETEMA, WITH ARCADIA THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR THE PRESENTATION TODAY. I JUST WANTED TO -- CAN I SAY

NEXT SLIDE? >> YES.

>> WANT TO GIVE A QUICK PROJECT UPDATE, SEE WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

WE'VE COMPLETED PHASE ONE. PHASE TWO IS EXPERIENCING STRONG SALES. IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, WE HAVE BTWEEN CAMBRIDGE HOMES, 68 STARTS AND THAT ACCOUNTS FOR 26% OF ROWLETT STARTS WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS.

PHASE I WE ADDED THE AMENITY CENTER POOLS.

PHASE II WE ADDED A DOG PARK. YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURES ABOVE THAT, THOSE ARE PICTURES OF THE POOL AND CABANAS.

PHASE II WE ALSO ADDED 35 FOOT CASITA LOTS AND TOWNHOMES.

WE'VE SEEN REALLY STRONG ACCEPTANCE AND SALES IN THOSE TWO NEW HOME SETS. NEXT SLIDE.

SO THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAN IS TO SIMPLY CREATE THE BEST NEIGHBORHOOD POSSIBLE. LAND DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD CREATION IS IMPORTANT ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A LARGER MASTER PLAN FOR THE COMMUNITY.

AS YOU START TO GET INTO THE ENGINEERING AND PLANNING, CERTAIN THINGS START TO POP UP WHEN YOU GET INTO THE FINER DETAILS. WHEN WE STARTED TO LOOK AT THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WE SAW THAT THERE WERE SOME PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE PROPERTY, MAINLY TOPOGRAPHY THAT

[00:20:02]

WOULD MAKE IT BETTER IF WE CHANGED THE PLAN AND ALSO THE STREET LAYOUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THERE'S SOME WAYS THAT THIS NEW PLAN IS GONNA MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BETTER. IT'S GOING TO DISTRIBUTE OPEN SPACE. IT'S GOING TO HONESTLY MAKE THE OPEN SPACE MORE USABLE. INCREASE WALKABILITY, SENSE OF COMMUNITY, OFFER A WIDER RANGE OF DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING TYPES AND AFFORDABILITY, IMPLEMENT A PLAN THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE GRADE OF THE SITE. IT WILL ALSO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THAT ADJUSTED PHASING PLAN.

NEXT SLIDE. DISTRIBUTION OF OPEN SPACE, WHEN WE REALLY STARTED TO LOOK AT THE TOPOGRAPHY, THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY, WE SAW THAT ON THE LEFT YOU HAVE THE OLDER PLAN, WHICH IS THE LARGER PARK. WHEN WE STARTED TO LOOK AT THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THAT PARK AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU CONSTRUCT IT, IF YOU WERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT LARGER PARK, THERE WOULD BE A VERY EASILY STEEP GRADE DOWN TO THE HOMES THAT ARE FACING ON THE LEFT. AND IF YOU WERE ON THE -- IF YOU WERE IN THAT PARK YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE TOPS OF HOUSES.

IT MAKES THAT PARK NOT AS USABLE.

THERE'S A PRETTY LARGE GRADE THAT GOES THROUGH THAT PHASE.

WE WANTED TO LOOK AT WHAT WORKED IN PHASE ONE, WHAT WERE PEOPLE ENJOYING? WE GOT A LOT OF FEED BACK FROM RESIDENTS THAT THEY DO ENJOY THE SMALLER PARCEL PARKS THAT ARE MORE DISTRIBUTED IN PHASE 1. SO WE LOOKED AT, HOW CAN WE NOT ONLY MAKE THE OPEN SPACES MORE USABLE, BUT ALL DISTRIBUTE THEM MORE AND MAKE MORE PERSONAL INTERACTIONS WITH PEOPLE HAPPEN.

SO WHAT WE DID, WE TOOK 2.8 ACRE PART IN THE LEFT FOLDER PLAN AND WE ACTUALLY TOOK THAT OPEN SPACE AND SHIFTED IT DOWNGRADE SO THAT INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT THE TOPS OF HOUSES WHEN YOU'RE IN THAT PARK THAT ARE EYE LEVEL, IT FEEDS OUT INTO THE OPEN SPACE, INTO THAT LARGER FIELD. IT READ LEADS DOWN INTO THE LARGER FLOOD PLAIN OPEN SPACE TO THE WEST.

IN DOING THAT, WE WERE ALL ABLE TO MOVE THAT SMALLER ATTACHED GREEN THAT'S TO THE RIGHT OF THE NEW PLAN AND WE ALSO ADDED ANOTHER SMALLER SCREEN TO THE NORTHEAST ON THE NEW PLAN.

WE'RE STILL FRONTING ON 100% OF THE OPEN SPACE.

WE ARE REALLY JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT WHAT DOES THE SPACE FEEL LIKE? WE REALLY STARTED TO CREATE A GRADING PLAN. NEXT SLIDE.

JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A VISUALIZATION OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE GRADE. IN RED, I SHOW YOU KIND OF WHERE PHASE 1, 2, 3, WHERE THE POOL AND THE POND IS.

IF YOU LOOK TO THE LEFT WHERE IT SAYS PROPOSED, WHAT YOU SEE THE DARKER LINES BUNCHING UP WITH THE P OF PROPOSED FOR, THAT'S A GENERAL APPROXIMATION WHERE THAT OPEN SPACE WOULD BE.

EACH ONE OF THOSE DARKER LINES IS FIVE FEET OF FALL.

YOU CAN SEE THAT OPEN SPACE WAS GOING TO HAVE ABOUT 20 FEET OF FALL IN THERE. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING YOU CAN LOOK AT THE TOPS OF HOUSES IF YOU'RE IN THAT SPACE.

THAT'S WHY WE MADE THE CHOICE TO SCOOT THAT OPEN SPACE AND MOVE INTO THE LARGER FLOOD PLAIN OPEN SPACE TO PROVIDE LONGER VIEWS AND JUST, IT'S MORE USABLE OPEN SPACE.

NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THAT.

ON THE LEFT WITH THAT RED ARROW, IF YOU WERE STANDING WHERE THE START OF THAT RED ARROW IS, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE PINK STARS. IF YOU'RE LIVING IN THOSE ORANGE LOTS, IN THAT PARK, YOU ARE NOW LOOKING OVER A LARGER VIEW.

MUCH BETTER VIEW. NEXT SLIDE.

ANOTHER REASON WE STARTED TO REALLY LOOK AT THESE PHASES AND WE DID A MASS GRADING PLAN, WE LOOKED AT WHAT WORKED IN PHASE 1, WHAT DIDN'T WORK IN PHASE 2, WHAT WERE THE COMPLAINTS FROM HOMEOWNERS FROM THE HOME BUILDERS.

ONE OF THE THINGS WAS PHASE 1 HAD SOME LARGER GRADES, WHICH

[00:25:06]

CAN BE AVOIDED. IF YOU LOOK MASS GRADING, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IN TERMS OF PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE.

SO WITH THE OLD PHASING PLAN, IT WAS KIND OF HARD.

YOU HAD TO JUMP AROUND. YOU COULDN'T REALLY TAKE EXCESS DIRT FROM ONE PHASE AND ROTATE TO THE NEXT ONE.

BASICALLY, THE GIST OF MY POINT IS, WE WOULD RATHER HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF INSTANCES OF RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARDS OF OUR HOMES.

WE WOULD RATHER IT BE ONE OR TWO STEPS IN RATHER THAN FIVE, SIX, SEVEN OR EIGHT. THE NEW PHASING PLAN, WE'RE ABLE TO CARRY EXCESS DIRT TO THE NEXT PHASES, SO WE CAN SMOOTH OUT THE GRADE. WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE MORE INSTANCES OF THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT FROM HOMESTEAD AND IMAGE OF THE LEFT. ON THOSE TWO IMAGES ARE ACROSS THE STREET FROM EACH OTHER IN PHASE 1.

THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS MUCH MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT THE FORM-BASED CODE IS LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF CREATING A COMMUNITY BUILDING, SOCIAL FRONT PORCH LIFESTYLE.

THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED, LITTLE LESS ACCESSIBLE IN TERMS OF GETTING UP THOSE STAIRS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE PROJECT NOW.

WE'VE DONE A MASS GRADING PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE THE GRADE, ESPECIALLY IN THE 4TH PHASE AND 5TH PHASE TO LIMIT AND REDUCE INSTANCES OF THE LOSS ON THE LEFT.

NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS MORE OF THE SAME, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WITH THE RETAINING WALL.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OBVIOUSLY, LAST TIME I WAS IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE BANS OF THE CASITA LOTS, WHICH IN PHASE 2 ARE 35 FOOT LOTS.

ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS I HEARD, TOOK AWAY FROM THAT MEETING, IS THAT THE CITY IS LOOKING FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING.

OUR PREVIOUS PLAN WAS VERY HEAVY IN CATEGORY 1.

AT THAT TIME, SEVEN YEARS AGO, THAT WAS MORE THE MARKET FOR ROWLETT. IT WAS MORE YOUR 55, 60 FOOT LOTS. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN THROUGH PHASE 1 AND NOW PHASE 2, THERE IS A DEFINITE DEMAND AND SHORTAGE OF HOMES THAT ARE IN THE 35-FOOT RANGE.

THAT ARE TOWNHOMES, THAT ARE THE 35-FOOT.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO PIVOT BASED ON WHAT I HEARD THE LAST TIME I WAS IN FRONT OF YOU ALL AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING IN TERMS OF A GAP IN THE HOUSING PROVIDED. HOW IT'S IN ROWLETT.

THAT'S ONE OF THE BEAUTIFUL THINGS ABOUT THE FORM-BASED CODE IS. YOU HAVE THOSE 20% REQUIREMENTS PER CATEGORY, BUT YOU CAN KIND OF MOVE AND MEET WHAT IS REQUIRED AND WHAT PEOPLE WANT WITHIN THOSE BOUNDS.

THAT IS KIND OF WHERE WE'RE GOING IN TERMS OF THAT SLIGHT BUMP IN REELEVATION OF LOT TYPES.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS JUST KIND OF HELPS YOU VISUALIZE THE PHASING PLAN AND SHOW HOW WE ARE REALLY LOOKING AT, THROUGH THREE, FOUR AND FIVE, HOW THEY'RE CONTIGUOUS.

WE CAN BANK DIRT AND HELP ALLEVIATE THE TOPOGRAPHY AS WE GO ALONG. NEXT SLIDE.

AND THEN ANOTHER THING IS, WITH THE BANKING PLAN, I KNOW THE MAYOR WROTE, I HAVE BEEN TRACKING IT FOR SOMETIME.

WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, GET THE BEST SHOT WE CAN OF THAT BEING APPROVED BEFORE WE START THAT PHASE.

I KNOW IN THE FUTURE -- IT WOULD BE CLEANER IF THAT WAS IN FIRST AND THEN MAKE A CONNECTION TO IT, RATHER THAN US BE THERE ESTABLISHED AND THEN THAT CONSTRUCTION START HAPPENING ON A MAJOR ENTRANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

NEXT SLIDE. THAT KIND OF SHOWS YOU THE ALIGNMENT WITH OUR PLAN OF PHASE 5 THE WAY THAT CONNECTER IS ROUGHLY SHOWN ON THOSE PLANS FROM THE BOTTOM HALF OF IT.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT WOULD BE. I THINK THAT'S THE LAST SLIDE.

THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR

[00:30:04]

STAFF OR THE DEVELOPER. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND LET ME KNOW WHO YOU WANT TO ASK. QUESTIONS? MISS ESTEVEZ? MUTE.

>> MY DOG WAS MAKING NOISE. FIRST QUESTION FOR STAFF.

HAVE YOU LOOKED AT ALL OF THE -- ARE THERE ANY POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH TRAFFIC IN THE NORTHWESTERN PORTION OF THAT, LEFT OF THAT ERIK HRAR AREA AS FAR AS TRAFFIC?

>> IF YOU DON'T MIND -- >> DO THE HOUSES HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON TRAFFIC. IS THAT TRAFFIC ALLEVIATED BY

THE NEW CONNECTION POINT. >> OBVIOUSLY, Y'ALL HAVE LOOKED

AT IT? >> WE HAVE LOOKED AT IT IN THE VERY BIG PICTURE. A LOT OF THIS WOULD BE ANALYZED WHEN THE ZONING PLAN DOES COME INTO PLAY.

>> OKAY. SO IT WILL BE LOOKED AT? THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVE.

>> DEFINITELY. ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT, WE WOULD RUN THROUGH THAT TEST JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING

ANY EXTRA LOADS ON OUR TRAFFIC. >> OKAY.

>> I HAVE TO INTERRUPT FOR JUST A SECOND.

I SEE MR. COTE HAS JOINED US. SINCE MR. SEGARS HAS ALREADY

VOTED, HOW DO WE DO THAT? >> I THINK AT THIS POINT YOU HAVE IS A QUORUM. MR. COTE IS WELCOME TO LISTEN

IN. >> ALL RIGHT.

JOHN, YOU ARE OBSERVING SINCE YOU WEREN'T AT THE TEE TIME.

APPRECIATE YOU SHOWING UP. WE'LL CONTINUE.

QUINN, YOU'RE STILL VOTING. ALL RIGHT.

WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAD FOR STAFF OR THE

DEVELOPER? >> NO.

NO MORE QUESTIONS. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR DEVELOPER? I HAVE SEVERAL. MR. ENGEN?

>> WITH REGARDS TO OPEN SPACE, I AP PRAOERB KWRAEUTD WHAT YOU HAVE INFORMED US ABOUT MAKING THE CHANGES THERE ON THE TOPOGRAPHY. I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW.

IS IT STILL ENOUGH OPEN SPACE? I THINK RIGHT NOW, HAVING GONE THROUGH COVID-19 AND IN THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, WITH SO MANY HOMES SO CLOSE TOGETHER, IS THAT ADEQUATE OPEN SPACE?

>> WHO ARE YOU ADDRESSING, MR. ENGEN, STAFF OR THE

DEVELOPER? >> PROBABLY THE DEVELOPER.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT STAFF THOUGHT, TOO.

>> OKAY. >> I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY IN A VERY OPINIONATED RESPONSE THAT SPLITTING UP OPEN SPACES ALLOWS FOR BETTER SEPARATION OF PEOPLE'S USE OF THE SPACES.

WHERE AS HAVING A MORE CENTRALIZED SPACE DOES BRING OR TEND TO FOCUS MORE PEOPLE ON A SINGULAR OR CENTRALIZED SPACE.

AND SO IF, LIKE I SAID, VERY OPINIONATED RESPONSE.

IF OUR CONCERN IS SEPARATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND STILL ALLOWING THEM TO USE OPEN SPACE, IT DOES SEEM TO BE IN THE RIGHT

DIRECTION. >> MR. GIETEMA.

HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME?

CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT AS WELL? >> I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT IS TOP OF MIND DURING THESE TIMES WITH COVID-19. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE LOOKING AT HAVING A VACCINE, HOPEFULLY, OR MULTIPLE VACCINES IN THE COMING YEARS. WE ARE CREATING MUCH BETTER OPEN SPACES. I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE -- WE SHOULDN'T BE DESIGNING OPEN SPACES NECESSARILY RIGHT NOW WITH THAT SMALL A CHANGE BASED ON COVID-19.

I DO AGREE WITH CARLOS. HAVING SMALLER OPEN SPACES DOES PROVIDE PROBABLY MORE SEPARATION THAN ONE LARGE OPEN SPACE WHERE

[00:35:03]

PEOPLE CONGREGATE MORE TO ONE AREA.

>> STAFF, MANUL, YOU'RE RAISING YOUR HAND?

YES, MA'AM. >> WE DO WANT TO ITERATE IF YOU LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN OPEN SPACE, IT IS STILL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE FORM-BASED CODE.

AGAIN, IT IS A WALKABLE COMMUNITY SO THERE WILL BE OUTDOOR ACTIVITY IN THAT OUTDOOR COMPONENT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD COMPROMISE THE CURRENT SITUATION AT THIS TIME.

>> I BRING IT UP BECAUSE BACK YARD LOTS ARE VERY SMALL.

IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN OR FAMILIES WANTING TO GET OUT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE FOR PEOPLE TO GO TO ANOTHER LOCATION AND JUST ENJOY THE OUT OF DOORS.

>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE DEVELOPER? RAISE YOUR HAND.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

THIS IS FOR STAFF. FOR CARLOS OR MANUL.

THE CHANGING OF THE PHASING AND THE REASON WHY WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS IS BECAUSE THERE'S AN INCENTIVE PROVIDED BY THE CITY TO THE DEVELOPER, IS THAT CORRECT, FOR PHASE 1, 2 AND 3?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THERE'S STREETS AND SEWERS AND STUFF. THEY WANT TO CHANGE PHASE 3.

PHASE 3 THEN, WE'VE ALREADY PAID FOR.

I MEAN, EXPLAIN HOW THIS WORKS. BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE, NUMBER ONE, THAT WHAT WE'RE PAYING ATTENTION TO, WE PAID FOR A CERTAIN THING WHEN WE HAD THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THIS REGULATED PLAN. WE EXPECTED THIS TO GO IN A CERTAIN STAGE. THE CITY WOULD STEP UP AND PAY FOR A CERTAIN THING. NOW THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO CHANGE THE REGULATED PLAN, CHANGE THE PHASE ORDER.

HOW DOES THAT -- TALK ABOUT THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS WITH THE CITY.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN MOSELEY. I THINK YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD THE WAY YOU PHRASED YOUR QUESTION ABSOLUTELY, THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT IS IN PLACE THAT SAYS FOR THE FIRST THREE PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT, THERE WOULD BE CREDIT TOWARD WATER, SEWER AND ROADWAY.

IF THEY DO REALIGN OR REARRANGE THAT PHASING PROGRAM, IT'S STILL CAPPED AT A CERTAIN AMOUNT. THE CONCERN, THE REASON WHY THIS APPLICATION IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT ULTIMATELY THIS WENT BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AND A CERTAIN REGULATING PLAN WAS PROPOSED WITH SPECIFICITY AS IT RELATES TO NUMBER OF LOTS, NOT THE CATEGORIES OF LOTS.

SO BECAUSE IT'S CHANGED, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD ONLY BE APPROPRIATE TO ROUTE IT THROUGH THIS PROCESS WHERE THE P&Z COULD CONFIRM AND REVIEW IT. THERE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE. THEY ARE STILL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE FORM-BASED CODE.

IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM A LOT CATEGORY STANDPOINT AND STREET NETWORK STANDPOINT FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED. I WOULD AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT IN THE PLANNING REPORT AND TO AN EXTENT WHAT MR. GIETEMA SAID.

ONCE THE VISION STARTS BEING REALIZED, THEN CHANGES DO OCCUR.

THE INTENT AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THE INTENT IS BASICALLY TO HAVE THAT TRANSPARENCY LEVEL.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT STATEMENT IN THE CODE THAT IT COULD COME FORWARD. I KNOW I RAMBLED A TAD.

>> MY QUESTION IS, IS PHASE 3 IS CHANGING.

WE PAID FOR IT AND NOW IT'S NOT DONE.

WHEREAS -- >> RIGHT.

I GET YOU. WE HAVEN'T PAID FOR PHASE 3.

THE CREDIT IS THERE. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. >> THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT CAP.

SO THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BUILD IT BEYOND THAT CAP.

IT WILL ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO THE FIRST THREE PHASES, WHATEVER

THEY END UP BEING. >> OKAY.

>> THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION WAS THIS WOULD BE THE PLAN.

THE GRADING CHALLENGES THE DEVELOPER HAS PRESENTED, THEY WERE SELF-EVIDENT. BUT THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF THE LARGER ESTATE LOTS AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.

JUST BRINGING THIS TO THE BOARD AS AN UPDATE ON THIS.

>> HERE'S MY OTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THE LOT SIZES.

YOU'VE SAID SEVERAL TIMES WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE FORM-BASED

[00:40:01]

CODE. CAN YOU BASICALLY TELL ME AGAIN WHAT THE PARAMETERS OF THE FORM-BASED CODE IS? 40, 20, 20, SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YOU CAN HAVE UP TO 40% OF A PARTICULAR TYPE AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO 20% OF A DIFFERENT TYPE? CAN YOU REHASH THAT FOR ME? I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, THEY ARE REQUESTING A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FOR WHAT WE APPROVED ON THIS PHASE WITH THESE SMALLER LOTS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TOTALLY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, AS FAR AS A FORM-BASED PROJECT GOES. I KNOW THIS IS THE VANGUARD PROJECT FOR OUR CITY AND PROBABLY FOR NORTH TEXAS, REALLY, AT LEAST THE DALLAS AREA, FOR THIS TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME CLEARLY HOW THIS MASSIVE CHANGE OF ADDING 100 HOUSES THAT ARE GOING TO BE ON SMALLER LOTS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR CURRENT

APPROVED REGULATING PLAN? >> CERTAINLY.

AND SO WE'RE FOLLOWING THE FORM-BASED CODE, AS YOU STARTED TO DISCUSS. MINIMUM OF 20% FOR EACH CATEGORY. WHICH IF YOU FOLLOW THE BARE MINIMUM FOR TWO CATEGORIES, IT ALLOWS FOR UP TO 60% OF ONE CATEGORY. SO INITIALLY YOU HAD A 58% OF THE CATEGORY ONE WHICH ARE THE LARGER LOTS.

THIS IS NOW BEING -- YOU COULD SAY MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED TO ALMOST BEING EQUAL THREE PARTS. SO ALL THREE PARTS ARE STILL MEETING THE MINIMUM 20% AND BEING CLOSER TO THAT 33%, 34%.

I BELIEVE THE REDUCTION WAS FROM 58% TO 36% FOR CATEGORY ONE.

THERE IS AN EVEN MORE EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF LOT TYPES, BUT THE INITIAL APPROVAL WAS FOR UP ALMOST 60% APPROVAL OF CATEGORY ONE WITH THE REMAINING BEING CLOSER TO 20%.

>> YOU ARE SAYING EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF A CERTAIN CATEGORY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THROUGHOUT

THE PROJECT, NOT IN PHASES. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> MY CONCERN IS THAT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BOUGHT IN ORDER, THAT ARE IN PHASE 1 OR PHASE 2 THAT HAVE THESE, I THINK IT'S A BEAUTIFUL JOB THE DEVELOPER HAS DONE OUT THERE.

I THINK THAT'S A UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I REALLY STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

MY CONCERN IS THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA LIVE THERE, THAT ARE LIVING THERE NOW, WERE AWARE OF THE REGULATED PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED ALREADY BY THE CITY AND PLANNERS AND THE CITY COUNCIL.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT TO PUT A BUNCH OF LITTLE LOTS IN THE BACK AND PUT MORE HOUSES BACK THERE.

I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO ADDRESS MY CONCERNS ON THAT.

THIS IS A SIGNIFICANTS SMALLER LOT SIZE.

WE SEE IT ALL THE TIME, DEVELOPERS WANTING TO BUILD SMALLER AND SMALLER LOTS. YEAH, THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE FORM-BASED CODE. BUT AREN'T YOU CONCERNED THAT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BOUGHT IN THAT LIVE IN PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 AREN'T GOING TO BE CONCERNED THAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO CHANGE HIS PLAN AND MAKE A BUNCH OF SMALLER HOUSES IN THE BACK?

I'LL LET THAT TO CARLOS. >> PERFECT.

I THINK FROM A FORM-BASED, A GENERAL FORM-BASED UNDERSTANDING, THE WAY WE TREAT THE SCENARIO IS REALLY ABOUT FORM. WE'RE STILL PROVIDING THE SAME PRODUCT TYPE. WE'RE STILL PROVIDING THAT STREET EXPERIENCE. WE'RE STILL PROVIDING THAT SAME WALKABILITY. THERE, OBVIOUSLY, WILL BE MORE FAMILIES. I THINK THE EXPERIENCE IN ITSELF, I DON'T THINK IT'S CHANGING FOR THEIR EXISTING LOTS. THEY'LL STILL HAVE ACCESS TO PARKS, MORE PARKS. THEY'LL STILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME AMENITIES THAT THEY WERE OFFERED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

I THINK THE CHANGE HERE WOULD BE SIMPLY WHAT THEIR PRODUCT AVAILABILITY FOR NEWCOMERS WOULD BE, BUT THE EXPERIENCE FROM A FORM BASED UNDERSTANDING IS BEING MAINTAINED.

>> I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO DO.

HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE CITY ON THE IMPACT FEES FOR PHASE 1, 2

[00:45:04]

AND 3, WE WOULD HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS.

IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT RIGHT?

>> POSSIBLY. >> SO ALL THESE CHANGES THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS COME FORWARD WITH, THE ONLY REASON WE'RE SEEING IT IS BECAUSE THE PHASING AND THE MONEY THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR THE

IMPACT FEES, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I WOULD SAY TO AN EXTENT, I THINK THERE WAS A MUTUAL FEELING WITH MANUL AND MYSELF WHEN WE FIRST SAW THIS BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE ESTABLISHED THAT WE WANTED TO GET IT IN FRONT OF THE P&Z COUNCIL BECAUSE, LIKE YOU SAY, IT WAS A VAN GUARD PROJECT.

IT WAS A PROJECT THAT WAS BOUGHT IN BY THE CITY FROM THE VERY

BEGINNING. >> OKAY.

I SEE MISS ESTEVEZ HAS HER HAND RAISED.

SHE IS ON MUTE AGAIN. >> THANK YOU.

I WANT TO ASK PHR ANUL A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

HAVING BEEN IN LAND DEVELOPMENT. I HAVEN'T BEEN IN LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR AWHILE, ALMOST 15, 20 YEARS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE WORKED WITH INVESTORS AND ENGINEERING AND, OF COURSE, THEY WERE ALWAYS TRYING TO SQUEEZE EM IN, SQUEEZE EM IN. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN OUR, FROM A CITIZEN VIEWPOINT, FROM A PERSON, FOR SOMEONE IN OUR POSITION TRYING TO GET THE BEST POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT FOR ITS CITIZENS OF OUR CITY, WE LOOKED AT DENSITY VERY HARD.

THAT'S WHY JIM HAS THE QUESTIONS HE HAS.

I HAVE THEM ON MY MIND, TOO. AS THE DEVELOPER STARTED GOING THROUGH THE REASONING, ETC, IT APPEARED TO ME THAT THERE COULD BE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF COST WITH ALL OF THIS DIRT MOVING.

THAT HE COULD MAKE UP TO SOME DEGREE WITH SOME OF THESE ADDITIONAL LOTS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS PART OF IT OR NOT. MY QUESTION TO MANUL IS, AND I THINK LIKE A LOT OF WHAT HE SAID AS IT RELATES TO MOVING FORWARD WITH THE BEST POSSIBLE IDEAS OF MAKING THESE AN OPEN AREA AND AESTHETIC SO THE PEOPLE THAT WILL LIVE THERE AS GOOD AS YOU CAN GET IT. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO THINK THROUGH ALL THOSE THINGS, BUT HE DID. HE WANTS TO MAKE IT A GOOD PROPERTY. I GET THAT FEELING FROM HIM.

SO I'M INTERESTED TO KNOW, OR MAYBE HE WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS.

AS IT RELATES TO JIM'S CONCERN, WHICH I AGREE, WHAT WOULD BE -- COULD IT BE SIGNIFICANT, THE COST OF ALL OF THIS DIRT MOVING?

>> DEFINITELY A QUESTION THAT MR. GIETEMA CAN ADDRESS WITH MORE DETAIL. WE DON'T DISAGREE THAT ALTERING THE PHASING PROGRAM, ONE DOES NOT IMPACT THE ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAM AT PWAULZ IT'S CAPPED AT THREE PHASES.

THE NEXT ISSUE IS FROM A GRADING PERSPECTIVE, THERE IS A GREAT DIFFERENTIAL. EQUIPMENT MOBILIZED IN A CERTAIN AREA, PERHAPS IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO DO WHAT THEY PROPOSED, FOR EXAMPLE. DEFINITELY THERE IS COST INVOLVED. THE REASON -- I'M GOING TO GO OFF ON A SLIGHT TANGENT HERE. HAD THIS BEEN A MAJOR WANT, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE THEY WERE MAKING CHANGES IN COMPLETE CONFLICT OF THE CODE.

COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IS, WE KNOW THAT AS FAR AS THE PERCENTAGE LOT FROM A CATEGORY STANDPOINT, MAKEUP IS CONCERNED, THEY COMPLY WITH THAT.

THEIR OPEN SPACE A LOTMENT HAS DECREASED, IT STILL IS ABOVE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED, MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IN THE FORM-BASED CODE. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THIS WAS, AS I THINK CHAIRMAN MOSELEY, YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS A PROJECT, THAT WAS THE FLAGSHIP TO A CERTAIN EXTENT AS FAR AS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE CHANGES WERE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT IT CAME TO YOURSELF AND THE CITY COUNCIL. SO DEFINITELY THERE'S A COST

[00:50:01]

INVOLVED. DEFINITELY THINGS EVOLVE AS SUBDIVISION IS REALIZED AND THEY ARE DETERMINING THAT VISION.

WE DON'T SEE IT IMPACTING THE INCENTIVE AGREEMENT AT ALL JUST BECAUSE OF HOW IT'S AUTHORED. BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE DO SEE SOME CHANGES THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COMMUNITY AND YOURSELF AND THE CITY COUNCIL GETS THAT OPPORTUNITY.

LET'S SAY THERE WAS ANOTHER APPLICATION WHERE THERE WAS AN APPROVED REGULATING PLAN AND THERE WERE CHANGES THAT WERE SIMILAR, WE WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY BROUGHT THAT FORWARD.

SO WE WOULD THEN ADDRESS WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE AND WHAT WE KNOW. AGAIN, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FAVORABLE AT THIS TIME. WE UNDERSTAND WHERE THE

APPLICANT IS COMING FROM. >> MR. GIETEMA, DUPE TO SPEAK ANY MORE ON THAT SUBJECT? YOU'RE ON MUTE, SIR.

>> YES. I HAVE ONE OR TWO THINGS TO SAY IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.

I THINK, MR. MOSELEY, IN TERMS OF THE SHIFT IN THE TYPES OF HOMES AND GOING SMALLER, IN OUR VIEW, SHIFTING TO A MORE EVEN DISTRIBUTION IS ACTUALLY IN LINE WITH KEEPING OF THE FORM BASED CODE. THAT IS THE ULTIMATE PINNACLE OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS HAVE AN EVENLY DISTRIBUTED HOUSING SPECTRUM. THE REASON THEY HAVE THE CAPS IS WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS PROJECT, IT WAS WIDELY BELIEVED, ESPECIALLY TO ME, THAT ROWLETT HOME MARKET WAS FOR FAMILIES, LARGER FAMILIES, PARENTS, THREE KIDS, DOG.

THAT IS POINTED TOWARD THE LARGER ESTATE LOTS.

THE REASON THAT FORM-BASED CODE HAS THE CAP, OR THE MINIMUM OF THE 20 AND 20 IS SO THAT YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE ONE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE SAME HOME OVER AND OVER, THE SAME PRODUCT TYPE.

FROM OUR VIEW, THE READING OF THE FORM BASED CODE AND THE INTENT IS TO HAVE THAT SPECTRUM OF HOUSING TYPES AND TO PROVIDE THE FACT THAT -- WE HAVE TEACHERS, POLICEMEN, YOUNG FAMILY, EMPTY NESTERS.

YOU HAVE A BIGGER VARIETY OF HOMEOWNERS BUYING IN THIS GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. WE SEE THIS AS THE ULTIMATE PINNACLE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE FORM BASED CODE.

THAT WILL BE MY ANSWER TO THAT. AS MANUL SAID, WE DO NOT -- THE CITY IS NOT PAYING FOR THIS PHASE.

WE EARN IT, IN TERMS OF WE HAVE THAT CREDIT.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANYTHING.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DECREASE ANYTHING.

FOR ANY REASON.G TO GO SMALLER - WE ARE TRYING TO JUST CREATE A BETTER NEIGHBORHOOD AND REALLY IN LINE WITH THE ETHOS OF THE FORM-BASED CODE. AS WE GO SMALLER, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOWNHOMES THEY HAVE A MUCH HIGHER PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT THAN THE LARGER HOMES. I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE HOA.

I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYBODY IN PHASE 1 SAYING OH MY GOSH, THERE'S TOWNHOMES. I DO NOT THINK THAT HAVING A MORE EVEN DISTRIBUTION IS AGAINST WHAT THE FORM-BASED CODE

REALLY STANDS FOR. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE DEVELOPER AT THIS TIME? I DON'T SEE -- MR. ENGEN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? IS IT FOR THE STAFF OR DEVELOPER? YOU'RE ON MUTE, SIR. YOU'RE ON MUTE.

>> THANK YOU. REFRESH MY MEMORY AGAIN, BECAUSE I THOUGHTED WE MADE SOME CHANGES ON SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR COTTAGES.

WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON COTTAGES?

>> THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WE BUMPED THE MAXIMUM, ORIGINAL MAXIMUM, THE RANGE WAS 800 SQUARE FEET TO 1400 SQUARE FEET.

RANGE OF THE LOTS ARE A MINIMUM OF 25, I BELIEVE, TO 39 IS THE

[00:55:01]

RANGE. OUR CASITAS ARE 35 FEET WIDE SO THEY'RE IN THE HIGHER RANGE OF THAT RANGE OF LOT SIZE, AND WE BUMPED THE MINIMUM FROM 1400 AND THEN MADE THE MINIMUM 1800, I THINK. MAXIMUM OF 1400 TO MINIMUM OF

1800. >> CARLOS, I SEE YOU HAVE YOUR

HAND RAISED. >> IT WASN'T COTTAGES, IT WAS CASITA LOTS THAT WERE CHANGED. THE CHANGE WAS FROM A BAND OF 400 TO -- SORRY, 800 TO 1400, TO A MAXIMUM OF 2500.

AND SO IT'S FROM 1400 TO 2500 WAS THE INCREASE IN AREA THAT WAS ALLOWED FOR CASITAS. THAT INDICATES, THEY DID MENTION AS PART OF THEIR PRESENTATION AND THEIR REQUEST LETTER THAT MOST OF THEIR HOUSES WERE MAXED OUT AT 2200 WITH, I BELIEVE, ONE OR TWO HOMES THAT WOULD BE CLOSER TO THAT 2500 RANGE.

>> DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. ENGEN?

>> WOULD MORE CASITAS HOMES SELL THAN COTTAGES? THAT SEEMS TO BE THE PATTERN IN ROWLETT.

>> I CAN SAY THE COTTAGES ARE OUTPACING THE CASITAS.

THEY ARE BOTH VERY POPULAR. CURRENTLY, THE 45, LARGER ONES, ARE OUTPACING THE 35. BUT THERE ARE IN PHASE 2 JUST LESS 35 FOOT LOTS THAN THERE ARE 45.

JUST LESS BUYING CHOICE. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE DEVELOPER? RAISE YOUR HAND.

OKAY. AT THIS TIME, THANK YOU STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER. NOW WE HAVE DISCUSSION TIME.

COMMISSIONERS, DISCUSS. MR. SWIFT, ANYTHING TO SAY?

>> SORRY. NO, I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD.

>> OKAY. LET'S SEE.

MR. WINTON? >> NO, NOTHING TO ADD.

>> ALL RIGHT. MR. SEGARS? MR. SEGARS, YOU'RE ON MUTE, I THINK.

CAN'T HEAR YOU. THERE YOU GO.

NOPE. YOU'RE ON MUTE OR YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY, ONE OR THE OTHER.

>> I HAVE NOTHING. >> MISS ESTEVEZ?

>> NO. I'M GOOD.

>> MISS MCKEE. >> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.

>> MR. ENGEN? >> NOTHING ADDITIONAL.

>> I HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD. NUMBER ONE, IF THIS HADN'T COME BEFORE US BECAUSE IT'S A FORM-BASED CODE NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE THIS IS A REGULATING PLAN MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FORM-BASED CODE PROJECT, THAT'S FINE.

I'M VERY CONCERNED ALL THE TIME WITH BUILDING BIGGER HOUSES ON SMALLER LOTS AS PROJECTS GET APPROVED THEN TWO YEARS LATER, EVERYBODY WANTS TO CHANGE THE PLAN TO BUILD SMALLER LOTS AND BIGGER HOUSES WHICH IS WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

>> KIND OF LIKE A BAIT AND SWITCH.

>> IT'S HAPPENED REPEATEDLY SINCE I HAVE BEEN ON PLANNING AND ZONING. NUMBER TWO, I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANYBODY COME IN HERE AND SAY NOBODY WANTS TO BUY HOUSES ON BIGGER LOTS. IT'S ALWAYS EVERYBODY SAYS WE'RE LOOKING FOR SMALLER LOTS. IT SEEMS TO ME -- I'M NOT A BUILDER OR DEVELOPER, THAT THAT'S WHAT'S GETTING BUILT AND THAT'S WHAT'S SELLING. BUT IF THERE WERE HOUSES ON BIGGER LOTS, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THIS ISSUE.

MY MAIN CONCERN WITH THIS IS THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THE IMPACT FEES AND IT WAS ALREADY APPROVED FOR THE PHASING OF THIS.

AS I HAVE BEEN ASSURED BY THIS, IT'S NOT AN ISSUE.

I THINK THE DEVELOPER MAKES A VALID POINT ON THE PARK.

THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN NAILED DOWN BEFORE, AS FAR AS THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE GOES WHEN THEY DID THEIR INITIAL SURVEY.

THAT IF THERE WAS SUPPOSEDLY A PROBLEM WITH LOOKING DOWN ON ROOFS OF HOUSES, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.PI UNDE. BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN ASSURED BY STAFF THESE CHANGES DO NOT MAKE UP THIS WITHIN THE FORM --

[01:00:02]

WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE FORM-BASED CODE AS APPROVED BY OUR CITY COUNCIL, I WILL RECOMMEND -- I PERSONALLY WILL RECOMMEND PASSING THIS. I'LL TELL YA WHAT, THIS BETTER GO BEFORE THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

WHEN THEY FIND OUT THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF SMALLER HOUSES THAN WHAT THEY THOUGHT, I HAVE A FEELING THAT THEIR IMPRESSION MAY CHANGE ON THIS. THAT SAID, I WILL BE SUPPORTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BECAUSE I AM CERTAIN THEY'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THIS CORRECTLY.

SO, I THINK WE'VE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS, STATE OUR OPINION AND I AM READY FOR A MOTION.

I AM READY FOR A MOTION. MISS ESTEVEZ.

>> I'LL MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE TO CHANGE THE REGULAR LATEDING PLAN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MS. MCKEE. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE REGULATING PLAN RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT ITEM CARRIES UNANIMOUS.

NO, WE HAVE ONE -- ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX.

6-1. AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. 6-1.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS. WE ARE ADJOURNED.

MR. QUINN SEGARS, YOU ARE WAITING YOUR HAND?

>> NO, NO. >> WE ARE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.