[1. CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:05]
          THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR TUESDAY OCTOBER 13, 2020. 
          THE FIRST THING ON THE AGENDA IS THE CITIZENS AND PUT. UNLESS I'M WRONG, AS OF THE 
          GOVERNMENT FOR THAT SINCE WE SPOKE EARLIER? >> I BELIEVE SUSAN STATED THEY 
          WERE ITEM SPECIFIC. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: OKAY. >> THAT IS GREAT. 
          [4. CONSENT AGENDA]
          >>LISA ESTEVEZ: WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE CONSENT OR MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER FOUR WERE THE ONLY ITEM THERE IS ITEM 4 A, CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2020. DID EVERYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? OKAY. I'M GOING TO NEED A MOTION. 
          MR. WINTON . >>STEPHEN WINTON : I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. 
          >>LISA ESTEVEZ: DO WE HAVE A SECOND. >> SECOND. 
          >>LISA ESTEVEZ: BY MR. ENGEN . WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. WINTON , SECOND BY MR. ENGEN . 
          LET'S VOTE NOW WITH A SHOW OF HANDS. AND I BELIEVE IT IS UNANIMOUS. 
          [5A. Consider and take action on a Preliminary Plat for Sapphire Bay. The approximately 116.93-acre site is located on the peninsula to the south of 1-30 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County and Rockwall County, Texas.]
OKAY. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 5 IT ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION REACHES FOR ANYONE WHO MAY BE ON THE PHONE TO SPEAKER ANY OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, FIRST ITEM 5D HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. WAS A PUBLIC HEARING BY ADAM COMPANY THAT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA WE ARE GOING TO BE MOVING ITEM 5E ABOVE ITEM 5C FOR THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 5 E. THE FIRST ITEM, 5A, TO CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SAPPHIRE BAY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 116.93 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE PENINSULA TO THE SOUTH OF I 30 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT DALLAS COUNTY AND ROCKWALL COUNTY TEXAS. AND I BELIEVE. 
          >> THAT IS GREAT, CHAIRPERSON PARIS THINK IS MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. 
          I WELCOME THE NEW COMMISSIONERS AS WELL IT IS GOING TO BE A PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU THIS YEAR. AS YOU STATED, WE ARE HERE TO CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON A PULMONARY PLAT FOR SAPPHIRE BAY IT I'M SURE YOU ARE ALL WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE LOCATION OF THIS PROJECT. BEING SOUTH OF I 30. THERE IS ONE CENTRALIZED ACCESS POINT COMING SIMILAR TO WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY SHOWN AND THAT WILL BE CROSSING OVER SAPPHIRE BAY BOULEVARD FROM THE NORTH SIDE. AND THIS WILL CONNECT THE STREET NETWORK WOULD END THAT DEVELOPMENT. THEY ARE PROPOSING 28 LOTS FOR MIXED USES AN OPEN SPACE WITH IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FOR PRIVATE EASEMENT LANGUAGE, WHICH IS BEING PROVIDED ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LANGUAGE ALL TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THE FORM-BASED CODE RELATIVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 
          HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE?>> THIS IS THE PRIMARILY PLANT SHOWN IN THE NORTH PORTION OF THE SITE. NEXT. AND THIS IS THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.THAT BEING THE CASE, OR CONDITION IS FOR APPROVAL CONDITIONAL ON THE LANGUAGE PROVIDED BY THE FINAL PLAT. IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I AM HERE TO ANSWER THE. 
          >>LISA ESTEVEZ: ANY QUESTIONS? IS THE DEVELOPER HERE TO SPEAK TO ME? 
          >> THEY ARE HERE PRINTED IN ONE OF THE ENGINEERS IS HERE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY 
          [00:05:07]
          QUESTIONS IF NECESSARY . >>LISA ESTEVEZ: BUT THEYDON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION . 
          >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THIS IS TECHNICALLY A FLATSO THIS GENERALLY IS JUST STUFF 
          UPDATING . >>LISA ESTEVEZ: MR. ENGEN , DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? 
          >>MARK ENGEN : I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN KAYAKING ON THE LAKE AND I HAVE COME ACROSS A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE FISHERMEN AND THEY ARE WONDERING IF THE BOAT LAUNCH IS STILL GOING TO REMAIN ON THIS PROPERTY. THINK IT WAS REQUESTED AND THEY 
          SAID THEY WOULD BUT THERE'S NO LAUNCHING POINT FROM RELATIVE. >> I APPRECIATE THAT PRODUCTION TAKE THAT OFF LINE WITH YOU BECAUSE IT IS NOT RELATED TO THE PLANT AT THIS TIME, BUT 
          DEFINITELY I CAN DISCUSS THAT WITHYOU OFF-LINE . >>MARK ENGEN : THANK YOU. 
          I WILL DO THAT. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? 
          OKAY. YES? >>JOHN COTE : I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CARLOS. COULD YOU TURN BACK YOUR SLIDE THAT SAID YOU APPROVE THIS PLAT 
          CONDITIONALLY ON WHAT? >> THERE ARE SEVERAL EASEMENTS BEING DEDICATED AS PART OF THIS PULMONARY PLAT. THERE IS AN EASEMENT CALLED THE SAPPHIRE BAY PRIVATE EASEMENT. 
          EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND SO WHAT WE HAVE REQUESTED IS THAT LANGUAGE THAT DEFINES THAT EASEMENT INCLUDES AND PROTECTS ALL PUBLIC AMENITIES SUCH AS SIDEWALKS AND CLAUSES FOR EAT OUT AREAS THAT ARE PUBLIC IN NATURE. 
          AND SO THAT IS REALLY ALL THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED HERE. BUT EVERYTHING ELSE MEETS THAT CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY THE FORM-BASED CODE IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. 
          >>LISA ESTEVEZ: DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, JOHN? >> YES. 
          >>LISA ESTEVEZ: CARLOS, HOW WOULD YOU STATE THAT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO INCLUDE THAT IN THEIR 
          MOTION? >> SIMPLY AS IT WAS STATED IN THE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE LANGUAGE BE UPDATED PRIOR TO THE FINAL PLAT. 
          >>LISA ESTEVEZ: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. 
          THINK WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION. ANYBODY? MR. COTE  I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH CONDITIONAL, WITH THE 
          CONDITION THAT THE DEDICATION LANGUAGE BE ON THE FINAL PLAT. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: DO WE HAVE A 
          SECOND? >> SECOND. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: BY MR. WINTON , THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. COTE IN THE SECOND BY MR. WINTON . 
          BY A SHOW OF HANDS, LET'S TAKE A BOAT. AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          [5B. Consider and take action on a Preliminary Plat for Luxury Lakeside Living Addition. The approximately 25.427-acre site is located at the northwest corner of Miller Road and Chiesa Road in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]
ALL RIGHT SERIOUS WE WILL BE MOVING ON TO ITEM 5 D, CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LUXURY LIVING ADDITION, APPROXIMATELY 25 427 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLER ROAD IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS. 
          AND THIS IS GOING TO BE TARA. MS. BRADLEY? >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. SO THE SITUS 25.427 ACRES AND ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS A 15 AND AS OF SEVEN, AS A FIVE MAKES IS WATER FROM DISTRICT AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL C1 DISTRICT USES. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLER ROAD IN THE SITE ALSO THE TAGLINE AREA. 
          AND ACCESS TO THE SITE CAN BE ACHIEVED FROM MILLER ROAD HER NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT IS TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 39 MONTHS. 
          [00:10:03]
SEPARATE COMMON AREAS AND PRE-MIXED USE DEVELOP MEN AS PROPOSED IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL OF LAST YEAR. AND ALSO TO ESTABLISH BASIC LOCATION OF SEWER UTILITY, MUTUAL AND ACCESS EASEMENTS AND DEDICATE CHEESE AT THE MILL ROAD. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE PRE-PLAT DOES NOT MEET THEIR GARMENTS OF 77605 TO PROVIDE 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENTS IT AT THIS TIME THE PLAT IS REFLECTED 7.5 WHITE EASEMENTS INTERIOR TO THE SITE. AND IT IS ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAYS. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO REVISE THESE EVEN AT THE TIME OF SITE AND CIVIL PLAN AND FINAL PLAT REVIEW. WE DO RECOMMEND A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE PULMONARY PLAT BASED ON COMPLETION OF THE DEMO SITE AND FINAL PLOT REVIEW. 
          WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION, IT IS REVISED THE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE 15 FEET STIPULATED IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE 15 FOOT EASEMENT OR THE REQUIREMENT OF THE WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT FILAMENT CODE. 
          THIS COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION. AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AND ALSO, THE 
          APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: THANK YOU MS. BRADLEY. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? 
          MR. WINTON? >> WAS WONDERING IF I COULD GET AN EXPLANATION AS FAR AS THE 
          PRELIMINARY PLAT IS NOT MEETING ALL THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. >> THE EASEMENT WITH? 
          >> YEAH, AS FAR AS ÃWE HAVE HAD A FEW OF THESE WERE WE ARE GETTING CHANGES IN THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE HERE WHERE WE ARE GETTING STUFF CHANGING AFTER WE APPROVE IT AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT IT HAD ALL BEEN ADDRESSED PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE PLAT SO WE HAVE, AT LEAST IN THE PULMONARY STANDPOINT AND EVERYTHING MOVING AWAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO. IF THAT MAKES SENSE . SPOKE WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IT IS TO PRELIMINARY PROVIDE EASEMENTS AND AREAS THERE. WE DO HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT IT DOES REQUIRE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF EASEMENT FOR THE PROVIDE EASEMENT BUT SOMETIMES THEY DO NOT PROVIDE THE RIGHT WITH AND WE DO DISCUSS WITH THEM THESE EASEMENTS. 
          WE TRIED TO HAVE THEM PROVIDE ON THIS TRIP AT THIS TIME THIS ONE WAS NOT RECTIFIED BEFORE THE MEETING, BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF FINAL 
          PLAT IN THE FUTURE. >> OKAY. AND ONCE WITH THE CHANGE 
          ANTICIPATE ANY CHANGES WITH THE OVERALL LAYOUT NECESSARY? >> NOT WITH THE OVERALL LAYOUT. 
          AND WILL JUST BE THE WIDTH OF THE EASEMENT. THE LAYOUT IS ALREADY SET IN 
          STONE BY THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. >> OKAY. 
          GOT YOU. THANK YOU. >> DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU 
          WANTED TO SAY? >> JUST THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SOMETIMES IT IS NOT THE FULL-BLOWN AND THOSE ITEMS WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE FINAL PLAT. AND SO THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO PROCEED FORWARD UNTIL THEY DON'T COMPLY AN APPLICANT IS WELL AWARE OF ITS WE WERE 
          COMFORTABLE PROCEEDING FORWARD. >> OKAY. VERY GOOD. 
          >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. MR. COTE? FOR SOME REASON LOST MY ELECTRONIC ÃIT JUST CAME BACK UP IN MY QUESTION WAS EASEMENT ON MILLER ROAD. 
          WILL THAT BE SUFFICIENT FOR A WIDENING OF MILLER ROAD AS WE EXPECT IN THE FUTURE? 
          >> I WILL SEE IF JEFF CAN ANSWER THAT QUSTION FORUS . >> ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SMALL PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY ARE DEDICATING RIGHT AWAY. MUCH OF THAT POVERTY AMONG MILLER WAS PURCHASED BY THE CITY FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE WITH NEEDED FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY IT WAS PURCHASED BY THE CITY MANY YEARS AGO WHEN THE MILLER ROAD WIDENING PROJECT 
          WAS FIRST CONTEMPLATED. >> OKAY. TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS NOT EVEN ON THEIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          >> QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? PLEASE SPEAK UP BECAUSE I AM 
          [00:15:06]
HAVING TO SHUFFLE PICTURES HERE TO SEE RAISING HANDS. OKAY. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPERS HERE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS 
          FOR THE DEVELOPER? NO? >> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WE ARE JUST HERE TO APPROVE THE PLAT WITH EASEMENT CHANGE WITHOUT THE LAYOUT AND EVERYTHING THAT 
          HAS BEEN APPROVED. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: I GUESS WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION AND BE ADVISED WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION, YOU NEED TO CONSIDER ADDING THE RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF FOR THE REVISED WIDTHS OF THEUTILITY . MR. ENGEN. 
          >> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. 
          ALONG WITH THE STAFF REVISION OF THE WIDTH OF THE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS TO BE 
          FOLLOWED THROUGH. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR 
          AND WE HAVE A SECOND. >> I SECOND. >> MR. SEGARS, WAS THAT YOU? 
          >> YES. >> I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS FIRST. I WAS SHUFFLING THROUGH. 
          OKAY. WE HAVE A SECOND. LET'S ÃANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. I THINK WE ARE READY TO TAKE A VOTE. 
          BY A SHOW OF HANDS. AND THAT PASSES AGAIN UNANIMOUSLY. 
          OKAY. WE HAVE MOVED ITEM 58 UP BEFORE 5C BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC 
          [5E. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Adam Shiffer, Skorburg Company, to rezone the subject property from Single-Family Residential (SF- 40) District and Limited Commercial/Retail (C-l) District to Planned Development (PD) District for Single-Family Residential (SF-5) Uses to develop the site with 82 single-family homes and 5]
RESPONSE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ITEM 5V, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL AND REQUEST BY ADAM SCHIFF OR COMPANY TO REZONE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A 40 DISTRICT AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL SEE ONE DISTRICT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT P.D. DISTRICT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF FIVE USES TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH AN ISSUE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND FIND COMMON AREAS. THE 13.14 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CATAMARAN DRIVE AND CHEESE A ROAD IN THE CITY OF COLLETTE DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS AND THIS 
          WILL BE PRESENTED BY MR. ROBERTS. >> THANK YOU. 
          I WILL BE PRESENTING ON THIS. WOULD ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE CONNOR WAS VERY INSTRUMENTAL IN CREATING THE STAFF REPORT IN THIS PRESENTATION. AS WELL AS WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO BRING IT TO THIS POINT. SO WHEN WE ARE READY FOR THE 
          PRESENTATION, GO AHEAD THERE. >> A BIT OF THE BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERTY. 
          IT IS XIII.41 ACRES. AND AS TO ZONINGS. THE US A 40, WHICH IS THE LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL IN THE C1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. 
          AND THE APPLICANT HERE IS SEEKING TO RITA'S OWN THE PROPERTY WITH THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH THE BASE ZONE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF FIVE DISTRICT ARE SEEKING TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH 82 LOTS, WHICH WILL BE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND THEN ALSO FIVE COMMON AREA LOTS. THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS A MOBILE HOME PARK, WHICH IS LOCATED ON IT AND MOBILE HOME NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 15 YEARS AND THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THESE HOMES WOULD BE REMOVED SHOULD THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED. 
          ALSO WITH NO THIS PROPOSAL HAS SEVERAL VARIANCES TO THE SF FIVE DISTRICT RELATING TO THE DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE LOT DIMENSIONS, FRONT ENTRY GARAGE IS IN LIEU OF ALLEYWAYS, SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING, STREET WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED TO BE DONE TO THE PLAN 
          [00:20:01]
DEVELOPMENT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.SO THIS AGAIN SHOWS THE CURRENT ZONING SITUATION. ON THE LEFT YOU CAN TOO THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE C1 ZONE IN THE SF 40. TO THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE ACTUAL WEST SIDE THERE IS THE TAKE LINE AND LAKE RAY HUBBARD ON THEIR. SO THE SPLIT ON THAT IS 5 1/4 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY IS THE SF 40 DISTRICT AND THE REMAINING IS ABOUT 7.9 ACRES IS A LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICT NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.THIS SLIDE GIVES A BIT, MORE THAN A BIT. 
          A GOOD OVERVIEW OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING TRAILER HOMES ON THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE 35 HOMES AND SEVEN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AS WELL AS THE ROAD LOCATED ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, WHICH WOULD BE USED. ABOUT 843 FEET OF FRONTAGE AND THEN GOING TO THE WEST, THE TAKE LINE HAS OVER 1100 FEET OF TAKE LINE FRONTAGE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          ON THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION HERE AND IF NECESSARY, JEFF COHEN CAN JUMP IN IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT DATE GOES BEYOND MY LIMITED ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE IS A PLANNER. 
          SO CURRENTLY IT'S A TWO LANE ASPHALT ROADWAY FOR THE THOROUGH FAIR PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN 2015 CLASSIFIES IS A SIX LANE DIVIDED ROAD, WHICH IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE WHICH IS A 110 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE SITE PLAN DOES SHOW A FIVE FOOT DEDICATION, WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL MOVE FORWARD BE APPROVED. THERE WOULD BE TWO ADDITIONAL STREET CONNECTIONS THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT WOULD BE ON THE NORTHERN AND SODA NORTH AND CENTRAL PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY HEARD BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES WOULD ALLOW FOR A RIGHT AND A LEFT TURN INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE SITE. THE SOUTHERN MOST DRIVE STREET SEE SHOWN AS EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY, WHICH WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR REGULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS. 
          HIS IS DUE TO THE FUTURE CONDITION WHICH WOULD BE FOR THE FUTURE SIX LANE DIVIDED ROAD, WHICH WOULD HAVE A MEDIA . AS YOU CAN SORT OF SEE ON THERE, CATAMARAN DRIVE IS LOCATED SLIGHTLY TO THE NORTH EAST OF WHERE STREET SEE WOULD CONNECT. SO STAFF RECOMMENDED THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS OF THIS PROPOSAL LOVE THOSE TWO STREETS BE ALIGNED WITH THE APPLICANT OPTED TO CREATE OR TO PROPOSE THIS EMERGENCY ACCESS CONDITION RATHER THAN TO LINE THE PROPOSED THE STREET WITH CATAMARAN ACROSS THE WAY THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR BOTH A BETTER CURRENT SITUATION WITH THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT, BUT ALSO FOR THE FUTURE IF THERE WERE TO BE MEDIAN CUTS TO ALLOW FOR THAT BETTER CONDITION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.HERE'S A BIT ON THE SURROUNDING LAND US . PRIMARILY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN THIS AREA, AS WELL AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH IT AGAIN, THAT IS A LARGER LAW COULD SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE EAST ACROSS CHIESA ROAD IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, BUT ALSO FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USES AND THEN TO THE WEST YOU SEE THE TAKE LINE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS THAT GO ALONG WITH THIS ACROSS THE ROAD TO THE EAST TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THAT SUBDIVISION IS 5500 SQUARE FEET WITH A MINIMUM HOME SIZE AREA OF 1000 SQUARE FEET. 
          TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, THAT IS THE SAME AS A 40 ZONING REQUIRING A MINIMUM LOT AREA AND 40,000 SQUARE FEET AND A MINIMUM BUILDING AREA OF 2400 SQUARE FEET. 
          THE PROPOSAL FROM THE APPLICANT FOR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 4400 SQUARE FEET. THE MINIMUM BUILDING AREA OF 1800 SQUARE FEET. 
          IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS REALLY SET UP THE MINIMUMS ON THEIR AS A 
          [00:25:08]
PROPERTY DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS, BUT ALSODURING BUILDOUT . 
          THE END RESULTS IS OFTEN DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE SURROUNDING AREA. 
          THIS SHOWS A BIT MORE OF SOME ANALYSIS, WHICH WE DID ABOUT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HOW LIKE I MENTIONED ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE HOW THE ZONING SETS UP WITH THE MINIMUMS ARE. 
          THIS IS REFLECTIVE OF WHAT IS ON THE GROUND TODAY. ÑPENINSULA SUBDIVISION NUMBER ONE AND FOUR, WHICH YOU SEE IN THE GREEN ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THAT GRAPHIC. 
          THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS 6700, OVER 6700 SQUARE FEET AND THE AVERAGE BUILDING AREA IS 1300 SQUARE FEET. TO THE SOUTH IS STONE MEDALS BUT THE LAKE SUBDIVISION IS THAT AVERAGE AREA IS 9539 IN THE MINIMUM HOME ÃI'M SORRY, AVERAGE HOME SIZE IS JUST SHORT OF 2100 SQUARE FEET. AND THEN TO THE NORTH YOU HAVE LINDSAY ESTATES LOCATED ON THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER THEN ONE LARGE INDIVIDUAL LAW. I'M SORRY, A COUPLE INDIVIDUAL LOTS JUST IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. THOSE ADMITTEDLY, THE AVERAGE LOT AREA IS SKEWED BY THE VERY ONE LARGE PROPERTY. IN THE AVERAGE BUILDING SIZE COMES IN AT 2900 SQUARE FEET. SO THIS PROPOSED 4800 SQUARE FEET IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE  TO THE EAST NORTH AND SOUTH. AND AS WELL AS THE MINIMUM DWELLING AREA PROPOSED IN 1800 SQUARE FEET FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS GREATER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT ACROSS CHIESA ROAD, BUT WHAT IS LESS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH IMMEDIATELY ABUTTING THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.SO AGAIN, ONE OF THE THINGS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WITH THE ZONING CHANGE IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS BOTH A COMBINATION OF THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE RETAIL USE, WHICH WOULD BE THE RED. AND THEN THE YELLOW BE IN A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS ALIGNING WITH THE EXISTING ZONING FOR THE MOST PART, WHICH IS ON THE PROPERTY. LOW DENSITY AS A DENTAL LOTS BETWEEN 7000, 20,000 SQUARE FEET RETAIL OFFICE DEVELOPMENTS ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES GOOD AND PARTICULARLY WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE C-1 ZONING WHICH CURRENTLY EXISTS WOULD BE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES THROUGH THIS IS TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND GOODS FOR NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. ALSO, YOU CAN SEE ON THERE WE HAVE THE TAKE AREA, WHICH IS SHOWN UP AS PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, FUTURE USE. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE PURPLE GRAY LINE, WHICH IS IN THEIR WHICH IS A PROPOSED TRAIL THAT WOULD ALSO BE PROPOSED FOR THE TAKE AREA. STAFF WOULD CONTEND THAT THIS PROPOSAL WILL NOT BE COMPLIANT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AT THE PROPOSED DENSITY BASED ON THE LOT SIZE IS UNDER 7000 SQUARE, WHICH PLACES IT IN, YOU CAN SEE THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD ACROSS CHIESA ROAD BE IN THAT ORANGE COLOR IS A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OF LOTS THAT ARE LEFT THAN 7000 SQUARE FEET IN AREA. SO IT WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF THINGS BEING THAT SHOULD BE A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH LOTS BETWEEN 7000 AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET. SECONDLY, THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCLUDE A RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL COMPONENT AS IS INDICATED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. AND LASTLY, THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT PROVIDE A CONNECTION TO THE TAKE LINE WERE AT LAKE RAY HUBBARD. TO REALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT AMENITY WHICH IS THERE AND ALSO TO ACTIVATE THE PARTS AND OPEN SPACE COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO GETTING INTO THE MEAT OF THE PROPOSAL. THE CONSIDERATIONS TO REMIND EVERYONE, THIS IS ÃTHIS WOULD 
          [00:30:04]
BE BASED OUT OF THE SF FIVE DISTRICT. AND SO ANYTHING WITHIN THE SF FIVE ZONING CATEGORY AND NO STANDARDS WOULD BE FOLLOWED SHOULD THIS PROPOSAL BE APPROVED, HOWEVER, THEY ARE ASKING FOR SOME EXCEPTIONS TO EXCEPTIONS, MODIFICATIONS TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS. VERY BRIEFLY, THEY ARE TO ELIMINATE THE ONLY REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE THE FRONTLOADED GARAGES AS WELL AS TO NOT HAVE A REQUIRED RECESS OR SETBACK OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE FRONT WALL OF THE HOUSE OF THE PORCH. THEY WOULD ALSO PROVIDE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES AS MENTIONED IN THERE WITHOUT THE L4 J HOOK APPROACHES BUT THEY WOULD REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT BELOW THE 5000 SQUARE FEET AND THE SS FIVE TO 4400 SQUARE FEET. THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH WOULD BE DECREASED FROM 50 FEET. 
          THE PRIMARY AND ENTRY SECONDARY ENTRYWAY FEATURES FOR THE LANDSCAPING CODE WOULD BE ELIMINATED. THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT WOULD BE REDUCED FROM 50 FEET TO 40 FEET FOR THE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK WOULD BE REDUCED FROM 25 FEET TO 10 FEET. SIN LASTLY, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURES WOULD BE INCREASED FROM 35 FEET OR TWO STORIES TO 36 FEET 2 1/2 STORIES. 
          WE WILL GO THROUGH THESE ON THE NEXT SERIES OF SLIDES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          TO NUMBERS WANTED TO IN REGARD TO THE FRONTLOADED GARAGES IN THE J HOOK. 
          SO TYPICALLY IN ROLLA AND REQUIREMENT OF THE RELATIVE DEVELOPMENT CODE, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR REAR ALLEYS. THOSE ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR UTILITIES, TO ALLOW FOR TRASH PICKUP AND AS WELL AS TO ENCOURAGE HOMES TO BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE STREET, WHICH FOSTER A STRONGER PEDESTRIAN REALM. AND MORE INFORMAL NEIGHBORING AMONG THE RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE IS ALSO A PROVISION WITHIN THE RDC THAT STATES WHEN FRONT ENTRY GARAGES ARE ALLOWE . 
          IN L OR A J HOOK APPROACH IS REQUIRED. SO INSTEAD OF THE FRONTLOADED GARAGE, THAT IS SOMETHING WHERE THE GARAGE DOOR IS NOT NECESSARILY IMMEDIATELY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. AND SECONDLY ALONG THOSE LINES GOING DIRECTLY TO THE SECOND PART OF NUMBER ONE GOODWIN GARAGE DOORS COMPRISE MORE THAN 25 PERCENT OF THE FRONT FACADE, A FOUR FOOT RECESS IS ALSO REQUIRED FOR IT AGAIN, TO DIMINISH THE VISUAL IMPACT OF GARAGE DOORS FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. PUBLICAN AS REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THEY CITED THAT THE GRADE OF THE SITE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IT AGAIN ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, WOULD BE AND ALSO THE LOT WITH THEY ARE PROPOSING FOR 40 FEET WOULD BE THE LIMITING FACTORS TO COMPLY WITH THE RDC. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.SO GOING BACK TO ÃYOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT WHICH SHOWS THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT HOW THE TOPOGRAPHY CURRENTLY EXISTS, THE CURVATURE WHICH VERY MUCH MIMICS THE SHORELINE OF LAKE RAY HUBBARD AT THIS POINT, THE ALLEYS COULD BE VIABLE WITH USING THE EXISTING CONTOURS OF THE SITE. ALSO WOULD NOTE, THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH TAKING INTO THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ALSO HAVE A VARIETY OFSTREET ENTRY AND J HOOK PRODUCTS . ACROSS CHEESY ROAD, THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST EXCLUDES ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY OR SERVED BY REAR ALLEYS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CATAMARAN DRIVE. 
          THOSE DUE BACK ON HISTORY DEEP DITCH, SO THOSE OF A STREET FRONT IN THREE HOMES. 
          WE BELIEVE THERE IS NO PHYSICAL HARDSHIP THAT WOULD PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM USING AN L OR J HOOK GARAGE APPROACH, OTHER THAN THE WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED IN REGARD TO THEIR LOT WITH. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.ITEM NUMBER THREE, THIS GOES BACK SORT OF ALONG WITH THE LOT OF THIS WOULD BE THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THE 5000 SQUARE FEET UNDER THE SF FIVE ZONING TO 4800 SQUARE FEET. 
          AND BELIEVE WE FORGOT TO DO A CORRECTION OR SO IT SHOULD BE 4400 SQUARE FEET. 
          [00:35:02]
THE BASE ZONING IS ALREADY A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE FROM THE CURRENT EXISTING SS 40, WHICH IS 40,000 SQUARE FEET.SLOW REQUEST RIGHT NOW THEY WERE GOING TO THE SS FIVE DISTRICT WOULD TAKE IT FROM 40,000 TO 5000 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THIS FURTHER AND OTHER ADDITIONAL 600 SQUARE FEET TO 4040 SQUARE FEET. 
          AS A REMINDER, THE TABLE BELOW, THE SURROUNDING SUBDIVISIONS. THE SMALLER LOTS OF THE SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST STILL IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM PROPOSED FOR THIS SUBDIVISION. AND CERTAINLY WOULD BE HALF OF THE AVERAGE LOT AREA OF THE SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH AS WELL. SO WE BEGAN TO FEEL THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE WIDTH OF THE RIGHT AWAY FROM 60 FEET TO 50 FEET. 
          IS A STANDARD FOR RESIDENTIAL STREETS WITHIN THE REGION. THE REVIEW WITH STAFF WAS DETERMINED REQUESTED WITH WOULD INDEED BE SUFFICIENT FROM A UTILITY AND A CIRCULATION STANDPOINT. WILL EVER, FOR THE LAND HIS PERSPECTIVE, NARROWING THE RIGHT AWAY WHEN THERE ARE NO ALLEYS MAY TEND TO FURTHER CONTRAST THE STREETS. 
          THERE IS CONCERN ON STAFF SIDE FROM THAT REQUEST ON THAT AS WELL DO IT AGAIN WITH NOTE THAT THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST TO HAVE 50 FOOT RIGHTS-OF-WAY, HOWEVER, IS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY UTILIZED ALLEYS AND THOSE TO THE SOUTH HAVE J HOOKS FOR THEIR DRIVEWAYS AND GARAGES. I WANT TO QUICKLY TOUCH ON THIS SLIDE HERE PROGRAM THE DIAGRAMS YOU SEE BELOW CAN SHOW A THEORETICAL ENTRYWAY SUBDIVISION ENTRYWAY FEATURE. 
          WHICH IS SET OUT IN THE RDC TO PROVIDE SOME KIND OF ÃOBSERVE SORT OF A DUAL PURPOSE OF GOOD VISUAL INTEREST IN CREATING A SIGNATURE CHARACTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD GIVING A GOOD SENSE OF ARRIVAL INTO A PLACE FOR IT AS WELL AS YOU CAN SEE, IT DOES PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SETBACK FOR THE FIRST HOUSES, IT SHOULD BE LOCATED OFF WHAT YOU CAN SEE ON THERE, IT'S CALLED EXTERNAL STREET. SO IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE CHIESA ROAD. 
          WHICH SOMEDAY IS PROPOSED TO BE IMPROVED TO A SIX LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING TO EITHER HAVE A PRIMARY ENTRY FEATURE OR TO HAVE A SECONDARY ENTRY FEATURE. 
          THEY WOULD JUST BE PROVIDING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE RIGHT AWAY. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.THIS SLIDE, THE DIAGRAMS DOWN BELOW SHOW THE TYPICAL LOT ON THE LEFT FOR THE PENINSULA SUBDIVISION AND THEN BELOW THE STONE MEADOW SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH. THEY ARE 50, 55 FOOT LOTS TYPICALLY ACROSS THE WAY AND ARRANGE FROM 80 FEET TO 100 FEET GENERALLY FOR THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH. 
          AGAIN, ADDRESSING THE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, THIS IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT IS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE REASON WHY WE HAVE THE MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS ARE TO ENSURE ORDERLY GROWTH AND SUBDIVISION OF LAND SO THAT WE HAVE A GOOD LAND USE PATTERN. WE RECOMMEND A MINIMUM LOT WOULD STAY AT 50 FEET. 
          THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR J HOOK GARAGE APPROACHES AND WOULD NOT JEOPARDIZE THE SUBDIVISION OF THAT LAND. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.THIS SLIDE WILL ADDRESS THE REQUEST FOR THE MINIMUM NEAREST YARD SETBACK TO REDUCEFROM 25 FEET TO 10 FEET . 
          THIS WAS DUE TO THE APPLICANT SUGGESTING THEY COULD HAVE A LARGER BUILDING PAD, AS WELL AS 
          [00:40:04]
TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL ONE-STORY PRODUCTS. WE WOULD NOTE THE MATERIALS PROVIDED IN THE APPLICATION, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE CONCEPTUAL, THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ANY ONE-STORY PRODUCTS.IN THEIR APPLICATION WITH THAT. SECONDLY, WITH THE ALLEY WAIVER THAT WOULD BE GRANTED, THE FULL 10 FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE RESERVED FOR THE REAR YARD. 
          BUT THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND WOULD NOTE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH OF SETBACKS RANGING BETWEEN 30 AND 80 FEET. IN THE SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST ACROSS CHIESA ROAD IS APPROXIMATELY 30 FOOT SETBACKS. SO THIS WOULD ALSO RESULT IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE PROPOSED RESIDENCES WHICH WOULD BACK CLOSELY ONTO THE ESTATE LOTS TO THE NORTH. SO WE AGAIN FEEL THIS IS OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE AREA AND THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.BELOW ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF THE ELEVATIONS, WHICH WERE PROVIDED IN THE APPLICATION PACKET AND THEY ARE PUT THERE TO ILLUSTRATE THE REQUEST TO INCREASE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 36 FEET OR 2 1/2 STORIES. 
          THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO PROVIDE MORE VARIETY IN THE ELEVATION FOR THE HOMEBUILDERS, HOMEBUYERS. STAFF THIS FIELD INCREASE IN HEIGHT WOULD NOT CREATE A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENT FOR THE SURROUNDING WILL ENVIRONMENT ON THEIR. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THIS CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          WE PITCHED THIS A LITTLE BIT WITH THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSAL. 
          SO WE FEEL SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS WHAT WE ARE STRIVING HERE FOR IN RELATIVE. AND SO WE FEEL THESE NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD BE PROVIDING RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH MENTAL AND PHYSICAL SENSE OF PLACE AND BELONGING. WE WOULD NOTE THE PROPOSAL HERE LACKS THOSE ENTRYWAY FEATURES, WHICH CREATE A SENSE OF ARRIVA . AS WELL AS PROVIDING SOME ADDITIONAL SETBACK FOR THE FIRST HOMES, WHICH WOULD BE ADJACENT TO THE THOROUGHFARE IN PARIS AT ALSO, THIS PROPOSAL IS LACKING IN ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE. 
          THE ONLY OPEN SPACE WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED IS ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OFTHE PROPERTY . AND IT LACKS IN DEFINING KEY FOCUS SPOT THAT WOULD BE EASILY ACCESSIBLE ON FOOT TO MOST OF THE RESIDENTS OF THIS PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          ALSO, THE SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS ACCOUNT FOR AN ADDRESS THE SURROUNDING BUILT ENVIRONMENT. AND ENCOURAGE CONNECTIVITY. THIS IS ALSO WHERE WE WOULD NOTE THE PROPOSED STREET SEE AN EXISTING CATAMARAN DRIVE, IF THEY WERE TO BE ALIGNED AND CONNECTED UP, IT WOULD ENCOURAGE BROADER CONNECTIVITY TO THE SURROUNDING BUILT ENVIRONMENT. ALSO WITH THE SIGNIFICANT 1100 FEET GIVE OR TAKE FRONTAGE ALONG THE TAKE LINE, IS A MISSING OPPORTUNITY BY THE APPLICANT, WHICH WOULD CONNECT WITH FUTURE RESIDENTS TO A POTENTIAL TRAIL THAT COULD CONNECT INTO THE CITYWIDE TRIAL NETWORK AS WELL. AND LESLIE, WOULD NOTE THAT SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD PROVIDE TRANSPARENT LAND OWNERSHIP FOR THE RESIDENTS. WOULD NOTE THE LOTS TO THROUGH 10 ON BLOCK D, WHICH OF THE LOTS CLOSEST ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY CLOSEST INTO CHIESA ROAD, HAVE A 15 FOOT SANITARY EASEMENT WHICH TRAVERSES A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE REAR YARD. STAFF DID REQUEST THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER REDESIGNING THE 
          [00:45:02]
SUBDIVISION WHICH WOULD LIMIT THE EXTENT OF THE ENCOURAGEMENT INTO THE YARDS. 
          THE REASON THIS IS IMPORTANT IS IT WOULD LIMIT THE ABILITY FOR ANY STRUCTURES TO BE PLACED ON THAT EASEMENT. AND SO IF A FUTURE LANDOWNER OR PROPERTY OWNER WOULD COME FORWARD AND NOT BE AWARE OF THAT TYPE OF SITUATION, THEY MAY BE UNHAPPY OR FRUSTRATED IF THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ADD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO THEIR REAR YARD WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE IT. SO THAT IS WHY WE BRING THAT UP AND WOULD SAY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN TO NOT RECONFIGURE THOSE LOTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.WRAP THIS UP A LITTLE BIT WITH SOME PHOTOGRAPHY OF WHAT THE SITE CURRENTLY IS LOOKING LIKE. 
          THIS IS COMING OFF A CHIESA ROAD LOOKING WEST TOWARD THE LAKE. 
          YOU CAN AGAIN SEE OF THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND DEVELOPED AT THIS POINT AND YOU CAN SEE THE MOBILE HOMES WHICH WOULD BE TO THE WEST. AS WELL AS YOU CAN SEE HOW THE SITE DOES SLOPE DOWN TOWARD THE LAKE FAIRLY GENTLY. AS WELL. 
          BUT ALSO IN A WAY THAT MIRRORS THE SHORELINE OF LAKE RAY HUBBARD IN THAT PATTERN. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND HERE ARE SOME OF THE HOMES AS WELL AS THAT WOULD LOOK WEST TOWARD LAKE RAY HUBBARD ON THEIR. YOU CAN SEE THE LAKE AT THIS POINT THE POTENTIAL VIEWS FROM ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THISPROPERTY . 
          AND AS WELL AS WHAT THE CURRENT RESIDENTS GET TO ENJOY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.A BIT ON THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION BUT WE DID SEND OUT THE NOTIFICATIONS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET AND 500 FEET. THERE WERE 31 NOTICES SENT OUT TO THE 200 FOOT RADIUS FROM THE SITE. ONE RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED, WHICH WAS IN OPPOSITION TO RECEIVED IN FAVOR TO THE REQUEST FOR THE COURTESY NOTICE WITHIN 500 FEET THERE WERE 54 OF THOSE WHO THERE WERE FIVE IN OPPOSITION. ONE WAS IN FAVOR GOOD HOWEVER IT IS NOTED THAT RESPONSE WAS OUTSIDE THE BUFFER ZONE. SINCE THE PUBLICATION, WE RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FROM THE 200 FEET ONTO AN ADDITIONAL ÃI'M SORRY, TWO ADDITIONAL RESPONSES IN FAVOR WITHIN THE SITE. THAT MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE WE PUT THIS REPORT TOGETHER EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.OUR RECOMMENDATION AS STAFF WOULD BE THE DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST TO REZONE FROM THE SF 40 IN THE C1 TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY BASED ON THE SF FIVE. 
          WE ARE CONCERNED THE PROPOSED DEVIATIONS FOR THE SF FIVE DO NOT MEET THE INTENT OF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, WHICH IS TO ACCOMMODATE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WHICH RESULT IN A HIGHER QUALITY AND DEVELOPMENT. LOT DIMENSIONS AND THE ORIENTATION THEY HAVE APPEARED TO BE GOVERNED BY THE BUSINESS MODEL THE APPLICANT HAS, BUT SHOULD BE SEEKING TO ESTABLISH PRESCRIBED LOCKOUT OTHER THAN WHAT IS SET FORTH. 
          AND THEY REALLY DON'T TAKEN THE FULL CONSIDERATION THE CONTEXT OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE SITE IN THE LAKE RAY HUBBARD TO FULLY MAXIMIZE THE POTENTIAL THAT A DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE COULD HAVE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. AGAIN, THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION FOR STICKING WITH THAT AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE AND ANY QUESTIONS YOU 
          MAY HAVE WE WILL WORK TO ADDRESS THEM. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: THANK YOU. 
          THAT WAS A LOT TO SHARE AND WE APPRECIATE IT. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. IF THE DEVELOPER IS AVAILABLE, 
          LET'S HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER. >> GOOD EVENING MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. 
          [00:50:01]
MY NAME IS KEVIN HAROLD. LOCATED AT 8214 WESTCHESTER BOULEVARD SUITE 900 DALLAS TEXAS 75225. AT THIS TIME THE COMPANY DOES NOT WISH TO GIVE A PRESENTATION FOR AGENDA ITEM 5V. UPON RECEIPT OF STAFF REPORT, WE'VE BEEN ACTIVELY WORKING WITH OUR LANDOWNER TO EXTEND OUR ZONING TIMELINE WITHOUT A RESOLUTION, HOWEVER, WE ANTICIPATE A RESOLUTION IN THE COMING DAYS. UNFORTUNATELY WE WERE UNABLE TO WITHDRAW FROM THE AGENDA BEFORE TONIGHT TO MEETING THE REACH OF THE COMMISSION DESIRE TO APPROVE THE CURRENT PLAN IS PRESENTED, WE ARE HAPPY TO PROCEED TO COUNSEL. 
          SHOULD THE COMMISSION VOTE TO DENY THE CURRENT PLAN, WE HOPE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH OUR LANDOWNER THAT WILL PROVIDE US WITH THE ADEQUATE TIME TO COLLABORATE WITH STAFF TO MODIFY OUR PROPOSAL THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY GARNER A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IN THIS COMMISSION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. 
          >>LISA ESTEVEZ: THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER? ANYBODY? WELL, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. BUT BEFORE DOING THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT ITEM 5D, IN CASE SOME PEOPLE OF JOINT MEETING LATE, ITEM 5D ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY AT RELATIVE ROAD AND MILL ROAD WITH WAS WITHDRAWN. 
          IF YOU ON THE PHONE WAITING TO SPEAK TO THAT ONE, THAT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA. 
          BUT NOW WE ARE READY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 5E, WHICH WE JUST HEARD. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO REMEMBER THAT THERE IS A THREE MINUTE LIMIT ON ALL COMMENTARY. 
          SO WE APPRECIATE YOU STICKING TO THAT FOR US. SUSAN, ARE YOU GOING TO BE ÃOR 
          LAURA QUICK. >> THIS IS LAURA. I WILL QUICKLY GO OVER OUR PROCESS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS IF YOU DON'T MIND. AND ALSO, WE HAVE HAD SOME INDICATION THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY TUNING IN SO WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE PHONE NUMBER FOR THEM TO CALL, WHICH IS THERE ON THE SCREEN. 
          669-254-5252. IN THE MEETING ID IS 161-236-8736. 
          SO FOR ALL THOSE WHO ARE CALLING, PLEASE MUTE ALL ELECTRONICS IN THE BACKGROUND. 
          CALLERS WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY THE LAST FOUR DIGITS OF THE PHONE NUMBER USED TO CALL IN. 
          OR IF THEY LISTED THEIR NAME BY THEIR NAME, ONCE RECOGNIZED AS CHAIRWOMAN MENTIONED HE WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. YOUR SOUND WILL BE MUTED AT THE END OF YOUR TIME AND IF YOU SUBMITTED YOUR COMMENTS VIA EMAIL EARLIER, THEY WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD. 
          WE ALSO WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL EMAIL SUBMISSIONS THIS EVENING DUE TO THE DIFFICULTY TUNING IN. SO IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND FOR YOUR COMMENT TO BE READ DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, TO RESPOND TO CITIZEN INPUT RELIC.COM TODAY WE WILL TRY TO CATCH THOSE THAT. I'M GOING TO LEAVE THIS SLIDE ON THE SCREEN. 
          AND I WILL FOLLOW THE TIMER ON MY END, IF YOU DON'T MIND. THAT WAY THAT LEAVES THE NUMBER OF FOR PEOPLE TO USE. WE DO HAVE TWO PEOPLE ONLINE READY TO SPEAK. 
          JR SCOLA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? >> YES, PLEASE. 
          THANK YOU. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 
          BACKGROUND? AHEAD. 
          [00:55:05]
          AHEAD. >> OKAY. I APOLOGIZE. 
          AND Q COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JR SCOLA. 
          FRUSTRATING THAT STILL ITEMS FROM THE AGENDA. AND IT TAKES THE COMMUNITY AND CITIZENS HOURS OUT OF THE DAY TO PREPARE TO COME TO PLAN AND TO TALK ABOUT THESE PROPOSALS FORGET I FIND THAT VERY UNFAIR FOR US AS CITIZENS WHO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THESE PROPOSALS AND MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD. FEEL LIKE THEY ARE WAITING US OUT. 
          IT'S A TACTIC TO GET THE PUBLIC TO GO AWAY. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT WE HAVE LAWRENCE KOHLER. 
          YOU WE WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM?LAURA SCOLA? DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? OKAY. NEXT WE HAVE INITIALS A.D. 
          . DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? OKAY. NEXT AMY DUGGER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? 
          >> NO THINKING. >> OKAY. AMY ARE YOU A.D. AS WELL? 
          >> YES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          SO THOSE ARE ALL THE CALLERS WE HAVE ONLINE AT THE MOMENT. SUSAN, DID YOU WANT TO READ YOUR ITEMS? WHAT YES. I HAVE THREE ITEMS TO BRING. 
          MR. AND MRS. MYRA COATES HAD MY QUESTION IS ONE OF THE PLANS FOR THE SENIOR CITIZENS LIVING IN THE TRAILER PARK AND 4509 CHIESA ROAD APPEARED WE LIVED IN THE HOUSING FOR SENIORS ON THE COST FOR A TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT IS 1000 AND AM. THE MAJORITY OF SENIORS LIVING HERE CAN'T AFFORD THAT, PLUS, MOVING IS EXPENSIVE SO I HOPE YOU DON'T REZONE THIS PROPERTY. 
          NOT ONLY THE SCHOOLS WILL BECOME OVERCROWDED AND THAT THE ROAD IS ALREADY A MESS. 
          I HOPE YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OLDER PEOPLE AS TO THE GETTING MORE MONEY IN TAXES COULD YOU ALL WILL BE OLD ONE DAY AND I PRAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEPEND ON THE PLACE FOR LOW INCOME RESIDENTS IT AGAIN, PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THE REZONING AT 45 ZERO NINE CHIESA ROAD. 
          >> NEXT COMMENT. >> WOODROW SHELTON 40 618 MIRAMAR DRIVE ROW LET. 
          I DO NOT AGREE TO THE REZONE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERLY FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS A 40 DISTRICT AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL C1 DISTRICT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT P.D. DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIED. THIS MEANS IT WOULD BE THE ONLY 
          [01:00:01]
AS A FIVE RESIDENTIAL AREA IN THE ENTIRE CITY OF RELATIVE FOR THE INFORMATION I CAN FIND ON THE ZONING MAP, WHICH INDICATES TO ME THAT THIS WOULD BE LOW INCOME HOUSING.ET ALONE 82 MORE HOMES WITH IT BEING A TWO LANE ROAD AND THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS WE ALREADY HAVE WINDOW IMPROVEMENTS THE ROAD PLAN ANYTIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE FROM THE ROAD TO PARKWAY. 
          THE LAST TRAFFIC STUDY ON THE WEBSITE WAS 2013 BUT A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME AND IT IS ALREADY GETTING WORSE. THE NEXT COMMENT IS DAVID AT 4605 MIRAMAR DRIVE. 
          I DON'T MIND SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT. 
          I THINK 82 HOMES IS TOO MANY FOR THE SITE ROOT AND CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC IT WOULD GENERATE ENTERING AND EXITING. AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE. 
          >> THANK YOU SUSAN, AND CUTE LAURA. >> WE DON'T HAVE ADDITIONAL 
          CALLERS. >> OKAY. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL MOVE ÃI WILL START WITH YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON 
          THIS ITEM? >> WE WANT TO HAVE A MOTION BEFORE WE COMMENT ON IT. 
          >> NO. WE USUALLY DO THAT AFTER. THIS IS TO GET EVERYONE ON THE 
          ITEM. >> I AM FOR DISAPPROVAL. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND EVEN THE SSI REQUIREMENTS THEY ARE 
          ASKING FOR. SO NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT. >> OKAY. 
          MR. ENGEN , COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. >>MARK ENGEN : I HAVE TO COMPLY WITH MR. COTE . WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE DEVELOPERS COMING IN THAT ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT THE CITY IS ALREADY PLANNED FOR THAT AREA. SO I HOPE WHEN HE DOES COME BACK THAT HE HAS A BETTER PLAN. 
          WE HAVE GREAT ACCESS TO THE LAKE.T IS GREAT PROPERTY. WE HAVE LARGE LOTS ACROSS LAKES. LIVE LARGE DEVELOPMENTS TO THE CELL ON MILLER THAT ARE COMING UP WITH DIFFERENT SIZED LOTS SO WE NEED TO ADD VARIETY ALONG THE LAKE THERE. 
          SO I WILL BE IN DENIAL. >> OKAY. MR. WINTON , WOULD YOU LIKE TO 
          COMMENT ON THE ITEM? >>STEPHEN WINTON : I HAVE SEVERAL THINGS HERE. 
          FIRST OF FOR THE STAFF, THERE WAS A COMMENT OR SOMETHING MADE THAT CHIESA LINE IS SLATED TO GO TO ESSEX LANE DIVIDED ROAD. I AM WONDERING HOW THAT WOULD WORK FOR MILLER THE 66. 
          THAT'S OVER IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THEY ARE ALREADY REDOING THE ALLEY RIGHT OFF OF CHIESA BETWEEN CATAMARAN AND NORTH. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM IF YOU GET INTO THAT BRIDGE BEFORE WOODSIDE. I WONDER IF THEY COULD ELABORATE ON THAT PIECE BECAUSE THAT DOES PLAY A HUGE PART IN HOW THIS WILL BE DEVELOPED 
          GOING FORWARD. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: WHO FOR THE CITY STAFF WANTS TO ADDRESS HIS 
          QUESTION? >> AM ASSUMING THAT IS ME. SO I AM NOT IN PUBLIC WORKS SO I DON'T KNOW THE FULL DETAILS. I'M SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROJECT, ALTHOUGH BASICALLY IT IS REALLY NOT EVEN ÃTHERE ARE NO DRAWINGS, THERE'S NOT EVEN A CONCEPT PLAN JUST YET. 
          THE MASTER THEIR HOME PLAN AND IS A SIX LANE ROADWAY THOROUGHFARE. 
          THAT IS GOING TO BE BORNE OUT AND THEY GET INTO THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN JUST LIKE EARLIER THIS EVENING WE TALKED ABOUT MILLER ROAD EXPANSION AND WHEN THAT PROJECT WAS CONTEMPLATED THEY WENT AND PURCHASED THEM RIGHT AWAY THAT IS PROBABLY SOME OF WHICH HOW THE RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE ACQUIRED SO THERE IS ENOUGH ROOM TO WHITEN CHIESA ROAD. 
          [01:05:04]
I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST WEEK THERE WAS A PRESENTATION TO COUNSEL ON WIDENING BETWEEN MILLER AND DOLLAR ROCK AND THEY ARE RETHINKING THAT FROM A SIX LANE TO A FOUR-LANE ROADWAY BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTIES IN ACQUIRING THE RIGHT AWAY AND THE IMPACT TO SOME OF THE EXISTING HOMES ALONG THE WAY. SO ALTHOUGH THE MASTER THROUGH COPELAND IDENTIFIES THIS IS A SIX LANE THOROUGHFARE, THAT COULD CHANGE. BUT AT THIS POINT THAT IS THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE TO GO WITH AND THAT IS HOW WE EVALUATE THE PROJECT THAT ARE ALONG THAT 
          SEGMENT. >> THANK YOU. MILLER THE NEXT THING TO THE DEVELOPER SOUNDS LIKE IF I HEARD RIGHT PROBABLY HAD INTENTIONS TO WITHDRAW THE ITEM BEFORE TONIGHT AND MISSED IT. BUT REALLY WANT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AS WE KNOW. 
          THE GENERAL CONSENSUS IT SEEMS LIKE IS NOT IN FAVOR WITH THE CITIZENS OF ROLLA IN FAVOR OF MORE HIGH DENSITY SUBDIVISIONS, MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS THINGS THAT SHOWS A LOT OF DIVISIVENESS. IT'S A HOT SUBJECT THAT I'M SURE ALL OF US ARE AWARE OF THAT. I WOULD ASK THE DEVELOPER TO GO BACK AND TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. ON THE FLIPSIDE, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THAT BE IN OVER HERE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE THERE AT THAT PARTICULAR SPOT WHERE IF THAT WAS A SUBDIVISION THAT MAKES SENSE TO PUT IT ALL TOGETHER THE DEVELOP SOME HOMES.EEDS TO BE CLOSER TO THE SF 40 THAT IS ALREADY THERE. 
          JUST TRYING TO GET SOMETHING TO DEVELOPER TO WORK WITH AND HOW WE COULD STILL GET THAT DEVELOPED. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST TO, I'M CONCERNED WITH THE VARIANCES BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE WE WENT TO APD REQUEST AND CHANGED AND REQUESTED A WHOLE BUNCH OFCHANGES ON TOP OF THAT . AND THEN LASTLY, LOTS TWO THROUGH 10 WITH THE SANITARY EASEMENT RUNNING THROUGH THE BACKYARD WITH THE MINIMAL BACKYARD I WOULD ASK THE DEVELOPER TO ASK THEMSELVES AS THEY ARE DRAWING THAT OUT, WOULD THEY BE WILLING TO PURCHASE THAT BACKYARD AND LIVE IN IT? BECAUSE THE REALTORS I KNOW AND TALK TO, PEOPLE WANT SOME USE OF THE BACKYARD WHERE THEY HAVE KIDS, DOGS, SOMETHING THEY CAN PUT A STORAGE BUILDING OR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN PUT ON THE EASEMENT THAT REALLY WANT TO HAVE THE USE COULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY THERE. WOULD DEFINITELY RELOOK AT SEVERAL THINGS GOING FORWARD IF THEY COULD. OTHER THAN THAT, SCOREBOARD COMPANIES WANT TO TALK ABOUT HAVING A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM A GREAT PRODUCT. 
          WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF THEM AROUND. AND DEFINITELY GLAD TO HAVE THAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM. BUT I THINK WE CAN FIND SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO WORK CERTAINLY. BUT I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. 
          >> I LIKE THE OVERALL IDEAL OF THE PLAN AND AM EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES FOR THIS LOCATION, HOWEVER, I AGREE WITH STAFF ON THIS AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE AND THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM OVER TO ME THEY LOOK CLUTTERED AND CONGESTED. 
          ONCE THEY ARE BUILT UP IN THE AGE POORLY OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME SO DEFINITELY WILL NOT 
          BE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: THANK YOU. >> I AM ON BOARD WITH THE COMMISSIONERS AND EVERYBODY ELSE AND STAFF OUT THERE. I THINK THIS IS A PROJECT THAT IS SO FAR OFF THE PROPER ZONINGS THERE AND BE HARD TO GET MY HEAD AROUND SOMETHING THROUGH THE HEAVENS IN A COMPELLING REASON WHY THERE WAS A CHANGE EITHER AND THAT FOR ME IS BIG.AND THE CURRENT JOB AS WE HAVE THIS LAND USE PLAN, WE ARE HERE TO FOLLOW THAT AND IF THERE IS A REASON IT CAN'T BE DONE, LET'S HEAR THAT. THAT I DIDN'T HEAR ANY. 
          [01:10:05]
I THINK IF THEY BROUGHT IT BACK TO US AND HAD A DIFFERENT LOOK AT IT I WOULD HEAR SOME COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF WHY WE ARE CHANGING THIS SO MUCH FROM WHAT OUR LAND USE PLAN AND 
          WHATEVER ZONING IS ALREADY. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: THANKING. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS EITHER. IT'S TOO FAR DEPARTURE FROM THE CURRENT ZONING.IT IS A PRETTY PRIME PIECE OF PROPERTY RIGHT THERE ON THE LATE. ANYMORE COMMENTS FROM ANYONE? 
          ANY MORE QUESTIONS?>> IT IS MORE" I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IF THE DEVELOPER GONE! I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A BETTER USE OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS A PRIME PRIME PIECE OF PROPERTY ON THE LAKE WITH QUITE A BIG SITE GRADING CHANGE THAT CAN BE USED TO ADVANTAGE ANOTHER DISADVANTAGE. THEY SPOKE TO IT AS A HINDRANCE OF THEIRDESIGN WHICH , WHICH IT 
          SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS LAKEFRONT PROPERTY. >> SUPER. 
          THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. 
          THINK WE ARE READY FOR A MOTIO . WAS THAT YOU, MR. COTE . 
          >> YES, MA'AM. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE THIS REQUEST. 
          >>LISA ESTEVEZ: MOTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL FOR THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA. 
          WE HAVE A SECOND? >> WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. WINTON . 
          ANYMORE COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE? ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A VOTE IT ALL IN FAVOR TO RECOMMEND DENIAL. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          [5C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding amendments to the Form-Based Code and the North Shore Framework Plans to: 1) require Special Use Permits for Mixed Residential Building Types and multifamily projects, and 2) revise the Building Types provision limiting Mixed Residential buildings to 25% of a larger mixed use development in the North Shore Framework Plans.]
ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE BACK UP TO ITEM 5C. 
          THIS ITEM IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE FORM-BASED CODE IN THE NORTH SHORE FRAMEWORK PLANS TO REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPES AND MULTIFAMILYPROJECTS . 
          AND REVISE THE BUILDING PROVISIN LIMITING MIXED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO 25 PERCENT OF A LARGER MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTH SHORE FRAMEWORK PLAN. 
          >> YOU ARE MUTED. >> I HAD SUCH A BEAUTIFUL INTRO SENTENCE THERE AND GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. WE DID TOUCH ON THIS ITEM BRIEFLY TO GIVE YOU A SNAPSHOT ON WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED. UT THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO DIVE INTO IT AND FOR OUR JUDY AUDIENCE, WILL TAKE OUR TIME IN THROUGH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS SCHEDULED AS A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT THAT AMENDMENTS REFERENCE TO RELATED TO THE FORM-BASED CODE INTHE FRAMEWORK . THE FORM-BASED CODE WAS ADOPTED SOME EIGHT YEARS AGO AND THERE ARE AMBIGUITIES ASSOCIATED WITH IT.S WE HAVE SEEN DEVELOPMENT PATENTS CHANGE AND REVOLVE AT THE CITY ROLLA, WE STARTED LOOKING AT OPPORTUNITIES AND WHAT DO WE NEED TO AMEND, WHEN DO WE NEED TO AMEND IT AND TO BE A SHORT-TERM, MIDTERM AND LONG-TERM GOALS. DURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS ESPECIALLY SOME WITH COUNSEL OF THE COURSE OF APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS, THERE WAS CONSENSUS FROM THE COUNCIL AND A DESIRE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT AS IT RELATES TO THE FORM-BASED CODE, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MULTIFAMILY USES . 
          FURTHERMORE, THE CONSENSUS WAS TO REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIFAMILY USES FOR THE WAY THE FORM-BASED CODE ESTABLISHED RIGHT NOW AND AUTHORED RIGHT NOW, THAT'S A SCHEDULE USES THAT IDENTIFIES WHAT USES IN WHICH ZONING DISTRICT PREFER THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FORM-BASED CODE WOULD REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENTIRELY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL IT IN THE FORM-BASED CODE AND NORTH 
          [01:15:09]
SHORE DISTRICTS, WE CLASSIFY THIS AS MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND THAT THE DEFINITION FOR MULTIFAMILY. AND IT IS REGULATED, THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE FORM-BASED CODE FURTHER ELABORATE ON THE SPIRIT SPECIFICALLY WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THERE ARE THREE ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE FORM-BASED CODE THAT ALLOW MIXED RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS MULTIFAMILY. THAT'S IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, URBAN VILLAGE AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE FORM-BASED CODE. 
          WHEN RECENT THE NOTICES OUT TO THOSE WITHIN THE NORTH SHORE AND THOSE WITHIN 200 AND 500 FOOT OF THE NORTH SHORE AREA, THE NOTICE WAS AS PRESCRIBED IN THE ENGINE ITEM YOU JUST READ OUT. AND IT WAS NOT CHANGING ZONING A SPECIFIC PROPERTIES. 
          BUT IT WAS TO AMEND THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE FORM-BASED CODE IN ONE PORTION TO REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL STEP OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WHEN PROPOSING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. STOOD AT THE BACK OF THE NORTH SHORE FRAMEWORK PLANS, THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TOO AMEND THOSE TO ELIMINATE AN ALLOWANCE OF 25 PERCENT OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TO BE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. BASICALLY WHAT THAT MEANS IS IN THE FORM-BASED CODE VIA SPECIFIC CATEGORIES AS IT RELATES TOTHE BUILDING . 
          THE MIXED USE IS ONE OF THOSE. THE FRAMEWORK PLAN HAS AN ALLOWANCE CURRENTLY THAT WITHIN THAT CATEGORY, NOT THE MIXED RESIDENTIAL BUT THE MIXED-USE CATEGORY, 25 PERCENT OF IT WOULD BE MULTIFAMILY IN NATURE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE TABLE ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE VIEWING AUDIENCE, WE TRIED TO BREAK THIS UP IN A MANNER SO IT MAKES SENSE AS TO WHAT DOES THE FORM-BASED CODE REGULATE. 
          AND SPECIFICALLY THE FORM-BASED CODE IDENTIFIES THREE BUILDING TYPES. 
          AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IN THESE BUILDING TYPES THERE ARE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AS TO THE INTEGRATION OF THOSE. THESE DISTRICTS, SUCH AS THE URBAN VILLAGE, THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT ALLOW THIS USES BUILDING TYPES THAT ARE LISTED, WHICH IS MIXED RESIDENTIAL GOOD WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COMMON NAME OF THIS MIXED RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT, AND AS APARTMENTS, CONDOS, GARDEN APARTMENTS. AND IT ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A STRAIGHT MULTIFAMILY MIXED RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT WITH A LIVE WORK UNIT ON THE OTHER HAND IS ANOTHER BUILDING TYPE BUT IN THIS INSTANCE ASKED TO HAVE A COMPONENT WE RESIDENTIAL ELEMENTS ARE SECOND-STORY. AND THE SAME THING WITH THE MIXED-USE COMPONENT WHERE YOU HAVE RETAIL OR OFFERS ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL RETAIL OR OFFICE SECOND-STORY. THE $0.25 CAVEAT I JUST MENTIONED EARLIER RELATES TO THIS FUNCTION. BECAUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT, THE MIXED USE FUNCTION, THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE FOR 25 PERCENT OF THAT. SO FROM A DISCUSSION STANDPOINT, WE WANTED TO FIRST GIVE YOU A SYNOPSIS OF WHY WE ARE HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IN THE IMPETUS THAT LED TO US BEING HERE TONIGHT. AND THEN TO TALK ABOUT SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND WHAT THEIR INTENT IS. SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS A FORMAL ZONING ACTION AND ENCOURAGES PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND COMMENT ON THE USE OF THE SITE AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT FEATURES. IN ADDITION TO HAVING THE FORM-BASED CODE REQUIREMENTS. AND IF AN OCCUPANT CHOSE TO SUBMIT IT ALL THE PATIENT, SHOULD THIS AMENDMENT BE APPROVED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. 
          SO IT WOULD HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT FROM A LAND USE ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE. 
          THE PURPOSE OF AN SU P IS NOT TO RELATE PARTICULAR HARDSHIPS THAT THE SITE WERE TAKEN FOR SPECIAL PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT. THAT IS NOT THE INTENT. 
          THE INTENT IS TO BALANCE THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT. 
          AS WELL MORE IMPORTANTLY, DOES IT MEET THE INTENT OF THE FORM-BASED CODE. 
          DOES IT MEET DIVISION. DO WE HAVE THE INTEGRATION OF MIXED USES. 
          DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DRAW AND BASED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE NORTH SHORE. 
          [01:20:01]
FOR EXAMPLE, THE ABILITY TO DRAW IN A LIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT WHERE YOU HAVE EMPLOYMENT-BASED HUBS THAT WOULD ESTABLISH ROUND THESE USES. THAT BEING SAID, IN ORDER TO REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PORTIONS OF THE CITY REGULATED BY THE FORM-BASED CODE. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE SPECIFIC ARTICLES WITHIN THE FORM-BASED CODE IN THESE ARTICLES ARE FREELY SECTIONS IN THE NORTH A SHORT FRAMEWORK PLANS WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDED. WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS KEEP IT SIMPLE IT ESPECIALLY IN YOUR REPORT WORRIED PROPOSED THE AMENDMENT AND WHERE THE AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO BE CHANGED WE STRUCTURED SOME OF THE LANGUAGE AND WHERE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE NEEDED TO BE IDENTIFIED WHERE I ITALICIZE THAT IN BOLD TO MAKE AN EASIER READ IN THE PACKET. AND WALK OUR VIEWING AUDIENCE THROUGH THIS PROCESS AS WELL. 
          WE HAVE DONE THE SAME IN THIS PRESENTATION. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS VERSED WE'LL TALK ABOUT INSERTING THE SEP, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.RTICLE 1.4 IS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PORTION OF THE FORM-BASED CODE. WE ARE PROPOSING AN ADDITIONAL SECTION BE ADDED, ONE POINT FOR A SUBSECTION WITH THIS NEW SUBSECTION WITH A NEW LANGUAGE DESCRIBING A SPECIALTY PERMIT. AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AS TO WHAT WILL THE DEFINITION BE AND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE. 
          WE TOUCHED ON IT A BIT, BUT THIS FURTHER ENFORCES THAT WRITTEN SEP IS A FORMAL ZONING ACTION IN A FORMAL ZONING ACTION AND OUR TRAINING REQUIRES APPROVAL OF A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS REQUIRES FEE RECOMMENDATION ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN SEP IS A FORMAL ZONING ACTION WHICH ENCOURAGES PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN COMMON OF THE USE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES. ADDITIONALLY, IF AN ANALYSIS AND TENDED TO ENSURE PROPOSED USES WILL NOT PRESENT SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING BUILT ENVIRONMENT FOR THE SURROUNDING LAND USES, AS WELL AS THE ZONING. 
          THE IMPLICATIONS ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS OR IN A LARGER COMMUNITY. THE PURPOSE OF AN SEP IS TO NOT BE PARTICULAR HARDSHIPS OR TO CONVERT SPECIAL PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS FOR A PARTICULAR PROJECT AND REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURE RUNS A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND USES HAVING UNIQUE WERE WIDELY VARYINGCHARACTERISTICS . SO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS TO BE USED, IS NOT TO BE USED TO LEGITIMIZE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES OR THE INABILITY TO SEEK VARIANCES TO AVOID CONFINES WITH THE FORM-BASED REGULATIONS FOR BUT INSTEAD, THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS ADDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENT. 
          REVIEW APPROVAL AND MOST NOTICED PROCEDURE THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE FOLLOWS THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND THEN THIS INSTANCE WE REFERENCE THE DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE THAT MIMICS THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE NOTIFYING PROPERTY OWNERS IF THERE IS AN SEP REQUEST WITHIN 200 AND 500 FEET RADIUS OF THE REQUEST AND TO HAVE THE SIGNS POSTED TO THE AND ALSO HAVE A NOTICE PRINTED IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AS WE DIVE FURTHER INTO THIS AND LOOK AT OUR ZONING DISTRICTS, WE HAVE THE URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT OF THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT AND COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICTS WHICH ARE THE THREE DISTRICTS THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO ALLOW ASKED RESIDENTIAL/MULTIFAMILY USE. 
          THE INTENT IS THE ONLY CHANGE HERE AS HE WOULDSEE THIS SECTION ADDRESSES THE BUILDING TYPES . AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS IT TALKS ABOUT THE SETBACKS, HOW CLOSE YOU CAN GO TO THE STREET AND HOW YOU TREAT YOUR UPPER FLOORS AND PROJECTIONS OR PROTRUSIONS IN THE FACADE TREATMENTS TO THESE DEVELOPMENTS WOULD WORK. AND THEN IN ALSO TALKS ABOUT WHAT YOU NEED TO DO WITH YOUR SITE PLANS, YOU DEVELOPMENT SITE PLANS, YOUR CONCEPT PLANS AND YOUR REGULATING PLANS. AND THEN WE HAVE ADDED THERE TO FURTHER REINFORCE THAT MIXED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPES WILL REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          AGAIN, THE SAME SIMILAR TREATMENT IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. 
          THE ONLY CAVEAT HERE IS THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT MIXED USE IN MIXED RESIDENTIAL AS A BUILDING TYPE WITH TENANTS DISTRICT. THAT BEING SAID, WE DON'T WANT TO LIMIT THE OPPORTUNITY OR THE ABILITY TO SEE THESE NAME URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH WORK OUT 
          [01:25:04]
GOOD TRANSITIONS IN THE RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND NEW NEIGHBORHOODS WITH MORE INTENSE OR DENSER PRODUCTS.NTIL THE MIXED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPE IN THIS INSTANCE WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.IN THIS SLIDE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT AND THOSE STANDARD FOR THE FORM-BASED CODE HAS A COUPLE ELEMENTS WE HAVE STRUCK THROUGH. THE FIRST THING WE STRUCK THROUGH IS A REQUIREMENT THAT IF MORE THAN 25 PERCENT OF THE LAND AREA IN YOUR COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT ZONING CATEGORY IS PROPOSED, A MAJOR WAR IS REQUIRED. 
          AND THAT IS A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. WILL THIS INSTANCE, WE ARE PROPOSING TO STRIKE THAT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE WE ARE SAYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED REGARDLESS FOR THE MULTIFAMILY USES. WHICH WOULD BE EVALUATED AS A LARGER MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT BUT CAN ONLY GO TO OCCUPY 25 PERCENT OF THE LAND HERE THAT CRITERIA WAS STRUCK. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WITH ANY ZONING ORDINANCE SUCH AS A RELATIVE DEVELOPMENT CODE THERE IS ALWAYS A TABLE OF ALLOWABLE USES THAT IDENTIFIES THE POSSIBLE USES AND WITH THAT IN WHICH TONY ZONING DISTRICT WITH THAT USE BE PERMITTED. 
          IN THIS CASE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO GO AHEAD AND REQUIRED THE SEP FOR THE SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENT AS WE DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS LIGHTS IN THE URBAN VILLAGE IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICTS REQUIRING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND IN THIS INSTANCE THEY FOUND A DWELLING MULTIFAMILY TO HAVE. THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT. IT IS DENOTED WITH AN S. THE APPENDIX WE HAVE IN THE APPENDIX COULD. THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS THAT STEM FROM THIS FORM-BASED CODE. 
          THERE IS A TABLE FOR EACH DISTRICT THAT OUTLINES THE BUILDING TYPES. 
          THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE SITE REQUIREMENTS AND I AM REFERRING TO SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHTS PERHAPS FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ADDS A NOTE TO ALL INSTANCES OF MIXED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN SU P FOR ALL BUILDING TYPES WOULD BE REQUIRED. I'M GONE AHEAD AND OUR PROPOSAL IS TO ADD TO THAT NOTE IN THESE THREE ZONING DISTRICTS. NOTE FOR THESE DEPENDENCIES WOULD REFERENCE THAT. I KNOW SOME OF THIS IS A TAD TEDIOUS, BUT THESE ARE THE ELEMENTS IN THE FORM-BASED CODE WE HAVE TO AMEND AN SEP REQUIREMENT FOR MIXED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AS PART OF THE FORM-BASED CODE, WHEN WE ADOPTED THE FORM-BASED CODE FOLLOWING THE HANDS OF THE ADOPTION, WE ADOPTED THE NORTH SHORE MASTER PLAN. 
          AND IN THE REPORTS WE IDENTIFIED THE THREE AREAS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. 
          AND THAT BEING SAID, IN THE NORTH SHORE CENTER FOR INDUSTR , THAT IS THE NORTH SHORE CENTER SOUTH,THE URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT COMPONENT HAD WHAT THEY CALLED SOMEWHAT OF AN OVERLAY DISTRICT . WITHIN THE URBAN VILLAGE BUILDING TYPES WERE ALLOWED. 
          BUT IT CLEARLY SAID THAT THEY WERE ALLOWED AS COMMERCIAL MIXED USE IN MIXED RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO WHAT WOULD OCCUR WITH THAT IS THERE WOULD BE NO LIMITATION ON THE MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT. 
          AND SO IN THIS INSTANCE, WE ARE REQUIRING THAT SEP. NOW, THE OTHER ELEMENT OF THE NORTH SHORE DISTRICT WAS AT THE 25 PERCENT REQUIREMENT I MENTIONED EARLIER, WHICH BASICALLY SAYS THAT IN MIXED RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS PART OF OAKMARK LARGER MIXED-USE PRODUCT, THEY OCCUPY 25 PERCENT OF THE LAND AREA WERE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE SECTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT THERE WAS A QUEST TO DELIVER MORE THAN 25 PERCENT, APPROVAL OF THEM WILL BE REQUIRED IN THIS INSTANCE AND THE STAFFS PROPOSAL THAT WE STRIKE TO THAT COMPONENT BECAUSE THE SEP REQUIREMENT, WE ARE IN A BETTER POSITION TO DETERMINE IF WE ARE INDEED DETERMINED TO MAKE THE INTENT OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS WITH THE URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT. WHAT IS THE INTENT, WHAT WE WANT TO SEE. 
          [01:30:07]
AND SO THAT SEP REQUIREMENT WITHOUT O-MATIC WE CAPTURE THE ABILITY INSTEAD OF HAVING THOSE RESTRICTIVE ELEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. AND IT WOULD BE MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW. IN THE COMMERCIAL CENTER, WE ARE ADDING THE SEP REQUIREMENT SO MANY MULTIFAMILY MIXED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL OF AN SEP TO THE PUBLIC. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.THE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT DOES IS ALLOWED IN THE NORTH SHORE, NORTH STRATEGIC AREA. NO BUILDING TYPES OF HER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS STIPULATED. AND SO WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT IN THE NORTH SHORE PER THE INTENT OF THE CHANGES WE ARE PROPOSING IS TO ALLY THE FIRM PLANS WITH THE AMENDMENTS AND TO GET THE VISION OF THE NORTH SHORE ATTACK. WE RECENTLY ADOPTED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          AND IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE WE ADOPTED A FUTURE LAND USE PERMIT. 
          IT IDENTIFIED THE VISION FOR THE NORTH SHORE. OUR GOAL IS TO SLOWLY ALIGN WITH THAT VISION AS BEST AS POSSIBLE AND TRY TO MEET THE INTENT, THAT DEVELOPMENT INTENT OF THE NORTH SHORE.AS I MENTIONED IN KEEPING WITH THE VISION OF THE NORTH SHORE KEEPING THE VISION INTACT FOR A MORE ROBUST PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS AND ENTERING MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ARE INDEED SUPPORTIVE OF THE FUTURE EMPLOYMENT HUB BASED IN VISION AS PART OF THE PLAN. THE BEST PROCESS WOULD BE TOO HAVE AN SEP AND THIS WITH LIMIT POTENTIAL DETRIMENTS TO REALIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH SHORE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THAT BEING SAID, IT IS STAFFS RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED INTO THE FORM-BASED CODE REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED RESIDENTIAL TYPES AND REVISIONS FROM NORTH SHORE FRAMEWORK PLANS BY ADJUSTING THE PROVISION MIXED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO 25 PERCENT OVER LARGER MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTH SHORE TO ALIGN WITH THE FORM-BASED CODE. REQUIRING THE SU PEOPLE WHO READ THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE APPROPRIATE TO BETTER ALIGN THE DEVELOPMENT INTENTIONS OF THE CITY SET OUT IN THE CONFERENCE A PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE AS ADOPTED IN THE NORTH SHORE MASTER PLANS BY HAVING OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL INPUT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. I KNOW THIS WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION.E TRY TO MAKE IT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE THE NOTICES WE SENT OUT THE PROPERTY OWNERS BUT WE TRY TO MAKE IT AS SIMPLE AS POSITIVE WHEN YOU REVIEW THE PACKET. 
          BUT SOME THAT UNFORTUNATELY DOES BECOME TECHNICAL. BUT ULTIMATELY THE END GOAL IS TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS DEFINED AS MIXED RESIDENTIAL. AND WITH THAT, I WILL ATTEMPT 
          TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS? 
          NONE? GO AHEAD. >> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS ELIMINATING THE 25 PERCENT. DO WE FEEL THAT WITH THE SEP WE ARE ABLE TO MAKE SURE WE RECEIVED THAT 25 PERCENT OR WHAT PREVENTS THE DEVELOPER FROM COMING IN AND SAY IN I WANT TO DEVELOP FOUR-STORY BUILDINGS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE AREA, WHICH ARE BASICALLY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS AND EMPTY STOREFRONTS ON THE FIRST FLOOR. 
          >> I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THAT IS THE FIRST QUESTION WEASKED OURSELVES . WHAT ARE WE GOING TO GAIN WITH REQUIRING AN SEP. 
          THE GOAL IS TO ASSESS MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AS AN INTEGRATED USE WITH THAT OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES IN. 
          AS AN EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE CAME IN AND UNFORTUNATELY THIS HAPPENS NOW. 
          NIECES WERE IN. IT MAY NOT COME OUT RIGHT. WE WANT TO FORCE CRITICAL INTEGRATION OF THE LAND USES. IT IS VERY EASY TO SAY THAT THREE PARCELS OF LAND IN ALL THESE THREE PARCELS GOING TO EARMARK THE HARD CORNER TO BE RETAILED. 
          [01:35:02]
WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE THIS OTHER PARCEL TO BE PERHAPS AN OFFICER EVEN TOWNHOME FOR EXAMPLE. BUT THE MAJORITY LARGER PARCEL I WILL HAVE ADDENDS MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS PIECE FROM GOING TO CONSTRUCT THIS PIECE AND I'M GOING TO SHOW THESE HORIZONTALLY INTEGRATED LAND USES, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY WILL BE REALIZED. TO AUTOMATICALLY WE ARE LIMITING THE ABILITY TO CREATE THAT VISION THAT WAS ANTICIPATED WITH THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND QUITE FRANKLY WITH THE FORM-BASED CODE TO TRUE MIX OF LAND USES AND NOT JUST IN ONE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. BUT TO HAVE AN EMPLOYMENT HUB I WOULD COME IN AND THEN THROUGH THAT YOU WOULD SEE ALL THE RESIDENTIAL USES INVOLVED. BUT ALSO WITH THE NORTH SHORE WE HAVE SOME ZONING DISTRICTS THAT NEED TO HAVE THE PHYSICAL SEPARATION AND NEED TO HAVE THE STEP DOWN A DENSITY TO PROVIDE THAT SEPARATION. WITH THE SEP, WE FEEL IS AN EMOTIONAL WORD, BUT LIKELY IT WOULD GIVE US MORE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS DEVELOPMENT IN LIGHT 
          OF THE FORM-BASED CODE PROGRAM. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IS P7 ABSOLUTELY NOT. [LAUGHTER] SO THE REAL QUESTION IS THE PROCESS SUPPOSEDLY WILL 
          ALLOW US TO PREVENT SOMEBODY FROM EXCEEDING THE 25 PERCENT. >> CORRECT. 
          ARE NOT BEING COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. >> BUT ALLOW US TO DO GREATER 
          THAN 25 PERCENT IF WE FEEL THAT IS THE CASE. >> INDEED. 
          >> I DON'T WANT A REPEAT OF WHAT HAPPENED IN A ROW LET ROAD KNOW WHERE WE DEVELOPED ALL THE 
          RESIDENTIAL WITH THE PROMISE OF COMMERCIAL NEXT TO IT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          LIKE I SAID, WHEN CODES ARE FIRST ADOPTED AS THE TRIP STARTED TO IMPLEMENT, YOU REMEMBER WHERE THE AMBIGUITIES LIGHT OR YOU REMEMBER WHERE THERE ARE TWO FLUID OR PERHAPS GIA VANG. WE REALIZE THAT. OUR GOAL IS TO COME FORWARD WITH A SHORT-TERM STEP INTO THAT WE WILL BE COMING FORWARD WITH MORE ADVANCED AMENDMENTS TO ALL OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE TO KEEPING WITH CURRENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS BUT TO 
          ELIMINATE THOSE INSTANCES WHERE WE HAVE SOME HICCUPS IN THE CODE ITSELF.>> AND I 
          APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. >> I HAVE AQUESTION. 
          I THINK IT GOES BACK TO MAY BE WHAT JOHN WAS TRYING TO SAY . SO BY ADOPTING THESE CHANGES, 
          THERE IS STILL A 25 PERCENT CA . >> I'M GOING TO GO TO A COUPLE 
          OF SLIDES AND WALK US THROUGH THAT AND GO JUST AS SECOND. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: IS THAT WHAT 
          YOU WERE KIND OF ALLUDING TO? >> ACTUALLY, THERE ISN'T. THERE IS NOT A 25 PERCENT. 
          BUT WE CAN PREVENT AN EXCESS AMOUNT OF THAT TYPE OF BUILDING IN AN AREA. 
          BY DENYING IT. >> THE CAP WE WERE REFERRING TO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS THE NORTH SHORE. THE THREE ELEMENTS WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR THE FORM-BASED CODE ITSELF REQUIRES IN THE COMMERCIAL CENTER THAT 25 PERCENT CAVEAT. THAT EXISTS REGARDLESS. BUT REGARDLESS YOU WOULD NEED THAT AS A PEAK, RIGHT? SO WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS IN ADDITION TO ANY MAX OF THE SAP PROCESS IS AN ADDITIONAL TOOL THAT WOULD PREVENT.THERE WITH THIS ONE SECOND. 
          >> SOME STILL EXIST IN THE FORM-BASED CODE? >> NOT THE WHOLE FORM-BASED CODE. AT A SPECIFIC DISTRICTS AND APPEARED AS WE IDENTIFIED THE 
          [01:40:02]
THREE DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, MIXED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WE HAVE THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, IS A COMMERCIAL CENTER IN THE URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT. 
          AND SO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED FROM A STOCK PERSPECTIVE IRRITABLE BECAUSE THIS RECOMMENDATION AND WE WILL GO BACK TO THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ASKED. 
          TO REQUIRE THAT SEP, TO HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT FOR AN SEP BUT ALSO REVISE THE NORTH SHORE FRAMEWORK PLAN BY ADJUSTING THE PROVISION LIMITING THE 25 PERCENT REQUIREMENT IN THE NORTH SHORE. AND SO IF WE GO BACK TO ÃWHAT SLIDE DO WE NEED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR ON? HOLD ON, LET ME THINK. THERE YOU GO. 
          CARLOS, ARE YOU THERE? >> YES. IT IS EITHER TWO OR THREE. 
          25 PERCENT REQUIREMENT AND THREE SPEAKS TO THE DIFFERENT BUILDING. 
          >> RIGHT. CARLOS, WHY DON'T YOU JUMP AND AS I LOOK THROUGH SOME OF THIS 
          LANGUAGE. >> CERTAINLY. JUST TO FURTHER CLARIFY, THERE IS A FORM-BASED CODE IN THE FRAMEWORK PLAN.THE FRAMEWORK PLAN ARE CAVEATS AND ADDITION TO THE FORM-BASED CODE FOR SPECIFIC AREAS IN THE CITY. THE ONLY AREA WE ARE MOVING IN THE 25 PERCENT REQUIREMENT IS IN THE URBAN VILLAGE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK PLAN IN THE NORTH SHORE. BUT WE ARE ADDING THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN SEP. 
          WHAT THE 25 PERCENT REQUIREMENT WAS DOING WAS SAYING YOU CAN DO THIS OUT RIGHT AND ANYTHING ABOVE THAT YOU CAN REQUEST A MAJOR WARRANT, WHICH IN ESSENCE IS THE SAME PROCESS YOU'RE DOING NOW. WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW IS SAYING YOU CAN REQUEST A WARRANT THROUGH CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW ANYTHING GREATER THAN THAT. SO NOW WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS EVEN THE 25 PRESENT ASKED TO GO THROUGH CITY COUNCIL TO GET APPROVAL. 
          SO IT IS REALLY JUST A REWORDING IN ORDER TO MAKE IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE FORM -BASED CODE, BUT WE ARE NOT REALLY CHANGING THE CONDITION IN ADDITION TO THE 25 PERCENT. 
          >> LET'S WHERE I AM STUCK ON THIS. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY REQUIRE AN SEP FOR THIS, ANY OF THESE PLANS. BUT IN THE FRAMEWORK PLAN, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY WE ARE LIMITING THAT THE 25 PERCENT. UNLESS YOU SUBMIT A WARRANT FOR. BUT EVEN IF YOU DO SUBMIT A WARRANT TO GO IN THE 25 PERCENT, YOU NEED TO HAVE AN SEP WITH IT BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF BUILDING IT IS IN THE TYPE OF BUILDING REQUIRES AN SEP. IN OTHER WORDS, BY ELIMINATING THE 25 PERCENT REQUIREMENT IN THE FRAMEWORK PLAN, YOU ARE RELYING ON US AND THE COUNCIL TO PUT THE BRAKES ON A 
          DEVELOPER WHO MIGHT BE OVERANXIOUS. >> TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT. 
          CARLOS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG OR LESS USE THE COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT. 
          IF WE IN THE COMMERCIAL CENTER IT SAYS MIXED RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL BE EVALUATED AS LARGER MIXED-USE DEVELOPMET MAY ONLY OCCUPY 25 PERCENT OF THE LAND AREA. 
          THE COMMERCIAL CENTER IT HAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED FIVE PERCENT OF THE LAND AREA. 
          THEN IT SAYS BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT YOU NEED A MAJOR WARRANT. 
          NO, YOU NEED TO SEP AND STRIKING THE MAJOR WARRANT PROCESS. 
          >> WE ARE ALSO STRIKING THE 25 PERCENT. >> NOT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CENTER. BUT WE ARE SAYING YOU STILL NEED AN SEP. 
          IT'S THREE THINGS HAPPENING. IN THE COMMERCIAL CENTER OF THE FORM-BASED CODE, THE FIRST THING IS AS IT STANDS, THE CODE SAYS IT DEVELOPMENT CAN BE ESTABLISHED AND MIXED RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE PERMITTED, MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS PERMITTED IN THE COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT. BUT IT CAN ONLY OCCUPY 25 PERCENT OF THE LAND AREA. 
          AND IN THAT FORM-BASED CODE, THE EXISTING CODE GOES ON TO SAY IF YOU WANT TO EXCEED THAT 
          [01:45:01]
25 PERCENT CAVEAT, YOU NEED APPROVAL OF THE MAJOR WARRANT WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AND WHAT HAVE YOU. SO STAFFS PERSPECTIVE HERE IS IF WE STRIKE THAT REQUIREMENT FOR A MAJOR WARRANT AND INJECT INSTEAD THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN SEP, WE ARE STILL AT WORK WILL ACHIEVING THE REQUIREMENT WE WILL BE RECEIVING THE REQUEST IS 25 PERCENT OR LESS BECAUSE YOU NEED AN SEP. AND IF THEY CHOOSE TO GO OVER AS PART OF THAT SEP, IT'LL BE 
          FOLDED INTO THAT REQUEST. >> I UNDERSTAND. BUT WHEN ADEVELOPER LOOKS AT OUR CODE , WE WERE LOOKING AT SWARM BERN PURITY COMES IN AND SAYS NO ONE IN SFY BUT I WANT 
          ALL THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE WHAT. >> DEVELOPER SHOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE CODE AND SAY WHAT I NEED TO PROPOSED MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS. SO DO NOT STILL NEED TO LET 
          THEM KNOW THAT WE WANT TO LIMIT THIS TO ONLY 25 PERCENT OF USE. >> CORRECT. 
          THEY WILL STILL KNOW THAT. IF THEY WANT TO AS PART OFTHE SEP REQUEST SOMETHING DIFFERENT . BUT SAY THEY ARE PROPOSING A DIFFERENT INTEGRATION OF LAND USES WE SEE THE REALIZATION THEY CAN ENVISION IN THE FORM-BASED CODE OR THE INTENT OF THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. NOW TO YOUR POINT BUT WHAT IF WE HAVE ÃAS WE SAID THE SEP PROCESS ISN'T A WAY TO MINIMIZE OR FIND WAYS TO DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS. 
          BUT YOU CAN USE THIS REQUIREMENT TO ENHANCE YOUR PROGRAM OR PRESENT SOMETHING THAT IS DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE WE WANT TO HAVE THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FROM IT PURELY THEORETICAL STANDPOINT OF THE OPPORTUNITY. THE GOALS WOULD BE TO HAVE THAT TRANSPARENCY TO BRING THESE FORWARD WHERE IF WE DIDN'T AS STAFF FIND IT COMPATIBLE WITH OR COMPLEMENTARY WITH OF WHAT THIS CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE NIXING THAT OF US, WE WOULD LIKELY NOT RECOMMEND FAVORABLY. BUT WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE REGULATORY PROCESSES IN THE FORM-BASED CODE NEED TO COME FORWARD AND BE REVIEWED IN THE PUBLIC FORUM MORE SO. 
          AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE STEPS. SO WE WILL HAVE INSTANCES. >> OKAY. 
          >>LISA ESTEVEZ: OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. OR ANYONE ELSE FROM STAFF. 
          >> YEAH. MR. ENGEN. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: GO AHEAD, MARK. 
          >>MARK ENGEN : I JUST WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION ÃDOES THE LANGUAGE YOU ARE PROPOSING IN THIS NEW AMENDMENT ALIGNED WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE HADPROBLEMS . 
          I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU AN EXAMPLE FOR NAVY THERE WAS TOO MUCH GROWTH MOST MUNICIPALITIES I'VE DEALT WITH ONE OF THAT INTEGRATION OF LAND USES WANT TO REPLACE THAT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT. IN OUR CASE WE USE MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE AS TWO DIFFERENT BUILDING TYPES. TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES ALTOGETHER. 
          AND SO THE GOAL IS ULTIMATELY TO BE ABLE TO DO A PAGE TURN AND REVIEWED THESE ORDINANCES AND SEE WHERE WE MAYBE NEED TO REFINE, REMOVE OR ADD USES. THERE ARE DEVELOPERS WHO WILL COME IN AND BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE VISION AND DO THAT. 
          IS OF THE SEP REQUIREMENT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, HAVE OTHER COMMUNITIES ATTACHED SEP TO USES? I WOULD GO BACK TO ONE OF THE COUNCILS DESIRE AS IT RELATES TO A SHORT-TERM STEP REVIEWING WILL TAKE WHATEVER SPECIFIC LOCATION IT OCCURS. AND A LOT OF CITIES USE THESE TYPES TO EVALUATE. 
          >> FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY THANKS FOR THE QUICKNESS OF PUTTING SOMETHING TOGETHER TO 
          [01:50:07]
COME IN AND TRY TO MAKE THE PROGRESS SO WE CAN ALL ACHIEVE THEVISION . 
          HATS OFF TO THE STAFF FOR DOING THIS SO THE QUESTION I HAVE GOT. 
          IN THE COMMERCIAL CENTER, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL COULD GO THERE 
          BASED OFF OF THIS NEW VISION. >> YOU RAISE A REALLY GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE STARTED THINKING OF FROM AN INTERIM SOLUTION WAS Ã COMMISSIONER, LET ME PREFACE WITH THE INTENT OF A FORM-BASED CODE, THE ULTIMATE IDEAL FORM-BASED CODE, YOU HAVE FORM OVER USES. YOU DO NOT HAVE A LIST OF WHAT USES CAN GO WHERE. 
          AND SO, DO WE WANT TO AS PART OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED A CAP ON DENSITY FOR EXAMPLE. IT WILL ENABLE US TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THAT USE IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN ON THAT PARCEL IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT ZONING DISTRICT UNTIL THE LINEUP PAY OVER VITAL ROLE THAT POINT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT ONE OF THE SLIDES PRESENTED FOR THE FIRST SLIDE. THE TABLE IDENTIFIES WHAT BUILDING TYPES YOU CAN ESTABLISH. IF I HAD A PARCEL OF LAND THAT WAS FOR INSTANCE ZONED COMMERCIAL CENTER, UNKNOWN TO MY INTENT AND PURPOSE STATEMENT AND LANGUAGE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO REALIZE THE SPECIFIC YOU WANT TO GET FLEXIBILITY ABSOLUTELY. BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T JUST ACCOMMODATE ONE SINGLE USE. OPPOSED TO ACCOMMODATING THE ABILITY TO ESTABLISH THE 
          SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT WITH A MYRIAD OF USES IT. >> OKAY. 
          AND I THINK THAT THE COMMISSIONERS POINT, THE COMMERCIAL CENTER AND THE STILL 
          WHERE THE SEP AND ANYTHING OVER 25 PERCENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> AND SEP WOULD BE REQUIRED REGARDLESS REGARDLESS FOR ANY MULTIFAMILY MIXED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SEP. 
          >> SO THAN IN THE URBAN VILLAGE SECTION OF THE NORTH SHORE, DIDN'T LET 25 PERCENT GET 
          REMOVED FROM THE URBAN VILLAGE PART? >> IN THE URBAN VILLAGE PART FOR THE FORM-BASED CODE WE ADDED THE MIXED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPE BUT WE WILL REQUIRE AN SEP. WHEN WE TOOK UP A COPY YET AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG WAS IN 
          THE NORTH SHORE FRAMEWORK. >> IN THE NORTH SHORE, THE URBAN VILLAGE PIGGYBACK MORE TOOK IN THIS REQUIREMENT AND SO YOU HAVE THE FORM-BASED CODE STANDALONE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED THE NORTH SHORE WHICH TOOK THEIR COMMENTS THE FORM -BASED. 
          BUT ALSO ADDED SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE FORM-BASED CODE THE URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT ADDED THE CAVEAT SIMILAR TO THE COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT. THAT IF YOU WOULD HAVE THE MIXED RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULD BE EVALUATED AS PART OF THE LARGER MIXED PATTERN OR DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND MAY ONLY OCCUPY 25 PERCENT OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT REGULATING PLAN. 
          AND IF YOU WERE GOING TO GO ABOVE THAT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO ABOVE THE 25 PERCENT YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE. THE FORM-BASED CODE URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT DOES NOT HAVE THISREQUIREMENT . AND SAWYER SAY LET'S ALIGN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FORM-BASED CODE, STRIKETHROUGH THIS REQUIREMENT AND SIMPLY REQUIRE THE SEP. 
          BECAUSE IN THE FORM-BASED CODE, IF YOU RECALL, THE GOAL WAS TO HAVE A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND TO HAVE NOT JUST YOUR LIVE WORK STATEMENT TO SAY YOU WOULDN'T HAVE LAND USES. 
          [01:55:11]
BUT IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO HAVE AN INTEGRATION OF THE GROUND FLOOR A MIXTURE OF SHOCK FROM AND LIVE WORK UNITS ARE HAVING THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE OTHER STORIES BE RESIDENTIAL OR HAVE A COMMERCIAL ASPECT ON THE GROUND FOR THERE IS NO MARKET FOR THIS RIGHT NOW.THERE ABSOLUTELY MIGHT NOT BE. AND I PERSONALLY THINK IT IS JUST A MATTER OF TIME. 
          BUT THAT YOU BE ABLE TO USE THIS SEP RIGHTFULLY SO FOR THE INTENDED USE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE OF OUR VISION. 
          AND AGAIN, AS WE MOVE FORWARD WE WILL BE SEEING FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THIS TO BETTER ARTICULATE HOW TO AND WHAT TO FROM AN IMPLEMENTATION STANDPOINT. 
          >> VERY GOOD. I APPRECIATE. OBVIOUSLY DEVELOPERS TRY TO FIND EVERY LOOPHOLE AND WAY TO GET AROUND AND I TRUST STAFF BECAUSE YOU ALL DEAL DIANA DAY OUT WITH DEVELOPERS AND YOU UNDERSTAND THIS PIECE OF IT. I NOW TRUST YOUR OPINION. 
          SO IN YOUR OPINION, DOES THIS LANGUAGE BUT THE CITY IN A MUCH BETTER POSITION TO ACHIEVE THE 
          NORTH SHORE VISION AT THIS POINT? >> IT IS OUR COLLECTIVE OPINION.I KNOW CARLOS IS NODDING AND QUITE FRANKLY I APPLAUD MY ENTIRE TEAM FOR BRINGING US WHERE WE ARE NOW REALIZING THE HICCUPS IN THE FORM-BASED CODE. 
          BUT DEFINITELY YOU HAVE TO TEST SOMETHING BEFORE YOU REALIZE. BUT WE THE ADVANTAGE OF TRYING AND TESTING IS THERE IS MORE TRANSPARENCY IN THE FAR GREATER INPUT AND ENGAGEMENT WITH AN SEP. WE ARE HOPEFUL. WE ARE CONFIDENT. 
          WE ARE OPTIMISTIC THAT THIS WILL BE A USEFUL TOOL. >> I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK SO FAR. >> THANK YOU. 
          ANYBODY ELSE? WILL THIS IS KIND OF A LOCK TO THIS TOPIC.WE APPRECIATE THE STAFF TRYING SO HARD TO HELP US UNDERSTAND. I WAS READING A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT THE HOMEOWNERS WERE THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA AND SEEM TO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT AS WELL. ALL OF THOSE EXPLANATIONS ARE VERY BENEFICIAL. 
          THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU FOR ANY ONE WHO 
          WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I WILL PULL THAT SLIDE BACK UP THAT HAS THE ALTERNATE PHONE NUMBER IN CASE ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO CALL IN. 
          WE DO STILL HAVE AMY ONLINE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.SPOKE WITH YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE NUMBER AND BEGIN. YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          >> WHEN WE MOVED HERE WE LOOKED AT THE FORM-BASED CODE WHEN I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY BACKS UP TO THE LENGTH AND IT WAS LAUDED FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND WE DID NOT EVEN SUSPECT THAT APARTMENTS WOULD BE COMING IN A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE, MUCH LESS A HUD BASE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENT. AND WE ARE EXTREMELY UPSET ABOUT THAT. 
          WE WERE VERY EXCITED TO MOVE. WE LOVE THE COMMUNITY, WE LOVE THE GOVERNMENT THAT LISTENS TO THE PEOPLE. I JUST HOPE YOU ARE DOING THAT NOW. 
          THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE POTENTIAL OF A HUD BASED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENT BEING BUILT BEHIND US. THANK YOU. 
          >> BEAR WITH ME HERE FOR JUST A MOMENT. ON DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY 
          [02:00:11]
OTHER COLORS. SUSAN, DID YOU HAVE COMMENTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE? 
          >> I HAVE TWO COMMENTS I CAN READ. THIS IS FROM CHIP JONES. 
          NOTED ECONOMIST PAUL DONOVAN STATES THE WORLD ECONOMY IS IN THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. THE PANDEMIC CORONAVIRUS THAT IS SWEEPING THE WORLD WAS HASTENING RADICAL CHANGES TO THE WAY WE LIVE AND WORK. IN THE UNITED STATES IT IS ESTIMATED 40 PERCENT OF WORKERS CAN WORK FROM HOME FOR THIS TREND WILL HAVE A DRAMATIC EFFECT ON OFFICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PRE-EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS ARE ALREADY EXPERIENCING VACANCIES AND NEW PROJECTS WILL BE EXTREMELY FEW. ONLINE RETAILING IS HAVING A DEVASTATING EFFECT ON SHOPPING CENTERS AND RETAIL OUTLETS. TORES THAT HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR OVER A CENTURY SUCH AS SEARS AND JCPENNEY ARE FACING BANKRUPTCY. 
          MACY'S LOADING TENDLER AND MANY MORE CHAINS ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME FATE. 
          EVEN THE GREAT NINA MARCUS IS CLOSED OUTLETS FOR EVEN RESTAURANTS AND ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES HAVE CLOSED AND MANY MAY NOT REOPEN. ALL ALONG GEORGE CRYSTAL ROAD THERE ARE VERY FEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THERE ARE SCATTERED HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL BUILDINGS AND THE OCCASIONAL STORAGE BUILDING FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY COMPLEXES. 
          THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT MIXED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO 25 PERCENT OF THE LARGER MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WILL HALT NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE NORTH SHORE FOR DECADES IT WOULD ALSO DESPAIR FOR THE TAX REVENUE FROM COMMERCIALPROJECT , BUT IF SOCIETAL CHANGES MAKE THESE COMMERCIAL PROJECTS INFEASIBLE, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE MULTIFAMILY IS A HORRIBLE PROPOSAL. WOULD BE THE RESULT OF THE CITY REVISING THE BUILDING CODE AND REQUIRING NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO BE A MINIMUM OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET.OW MANY NEW HOMES WOULD BE BUILT. THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE THE SAME EFFECT. 
          AND THE NEXT COMMENT IS EDWIN KING. I HAVE 16.2 ACRES AT 2601 LIBERTY GROVE. SOUTH PROPERTY LINE RUNS PARALLEL AND RUNS ALONG THE BACKYARDS OF ALL THE HOUSES ALONG TOLL ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS HEAVILY TREED AND IS HIGH ON THE EAST AND WESTBORDERS AND SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER IN THE MIDDLE . 
          FOR IT TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL USE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BULLDOZED AND FILLED IT ALL THE GOOD TREES WOULD BE GONE. AT NUMEROUS OFFERS TO BUILD APARTMENTS, TOWNHOMES, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SECTION 9 HOUSING AND MOST RECENTLY AT SINGLE-FAMILY RENTAL HOMES WITH BACKYARDS COMMUNITY SWIMMING POOLS, RUNNING, BIKING FROZEN GREEN SPACES. 
          ALL THESE PROJECTS WERE TURNED DOWN BY THE CITY. THIS PROPERTY IS NOT SUITED TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND IN THE 25 YEARS I'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY NOT A SINGLE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER HAS EXPRESSED A REMOTE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY. YES, I'M IN FAVOR OF AMENDMENTS THAT WILL ALLOW RESIDENTIAL 
          DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS ALL I HAVE. >> THANK YOU, SUSAN. 
          WOULD LIKE TO START WITH YOU ON YOUR FINAL COMMENTS AND HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS ISSUE. 
          >> FOR THOSE THAT ARE LISTENING IN FROM THE CITY. THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THIS ITEM HAS CAME ABOUT BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO REALLY HAVE THE RIGHT VISION FOR THE NORTH SHORE AND TRYING TO LOOK TO RESTRICT WHAT WILL THE FAMILY OR WHAT KIND OF RESIDENTIAL THAT GOES IN THERE SO WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OVERSIGHT. AND I THINK IT DOES ALIGN WITH 
          THE VISION THAT IS IN WITH THE CITIZENS. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: THANK YOU. 
          MR. ENGEN , WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE SOMETHING? >> I AGREE WITH MR. WINTON . 
          THE RIGHT GO BACK TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN THAT AREA. THIS NEW PROPOSAL DOES HELP US BE ON THE OUTLOOKS SO WE ARE 
          MONITORING DEVELOPERS AS THEY COME IN. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: THANK YOU, SIR. 
          MR. SEGARS? >>QUINN SEGARS : THINK IT IS A GOOD STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I AGREE WITH STAFF AND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND I AM 
          RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: THANK YOU SIR. MR. COTE? NO. EVERYBODY HAS ALWAYS SAID IT. IT JUST ALLOWS US A LITTLE MORE 
          CONTROL. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: OKAY. MS. MORGAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO 
          [02:05:02]
          SAY SOMETHING? >>MIRANDA MORGAN : NO COMMENT. >>LISA ESTEVEZ: OKAY. 
          ANYBODY ELSE? >> I WILL JUMP IN REAL QUICK. ND THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS LOOKED AT THIS AS IT'S CRITICAL FOR THE SUCCESS. FINALLY BUILDING IT OUT. 
          AND THINK WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE PLAN WE HAVE AND I THINK THIS IS GETTING US EVEN MORE CONTROL TO KEEP IT AS WE ENVISION IT OUT THERE. I THINK IT IS GOOD FOR THE TAX BASE, AND THINK IT'S GOOD WE HAVE CONTROL ON IT, I THINK IT'S GOOD WE ARE ABLE TO KEEP STRONGER CONTROL TO DEVELOP IT AS WE SEE FIT AS TIMES CHANGE. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. 
          >>LISA ESTEVEZ: THANK YOU, ROBERT. SORRY I DIDN'T CALL ON YOU. 
          >> I THINK WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION.MR. COTE. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FORM-BASED CODE AND THE NORTH SHORE FRAMEWORK PLAN. 
          >> DO I HAVE A SECOND?>> MAY I INTERRUPT FOR A SECOND? >> ARE YOU SECONDING. 
          >> TO BE CLOSE TO PUBLIC HEARING? >>LISA ESTEVEZ: YOU KNOW WHAT, I DON'T THINK I DID. AND WILL FORMALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          I GUESS WE ARE READY FOR A BOAT. >> I AM IN FAVOR. 
          >> A SECOND BY MR. WINTON . LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A BOAT. >> IN FAVOR. 
          >> IN FAVOR. >> IN FAVOR. >> IN FAVOR. 
          >>LISA ESTEVEZ: THAT IS A UNANIMOUS VOTE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.