Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:02]

GOOD EVENING. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE ROWLETT PLANNING AND ZONING FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 25TH. WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. FIRST ITEM IS THE CITIZEN'S INPUT SECTION WHERE CITIZEN IT IS OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT CAN TALK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHETHER ON THE AGENDA OR NOT ON THE AGENDA. THE WAY WE'RE DOING THESE, I HAVE TO TURN THIS OVER TO MISS HALLMARK. DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZEN INPUT?

>> WE DO NOT. >> BEING00. THEN AT THIS TIME, WE WILL CLOSE THE CITIZEN'S INPUT SECTION AND MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM ON THE

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

CONSENT AGENDA, CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING OF JULY 28TH, 2020.

COMMISSIONERS DID EVERYBODY GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE MINUTE SNS

>> YES. >> ANY ISSUE SNS >> NO.

SEEING NONE, I AM READY MOTION. >> MR. COTE.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. ANY SECOND?

>> MR. ENGEN. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION RAISE YOUR HANDS. THAT ITEM CARRIES, 1, TWO, THREE, FOUR, OKAY.

UNANIMOUS. THERE WE GO. HOW MANY DO WE HAVE?

1, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN. >> FULL HOUSE.

[4A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council for a request by David Peris, White Rock Remodeling, to rezone the subject properties from Single Family Residential (SF-8) District to Planned Development (PD) District for Single Family Residential (SF-8) and Assisted Living Facility uses, to develop the site with four structures for assisted living for the elderly. The approximately 1-acre site is located east of Fuqua Road, between Garner Road and Seascape Drive, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

NOW WE'RE GOING TO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ITEM 4 A. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A REQUEST BY DAVID PARIS WHILE ROCK REMODELING TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF8 DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF8 AND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY USES.

TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH FOUR STRUCTURES FOR ASSISTED LIVING FOR THE ELDERLY.

THE APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF FUQUA ROAD BETWEEN GARNER AND SEA SCAPE, CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS, COUNTY, TEXAS. MS. BRADLEY IS THAT YOU?

>> I WILL BE PRESENTING THAT. >> FOR MY FIRST SHOT HERE IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION.

>> THERE YOU GO. >> I WILL TRY TO MAKE THIS BRIEF BUT ALSO WORTH EVERYBODY'S WHILE. AS THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AS THE CHAIR READ INTO THE RECORD, THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR REQUEST BY DAVID PARIS OF WHITE ROCK REMODELING TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF8 DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DISTRICT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BASED IN THE SF8 SCONE AND ASSISTED FACILITY USES TO DEVELOP FOUR STRUCTURES, ONE OF WHICH IS EXISTING FOR ASSISTED LIVING FOR THE ELDERLY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS REQUEST WOULD BE APPROVE THE CONCEPT PLAN TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTIES WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY SF8 DISTRICT AS THE BASE ZONING, THE INTENT OF THE PD WOULD BE TO MODIFY THE BASE ZONING AS IT RELATES TO THE USE TO ADD THE SF 8, I'M SORRY, TO ADD THE ASSISTING LIVING USE TO THE SF 8 DISTRICT AS A PERMITTED USE AND ALSO TO MODIFY SOME OF THE SETBACKS. BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR, A MINOR PLAT WAS APPROVED TO ESTABLISH FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY SF 8 ZONE. THIS PLAT ALSO INCLUDED A 50 FOOT FUTURE STREET RESERVATION WHICH WOULD ALLOW ACCESS TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. TO NOTE THERE IS AN ALREADY ONE HOME ON THE ENTIRE TRACT HERE LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN PORTION WHICH IS LOT ONE. IT IS PLATTED FOR THESE FOUR LOTS WHICH WOULD MEET THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SF 8. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SITE INGRESS AND EGRESS WOULD BE FROM FUQUA ROAD. CURRENTLY IT IS AN IMPROVED 2-LANE CONCRETE STREET WITH CURB AND GUTTER. THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE DOES CLASSIFY IT AS A RESIDENTIAL STREET. THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FUTURE ROAD DEVELOPMENT.

WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE PARKS AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN INDICATES A FUTURE TRAIL TO BE SITUATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF FUQUA ROAD, THIS TRAIL WOULD CONNECT UP WITH THE EAST, WEST TRAIL PROPOSED

[00:05:02]

FOR GARNER ROAD, WHICH WOULD BE LOCATED SLIGHTLY TO THE NORTH AND ALSO TO THE BASE SIDE TRAIL ALONG LAKE RAY HUBBARD TO THE SOUTH AND ALSO WOULD ACCESS THE CITY WIDE TRAIL NETWORK.

THE TRAIL THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED HERE WOULD ANOTHER UTILIZE FUQUA ROAD OR WOULD HAVE AN ALIGNMENT WHICH WOULD BE NEARER TO LAKE RAY HUBBARD TO THE WEST OF SPIN AKER ROAD.

THIS WOULD BE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH DEVELOPERS AS OPPORTUNITIES ARISE.

THE CURRENT SF ZONING WOULD ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.

THE LOT SIZE WOULD BE NO LESS THAN 8,000 SQUARE FEET. ONE RESIDENCE IS DEVELOPED ON THAT ONE, THE REASON, ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE HERE TONIGHT WOULD BE THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE SF 8 DISTRICT. EITHER BY RIGHT OR THROUGH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION HERE ON LOT ONE. THE EXISTING HOME WOULD BE RENOVATED TO ALLOW FOR USE OF ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH FIVE BEDROOMS, FOUR BATHROOMS. HOUSING OF UP TO 12 RESIDENTS PER STATE LICENSE. THERE'S 4 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED ON THAT SITE. THE REMAINING LOTS WOULD THEN BE DEVELOPED WITH STRUCTURES RANGING IN AREA BETWEEN 2500 AND 2700 SQUARE FEET.

EACH SITE WOULD HAVE 2 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES WHICH WE CONSTRUCTED.

THESE HOMES WOULD ALSO HAVE TWO-AND-A-HALF BATHROOMS, FIVE BEDROOMS, ALSO A CAPACITY OF UP TO 12 RESIDENTS PER BUILDING. THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THE INTENTION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BLEND IN TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER AND WOULD STRIVE FOR EACH BUILDING TO APPEAR TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. I WOULD ALSO NOTE EACH STRUCTURE WOULD BE SITUATED ON EACH FUTURE LOT AS LAID OUT. ALTHOUGH THE OWNER WOULD BE UNDER A SINGLE ENTITY. ALLY ARE NOT PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE BUILDINGS WOULD NOT HAVE GARAGES OR CAR PORTS. THE RESIDENTS WOULD NOT BE SLATED TO DRIVE OR HAVE VEHICLES. NEXT SLIDE.

SO HERE IS THE CHART WITH THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS WITH THE SF 8 REQUIREMENTS LAID OUT IN THE CENTER COLUMN, AND THE PROPOSED PD STANDARDS LAID OUT IN THE COLUMN ON THE RIGHT.

ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEING, OR THE STANDARDS BEING PROPOSED UNDER THE PD WOULD BE THE SAME. I WILL NOTE THE ONES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT UNDER THE PD, THAT WOULD BE THE PARKING WOULD NOT, THERE WOULD BE TWO SPACES PROVIDED PER DWELLING UNITS, HOWEVER NO GARAGES OR CAR PORTS. THE SIDE YARD AND, I'M SORRY, THE STREET SIDE SETBACK WOULD BE UNDER THE PD TO BE REDUCED TO 7.5 FEET AND THE REAR YARD SETBACK IS PROPOSED TO BE SETBACK TO FIVE FEET. THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO INTEGRATE WHAT HAS BEEN TYPICALLY SEEN AS AN INCOMPATIBLE USE AS LIVING ASSISTED FACILITY INTO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE THROUGH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INTENDED TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE AT A SCALE APPROPRIATE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SURROUNDING LAND USE AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAP THERE. PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

ALSO PREDOMINANTLY SF8 ZONE. WOULD NOTE THE PROPERTY THERE TO THE EAST YOU CAN SEE THE HOPEFULLY CAN SEE IN THE CLARITY THERE OF THE LOT LAYOUT THAT CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO FUQUA ROAD. THIS WOULD BE PROVIDED AGAIN THROUGH THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVE WHICH WILL SHOW UP LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION MORE CLEARLY ON THAT.

AGAIN TO NOTE, AT LEAST MAKE SURE WE HAVE AT LEAST ONCE INTO THE RECORD THIS EVENING.

SHOULD BE THERE A STREET CONSTRUCTED THERE, THIS WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE OWNERS AND/OR DEVELOPERS OF THE VACANT PROPERTIES TO THE EAST. IT WOULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED SHOULD THIS PROPOSAL BE APPROVED, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THE CITY WOULD BE LOOKING TO UNDERTAKE FOR DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ALSO WERE ZONED SF 8 AND

[00:10:02]

THEN ALSO TO THE WEST, YOU HAVE SF 8 AND ADDITIONAL SF 20 ZONING.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE ANALYSIS WITH THIS IS AGAIN THAT THE PREDOMINANT PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA WOULD BE LARGER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT ARE SITUATED ON TYPICALLY NON-SUBDIVISION LOTS. YOU SEE THERE ARE SOME SUBDIVISIONS IN THE VICINITY. NOTABLY TO THE SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST OF THIS PROPERTY.

THE APPLICANT AGAIN WOULD WISH TO DEVELOP THE NEW STRUCTURES TO BLEND IN WITH THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA TO NOT HAVE IT APPEAR TO BE EITHER COMMERCIAL OR INSTITUTIONAL.

THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES DO RESEMBLE RESIDENCES ALTHOUGH LACKING A GARAGE OR CAR PORT TYPICALLY FOUND WITH A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THE PARKING AREAS THAT ARE PROPOSED, THIS WILL AGAIN SHOW UP LATER ON IN THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN.

WOULD BE SCREENED FOR FUQUA ROAD WITH SHRUBS AND TREEING AND PROVIDE THE LANDSCAPING TYPICAL FOR A TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PER THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN OPTION FOR OLDER RESIDENTS TO REMAIN WITHIN THE CITY, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY IN A MORE HOME LIKE SETTING FOR AND ALSO PROVIDE FOR FIRST SORT OF FULL CIRCLE HOUSING TO HOUSE PEOPLE ACROSS THE AGE SPECTRUM. THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD ESTABLISH A PD DISTRICT WHICH WOULD BE SURROUNDED BY THE SF 8 ZONING AND ALSO WOULD PERMIT FOR USE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE SF-8 ZONING. THE ALLOWANCE OF THIS USE, THE ASSISTED LIVING USE AND THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THIS PROPOSED FOR THIS SUBJECT MATTER WOULD CREATE A ZONING DISTRICT WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE SURROUNDINGS SITUATED PROPERTIES. WE WOULD SUBMIT WHILE IT'S EVIDENT THAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTS A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN INTENDED TO BE KEEPING WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL PATTERN. THE PROPOSED PD DISTRICT WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY. IT WOULD IN FACT CONFER UPON THIS PROPERTY USE NOT FOUND WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY AND ALSO SIMILAR ZONING DISTRICTS AS WELL AS WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE REDUCTION IN THE PROPOSED SETBACKS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YOU WILL SEE THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THERE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.

AND THEN ALSO ONE OF THE SPECIFIC GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAID OUT ON THE LEFT SIDE. THIS WOULD BE GOAL FIVE FOUND IN THERE AND IT STATES THAT THE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE HOUSING SUPPORTING VARIOUS LIFESTYLES AND POPULATION WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. AND MORE SPECIFICALLY THE GOAL IS TO MAKE AND CONTINUE TO HAVE ROWLETT BE A DIVERSE COMMUNITY WITH VARIOUS NEEDS AND INTERESTS TO PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES THAT MAKE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT ALL LIFESTYLES AND DIVERSE HOUSING TYPES THAT ALLOW FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY BY PROVIDING HOUSING FOR EACH DEMOGRAPHIC AND ALLOWING FOR UPWARD MOVEMENT WHERE FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS CAN STAY IN THE CITY THROUGHOUT THEIR LIVES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE APPLICANT IS AGAIN SEEKING TO RENOVATE ONE EXISTING STRUCTURE. WHICH IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ALSO TO DEVELOP THREE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES WHICH WOULD BE USED FOR ASSISTED LIVING FOR THE ELDERLY. THIS USE IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE SF 8 ZONING, THERE ARE THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WOULD RECOMMEND FOR THE USE WITHIN THE SF 8 HAS A BASE ZONING DISTRICT AND THEN ALSO TO MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

SO THE REQUEST THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED WITH THE APPLICATION MATERIALS INCLUDE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS.

ANY STANDARDS THEY PRESENTED WITHIN THEIR PD STANDARDS NOT COVERED IN THERE, THOSE STANDARDS WOULD BE ASSUMED TO COMPLY WITH THE SF 8 ZONING DISTRICT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT.

[00:15:02]

SO UNDER THE DEFINITION THAT IS FOUND IN THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES PROVIDE INDIVIDUALIZED HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE ASSISTANCE IN A HOME LIKE SETTING WITH AN EMPHASIS ON PERSONAL DIGNITY, AUTONOMY AND PRIVACY. SERVICES INCLUDE MEALS, BATHING, DRESSING, TOILETING AND ADMINISTERING OR SPECIALIZING MEDICATION. THIS WOULD BE PROVIDED AT THIS LOCATION. THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE SETS OUT THE USE SORT OF LUMPED IN OF ASSISTED LIVING LUMPED INTO RETIREMENT HOME, NURSING HOME, CONTINUING CARE OR LIVING FACILITY WHICH COVERS WHEN THEY CALL THEIR CONTINUUM OF CARE WHEN IT COMES TO SENIOR HOUSING.

SHOULD THIS PROPOSAL BE APPROVED AND THE ZONING CHANGED AND THE PD ESTABLISHED.

ONLY THE ASSISTED LIVING CATEGORY SPECIFICALLY WOULD BE PERMITTED AT THIS PROPERTY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO, FURTHER DISCUSSION HERE ABOUT THE TWO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE SF 8 DISTRICT PROPOSED TO BE ALTERED. THE FIRST IS TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 7.5 FEET AND THAT WOULD BE SPECIFIC TO THE STREET SIDE YARD IN PARTICULAR AND WE WILL GET TO THAT IN MORE DETAIL AND THE SECOND TO REDUCE THE YEAR YARD SETBACK TO FIVE FEET FOR THAT. SO A BIT OF BACKGROUND ON HERE TO RECALL THAT THERE IS THAT STREET PRESERVATION THAT IS DELINEATED BY THE APPROVED PLAT. THEREFORE LOTS ONE, WHICH LOT ONE CONTAINS THE EXISTING HOME AND LOT TWO WHICH IS THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION, WE ARE REVIEWING THOSE AS CORNER LOT AS THAT WOULD BE THE POSSIBLE FUTURE SITUATION ON THERE. SO THE RDC WOULD STATE THAT CORNER LOTS MUST PROVIDE A SIDE YARD SETBACK ABUTTING A STREET OF NO LESS THAN HALF OF A FRONT SETBACK WHICH IN THIS CASE, THAT REQUIRED SETBACK WOULD BE 12.5 FEET ADJACENT TO THE STREET BECAUSE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 25 FEET. SO THAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT REQUEST ON THERE.

AGAIN TO NOTE THAT 7.5 FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE TYPICAL FOR AN INTERNAL SIDE SETBACK.

SO AND ALSO TO NOTE WITH THE PLAT WHICH WE WILL SHOW LATER THAT LOTS TWO AND FOUR WERE PLATTED WITH ADDITIONAL WIDTH TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FROM THE PROPOSED STREET IN THE CASE OF LOT TWO AND IN THE CASE OF LOT FOUR, THERE IS AN ALLEY WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THAT. NOT CONSIDERED A RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT HOWEVER SOMETHING THAT TYPICALLY GETS MORE CONSIDERATION FOR HAVING A BIT OF MORE SETBACK FROM THE ALLEY WAY ON THERE. SO THEREFORE IF THIS REQUEST WERE TO BE APPROVED, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD REDESIGN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE ON LOT TWO TO PROVIDE A 12.5 FOOT SETBACK UNLESS THEY AGAIN CAN PROVIDE AND JUSTIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION WHICH WOULD BE SATISFACTORY FOR THAT. GOING ON TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK, THE SF 8 DISTRICT HAS A MINIMUM OF REAR SETBACK, 20 FEET OR 20% LOT DEPTH.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MODIFY THAT TO FIVE FEET SO THIS WOULD APPLY TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON LOT ONE AS WELL AS THE STRUCTURES PROPOSED FOR LOTS TWO AND THREE.

AGAIN, AGREE THAT OR AT LEAST STATE WITH THAT. IT'S UNREASONABLE FOR US TO EXPECT THE APPLICANT TO MEET THE SETBACK FOR LOT ONE BECAUSE THAT IS A FIVE FOOT SETBACK MAKING IT A LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. IT'S UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT THEM TO COMPLY WITH THAT TO HAVE TO REMOVE THE BUILDING OR RELOCATE THAT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ON THERE.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT CAME IN MORE OF A LANDSCAPE THAN NORTH SOUTH. NORTH WOULD BE TO LEFT.

SOUTH WOULD BE TO THE RIGHT AND FUQUA ROAD WOULD BE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN HERE.

[00:20:11]

THE RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION IS SHOWN THERE IN THE PINKISH SALMON COLOR AND THEN THE EXISTING HOME IS TO THE LEFT OF THAT. AGAIN TO NOTES THAT A 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION WHICH AT SOME POINT MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY EAST OF THE SUB-PROPERTY.

YOU CAN SEE THE STRUCTURE ON LOT TWO AS WELL AS THE FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACKS FOR EXISTING PROPERTY WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT HERE TO THE NORTH THEN ALSO THESE TWO POINTS HERE FOR THE PROPOSED HOMES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE IS A BIT OF A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING. WHICH THE APPLICANT WOULD PROVIDE SHOULD THIS PROPERTY BE REZONED FOR THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. TO THE TOP, YOU CAN SEE SORT OF A PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE FROM FUQUA ROAD. WITH THE EXISTING HOME ON THE LEFT. NEXT SEGMENT WOULD BE THE STREET RESERVATION AND THE THREE STRUCTURES TO BE DEVELOPED. YOU WILL NOTICE THOSE SHADES OF COLOR ALSO ARE INDICATE THE PROPOSED SHRUBS WHICH WOULD BE USED TO SCREEN THE PARKING AREAS FROM VIEW.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THEN THESE ARE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FOR THE HOMES.

SAMPLE OF WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO LOOK LIKE. AGAIN WEST ELEVATION IS WHAT WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM FUQUA ROAD. NUMBER ONE IS THE EXISTING HOME, TWO, THREE AND FOUR ARE THE PROPOSED HOMES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

ALSO WOULD NOTE THE APPLICANT REQUESTING THE WAIVER OF THE ALLEY REQUIREMENT, THIS DOES KEEP IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA PARTICULARLY LONG FUQUAY ROAD.

NO OTHER LOTS HAVE REAR ALLEY ACCESS. HOWEVER THESE STRUCTURES WOULD NOT HAVE GARAGES OR CAR PORTS DUE TO THE RESIDENTS NOT DRIVING VEHICLES.

THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IS THAT THE RESIDENTS WOULD NOT BE DRIVING, SO THEY WOULD NOT HAVE VEHICLES AND THERE WOULD ONLY BE ONE EMPLOYEE AT EACH, WITH EACH BUILDING PROVIDE ONE ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR THE EMPLOYEE.

THE APPLICANT STIPULATES THAT IF THEY WERE ADDITIONAL VISITORS OR PARKING REQUIRED THERE WOULD BE AMPLE PARKING AVAILABLE ALONG FUQUAY ROAD FOR THAT. THE RDC REQUIRES FOR A RETIREMENT HOME NURSING HOME CONTINUING CARE OR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, ALL THOSE USES ARE KIND OF LUMPED INTO ONE CATEGORY. WOULD REQUIRE ONE SPACE FOR EVERY TWO ROOMS OR BEDS WHICHEVER IS GREATER AND FOUR FEET OF ASSEMBLY AREA.

THAT MEANS 12 SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED BASED ON THAT STANDARD FOR EACH OF THESE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO AGAIN NOTING WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE THE TWO.

HOWEVER, STAFF WOULD SORT OF STIPULATE THAT BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OF 12, IT'S LIKELY THERE WOULD BE MULTIPLE VISITORS AT THE SAME TIME. THEREFORE WOULD HAVE MORE VEHICLES LIKELY TO BE PARKED ON FUQUAY ROAD. THE REQUIREMENT IN THE RDC FOR THE OFF-STREET PARKING IS TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES WHICH ARE PARKED ON PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY. THEREFORE STAFF WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE NUMBER OF PROPOSED PARKING SPACES WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE PROPOSED USE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

WANT TO TOUCH ALSO A BIT ON THE BUILDING CODE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS.

THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE WHICH THE CITY OF ROWLETT UTILIZES CLASSIFIES THIS OCCUPANCY AS AN R4, RESIDENTIAL 4. THIS IS DESCRIBED AS A STRUCTURE

[00:25:04]

WITH HOUSING BETWEEN FIVE AND 16 PERSONS EXCLUDING STAFF THAT WOULD BE LIVING IN A SURPRISED RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT RECEIVING CUSTODIAL CARE. THAT OCCUPANCYARE INCLUDES ASSISTED LIVING AND GROUP HOMES. GROUP OCCUPANCY MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION AS DEFINED IN THE R 3 GROUP EXCEPT FOR OTHERWISE PROVIDED. SO THE R3 GROUP IS WHERE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED IN THE CODE. WHERE THEY ARE DEFINED.

THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS USE WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THAT OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. NOT CREATE MUCH OF A COMPATIBILITY ISSUE WITH SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES WITHIN THE AREA. ALSO WOULD NOTE THERE'S NO MINIMUM BEDROOM SIZE UNDER THE BUILDING CODE. HOWEVER THE TEXAS ADMIN -- I'M SORRY, THERE'S NO MINIMUM SIZE FOR A BEDROOM FOR UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, HOWEVER THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATION CODE SPECIFIES IT WOULD BE AT LEAST 80 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE TOUCH ON THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES.

THE NOTICES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WERE MAILED BOTH ON AUGUST 7TH AND AUGUST 1ST, 2020.

23 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE 200 FEET AREA AND 73 COURTESY NOTICES WITHIN THE 500 NOTICES.

THREE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. WITHIN 500, ONE NOTICE RECEIVED IN FAVOR.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THIS REZONING TO PD BECAUSE IT WOULD COMPROMISE THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE VICINITY. SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE PROPOSED SETBACKS AND THE PROVISION OF THE OFF-STREET PARKING. STAFF WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE PROPOSED USE OF ASSISTED LIVING WOULD PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL OPTION FOR SENIOR LIVING AND FULL CIRCLE HOUSING WITHIN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, HOWEVER THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION.

AND I BELIEVE THAT WRAPS UP MY PRESENTATIONS. >> COMMISSIONERS DOES ANYBODY HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR RATHER WAIT. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION? I SEE HIM SITTING THERE? MR. PARIS, DO YOU HAVE A

PRESENTATION TO MAKE? >> I PRETTY MUCH THINK IT HAS BEEN SUMMED UP ACCURATELY.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE A FORMAL PRESENTATION TO MAKE? >> I DO, I DID SEND SOME, A

COUPLE POWER POINTS TO THE CITY. >> MISS NIX OR HALLMARK WILL THAT BE SHOWN? COMMISSIONERS WOULD WE LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER MR. PARIS HAS A SHOT BEFORE WE ASK QUESTIONS.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> MY NAME IS DAVID PARIS.

I AM THE BUILDER ON THE PROJECT. I HAVE BEEN ASSISTING THE OWNERS AND JUST KIND TO PIGGYBACK OFF

-- I HATE TO INTERRUPT YOU, I NEED YOUR ADDRESS? >> MY HOME ADDRESS?

WORK. >> WORK ADDRESS. HERE AT THE OFFICE IS 222

MUNICIPAL DRIVE, >> >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> PLEASE CONTINUE. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. >> NO PROBLEM.

ESSENTIALLY, I KNOW THE CITY IS MAINLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARKING SITUATION.

AND THE FACT THAT IT IS LOCATED INSIDE OF A SINGLE FAMILY SUB DIVISION WHICH AGAIN CATEGORIZES IT AS SF 8. BUT ONE THING THAT I JUST WANTED TO ILLUSTRATE.

WE WENT INTO THE PUBLIC DATA OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND EXTRACTED PHYSICAL COMMERCIAL AND SMALL FACILITIES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST IN THE METROPLEX.

SO IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS SLIDE HERE IS ESSENTIALLY

[00:30:01]

SHOWING CURRENT AREA, LOCATED IN ALLEN, TEXAS. AND IF YOU NOTICE THE BLUE CURSERS ON THE MAP INDICATE COMMERCIAL SPACES. BUT THE GREEN INDICATE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES JUST LIKE THE FORMAT THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO SEE WITH THE POWER POINT, BUT, THERE IS ACTUALLY A LUMP OF SEVERAL GREEN CURSERS OFF GLEN HEIGHTS. THERE'S ALMOST A GREEN HIGHLIGHT THAT IS YOU KNOW GOING TOWARDS THEM. KIND OF TO POINT THEM OUT INSIDE OF THE MAP.

THOSE ARE SIX SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE SAME STREET AND HAVE HAD NO PARKS ISSUES WHATSOEVER AND THEY FUNCTION JUST FINE. THAT WOULD BE A REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. AND THEN IF GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THIS IS ANOTHER ITERATION OF ESSENTIALLY SHOWING AN ENTIRE QUADRANT WITHIN PLANO.

THE AREA IS BETWEEN AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, BETWEEN GEORGE BUSH AND 75.

AGAIN, THE GREEN DOTS REPRESENT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DRIVE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ANY OF THESE LOCATIONS. YOU WOULD PROBABLY DRIVE BY AND HAVE NO IDEA THAT YOU KNOW ANYWHERE FROM AS WAS STATED FROM THE CITY'S POINT OF VIEW, THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT ALLOWS ANYWHERE FROM FIVE TO 16 PEOPLE IN ONE HOME. YOU WOULD DRIVE BY AND NEVER PROBABLY EVEN KNOW THAT UP TO 16 PEOPLE LIVE IN THOSE FACILITIES. JUST GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DRIVE AND THAT A SPONSOR WHICH IS PART OF THE STAFF, NEEDS TO DRIVE FOR THEM.

OR ONE FAMILY MEMBER THAT HAS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS ABLE TO TAKE THEM AND YOU KNOW, TAKE THEM OUT FOR LUNCH. WHATEVER THEY MIGHT BE DOING. BUT THAT'S JUST A FORM OF ILLUSTRATING HOW MANY EXIST ALL AROUND THE METROPLEX WITH A GREEN CURSORS.

IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS AGAIN IS KIND OF HAMMERING THE SAME POINT. IF YOU NOTICE THERE'S SEVERAL BLUE DOTS WHERE THERE ARE COMMERCIAL TYPE SENIOR CARE PLACES BUT THE GREEN DOTS REPRESENT SINGLE FAMILY SO YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE IN RICHARDSON, NORTH DALLAS. LOCATED ALL AROUND THE METROPLEX. AND THEN IF YOU WILL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND THEN AGAIN, THIS IS JUST KIND OF TO ILLUSTRATE THE POINT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE.

ROWLETT ACCORDING TO THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT HAS ZERO, ZERO SINGLE FAMILY HEALTHCARE. SO OBVIOUSLY AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, IN ROCKWALL, THEY HAVE A COUPLE. IT WAS COVERED UP BY THE CURSOR. IN THE NORTHERN KIND OF RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF THAT ILLUSTRATION. BUT IT'S JUST TO POINT OUT THAT THIS ISN'T ANYTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY. THIS ISN'T ANYTHING THAT HAS NEVER, EVER BEEN ATTEMPTED BEFORE. IT'S A SERVICE.

FOR SINGLE OR FOR SENIOR PEOPLE. AND YOU KNOW, THE OWNERS ARE JUST VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THE IDEA AND YOU SEE THERE IS A REAL MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT AS FAR AS PROVIDING SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF ROWLETT TO KEEP THEIR LOVED ONES NEARBY AND YOU KNOW NOT PAY EXORBITANT PRICES. AS FAR AS THE FIELD, IT'S A MUCH MORE BOUTIQUE FEEL WHERE PEOPLE GET BETTER ATTENTION BECAUSE THERE'S NOT SO MANY PEOPLE. IT JUST HAS THAT KIND OF YOU KNOW, HOME COUNTRY FEEL WHERE PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THEY'RE BEING PAID ATTENTION TO.

BUT THAT WOULD BE MY FINAL POINT ON THAT MAP. IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO JUST YOU KNOW KIND OF TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID, WOULD BE

[00:35:05]

TO PROVIDE CITIZENS OF ROWLETT A BOUTIQUE EXPERIENCE AT A LOW COST.

WE WANT TO REDUCE THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND UNDER THAT'S A CONCERN FROM THE CITY STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW. BUT AGAIN, THERE'S MULTIPLE ITERATIONS AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAPS OF LOCATIONS THAT ALREADY EXIST IN NEIGHBORHOODS AND I THINK IF THOSE WERE REAL ISSUES THAT EXISTED AND OTHER CITIES AROUND THE METROPLEX, CLEARLY THERE WOULDN'T BE SO MANY OF THEM EVERYWHERE. AGAIN THE CITY OF ROWLETT WOULD BENEFIT FROM HAVING YOU KNOW LOVED ONES NEARBY AND YOU KNOW KIND OF PIGGYBACKING OFF WHAT CITY STAFF HAS SAID, YOU KNOW THE MAIN GOAL IS TO INCORPORATE IT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE THIS HUGE SPLASH AND STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT HEALTHCARE IS A MAJOR ISSUE IN THIS COUNTRY. AND THE COST IS REALLY EXORBITANT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS HAD TO SEND A LOVED ONE TO A SENIOR HEALTHCARE FACILITY, BUT, FROM THE RESEARCH AND OTHER PLACES THAT I HAVE HAD TO VISIT WITH THE OWNERS, IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE. SO THAT'S WHY THIS NEED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY SMALLER FORMAT THAT DOESN'T CHARGE AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT IS BEING

PRESENTED HERE TODAY. >> THANK YOU SIR, APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION.

COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE DEVELOPER AT THIS TIME? I WILL REMIND YOU THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE.

DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR DEVELOPER. MR. COTE.

I RECOGNIZE YOU. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

YOU REFERRED TO THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SAYING FOR ASSISTED LIVING, THE MINIMUM

SIZE BEDROOM IS 80 SQUARE FEET. IS THAT PER INDIVIDUAL? >>

>> YES. THAT WOULD BE PER INDIVIDUAL. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND OR THE DEVELOPER AND I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU. SEEING NONE, AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THIS IS A CHANCE FOR THE PUBLIC TO MAKE THEIR FEELINGS KNOWN ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. I WILL TURN THE PUBLIC HEARING OVER TO MS. HALLMARK AT THIS TIME OR MISS NIX. NOT SURE HOW WE'RE HANDLING THIS.

>> CAMERON, WE HAVE ONE CALLER ON THE LINE. >> CAN YOU PLEASE ADVISE THEM

THEY HAVE THREE MINUTES TO >> I SURE WILL. THE PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS IS WE ASK THE CALLERS PLEASE MUTE ALL ELECTRONICS IN THE BACKGROUND YOU WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY THE LAST FOUR DIGITS OF THE PHONE NUMBER YOU CALL IN.

YOU WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. SOUND WILL BE MUTED AT THE END OF YOUR TIME. WE HAVE CALLER 8141. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS

ISSUE? >> CALLER 8141. DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? YOU HAVE, YOU ARE MUTED ON YOUR END.

I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT AS A NO. I WILL TURN OVER TO MS. NIX. >> I HAVE TWO COMMENTS TO READ.

STRONG TOWER CHURCH, 2503 FUQUA ROAD. WE THE PASTOR AND THE MEMBERS OF THE STRONG TOWER CHURCH WOULD LIKE TO STATE WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL TO REZONE THIS PORTION OF OUR STREET OF FUQUAY ROAD. TO REZONE THIS AREA WOULD CAUSE EXCESS BURDEN OF TAX INCREASE, EXPRESS TRAFFIC CAUSING MORE NOISE TO OUR QUIET TRANQUIL COMMUNITY AND REQUIRING PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR LEEWAY OF STREET ACCESS AND HEAVY MACHINERY FOR

[00:40:02]

THE MONTHS TO COME AND THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING OR HAVING MORE EXPOSURE OF DISEASES TO THE FAMILES IN THEIR PROXIMITY. THEREFORE WE DEEM IT AN UNFAVORABLE SITUATION.

ADDITIONAL FEES AND CHARGES THAT WE'RE NOT WILLING TO UNDERGO >> THE COMMUNITY IS ALREADY OVER TAXED WHILE OUR CITY FORCES US OUT OF OUR COMFORT ZONE. THE NEXT COMMENT.

IS FROM JEROME SIMEK. 2318 WIND JAMMER WAY. I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND DO NOT THINK THE REQUESTED ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE

SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> ALL RIGHT.

MS. HALLMARK. DO YOU WANT TO TRY THE PHONE CALLER ONE MORE TIME TO SEE IF

THEY ARE AND IF NOT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> WE CAN AND DO HAVE ANOTHER CALLER. CALLER 1605, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?

>> CALLER 8141. DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?

>> LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE BOTH MUTED. >> THEY ARE.

>> THEN WE WILL TAKE THAT AS A NO CHAIRMAN. >> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. HELLO. YEAH I HEARD SOMEBODY

>> HELLO. GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES SIR.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY CALL.

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> OKAY. MY NAME IS LEONARD PEOPLES. MY CURRENT ADDRESSES 1117 ROLLING RIDGE LANE IN GARLAND. I OWN PROPERTY RIGHT THERE ON FUQUAY IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS IN QUESTION TO BUILD A NURSING HOME THERE. AND I WAS JUST -- I'M JUST DON'T THINK THAT IT IS CONDUCIVE TO HAVE A NURSING HOME RIGHT THERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE ARE PART OF THE STRONG TOWER CHURCH BY THE WAY AND EVEN WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING, IT JUST DON'T SEEM FEASIBLE JUST TO HAVE SOMETHING THERE IN THE WAY OF A NURSING HOME.

SO, I AM JUST EXPRESSING MY OPINION TO WHAT IT WOULD BRING TO THE COMMUNITY.

I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO SAY SOMETHING OR TO SPEAK YOU KNOW WHAT IS ON MY MIND PERTAINING TO THIS PROPERTY. THANK YOU SO MUCH VERY.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. AT THIS TIME, IF WE HAVE NO FURTHER CALLERS MS. HALLMARK.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION.

I WILL START WITH MR. COTE. DISCUSSION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? YOU'RE ON MUTE.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS? >> I WILL PASS ON THAT.

>> I WILL LOOP OVER TO MR. SEGARS. >> THIS IS A TOUGH ONE.

IT'S KIND OF WEIGHS ON YOUR HEART A LITTLE BIT. BUT I HAVE ACTUALLY HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS WITH MY GRANDPARENTS AND IT IS EXPENSIVE.

I AGREE WITH CITY. I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION AND LOOKING IN THE FUTURE IN MY 15 YEARS FROM NOW, WHAT WILL BE AT THIS STRUCTURE AND WHAT IS THE USE IT'S GOING TO BE. WHO KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

SO I WILL NOT BE APPROVAL. >> MR. ENGEN.

>> MR. ENGEN. >> YEAH, I WAS ON MUTE THERE. YEAH, JUST YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT MR. PERIS AND OTHER LOCATIONS. I HAVE SEEN WHERE IT WORKS IN GOOD SITUATIONS. I HAVE BEEN WITH THE CITY BECAUSE THIS LAND HAS BEEN NOTIFIED, IT'S BEEN ASSIGNED ASF 8 AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT REMAIN THE SAME AS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD CURRENTLY EXISTS. AND PARKING IS A BIG ISSUE ON THAT

>> THANK YOU. MISS MCKEE. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT.

>> MR. SWIFT. >> NO COMMENTS. >> MR. COTE, ONE LAST TIME AND THEN I WILL GET TO YOU LISA. I KNOW. YOU'RE THE VICE CHAIRMAN.

[00:45:01]

YOU GOT TO WAIT. >> WELL, I WILL LET YOU GO TO HER FIRST.

I'M KIND OF TORN BECAUSE IT DOES OR IT DOES ASSIST US AS A CITY IN MEETING OUR GOALS TO PROVIDE VARIOUS FORMS OF HOUSING FOR OUR CITIZENS. UNFORTUNATELY, AS MUCH AS I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE RELATIVELY NICE AND OKAY, THE CITIZENS IN THAT AREA HAVE DEFINITELY SAID THEY WOULD PREFER NOT TO HAVE THAT THERE. SO I'M PROBABLY NOT GOING TO

SUPPORT THE REQUEST AT >> MS. ESTEVEZ. >>

>> WELL I HAVE TO CONCUR WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND JUST SAY, I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS WITH MY PARENTS WHO ARE NOW GONE. I AGREE WITH MR. PERIS AND HE HAD VERY COMPELLING INFORMATION TO SHARE, AND MR. CONING DID A GREAT JOB PRESENTING, I THANK HIM FOR THAT. I AGREE WITH MR. COTE, AND MR. SEGARS WITH EVERYBODY.

IT'S A TOUGH DEAL BECAUSE IT IS ANOTHER GOOD WAY AND I THINK IN A LOT OF WAYS A BETTER WAY TO TAKE CARE OF THE ELDERLY BECAUSE THEY DO GET MORE -- I THINK THEY GET BETTER CARE WITH LESS PEOPLE THERE. HOWEVER, I HAVE TO SAY WITH THE CURRENT ZONING AND HOW I WOULD FEEL IF I LIVED IN THAT AREA, I DON'T BELIEVE I WOULD WANT THAT TO GO IN THERE.

I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THE FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK AT ALL. AND I AGREE WITH THE CITY ON THE PARKING SITUATION. SO, I AM PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE THIS ONE DOWN.

>> AND I'M WILL GO ALONG WITH THE REST OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

I THINK IT'S AN OLD PROJECT MR. PERIS. THESE DECISIONS ARE TOUGH FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS AND CITY COUNCILS TOO AND FOR STAFF.

BECAUSE THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE WILL NEED IN OUR CITY. AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS.

I THINK THIS IS THE WRONG LOCATION FOR THAT TYPE OF PROJECT, IT'S A BIGGER PROJECT.

IT'S TRYING TO PUT TOO MUCH IN TOO SMALL PIECE OF LAND WITH THAT STREET THERE THAT ACCESS TO THAT PART OF LOT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO IN THERE, IT'S JUST GOING TO JAM IT UP.

YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING AND I REALLY, I HOPE THAT MAYBE YOU CAN IN YOUR CAREER FIND SOMETHING ELSE IN OUR AREA THAT MIGHT WORK A LITTLE BETTER. BUT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO GO ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND RECOMMEND DENIAL. AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK ON THE ISSUE,

COMMISSIONERS, I AM READY FOR A MOTION. >> I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

MR. ENGEN. >> YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST

TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY. >> WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? DO I HAVE A SECOND? MS. ESTEVEZ SECONDS.

ANY DISCUSSION? A VOTE YES IS A VOTE TO DENY. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT'S 1, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE,

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.