Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:06]

WE CALLED TO ORDER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 10.

[2. CITIZENS’ INPUT]

THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZENS INPUT. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO MAKE COMMENTS AND EXPRESS ON ANY SUBJECT, WHETHER IT IS ON THE AGENDA OR NOT.

TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHALL LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES

AT A TIME FORGET HIS HALLMARK, DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS INPUT? >> I BELIEVE ONE WAS SENT TO

SUSAN IT. >> I'M SORRY. >> WE HAVE TWO.

IS THAT CORRECT?ALL RIGHT. I WILL GO AHEAD ANDSTART. >> MY WIFE AND I ARE HOMEOWNERS IN THE HOMESTEAD AT LIBERTY GROVE COMMUNITY . WE WANTED LET IT BE KNOWN OUR COMMUNITIES DEVELOPER, ARCADIA REALTY CORPORATION, HAS NOT HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE HOMEOWNERS REGARDING ANY PROPOSED CHANGES TO BE MADE FOR THE FUTURE PHASES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN THE JULY 28, 2020 MEETING WHERE ARCADIA PRESENTED PROPOSED CHANGES TO YOU, ONE OF YOUR MEMBERS TOLD HIM HE SHOULD BE GETTING COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON THESE TYPES OF DRASTIC CHANGES. ZERO COMMUNICATION WAS MADE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ARCADIA WAS ASKED TO GO TO THE HOA BEFORE DOING MY CHANGES.

THIS IS A MOOT POINT SINCE ARCADIA RUNS THE HOA. WE FELT ARCADIA REALTY CORPORATION IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT GIVING ARM COMMUNITY WHAT WE HAVE PROMISED YOUR DRASTIC CHANGES HAVE CONSISTENTLY BEEN MADE SINCE BUYING INTO PHASE ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THAT IS JONATHAN AND ALLISON GUILLEN. >> DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER?

>> I DO NOT HAVE ANOTHER. THIS ONE IS FROM LAUREN FRANKS. 5813 IRIS DRIVE.

I AM WRITING TO VOICE MY OPINION IS A RESIDENT LIVING NEAR BIG A. THIS AREA HAS A HEAVY TRAFFIC FLOW AND CHANGING THE COMMERCIAL AREA INTO MULTI-HOUSING IS WIDELY IRRESPONSIBLE DURING OUR LOCAL AREA WAS OVERSATURATED WITH DEPARTMENTS ALREADY AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF FREE SPACE IN OTHER AREAS OF RELATIVE LIKE WATERVIEW.

THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM MORE HOUSING DIVERSITY. ALSO WITH A RETIREMENT FACILITY IN CITY OFFICES RECENTLY BUILT RIGHT HERE, WE HAVE SEEN INCREASED DISPLACED WILDLIFE, WHICH IS CAUSED OF NEIGHBORHOOD ANIMALS TO GO MISSING OR BECOME INJURED IN LARGE TREE RATS DESPERATE FOR NESTING SPACE. IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE TO ADD 200+ HOUSING UNITS IN THE SMALL SPACE THAT IS BEAMING WITH THRIVING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ALREADY.

WE ASK YOU PLEASE VOTE NO TO THIS CHANGE AND KEEP THE SECTION OF LAND COMMERCIAL.

I AM PERSONALLY OFFENDED THEY ARE SKIRTING THE ORIGINAL RULING BY THROWING A SMALL OFFICE SPACE OR TWO TO GET AROUND THE ZONING REQUEST. AND BELIEVE THAT IS AN ITEM FOR

OUR NEXT MEETING. THAT IS IT. >> OKAY.

NO FOR THE CITIZENS INPUT OR DESIRING TO,, I WILL PUT THE CITIZENS INPUT SECTION THE SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

FOR THE MEETING OCTOBER 27 OF 2020.AS EVERYBODY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS.

THE ONLY THING I NOTICED WAS THE FACT THAT THE TITLES FORGOES PEOPLE PARTICIPATING NEED TO BE CORRECTED. ON A COUPLE OF THE ITEMS. MS. NIX HAS BEEN BRIEFED ON THE AND SHE WILL MAKE THOSE CHANGES. ASIDE FROM THAT, I GUESS WE ARE

READY FOR A MOTION. MARK. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A

MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.> SECONDED BY MR. SEGARS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? LET'S TAKE A VOTE. TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2020.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. SEVEN.

OKAY. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO

[4A. Consider and take action on a request by Greg Helsel on behalf of Arcadia Land Partners 33, Ltd., to extend action on the Merritt Park Addition Preliminary Plat for 30 days. The approximately 40.4-acre site is located to the west of Merritt Road and approximately 500 feet south of Harmony Hill Lane in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY GREG ON BEHALF OF ARCADIA LAND PARTNERS 33 LIMITED TO EXTEND ACTION ON THE MERITS PARK ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 30 DAYS.

THE APPROXIMATELY 40.4 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF MERRITT ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY

[00:05:02]

500 FEET SOUTH OF HARMONY HILL LANE IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS.

WHO IS GOING TO PRESENT THIS? >> THAT WOULD BE ME. COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU.

IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE THROUGH THIS 40.4 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED ON MERRITT ROAD 500 FEET SOUTH OF HARMONY HILL LANE, WHICH IS THE ACCESS POINT FOR HARMONY HILL DEVELOPMENT AND HARMONY HILL. THAT BEING THE CASE, THE APPLICANT HAS A PRELIMINARY PLAT IN ABSENCE OF AN APPROVED REGULATING PLAN. HE SUBMITTED AT THE SAME TIME A REGULATING PLAN CURRENTLY BEING REVIEWED BUT IS NOT AS OF YET BEEN APPROVED.

ARTICLE 1.7.2 OF THE REQUIRES AND REGULATING PLAN OR FACE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRIOR TO PURSUING WITH THE LUMINARY PLOTTING PROCESS. THERE FOR THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF THE REVIEW AND PROCESS OF THE PUPPET APPLICANT HAS INDICATED A 30 DAY EXTENSION WOULD GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE THE REGULATING PLAN FROM NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SECTION 212.009 A OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIRES A MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVING PLOTS TO APPROVE A CONDITION OR DISAPPROVE A PLOT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DAY OF THE PLAT IS FILED.

SECTION 212 009 B2 STATES A 30 DAY PERIOD CAN BE EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 30 DAYS OF THE APPLICANT REQUESTS EXTENSION IN WRITING TO THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVED PLANS.ASA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THIS CASE.

AND SO WE DO HAVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IF YOU WANTED TO SEE IT AND CONSIDER IT, BUT THE REQUEST IS FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION. AND SO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE 30 DAY EXTENSION.

WE WOULD ENABLE THE APPLICANT WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED THE EXTENSION THE PLANT WOULD HAVE TO BE DENIED A REGULATING PLANT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. I AM OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF

YOU GUYS HAVE ANY. >> DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION OR A COMMENT?

>> YES. HE IS MUTED RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE ARE WORKING WITH STAFF AND WE ARE RIGHT IN THE PROCESS OF REVISING THE PROPOSED PLAN BUT SHORTLY THERE AFTER WE REVISE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND IF WE DON'T QUITE MAKE THE CUT OFF IN TIME FOR THE NEXT ONE, WE WILL RESUBMIT THAT. BUT RIGHT NOW FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WE ARE INCONGRUENCE WITH STAFF WE ARE MAKING THE AGREED TO PROVISIONS

AND THEY SHOULD BE IN HAND A WEEK FROM YESTERDAY. >> THANK YOU.

I'M OPEN FOR A MOTION IN. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE 30 DAY EXTENSION

REQUEST RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY STAFF. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MARK? EXCUSE ME, MR. ENGEN? YOU ARE MUTED.

>>MARK ENGEN : SECOND. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE 30 DAY EXTENSION. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS? NO DISCUSSION? I GUESS WE ARE READY TO VOTE. TO APPROVE THE 30 DAY EXTENSION TO READ BY A SHOW OF HANDS TO APPROVE THAT MOTION? THAT IS 7/0 UNANIMOUS.

THAT MOTION TO APPROVE HAS BEEN PASSED. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS

[4B. Consider and take action on a request by Greg Helsel on behalf of Arcadia Liberty Grove Holdings, LLC., to extend action on the Homestead at Liberty Grove, Phases 3, 4 and 5 Preliminary Plat for 30 days. The approximately 127-acre site is located northwest of the intersection of Homestead Boulevard and Liberty Grove Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

CONSIDERED AND TAKE ACTION ON REQUEST BY GREG ON BEHALF OF ARCADIA LIBERTY GROVE HOLDINGS LLC TO EXTEND ACTION ON HOMESTEAD AT LIBERTY GROVE. THAT IS THREE, 45 LUMINARY PLAT FOR 30 DAYS APPROXIMATELY 127 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF

[00:10:04]

HOMESTEAD BOULEVARD AND LIBERTY GROVE ROAD IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS.

>> THAT WOULD ALSO BE ME. COCHAIR COTE , THIS IS A SIMILAR SITUATION TO WHAT WE JUST SPOKE ABOUT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.HIS IS A 127 ACRE SITE TO REVIEW WORLD FAMILIAR WITH THE HARMONY HILL DEVELOPMENT . THEY DO HAVE AN ACTIVE APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THREES PHASE 3, FOUR AND FIVE.

IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE REGULATING PLAN, WHICH IS BEING AMENDED TO MATCH WHAT THEY SUBMITTED IN THE PULMONARY PLAT. BUT THAT NOT AS YET NOT BEEN APPROVED. THERE FOR THE APPLICATION IS NOT CONCURRENT WITH THE CURRENTLY APPROVED REGULATING PLAN. DUE TO THE INCONSISTENCY WITH THE CURRENTLY APPROVED REGULATING PLAN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN EXTENSIN OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS OF THE PLAT FOR THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED A 30 DAY EXTENSION WOULD GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE APPROVAL OF THE REGULARLY PLAN AMENDMENT.

SIMILAR TO THE ITEM WE JUST DISCUSSED, THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE DOES GIVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE A CONDITION OR DISAPPROVE A PLOT WITHIN 30 DAYS BUT ALSO TO APPROVE THE REVIEW PROCESS OVER A 30 DAY. .

AND SIMILAR TO A RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE 30 DAY EXTENSION REQUEST.

AND THIS TIME WE ENABLE THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE. SHOULD THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DISAPPROVE THE EXTENSION, THE PLAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DENIED AS A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED REGULATING PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND I AM OPEN FOR QUESTION.

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU FIRST. THAT WOULD BE WHAT IS THE

CURRENT STATUS OF WHO HAS REVISED REGULATING PLAN? >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO STEP IN

FOR THIS ONE? >> COMMISSIONERS AND THE TEAM ARE WORKING COLLECTIVELY.

WE DO HOPE TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT COMING FORWARD. BUT AT THIS TIME IT IS IN DISCUSSION AND WE HOPE TO PRESENT THAT SHORTLY. JUST FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S WHY WE ENDED UP IN THIS TIMELINE WE ARE IN BECAUSE WE WERE HOPING TO RUN THEM ONE AFTER THE OTHER. UNFORTUNATELY WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT IN TERMS OF TIME.

BUT WE DO ANTICIPATE AN AMENDED REGULATING PLAN SOON. >> I THOUGHT WE ALREADY HAD AN

AMENDED REGULATING PLAN FOR THIS AREA. >> THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS FROM

COUNSEL ON THAT. >> SO THEY ARE GOING TO GO BACK?

>> THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ARE IN DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU.

DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE ANY PRESENTATION OR COMMENT? >> IT BE THE EXACTLY THE SAME I MADE ON THE PREVIOUS CASE WHICH IS WE ARE WORKING WITH STAFF AND WE ARE HOPING TO GET EVERYTHING LINED UP TO MOVE FORWARD HERE IN TIME FOR THE NEXT HEARING.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. WITH THAT, ANYBODY ELSE OF QUESTION FOR STAFF OR THE

APPLICANT? CINQ NONE, WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION.>> I MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE THE 30 DAY EXTENSION REQUEST. >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE 30 DAY

EXTENSION REQUEST. WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE 30 DAY EXTENSION.

DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NO DISCUSSION, WE WILL CALL A VOTE TO APPROVE THE 30 DAY EXTENSION. ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS.

WHAT YOU GUYS KEEP MOVING AROUND HERE.HAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THE 30

[4C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Anthony Shane Tharp for the approval of a Special Use Permit to allow an accessory structure exceeding 500 square-feet on property zoned Single Family Residential (SF-10) District. The 0.55-acre site is located approximately 345 feet west of the intersection of Lakeview Circle and Mark Lane, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

DAY EXTENSION. NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON REQUEST BY ANTHONY SHANE FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 500 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY IS

[00:15:03]

OWNED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THE .055 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 3 TO 45 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEVIEW CIRCLE AND MARK LANE, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLASTEXAS . WHO WILL BE MAKING THIS PRESENTATION?

>> MR. ROBERTS? >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR MEETING WITH US THIS EVENING. AS THE VICE CHAIR READ, WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A 1200 SQUARE-FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD OF A PROPERTY ZONED IN THE FS 10 ZONING DISTRICTS. THE DEVELOPMENT CODES 77 THREE OF THREE REQUIRES AN SEP FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT EXCEED 500 SQUARE FEET.

JUST SITE DATA FOR YOU. THE SITE IS OVER HALF AN ACRE WITH ALMOST 110 FEET OF FRONTAGE. IT HAS 220 FEET IN DEPTH. THERE ARE FOUR EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITE. THAT WOULD BE THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WHICH IS JUST OVER 2000 SQUARE FEET. AND WE HAVE TWO EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO THE EAST, TOTALING 80 AND 153 SQUARE FEET.

IN THE WAY OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE . THERE'S A CARPORT TO THE WEST THAT IS 350 SQUARE FEET. THAT SOMEONE IN RED THAT IS MARKED TO BE REMOVED THROUGH THE APPLICANT INDICATED THEY WILL BE REMOVED WITH THE APPROVAL WITH THE POST THAT YOU CAN SEE THEM. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.SECTION 77 THREE OF THE OUTLINES AND VARIETY OF DESIGN STANDARDS. THESE ARE THE APPLICABLE ONES TO THIS ONE.

FREQUENCY, SIZE AND NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IS REGULATED BY THE LESSER OF THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT WERE 35 PERCEN . ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WILL NOT EXCEED THE LESSER OF THE TYPE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT FOR LASTLY, WHEN IT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS IN THE REAR YARD A MINIMUM OF REAR SETBACK IS REQUIRED.

WE WILL DIVE INTO THOSE POINTS INDIVIDUALLY HERE. AS I JUST SAID, THE FREQUENCY OR THEAMOUNT OF COVERAGE ALLOWED , IT'S LIMITED TO THE LESSER OF THE PERMITTED COVERAGE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT OR 35 PERCENT OF THE REAR YARD READ AND AS F10 DISTRICT OF THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE IS 45 PERCENT, WHICH PUTS US JUST NORTH OF 10,700 QUARE FEET.

35 PERCENT OF THE REAR YARD WOULD BE 5000 SQUARE FEET SINCE THAT IS THE LESSER THAT WOULD BE OUR THRESHOLD THERE. SO THE APPROXIMATE LOT COVERAGE OF THE SITE IN THE REAR YARD, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS 2400 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WILL NOT EXCEED 35 PERCENT OF THE REAR YARD. WE ARE GOOD IN THAT ASPECT. YOU CAN GO AHEAD TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AGAIN, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE LESSER OF THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR THAT ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT AS F10 ALLOWS FOR 35 FEET IN HEIGHT THREE HOWEVER, THE SPECIFIC PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS ONLY 16 1/4 FEET HIGH. AS SO WE WILL USE THAT AS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED FROM YOUR AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THE IMAGE WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET THAT IS MARKED AT 16 FEET 38 INCHES.

SO WE ARE PERMITTED THERE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND LASTLY, WHEN LOOKING AT SETBACKS, THE MINIMUM THREE FOOT SIDE AND REAR SETBACK IS PREQUIRED OF THE STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD. FROM THE REAR LINE WE ARE ABOUT 68 FEET SO WE EXCEED THAT.

WE ARE EXACTLY 3 FEET FROM THE SIDE. 75 FEET FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE AT LEAST AND ROUGHLY 110 FEET FROM THE FRONT. 18 FEET FROM THE PRIMARY STRUCTUE FOR YOUR EDIFICATION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LORD. THERE IS A FOUR FOOT CHAIN-LINK FENCE ALONG THE EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINE THAT WILL BE THE TOP AND BOTTOM PROPERTY LINES BASED ON HOW WE HAVE IT ORIENTED. AND THEN THERE IS A SIX FOOT

[00:20:02]

WOODEN FENCE TO THE NORTH WHICH WILL BE THE RIGHT SIDE. IT REPRESENTS ROUGHLY WHERE IT WILL BE YOUR THE STRUCTURE WILL EXCEED THE FOUR FOOT HIGH RATHER SIGNIFICANTLY.

BUT IT IS SETBACK FURTHER FROM THE BUILDING THEN IT IS AN EXISTING COUNTY WOULD COVER THE TREES THAT DO PROVIDE A GOOD SCREENING MECHANISM FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.THE MATERIAL OF THE STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED TO BE METAL.

WE CANNOT DICTATE BUILDING MATERIALS ANY LONGER UNDER THE STATE CODE.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS INDICATED THEY WILL PAINT OR USE A METAL THAT IS SIMILAR IN COLOR TO THE MASONRY CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAIN HOME. THAT'S AN IMAGE OF THE HOME THERE. APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO AND NOT THAT WILL COME BACK UP AGAIN IN A LITTLE BIT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY. THAT THREE AND A 50 SQUARE-FOOT STRUCTURE THAT WILL BE MOVED AS INDICATED BY THE APPLICANT. YOU CAN SEE IT IS USED HOUSE A VARIETY OF THINGS INCLUDING TRAILERS AND SOME OTHER MATERIALS IN AN RV AT TIMES.

. HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THE EXACT STRUCTURE.

LOOKING NORTH TO THE PROPERTY. NORTHEAST. IT HAS A VARIETY OF USES THAT THAT WILL BE ABSORBED BY THE PROPOSED ENCLOSED GARAGE AS USUAL WE SEND OUT 20 FOOT AND 500 FOOT NOTICES WOULD BE NOTICED ON OCTOBER 23 WE SENT ABOUT 20 200 FOOT NOTICES AND 39 FIVE BENEFIT NOTICES INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET YOU WILL SEE TWO RESPONSES.

ONE IS IN OPPOSITION AND ONE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE 500 FOOT RANGE SINCE WE SENT THAT OUT ON FRIDAY WE HAVE GOTTEN TWO MORE. THOSE ARE BOTH IN FAVOR FROM THE 200 FOOT RANGE THAT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY ALSO TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WITH THE INFORMATION, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE 1200 SQUARE-FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS PRESENTED WITH A FEW CONDITIONS. ONE IS THE APPLICANT WILL REMOVE THE EXISTING CARPORT TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY AS THEY INDICATED THEY WILL DO.

AS WELL AS USING A SIMILAR COLOR TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, WHICH THE APPLICANT IS ALSO APPROVED TO DO. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY MOVED THEIR WAYINTO THE ORDINANCE . THE SEP WILL NOT COMPROMISE ã CAN YOU GO BACK FOR ME A LITTLE BIT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL NOT COMPROMISE ANY INTENT ON THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IS LOCATED IN. MATERIAL COLOR AND NEWS ARE LARGELY COMPATIBLE AND TYPICAL THERE WOULD LIKEWISE THE APPLICANT HAS MADE KNOWN IN PREVIOUS OWNER HAS CONVERTED THE EXISTING GARAGE, THE ATTACHED GARAGE INTO LIVABLE SPACE, USABLE INTERIOR SPACE. WHICH ESSENTIALLY RENDERS THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE GARAGE.

THIS WOULD FILL THAT NEED FOR THE APPLICANT. AND SO THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. I DO NOT BELIEVE HE HAS A PRESENTATION, BUT I'M SURE HE IS HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AS IN MY.

>> OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT?

>> WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS GOING, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPH YOU SHOWED BEFORE WHERE THE RED SQUARE BOXES. IS AT A FAIRLY LARGE TREE GOING DOWN.

AND THEN IS THERE A TREE WITH THE NEIGHBORS LOT NEXT TO THAT, IF I'M LOOKING AT THAT

CORRECTLY. >> AND BELIEVE THE TREE LINE FOLLOWS THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. I THINK THAT SATELLITE IMAGE WASLUSH .

AND THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE ABLE TO SHED LIGHT ON WHERE THOSE TREES ARE.

>> I WILL WAIT TO HEAR FROM HIM. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM

[00:25:06]

STAFF? YES? >> MY ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE YOU MENTIONED TALKING ABOUT THE STRUCTURE BEING TALLER THAN THE CHAIN-LINK FENCE.

IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR THERE TO BE ANY SCREENING OR WAS THAT INFORMATIONAL?> THAT WAS INFORMATIONAL. THERE IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL SCREENING REQUIREMENT.

THE ONLY THING HEIGHT WISE IS THE REQUIREMENT YOU CANNOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE ZONING

DISTRICT, WHICHEVER IS LESS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE FOR STAFF, MR. ROBERTS YOU MENTIONED 16 FOOT THREE INCHES FOR THE EXHILARATING BUILDING. WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE

PRIMARY STRUCTURE? >> IT IS 16 FOOTTHREE INCHES . HE WILL BE RIGHT WITH IT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I ALSO NOTICED ONE OF THE RESPONSES TO THE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS MARKED AS FAVORABLE, IS ACTUALLY QUESTIONABLE BECAUSE IT IS IN FAVOR AS LONG

AS THE STRUCTURE IS NOT A METAL BUILDING, WHICH IS GOING TO BE. >> I DID REACH OUT TO THE INDIVIDUAL. AND IS RECORDED AS THE OPPOSITION.

WE DID CLARIFY WITH THEM. SINCE IT WAS METAL THEY DID REACH OUT TO THE APPLICANT WISH TO PROVIDE PRESENTATION IS NOT JUDGING UP ON MY SCREEN. OKAY.

I'M NOT GETTING A RESPONSE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> MR. CHAIR, THIS IS A PUBLIC

HEARING. >> YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. AND THEN ALSO, THE APPLICANT INDICATED THE TREE LINE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE LAW IS A SHARED TREE LINE.

>> IT APPEARS THE APPLICANT IS LISTENING AND HE IS ABLE TO CHAT.

IF YOU GUYS HAVE QUESTIONS YOU MAY GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SEND HIS ANSWERS AND ON THE CHAPTER

REAL QUICK. >> IS A QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE TREES ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN

DOWN? >> IF THERE IS A TREE BEING TAKEN DOWN OR IF THE TREE WAS GOING TO COVER PART OF THE BUILDING SO THAT THE NEIGHBOR THERE IS NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT IT. SO THEY ARE NOT SEEING THE FULL BUILDING.

THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE TREES LINE IN THE AREA.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN REPLY TO THAT. >> IS RESPONSES YES, THE TREES

WILL COVER THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. THIS BEING A PUBLIC HEARING, I WILL NOW OPEN THE MEETING TO

THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY INPUT? >> WE HAVE NO CALLERS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER INPUT? >> WE DO NOT HAVE ANY WRITTEN

INPUT. >> HAVING NO COMMENTS, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE A PUBLIC

HEARING AND I AM NOW READY TO ACCEPT THE MOTION. >> I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IN THE SEP TO ALLOW THEM ENCLOSED FOR FOOT MEDALISTS STRUCTURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICANT WILLREMOVE THE EXISTING CARPORT TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY AND TO PROPOSE ACCESSORY STRUCTURAL MATCH THE COLOR IN THE PRIMARY

RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE . >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION?

>> I WILL SECOND. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE SEP WITH THE CONDITION OF REMOVING THE CARPORT. AND I APOLOGIZE.

[00:30:05]

AND THAT THE METAL BE SIMILAR COLOR TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON

THAT MOTION? ANYBODY? >> I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE JUST FINE. I THINK IT WILL ADD VALUE TO THE PROPERTY, KEEPS THINGS INSIDE OF THE BUILDING. I THINK IT WILL LOOK REAL NICE. I HAVE NO ISSUES.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? >> LOOKING AT A LOT THERE. THERE ARE A LOT OF TREES.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION. BUT IT IS A VERY PRIVATE

BACKYARD. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. SCHMUCKER? MR. DAVIS? MS. MORGAN? A QUIET BUNCH TODAY.

OKAY. I THINK THE ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK AS FAR AS THE DISK AS WELL AS TAKING THE CARPORT OUT WILL ACTUALLY ENHANCE THE LOOKS OF THE PROPERTY.

SO I'M NOT AT ALL OPPOSED TO IT. NO OTHER COMMENTS AND NO OTHER DISCUSSIONS? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE SEP FOR 1200 SQUARE-FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CARPORT BE REMOVED AND THE METAL BUILDING BE THE SAME COLOR AS A PRIMARY STRUCTURE. LET'S TAKE A BOAT.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION? RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT CARRIES 7/0.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.