Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:03]

>>> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT'S TUESDAY,

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

FEBRUARY 2, 2021, 7:33 P.M. THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY ITEM HEREIN. THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. DUE TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY AND TO CONFORM WITH SOCIAL DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS, THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD VIA TELECONFERENCING.

ENTER MEETING ID1609023. WE DID CONCLUDE OUR WORK SESSION AND WE JUST CONCLUDED OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM 2A RIGHT BEFORE OUR BREAK AND RESUMING HERE IN A REGULAR MEETING.

AND NO OFFICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN ON ITEM 2A.

SO WE'LL BE MOVING INTO OUR REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AND WE'RE GOING TO START OUR EVENING OFF WITH OUR INVOCATION AND WE ARE PRIVILEGED AND HONORED TO HAVE PASTOR LARRY TRAILER TO HELP US WITH OUR INVOCATION. WELCOME, PASTOR, AND THANK YOU

FOR BEING HERE. >> THANK YOU.

IT'S ALWAYS A PRIVILEGE TO BE ABLE TO PRAY FOR OUR LEADERS OF OUR GREAT CITY. LET'S PRAY.

FATHER GOD TONIGHT, IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH, WE COME, GOD, TO ASK FOR THE WISDOM AND THE INTEGRITY THAT WE NEED, GOD, AS CITY LEADERS TO LEAD THIS GREAT CITY. CITY OF ROWLETT

[5A. Update from the City Council and Management: Financial Position, Major Projects, Operational Issues, Upcoming Dates of Interest and Items of Community Interest. ]

>>> IF YOU WILL GO TO THE CITY'S WEB PAGE OF ROWLETT.COM/VACCINE.

WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR YOU, RESOURCES, A LIST WHERE YOU CAN GET SIGNED UP.

IF YOU QUALIFY NOW UNDER PHASE 1A OR PHASE 1B, YOU CAN QUALIFY TO GET ON THE LIST TO GET YOUR VACCINATION COMING UP.

SO SPECIFICALLY THE CITY OF GARLAND'S HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GARLAND HEALTH AUTHORITY, WE ARE A MEMBER OF THAT AUTHORITY, WE CONTRACT WITH THEM. THEY ARE CURRENTLY PROVIDING THOSE DOSES EVERY THURSDAY. THAT WILL CHANGE.

THIS IS STILL VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS, BUT THEY'RE DOING IT AT HOMER B. JOHNSON STADIUM. AND THEN ALSO DALLAS COUNTY HAS A SITE THAT YOU CAN ALSO REGISTER FOR AT DALLASCOUNTY.ORG/COVID-19/ VACINE.

ROCKWALL COUNTY IS NOW ALSO SIGNING PEOPLE UP.

YOU CAN GO TO BLOCKITNOW.COM/ROCKWALLWAITLIST.

SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS THAT YOU CAN SIGN UP.

ALSO TUNE INTO THE STATE OF TEXAS WEBSITE.

THEY ARE SHOWING EVERY LOCATION THAT CURRENTLY HAS VACCINES.

THAT'S ANOTHER SOURCE AND ANOTHER WAY.

[00:05:02]

BUT IF YOU REMEMBER NOTHING ELSE BUT ROWLETT.COM/VACCINE WE HAVE AN FHU, WE HAVE A NEWS LETTER, AND WE WILL LET YOU KNOW WHAT ALL OF THE NEWEST INFORMATION THAT IS COMING OUT.

SO THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> SO REGISTER OFTEN, NOT OFTEN, REGISTER AT MULTIPLE SITES AND GO TO OUR WEBSITE FOR ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. AND BRIAN GAVE WEBSITES BUT THERE'S ALSO PHONE NUMBERS PEOPLE CAN CALL TO REGISTER IF THEY WOULD PREFER TO REGISTER BY PHONE AS OPPOSED TO A WEBSITE.

>> YEAH, MAYOR, LET ME JUST THROW THOSE OUT.

FOR THE GARLAND SITE IT'S 972-205-3900.

FOR DALLAS COUNTY SITE IT IS 469-749-9900.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, BRIAN.

DO YOU HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT? >> YES, I DO.

I WANTED TO GIVE A COUPLE OF DATES FOR KEEP ROWLETT BEAUTIFUL IN ADVANCE. WE HAVE SCHEDULED OUR SPRING CLEAN FOR APRIL 24TH. THAT'S A SATURDAY.

AND THEN WE'VE HAD A LOT OF INQUIRIES ABOUT THE NEXT SHRED DAY AND ELECTRONICS RECYCLING THAT WE DO IN PARTNERSHIP THAT WILL AGAIN BE AT THE ROWLETT HIGH SCHOOL FRONT PARKING LOT AND THAT WILL BE MAY 8TH. AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GET A REMINDER IN YOUR APRIL WATER BILLS.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO PUT THOSE DATES OUT THERE NOW THAT WE HAVE

THOSE CONFIRMED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MARTHA.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF BOY SCOUTS ON OUR MEETING THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN HELPING ON ONE OF THOSE CLEAN UP DAYS.

SO WE'LL INTRODUCE THEM IN A MINUTE.

ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS BY ANYONE? AM I CONFUSED? WHEN YOU RAISE THE HAND ELECTRONICALLY, IT NEVER USED TO SHOW IN THE BOX AND NOW IT SHOWS IN THE BOX. AM I CONFUSED? THAT'S A NEW FEATURE, RIGHT? OKAY.

NOW YOU'RE GOING TO CONFUSE ME, BLAKE, FLASHING IT AT ME.

ALL RIGHT, I'M NOT SEEING ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE OUR SPECIAL GUESTS.

SO WE HAVE A FEW PEOPLE FROM WEBLOS2 DEN OF ROWLETT.

WE HAVE DEN LEADER, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

AND I ASSUME YOUR SON, â– ISAIAH FRANCO? CAN YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, ISAIAH? THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

AND DO WE HAVE JUAN GUZMAN ON THE CALL TOO? THERE HE IS, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

THESE GENTLEMEN ARE WORKING TO FULFILL ONE OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS AND I ASSUME CAN ONE OF YOU OR MAYBE THE DEN LEADER TELL US WHAT REQUIREMENT YOU'RE TRYING TO FULFILL?

>> YES, MAYOR. GOOD EVENING AND GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. WE'RE FULFILLING BUILDING A BETTER WORLD REQUIREMENT, SPECIFICALLY MEETING WITH A COMMUNITY LEADER. SO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND THANK YOU TO THE CITY.

>> ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE GLAD YOU'RE HERE.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING US. >> ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM UNLESS ANYONE HAS ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE TO CITIZEN INPUT, THIS IS THE SECTION OF OUR MEETING WHERE CITIZENS CAN PROVIDE UP TO THREE MINUTES IN COMMENTS ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER.

AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CITIZEN UNPUT TIMES FOR THIS -- INPUT

[7. CONSENT AGENDA]

TIMES FOR THIS EVENING. WE'LL MOVE TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS, THESE ARE VOTED IN TOTALITY.

AND COUNCIL DID NOT WANT ANY OF THESE ITEMS MOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE READ THESE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD AT THIS TIME.

>> 7A, CONSIDER PROVING THE MINUTES.

7B, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR COMPREHENSIVE DISASTER RECOVERY MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

7C CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR EMERGENCY DISASTER RELATED SERVICES.

7D, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR DISASTER DEBRIS MONITORING AND CONSULTING SERVICES.

7E, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION PROVING AN EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR REPLACEMENT OF A SANITARY SEWER LINE. 7F, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION PROVING A MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT FOR FLEET SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE. 7G, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION PROVING A TREE MITIGATION PLAN AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.

[00:10:05]

7H, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION PROVING A TASK AUTHORIZATION FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN WORK. AND 7I, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION PROVING A TASK AUTHORIZATION FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN WORK.

>> YOU'RE MUTED, TAMMY. >> IF IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR YOU I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEMS AS READ INTO THE

RECORD. >> THAT'S TWICE TONIGHT I'VE BEEN CAUGHT. I'M SO SORRY.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN MARGOLIS FOR THAT MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

I ASSUME WE COULD, MATT, ARE YOU IN FAVOR?

IS HE FROZEN? >> NO, HE SAID YES.

HIS HAND WAS UP. >> HE'S FROZEN ON MY SCREEN.

> OH THERE HE IS. OKAY, HE'S BACK.

>> OKAY, I THINK THAT WAS 7-0. DID EVERYBODY SEE 7-0?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

[8A. Conduct a public hearing and take action on an ordinance regarding an application by Adam Shiffer, Skorburg Company, to rezone the subject property from Single-Family Residential (SF40) District to Planned Development (PD) District for Single-Family Residential (SF-5) and Limited Commercial/Retail (C-1) Uses and approval of concept plan to develop a portion of the site with 58 single-family homes. The approximately 19.89-acre site is located on the southeast corner of Rowlett Road and Miller Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

THANK YOU, COUNCIL. WE WILL MOVE TO OUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. THIS IS ITEM 8, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE COMMENT DURING A PUBLIC HEARING, YOU CAN CALL 1-833-568-8864 AND ENTER MEETING ID 1604299023.

AND WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT.

ARE WE GOING IN ORDER HERE, 8A FIRST?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> ITEM 8A, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE REGARDING AN APPLICATION BY ADAM SHIFFER OF SKORBURG COMPANY TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF-FIVE AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL C-ONE USES.

AND APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN TO DEVELOP A PORTION OF THE SITE WITH 58 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE APPROXIMATELY 19.89 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ROWLETT ROAD AND MILLER ROAD IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

GOOD EVENING, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.

I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY TAKING THIS ONE?

>> YES, I AM, MAYOR. GOOD EVENING MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND VIEWING AUDIENCE. LAURA, IF YOU COULD ASSIST WITH THE SLIDESHOW, IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

COUNCIL, THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS FOR A REZONING TO ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING, ENABLE THE ZONING OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS REZONE PROPERTY TO A COMMERCIAL USE.

THE TWO IMAGES IN FRONT OF YOU REFLECT THE CURRENT ZONING ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN THE IMAGE TO YOUR RIGHT REFLECTS THE PROPOSED ZONING. THIS PUTS THE PROJECT INTO PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF THE AREA.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE IMAGE TO THE RIGHT REFLECTS A SEPARATION WITH THE RED LINE WHICH SHOWS PD COMMERCIAL AND PD RESIDENTIAL.

AND THAT'S PRIMARILY THAT LENDS TO THIS SEPARATION.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF INTEREST ON THIS PROPERTY, COUNCIL, AND I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND AS IT RELATES TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN BY WAY OF APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING ON THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IN OCTOBER IN 2018 THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR TOWN HOMES.

THE APPLICANT SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDREW THEIR APPLICATION.

FAST FORWARD TO JUNE 2020, THE CURRENT APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT FORTH THREE ITERATIONS OF THIS PROPOSAL.

THE FIRST WAS IN JUNE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING RESIDENTIAL, THE COUNCIL DID NOT RECOMMEND THIS REQUEST BASICALLY CITING LOT SIZES AND NOT CONSIDERING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN RELATION WITH CONGRUITY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL AS THE ASSOCIATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IN TERMS OF DENSITY FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY COMPONENT ALONG MILLER ROAD.

IN OCTOBER THE APPLICANT CAME FORWARD WITH ANOTHER REQUEST BUT THIS TIME IT WAS FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL USES.

THE APPLICANT WITHDREW THEIR REQUEST PRIOR TO COMMENCING FORWARD TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

AND EARLY THIS YEAR THE APPLICANT DID COME FORWARD WITH AN APPLICATION AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES AND COMMERCIAL ZONING.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. I WANTED TO PROVIDE CONCEPT IN TERMS OF TOPOGRAPHY. THE TRUE POSITIVE FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THESE PHYSICAL

[00:15:02]

FEATURES SUCH AS THE LONG BRANCH CREEK THAT TRAVELS THE WESTERN PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY. THE SILENT IS APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES IN AREA AND AS YOU CAN SEE THE SITE HAS APPROXIMATELY 3.7 ACRES OF THE LONG BRANCH CREEK AREA WHICH YOU HAVE FLOODPLAIN, YOU HAVE THE 500 YEAR AND THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN AS WELL AS THE FLOODWAY WHICH IS PRIMARILY THE TRAVEL LANE FOR THE CREEK ITSELF. THIS IS USED TO SEPARATE THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPONENT OF THIS PROPOSAL. AGAIN WHENEVER WE LOOK AT A ZONING APPLICATION AND WE LOOK AT A CONCEPT PLAN WITH THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY AS PROPOSED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IS THE FUTURE CIRCULATION PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMPACT OR THE DEVELOPMENT ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND WITH THIS IMAGE IN FRONT OF YOU, WE ARE TRYING TO SHOW YOU HOW THE SITE IF APPROVED WOULD BE ACCESSED IN INGRESS AND EGRESS AND THE IMPLICATIONS ON THE MEDIAN. SO THERE ARE TWO ACCESS POINTS REFLECTED ON MILLER ROAD. YOU CAN SEE THE RED AND GREEN ARROWS. AND THE WESTERN ENTRY POINT WOULD ONLY ALLOW FOR A RIGHT IN AND RIGHT OUT INGRESS AND EGRESS THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE. AND THE EASTERN ENTRY POINT WILL ALLOW FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS BOTH EAST AND WESTBOUND.

ADDITIONALLY, COUNCIL, ESTABLIS CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS

[00:20:19]

AND WE ALSO HAVE THE SINGLE-USE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT AS WELL AS TO WHAT IS THE ZONING CATEGORY, WHAT OTHER DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ZONING CATEGORY AND WITH THAT, AS I MENTIONED THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THE APPROVED MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 4600 SQUARE FEET WITH THE MINIMUM UNIT OF 1500 SQUARE FEET. AND TO THE EAST AND SOUTH, YOU HAVE ZONINGS THAT WERE APPROVED IN 1980.

WE HAVE 40,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, MINIMUM BUILDING AREA OF 2400 SQUARE FEET. TO THE SOUTH 7800 SQUARE FEET IN LOT SIZE. AND A MINIMUM BUILDING DWELLING UNIT AREA OF 1500 SQUARE FEET. AND THEN TO THE WEST AS I MENTIONED WE HAVE COMMERCIAL ZONING AS WELL, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A PLANNED DISTRICT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES FOR THE MINIMUM LOT AREA 4,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE MINIMUM BUILDING AREA OF 1200 SQUARE FEET. SO HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO THE PROPOSED REQUEST? THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A RANGE OF MINIMUM LOT AREAS SO TO SPEAK.

SO THE MINIMUM WOULD BE 4800 BUT THEY WOULD HAVE A MAX CAP OF 7200 AND THEY WOULD HAVE DIFFERENT DISTRIBUTIONS OF THEIR LOT PATTERNS. ASSOCIATED WITH THAT THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING MINIMUM DWELLING THAT RANGE IN 1800 SQUARE FEET TO 2,000 SQUAREFEET. I WOULD SAY LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT HOW WE CALCULATE THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT IS WE TABULATE THROUGH THE DALLAS COUNTY RECORDS WHAT THE AREAS OF THESE HOMES ARE. LAURA, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AND SO THIS SLIDE CAPTURES THE PREVIOUS TWO SLIDES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TO GIVE YOU A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT IS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. TO THE EAST WE HAVE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS. AGAIN YOU CAN SEE THOSE AVERAGE LOT SIZES ARE FAR SIGNIFICANT FROM WHAT EVEN THE EXISTING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE IN THE ZONING.

BUT THE AVERAGE BUILDING AREA, THE HOME SIZE IS APPROXIMATELY 2800 SQUARE FEET. TO THE SOUTH WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT WAS DEVELOPED BASED ON THE 1980 ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AND AN AVERAGE BUILDING AREA OF 1780 SQUARE FEET.

AND AGAIN TO THE WEST ACROSS ROWLETT ROAD WE HAVE AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 5,500 SQUARE FEET WITH AN AVERAGE BUILDING AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 1700 SQUARE FEET. SO AS I MENTIONED THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING RANGE IN MINIMUM LOT SIZES THAT I MENTIONED TO YOU, 4800 TO 7200 SQUARE FEET. BUT THE PROPOSED REQUEST THAT IS BEFORE US, IT WILL RESULT IN AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE LESS THAN THE BUILT AVERAGE TO THE SOUTHEAST. AND MOST OF THE PROPOSED LOTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE 4800 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM.

AND THE PROPOSED MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT AREA IS GREATER THAN THE BUILT AVERAGE TO THE SOUTH AND WEST BUT IT IS LESS THAN THE EAST. SO THIS GIVES A GOOD ANALYSIS OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND THEN THE AGE OF THAT BUILT ENVIRONMENT AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AGAIN WHENEVER WE DO OUR ANALYSIS, WE ALSO HAVE OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO DETERMINE WHAT WE FORECAST IN TERMS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. AND THIS FORECASTING TOOL IS VALUABLE BECAUSE IT ENABLES US TO IDENTIFY A COHESIVE LAND USE PATTERN AND DETERMINE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND IT ALSO DETERMINES WHEN THE INSTANCES ARISE FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. IN THIS FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IT DESIGNATES THE PROPERTY FOR SINGLE FAMILY TO THE EAST AND COMMERCIAL TO THE WEST. THESE DESIGNATIONS LIKE I MENTIONED ARE SEPARATED BY THAT PHYSICAL TOPOGRAPHY WHICH CAN BE CAPITALIZED UPON. IT ALSO REPRESENTS 4800 TO 7200 SQUARE FEET. THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS APPROXIMATELY 6,000 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS EVEN LESS THAN THE MEDIUM DENSITY REGULATION THAT'S STIPULATED IN THE COMP PLAN.

THE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION THAT IS COMPOSED IS CONSISTENT COMP .

[00:25:05]

IF WE CAN SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, THE PROPOSED DEVIATIONS TO THESE C-ONE STANDARDS INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A DETAILED PLAN TO COME BEFORE YOU JUST BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR COMMUNITY, OUR RESIDENTS ARE AWARE OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IN WAY OF DEVELOPMENT.

BUILDING SHALL FACE ROWLETT ROAD WITH LIMITED PARKING IN FRONT TO ENCOURAGE SOME FORM OF WALKABILITY AND THEN A REVISED TABLE OF ALLOWED USES. THE TABLE OF ALLOWED USES BASICALLY ARE TRYING TO ENSURE THAT THE LAND AREA CAN ACCOMMODATE THE APPROPRIATE SIZE OF USES.

AND THEY'RE STIPULATED THERE WHICH RANGE FROM YOUR TYPICAL RESTAURANT RETAIL USES AND UTILIZING MEDICAL OR DENTAL OFFICE OR CLINIC TYPE USES AS WELL.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. I'M GOING TO FOCUS FOR A LITTLE BIT ON THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A CONCEPT PLAN THAT IS REFLECTED ON YOUR SCREEN.

THE COLORS THAT YOU SEE THERE ACTUALLY IDENTIFY THE LOT DISTRIBUTION THAT IS PROPOSED BE I THE APPLICANT AND AGAIN THE GREEN IS THE OPEN SPACE THAT IS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 58 LOT SUBDIVISION. WE HAVE A DISTRIBUTION OF LOT SIZES THAT RANGE FROM 4800 TO 7200 SQUARE FEET.

THERE ARE 30 TYPE A LOTS WHICH ARE THE YELLOW LOTS THAT YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN. AND THOSE WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 4800 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING 12 LOTS THAT ARE 6,000 SQUARE FEET.

AND THOSE ARE REFLECTED IN PINK ON YOUR SCREEN ALMOST TO THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE ON THE CONCEPT PLAN.

AND THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING ALONG THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SOUTHERN PORTION AN ORANGE COMPONENT WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF 7200 SQUARE FEET.

THOSE ARE 16 LOTS. THE MINIMUM DWELLING AREA FOR THE TYPE A LOTS IS 1800 SQUARE FEET.

THE TYPE B AND C LOTS ARE A MINIMUM OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING FOR THE TYPE A AND TYPE B LOTS, THAT'S THE YELLOW AND PINK LOTS TO HAVE STRAIGHT LOADED PRODUCT TYPE IN TERMS OF THEIR GARAGES AND THE TYPE C'S WOULD HAVE A TWO IN ONE CONFIGURATION SO A J OR A HOOK DRIVEWAY.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING SEVEN COMMON AREAS THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE IN GREEN AND WE'VE TRIED TO SHOW THEM A LITTLE MORE CLEARLY ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU.

THERE'S A COMMUNITY GARDEN, THERE ARE TWO BENCHES, A GAZEBO, AN 8-FOOT CONCRETE TRAIL IS SUPPOSED TO BE INSTALLED BY THE APPLICANT ALONG LONG BRANCH CREEK.

NEXT SLIDE. STAFF DOES HAVE SOME CONCERNS REGARDING SPECIFICALLY THAT SLIVER OF LAND THAT'S THE RED AREA. IT'S CALLED OUT AS OPEN SPACE LOT 23. IT IS NOT AN AMENETIZED GREEN SPACE, IT COULD IN THE FUTURE AS THE DEVELOPMENT AGES POSE MAINTENANCE CHALLENGES DUE TO ITS NARROWNESS.

STAFF SUGGESTED THAT BE REALLOCATED TO OTHER AREAS OR COMBINED WITHIN LOTS. A BUFFER IS NOT REQUIRED BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL USES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

COUNCIL, AS PART OF THE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS USING THE MECHANISM TO REQUEST A NUMBER OF VARIANCES FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. THEY ARE REQUESTING A BASE EARNING OF THE SF5 DISTRICT. I WILL READ THROUGH THOSE, PLEASE BEAR WITH ME. ONE IS TO ELIMINATE THE ALLEY REQUIREMENT WITH NO RECESS FROM THE FRONT WALL OF THE HOUSE OR PORCH. PROVIDE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES WITH L OR J HOOK APPROACHES FOR 30 OF THE 58 LOTS.

REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FROM 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO 4800 SQUARE FEET. DECREASE THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE STREET WIDTH FROM 60 TO 50 FEET.

ELIMINATE THE PRIMARY ENTRYWAY AREAS IN ASSOCIATION WITH THAT IN LIEU OF THE TRAILHEAD FEATURE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CREEK.

THAT'S ALONG THE TRAIL THAT I JUST POINTED OUT TO YOU.

DECREASE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FROM 50 FEET TO 40 FEET, THERE WOULD BE A RANGE 40 TO 60 FEET BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE LOTS WOULD HAVE J OR HOOK SWING. DECREASE THE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 15 FEET AND INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO APPROXIMATELY 2.5 STORIES.

[00:30:06]

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. I WANTED TO TAKE SOME TIME AND I'LL BE AS ELOQUENT AS I POSSIBLY CAN TO EXPLAIN WHAT THESE VARIANCES IS. THE FIRST ONE WAS TO ELIMINATE THE ALLEY REQUIREMENT OR DEVIATE FROM THAT.

ALLEYS ARE INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE NOT ONLY UTILITY BUT ALSO ALLOW FOR TRASH PICK UP OR HAVE THAT BACK OF HOUSE FUNCTION, PROVIDE PARKING ALTERNATIVES TO OPEN IT UP FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES AND ACCESS. AND ALSO TO ENGAGE THE HUMAN ELEMENT, THE PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ALONG THE STREET.

WHEN FRONT ENTRY PRODUCTS ARE ALLOWED, L OR J-HOOK GARAGES ARE ALLOWED BECAUSE THAT PROVIDES FOR AN ALLEY WAIVER.

AND WHEN YOU HAVE GARAGES THAT REQUIRES 25% OF THAT FRONT FACADE OF THE HOME A 4-FOOT RECESS IS ALSO REQUIRED.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS CITING THE SITE GRADE AND PROPOSED LOT WIDTH OF 40 FEET AS LIMITING FACTORS TO COMPLYING WITH THE CODE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND WEST LARGELY COMPLY WITH THE ALLEY REQUIREMENT WITH PROPERTIES TO THE EAST REQUIRING YOUR SWING DRIVES AS I CALL THEM ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A PHYSICAL HARDSHIP PREVENTING THE USE OF J OR HOOK GARAGES THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. NEXT SLIDE, LAURA.

I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME IMAGES TO EXPLAIN HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO ENSURE THAT THE J HOOK OR THE ALLEY, WHAT IT DOES INTEND TO DO. J-HOOK PROVISIONS ARE ONLY PROVIDED ON THE C LOT. THE J HOOKS PROVIDE MORE OFF STREET PARKING AREA WHICH LIMIT CONGESTION ON THE STREET.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A 25-FOOT SETBACK.

AND QUITE FRANKLY IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT AND PUSH THE FRONT OF HOUSE FURTHER BACK, IT MEETS THE CODE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT WHICH IS 5,000 SQUARE FEET AND WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT.

THEY'RE REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR 30 OF THE 58 LOTS TO PROVIDE A 4800 SQUARE FOOT PRODUCT.

THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS. AGAIN I KNOW SOME OF THOSE HOMES ARE LARGER ESTATE STYLE HOMES. ON NUMBER TWO WE HAVE AVERAGE LOT AREAS OF 17,000 SQUARE FEET. AND THEN ACROSS MILLER ROAD TO THE WEST WE HAVE AVERAGE LOT SIZES OF APPROXIMATELY 5500 SQUARE FEET. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

IN ADDITION THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH FROM 60 FEET TO 50 FEET.

THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS A PARTNER WITH US WHEN IT COMES TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OBVIOUSLY AND IF THERE'S ANY ADJUSTMENT OR REALIGNMENT OF THE ALLEY, OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, A RECOMMENDATION IS REQUIRED FROM PUBLIC WORKS. NOW THE 50-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY ARE STANDARD IN OLDER DEVELOPMENTS, THAT'S BECAUSE THEY WERE APPROVED WITH 4-FOOT SIDEWALK. SINCE THEN THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN AMENDED AND SIDEWALKS HAVE INCREASED TO FIVE FEET.

THIS REDUCTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ALLEY WAIVER AND LACK OF UNIVERSAL J-HOOK APPROACHES COULD RESUL IN CONGESTED STREETS. THIS ALSO HAS ADVERSE IMPLICATIONS ON UTILITIES AND EMERGENCY SERVICES.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. I WANTED TO POINT OUT, COUNCIL, THAT AS WE WERE FINALIZING THE REPORT AND PRESENTING TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD ADJUST THEIR ONCEPT PLAN TO REFLECT THE REQUIRED 60-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. THE CHANGE WOULD ALTER THE ENTIRE CONCEPT PLAN IN TERMS OF LOT DIMENSIONS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE LOTS AND WOULD HAVE A DOMINO EFFECT ON THE ATTACHED CONCEPT PLAN. AND SO DURING THE PLANNING AND

[00:36:43]

>>> THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM LOT LENGTH REQUIREMENT TO A MINIMUM OF 40 FEET, BUT THEY WILL HAVE A RANGE OF 40 TO 60 FEET.

THE IMAGES BELOW BASICALLY TRY TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT THOSE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS HAVE IN TERMS OF THEIR MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS. AND THE MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE ORDERLY GROWTH AND THE SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND. IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT THE MINIMUM LOT REMAIN AT 50 FEET AS THIS WIDTH WILL ALLOW FOR THE J OR HOOK GARAGE APPROACHES AND WOULD THEREFORE IN LIEU OF THE ALLEY, WOULD SERVE THAT PURPOSE. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS AS I MENTIONED TO THE EAST AND THE WEST HAVE REGULAR LOT WIDTH THAT RANGE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 15 FEET BASICALLY TO ALLOW FOR A LARGER BUILDING SIZE.

IN ADDITION IF THE ALLEY WAIVER IS GRANTED, THE FULL REQUESTED 15 FEET SETBACK COULD BE RESERVED FOR THE BACKYARD.

NOW ADJACENT PROPERTIES HAVE SETBACK THAT RANGE FROM 50 TO 180 FEET. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

AGAIN WE TALKED ABOUT INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF THE MINIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO 2.5 STORIES. AGAIN IT WOULDN'T HAVE A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE WITH THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE BASICALLY STATES THAT PLANNED DISTRICTS ARE INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT USES FOR A HIGHER QUALITY ENVIRONMENT.

THAT HIGHER QUALITY IS BOLDED BECAUSE WE WANTED TO DEFINE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT STATEMENT IS PROVIDED FOR.

A HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT SHOULD HAVE THE FOLLOWING ATTRIBUTES TO IT, THE INSTALLATION OF COMMUNITY SPACES IN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTS. IT SHOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE COLLABORATION OF VARIOUS PEOPLE AND ACTIVITIES.

AND THEN THE INTEGRATION OF USES, LOT SIZES, BUILDING TYPES THAT ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT FROM INDIVIDUALS AND DIFFERENT ECONOMIC STATUS. AND ALSO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE STANDARDS THAT NOT ONLY PREVENT NEGATIVE IMPACTS OR NOT SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT BUT ALSO ENCOURAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF FUTURE AND EXISTING RESIDENTS NEARBY. AND THIS DUCK TAILS PRIMARILY INTO WHAT IS A SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOOD.

[00:40:01]

TO CREATE A COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE LOT CONFIGURATIONS, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY, AND ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS ADD DIVERSITY TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND THEY ALSO ATTRACT A WIDER BASE OF RESIDENTS TO ROWLETT.

IN THESE TYPES OF SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS PROVIDE RESIDENTS WITH BOTH A MENTAL AND PHYSICAL SENSE OF PLACE AND BELONGING.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTS TO ACCESS NATURE AND OPEN SPACES TO THE WEST AND SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE. HOWEVER THE LACK OF LOT AND PRODUCT DIVERSITY DOES NOT ACHIEVE THIS FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT OF SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AS OUTLINED BY THE COMP PLAN.

AND THEN ALSO THE RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME IMAGES. LAURA, WE CAN KEEP GOING ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

COUNCIL, WE WERE NOTIFIED ON DECEMBER 23RD.

WE SENT OUT 31 NOTICES WITHIN A 200-FOOT RADIUS OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND 24 NOTICES IN THE 500-FOOT RADIUS.

WE RECEIVED FOUR RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 200-FOOT RADIUS AND ONE IN FAVOR. AND FOR THE 500-FOOT RADIUS WE RECEIVED FOUR IN OPPOSITION. WE'VE ALSO RECEIVED ADDITIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GO BEYOND THE 500-FOOT NOTICE AREA.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. THE RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST WERE LARGELY THE PERCEIVED RISK TO DENSITY,- NEIGHBORING PROPERTY VALUES AND VARIANCES FROM THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. I MADE AN ERROR, IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT BULLET, I SAID THE OPPOSITION AMOUNT EXCEEDS 20% OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AREA. I MISCALCULATED THAT, SO THAT WILL BE RETRACTED. THERE IS NO SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT IN THIS INSTANCE, THAT WAS AN ERROR ON MY PART.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MET JANUARY 12TH AND THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THIS ITEM WITH A 7-0 VOTE, AGAIN CITING CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSED LOT SIZES AND DEVIATIONS FROM THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. BECAUSE THIS WAS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AN AFFIRMATIVE SUPER MAJORITY VOTE WILL BE REQUIRED TO APPROVE THIS. AGAIN SUPERMAJORITY IN TERMS OF OPPOSITION DOES NOT APPLY. THAT WAS MY ERROR IN CALCULATION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING FOR PD FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USES AND COMMERCIAL USES.

WHILE THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL ZONING IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. I DISCUSSED HIGHER QUALITY AS WELL. AND THE LOT DIMENSIONS AND ORIENTATION SEEM TO BE GOVERNED BY THE APPLICANT'S BUSINESS MODEL TO ACCOMPLISH A PRESCRIBED LOT COUNT RATHER THAN COMPLYING WITH THE RFD AND THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THIS SITE.

WITH THAT, COUNCIL, I WILL TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. AND THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ALSO PRESENT TONIGHT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SORRY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR A GREAT PRESENTATION.

VERY COMPREHENSIVE, I APPRECIATE THAT.

ARE YOU ALL HEARING THAT ECHO OR IS IT JUST ME?

>> IT'S OFF NOW, MAYOR. >> THANK YOU.

AT THIS TIME WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE APPLICANT AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO BLAKE, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP.

>> YES. THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION.

[00:45:56]

>>> WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY THEY ARE.

WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. BT I GUESS I DIDN'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE ASKING, MR. MARGOLIS.

I WAS THINKING MORE OF THE DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS WHERE WE HAVE

RECEIVED COMPLAINTS. >> YEAH, I WAS ADDRESSING THE EROSION ISSUES BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I BELIEVE WE WERE ADDRESSING SOME ISSUES PREVIOUSLY ABOUT LONG BRANCH

CREEK AND EROSION ISSUES. >> THOSE ARE DOWNSTREAM OF THIS

PROJECT. >> OH THE EROSION ISSUES ARE DOWNSTREAM. OKAY THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

>> THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO SHORE UP WHATEVER IS IN THEIR

ENVELOPE. >> I'LL WAIT.

>> MATT, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION GET

ANSWERED? >> I'M SAVING IT RIGHT NOW.

>> OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS UP SO I'LL ASK MY QUESTION. I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THE ACREAGE AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY HOUSES PER ACRE.

I UNDERSTAND THE COMMERCIAL IS 5.41 AND THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE IS 14.48 AND THE CREEK IS 3.7. IS THAT 3.7 PART OF THE 14.48 AND 5.41 OR IS IT SEPARATE AND APART FROM THAT? DO YOU NEED ME TO ASK THAT AGAIN?

>> YES, PLEASE. >> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE ACREAGE OF THE SITE. AT ONE POINT YOU SAY THE ACREAGE IS 19.89. DOES THAT INCLUDE THE 3.7

FLOODPLAIN? >> YES, IT DOES.

>> OKAY. SO WHAT'S THE REAL ACREAGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL SITE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? BECAUSE IT SAYS 14.48 BUT I'M SURE THERE'S FLOODPLAIN IN

THERE. >> CORRECT.

SO MAYOR, THE SITE AREA IS 19.89 ACRES.

THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ALONG MILLER ROAD IS 14.48 WHICH INCLUDES THE 3.70 ACREAGE. AND SO --

>> SO ALL OF THE, OKAY, SO REALLY GIVE ME JUST A SECOND.

14.48 MINUS 3.7. SO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPABLE,

THAT WORD. >> YES.

>> THE AREA THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED IS 10.78 ACRES?

>> SO I'M GOING TO THROW IN A MONKEY WRENCH, THE LONG BRANCH CREEK ITSELF IS SEPARATED DOWN ITS CENTER LINE AND SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY COMPONENT, IT WOULD BE LET ME SEE, I HAVE THAT SOMEWHERE.

SO THE TOTAL ACREAGE FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY COMPONENT WOULD BE 13.4 ACRES WHICH WOULD INCLUDE TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE CREEK.

>> SO PROBABLY ABOUT 12.5 ACRES THEN?

>> APPROXIMATELY. >> OKAY.

SO 58 HOMES, THAT'S ALMOST FIVE HOMES PER ACRE.

>> JUST ABOUT, YES. >> 4.64.

>> RIGHT. >> OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER MARGOLIS, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION?

>> YES. SO THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVEWAY, CAN YOU CLARIFY AGAIN WHAT THE LENGTH OF THE SMALLEST DRIVEWAY IS AND WHETHER THAT WOULD CAUSE VEHICLES TO BE IN THE I GUESS

[00:50:03]

DISRUPT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY FOR THE SIDEWALKS?

>> SO THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENT IS TYPICALLY 20 FEET AND THE APPLICANT WILL LIKELY ACCOMMODATE THAT IN THEIR PLAN. BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT IF YOU HAVE A FRONT LOADED GARAGE WHICH IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE STREET, YOU AUTOMATICALLY HAVE OVERFLOW. BUT THAT IS A CONDITION THAT CAN

ARISE AS A RESULT OF THAT. >> RIGHT.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WASN'T BELOW THE RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCIL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

SO MR. SHIFFER. >> IT'S ACTUALLY MR. ARNOLD

TONIGHT. >> OH.

>> WRONG NAME ON THE SCREEN. IT'S JOHN ARNOLD WITH SKORBURG COMPANY. MAYOR, COUNCIL, STAFF, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US BACK AGAIN. OF THE THREE QUESTIONS JUST ASKED I BELIEVE THAT I WILL ADDRESS MOST OF THOSE WITHIN MY PRESENTATION. BUT JUST QUICKLY WE WILL HANDLE EROSION ISSUES WITHIN OUR SITE, WE'LL SHOW YOU SOME AREAS THAT WE WILL ACTUALLY BE CLEANING UP WITHIN THAT SITE.

WE'LL SHOW YOU THAT IN OUR PRESENTATION.

OUR CURRENT UNIT PER ACRE IS ABOUT 4.55 NOT INCLUDING THE FLOODPLAIN. INCLUDING THE FLOODPLAIN IT'S ABOUT 3.7. AND OUR DRIVEWAY MINIMUM PROPOSED ON THIS SITE IS ACTUALLY 25-FOOT.

SO IT'S AN ADDITIONAL 5-FOOT TO THE MINIMUM.

WE WERE GIVEN THAT IN CONSIDERATION FOR REMOVING THE 4-FOOT OFFSET. SO THE TYPICAL DISTANCE WILL REMAIN THE SAME, ACTUALLY A FOOT LONGER THAN THE REQUESTED OFFSET. AND SO LET ME START OUR PRESENTATION NOW. THIS IS WINGATE MANNER.

NEXT SLIDE. WHAT I WANT TO ADDRESS FIRST OFF IS THE 60-FOOT VERSUS 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY DISCUSSED IN STAFF'S PRESENTATION, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE TYPICALLY DO.

CURRENTLY ALL OF OUR SUBDIVISIONS IN ROWLETT ARE 60-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION. WE'VE LEFT THAT AS A 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT WITH CHANGES IN STAFF, CHANGES WITH THE FIRE MARSHALL, THIS HAS BECOME A BIGGER ISSUE FOR STAFF.

AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THE PRODUCT FOR IT.

BUT SUBSEQUENT TO THE SUBMITTAL, THIS WASN'T ALSO ANYTHING THAT WAS MENTIONED IN DETAIL IN THE PRESENTATION OVER THE SUMMER.

SO WE WENT TO OUR BUILDERS LATE, SUBSEQUENT TO OUR DEADLINE, OUR BUILDERS DID MAKE CUSTOMIZED CHANGES TO THEIR HOUSE PLANS TO ALLOW THE 60-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION IF THAT'S SOMETHING COUNCIL WANTS. THE ISSUE WILL BE IT WON'T CHANGE OUR LAYOUT, IT WON'T CHANGE ANY OF OUR REAR LOT LINES OR THE BOUNDARY OF OUR PROPOSAL, IT WILL JUST CHANGE THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH AND REAR SETBACK. IF THAT CHANGE IS REQUESTED, WE WOULD REQUEST TO GO TO A 115-FOOT LOT DEPTH AND A REAR SETBACK. THIS ACTUALLY MATCHES OUR PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED PROPOSAL LONG BRANCH ACROSS THE STREET.

WE ARE WILLING TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SLIDE IT'S ACTUALLY A PERFECT SLIDE TO START OFF WITH BECAUSE IT ANSWERS COUNCILMAN MARGOLIS' QUESTION. AS YOU CAN SEE OUR SIDEWALK TO GARAGE SETBACK IS 26-FOOT. AND I'LL SHOW YOU ANOTHER SLIDE LATER WITH SOME CARS IN IT TO SHOW YOU WHAT THAT DEPTH MEANS.

NEXT SLIDE. WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH QUICKLY OUR PROJECTS BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY ON COUNCIL HAS SEEN OUR PROJECTS AND APPROVED MOST ALL OF THEM.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT A LITTLE HISTORY, WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING SINCE LAST MARCH WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROJECT.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT OUR ZONING REQUEST MORE SPECIFICALLY AND GET THE UNITS PER ACRE, TALK ABOUT OUR SCREENING PLAN, AND THEN WE'LL ADDRESS SOME OF THE STAFFS CONCERNS KIND OF ONE BY ONE. NEXT SLIDE.

I'LL GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL KNOW OUR PROJECT. IT'S 39 LOTS, THESE ARE 50-FOOT BY 115 TYPICAL. CURRENTLY WE'RE AT 120 FEET ON THIS PROJECT. BUT IF THIS 60-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS SOMETHING COUNCIL WANTS WE WILL GO BACK TO THE 115.

THE HOME PRICES IN THAT COMMUNITY ACTUALLY EXCEEDED OUR

[00:55:01]

EXPECTATIONS. THEY WERE IN THE LOW 300S TO AROUND FOUR. SOME ACTUALLY INCREASED ABOVE THAT. NEXT SLIDE.

WILLOWWOOD ESTATES IS ABOUT SOLD OUT.

AGAIN THIS IS 50-FOOT BY 125. SITE BOUNDARY ON THIS ONE ALLOWED FOR DEEPER LOTS AND THAT WAS HIGHLY DESIRABLE AND THAT SOLD OUT PRETTY QUICKLY. NEXT SLIDE.

WINDSIDE ESTATES ANOTHER PROJECT THAT IS CLOSE TO BEING SOLD OUT IN ROWLETT. THAT'S WHY WE NEED A NEW ONE.

THESE LOTS WERE 60-FOOT WIDE TO MATCH SOME OF THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT BY 115 TO 145. SO THERE'S A RANGE OF DEPTHS ON THOSE. NEXT SLIDE.

MERIT VILLAGE, ONE OF OUR LARGER COMMUNITIES IN ROWLETT HOPE TO BE PAVED THIS MONTH IN SELLING BY EARLY SUMMER.

THIS PROJECT HAS A MIXTURE OF LOT SIZES MUCH LIKE THE ONE WE'RE PROPOSING OF 60-FOOT BY 120 AND 40-FOOT BY 110.

THOSE HOME PRICES ARE EXPECTED TO BE HIGH 200S TO HIGH 300S.

WINDSOR HOMES ARE OUR BUILDERS IN THAT COMMUNITIES.

AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SLIDE A PICTURE OF A J-SWING LOT THAT WOULD BE ON THESE LOTS. AND ALSO THIS IS A LARGER LOT WITH A FRONT ENTRY AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE.

VILLAS AT LONG BRANCH WHICH WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR IS JUST NORTH ACROSS THE STREET. IT'S 32 LOTS ON 7.5 ACRES.

WINDSOR HOMES IS OUR ONLY BUILDER ON THAT AND OUR PROJECTED PRICES ARE AROUND 300 TO MID TO HIGH, AROUND 200 TO MID TO HIGH THREE HUNDREDS. THE LOT SIZE ON THAT IS 40-FOOT BY 115. CURRENTLY THESE LOTS WITH THE SAME RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD BE FIVE FEET DEEPER THAN THOSE LOTS ACROSS THE STREET. BUT AGAIN IF WE WENT TO THE 60-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, THEY'D MATCH THESE.

SUBJECT PROPERTY NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE SLIDE TO SHOW IT'S IN RELATION TO OUR EXISTING ROWLETT PROPERTIES.

NEXT SLIDE. SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS A SLIDE SHOWING AS YOU CAN SEE TO THE WEST, TO THE NORTHWEST, AND TO THE NORTH ARE ALL HIGH INTENSITY USES.

WE'VE GOT COMMERCIAL AND 40-FOOT LOTS TO THE WEST, COMMERCIAL CADDY CORNER TO LONG BRANCH. IT'S CURRENT ZONING IS SF40.

NEXT SLIDE. IT'S VERY COMPLIMENTARY TO OUR VILLAS AT LONG BRANCH ACROSS THE STREET.

AND LAST YEAR THIS VILLAS AT LONG BRANCH WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL 6-1. WE'VE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION MUCH FEEDBACK FROM NEIGHBORS AND STAFF.

WE'VE GONE FROM THE 40-FOOT LOTS THAT WAS EXACTLY LIKE VILLAS AT LONG BRANCH TO TRADITIONAL LOTS FOR MORE TRANSITIONAL ZONING THAT I'LL EXPLAIN LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION.

NEXT SLIDE. NEXT SLIDE.

A LITTLE HISTORY ABOUT THIS PROPERTY.

IN 2018 THIS PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT IN WITH A TOTAL OF 175 LOTS, ALL TOWN HOMES. THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY P&Z 4-3.

IT DID NOT MAKE IT TO COUNCIL. ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WE THOUGHT WE COULD COME INTO THIS WITH A PARED DOWN PROJECT, WE CUT THE LOTS FULLY IN HALF. WE DID NOT HAVE COMMERCIAL LIKE THAT PROPOSAL AND WE WERE RECOMMENDED A 6-0 VOTE.

ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES WITH THAT WAS COMMERCIAL AND OUR LAYOUT AND SOME OF THE DENSITY. SO WE CAME BACK, WE REWORKED IT WITH STAFF, WE CAME BACK AND ALMOST WENT THE P&Z WITH A 72 LOT PROPOSAL. STILL ALL 40S, BUT EARLY FEEDBACK FROM STAFF AND DIRECTION OF P&Z AND SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAD US BELIEVE THAT THAT STILL WASN'T ENOUGH OF A CHANGE. WE CHANGED THE LAYOUT TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE BUFFERING, WE ADDED A BUFFER ON THE SITE. BUT THAT WAS NOT WHAT STAFF AND OUR NEIGHBORS WERE LOOKING FOR. NEXT SLIDE.

SO WHERE WE STARTED AND WHERE WE'VE COME TO, OUR ORIGINAL LAYOUT WAS 88 LOTS AND NO COMMERCIAL AND NOW TODAY WE ARE AT 58 LOTS WITH A MIX OF 40S, 50S, AND 60S WITH THE COMMERCAL CORNER TO TRANSITION TO ZONING AND MATCH THREE OF THE FOUR

[01:00:04]

CORNERS AT ROWLETT AND MILLER ROAD.

OUR AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS UP TO 6,000 SQUARE FOOT FROM THE 4800.

WE INCREASED THE MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE FROM 1500 UP TO 1800 ON THE 40S. THE 2,000 MINIMUM ON THE 50S AND 60S. ADDED THE C-1 COMMERCIAL.

WE INCORPORATED NATURAL FLOOD FEATURES WITH THE TRAIL AND WE ALSO REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF FLOODPLAIN THAT WE WERE GOING TO EFFECT WITH THE PREVIOUS PLAN. NOW THERE'S ONLY ONE SMALL LOT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE RECLAIMED.

WE HAD AN ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE IN THE CENTER TO CREATE AN ACTIVE AREA FOR RESIDENTS TO VISIT.

AND WE INCREASED THE BUFFERING TO OUR NEIGHBORING HIDDEN VALLEY RESIDENCES. NEXT SLIDE.

NEXT SLIDE. AGAIN THIS IS MORE DETAIL ON A ZOOMED IN VERSION OF OUR SITE PLAN.

WE HAVE 58 LOTS, 16 OF THOSE SURROUND THE BORDER OF OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST. WE HAVE 16 60-FOOT BY 120 FEET OF THE 2,000 MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT.

SHIFTING OVER FROM THOSE GOING EAST TO WEST WE HAVE 12 50-FOOT LOTS AND 2,000 MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT.

AND THEN AGAINST THE CREEK WE HAVE 30 40-FOOT BY 120 MATCHING DEEPER THAN OUR PRODUCT TO THE NORTH.

THE ZONING FOR NOT INCLUDING THE FLOODPLAIN, THE ACREAGE IS ABOUT 12.759 ACRES. WITH THAT 58 UNITS, IT'S 4.55 UNITS PER ACRE. AND AGAIN WE ARE PROPOSING FRONT ENTRY AS WE DID ON MANORS ON MILLER AND VILLAS ON LONG BRANCH AND MANY OF OUR OTHER PROJECTS WE HAVE DONE IN ROWLETT.

NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A COMPARISON TO THE SF-5 AND GOES INTO OUR PROPOSED ZONING.

THE MAXIMUM DENSITY SF-5 IS EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.

WE ARE A LITTLE OVER HALF OF THAT.

IF YOU LOOK AT VILLAS OF LONG BRANCH OUR DEVELOPABLE AREA WAS 4.24. YOU TAKE OUT THE FLOODPLAIN WE'RE 4.55. BUT IF YOU TAKE OUT THE FLOODPLAIN TO THE CREEK WE'RE LESS UNITS PER ACRE.

IF WE GO TO THE 60-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY IT WILL MATCH.

THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IS CURRENTLY 200 SQUARE FOOT HIGHER IF WE GO TO THE 60-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.

NOTHING WILL CHANGE ON THE LAYOUT, THE FOOTPRINT WHAT YOU SEE. BUT THE OWNED LOT SIZE WILL GO DOWN TO 4600. AND THEN THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK WOULD HAVE TO GO, IT IS 15 NOW, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO TEN TO ACCOMMODATE THE 60-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.

NEXT SLIDE. SCREENING ALONG OUR WESTERN BOUNDARY WOULD BE A 6-FOOT SPRUCED FENCE WITH A BUFFER.

AND THEN ALONG THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTH WE'D BE DOING DECORATIVE METAL FENCE SO THAT YOU COULD SEE INTO THE CREEK, A MUCH MORE ATTRACTIVE FRONTAGE THAT WILL MATCH ACROSS THE STREET AS WELL AS LONG BRANCH. THEN TO THE SOUTH THE METAL FENCE WILL ALLOW PEOPLE TO INTERACT WITH THE CREEK AND BE ABLE TO VISUALLY SEE THE NATURE IN THE CREEK AND OPEN SPACES.

NEXT SLIDE. JUST EXAMPLES OF OUR 6-FOOT DECORATIVE METAL FENCE WE'VE PUT IN DIFFERENT AREAS AROUND DFW.

NEXT SLIDE. NOW I'M GOING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CITY CONCERNS SPECIFICALLY. I'LL HIT THIS AND I'LL GO THROUGH THIS ONE PRETTY QUICKLY. ONE OF THE CITY'S CONCERNS IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO ACCOMMODATE MILLER ROAD FOR ITS BUILT ENVIRONMENT 6-FOOT OF FUTURE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.

WE HAVE GIVEN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE OTHER WAS THE UNSAFE TURNING CONDITIONS WHERE THESE DRIVEWAYS WOULD HAVE TO LINE UP.

NEXT SLIDE. SO OUR SOLUTION, WE HAVE GIVEN SUFFICIENT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STAFF'S REQUEST.

WE HAVE DONE TRAFFIC COUNTS ON THIS PROJECT.

WE DID TRAFFIC COUNTS ACTUALLY WITH OUR 72-FOOT LOT LAYOUT.

SO WITH THAN INCREASED NUMBER OF UNITS PER OUR LEAD ENGINEERING, THE RESULTS SHOW THAT THERE ARE EXPECTED TO BE 80 FEWER ADDITIONAL VEHICLES. AGAIN THAT WAS WITH THE 72 LOT LAYOUT. 80 FEWER VEHICLES IN EACH DIRECTION DURING PEAK HOURS OF MILLER ROAD.

FROM THE LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS THIS IS UNLIKELY, SORRY

[01:05:01]

THIS WAS AN OLDER QUOTE, BUT WINDHAM RIDGE DEVELOPMENT WILL IMPACT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ON MILLER ROAD.

WE'LL DO A FULL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ON THIS AT THE TIME OF OUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW. AND AGAIN THE NEW LAYOUT ACTUALLY HAS A LOWER TRAFFIC COUNT.

NEXT SLIDE. WE PLAN TO RELOCATE THE TURN LANE THAT IS CURRENTLY ON OUR VILLAS AT LONG BRANCH PROJECT.

WHERE THAT WAS LAID OUT IN THE GIP BEGINNING, NONE OF US REALIZED THERE ARE FULLY MATURED BRADFORD PEAR TREES AND CREPE MYRTLES THAT WILL INTERFERE WITH THAT MEDIAN, WE'LL REMOVE THAT AND PROVIDE FOR SAFER EGRESS AND INGRESS. I'LL HIT ON THIS, IT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ARE TO ACCOMMODATE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO RESULT IN A HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD NOT BE ACHIEVED BY THE ZONING DISTRICTS.

WE BELIEVE THIS PROJECT ACHIEVES A HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENT IN MANY ASPECTS. WE PROVIDE A VARYING LOT MIX, A VARYING DENSITY, MEDIUM TO LOW DENSITY, WE HAVE 40, 50S, AND 60S. SO WE PROVIDE A MIX OF PRODUCT TYPES. WE'RE INCREASING ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AS WE HAVE ON ALL OF OUR PROJECTS IN ROWLETT.

YOU'LL SEE OUR PRODUCT, YOU'LL SEE OUR HIGH QUALITY PRODUCT.

AND DUE TO THE APPROVAL OF HB2439 THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THOSE CONTROL OVER THOSE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS AND WITH OUR PD WE ARE PROVIDING A HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENT BY CONSENTING TO MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO INCREASE THE QUALITY OF OUR PROJECT.

NEXT SLIDE. SHE'S ALREADY GONE OVER OUR NEIGHBORHOOD USES. NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS JUST A REPRESNTATIVE CONCEPT PLAN TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE VARYING USES ON THIS SITE WITHOUT HAVING TO RECLAIM.

IT MIGHT BE QUITE EXPENSIVE WITH THE WALLS BUT THIS PROJECT CAN FIT SOME COMMERCIAL USES. NEXT SLIDE.

ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS ALONG WITH OUR TYPICAL ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS OF OUR PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENTS ON THE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES ON THE 40S AND 50S, WE'LL ADD DECORATIVE ELEMENTS TO THE GARAGES AS WE'VE DONE BEFORE.

EACH BUILDER HAS TO PICK AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. NEXT SLIDE.

COMBINABILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT.

STAFF HAS STATED THAT WINDHAM RIDGE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. BUT WE DON'T BELIEVE THOSE SLIDES ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENTIRE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT.

THIS IS KIND OF A CLOSE IN SNAPSHOT OF THIS INTERSECTION.

WHAT WE WANT TO SHOW YOU IS THE INTERSECTION AS A WHOLE, NOT JUST WITHIN 500-FOOT OF OUR SITE.

AND THERE'S TWO GLARING OMISSIONS FROM THESE SLIDES AND THE TABLE. ONE IS OUR PD THAT IS APPROVED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION ALREADY PAVED TO THE NORTH THAT HAS 4800 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AND THEN TO THE NORTH OF US, THE AREA WITH AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER ACTUALLY IS PLANNED ON THE FUTURE PLAN USE PLAN AS 7,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT MINIMUMS. IT'S SHOWING A LARGE 3 OR 4 ACRE SITE.

THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CALLS FOR THAT AREA TO BE 7,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM. TO THE SOUTH WHERE IT SAYS NUMBER TWO AT 1700-FOOT, WHEN THAT WAS DEVELOPED, A LOT OF THESE LOTS INCLUDED THE FLOODPLAIN ON THEIR LOTS.

WE DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE. SO REMOVING THE FLOODPLAIN WOULD BRING THAT AVERAGE DOWN TREMENDOUSLY CLOSER TO THE 6,000 TO 7,000 RANGE THAT OUR AVERAGE IS GOING TO BE.

NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A SLIDE THAT WE'VE PUT TOGETHER. KIND OF ZOOMING OUT A LITTLE BIT SHOWING WHAT WE BELIEVE THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT IS.

AND WE BELIEVE THAT THESE FOUR CORNERS, WE REPRESENT IDEALLY THE FOUR CORNERS THAT ARE ALREADY AT ROWLETT AND MILLER ROAD INTERSECTION. OUR SITE HAS COMMERCIAL THEN IT SHIFTS TO THE 40S, IT SHIFTS TO 50S AND 60S AND THEN INTO THE LARGER LOTS TO THE SOUTH AND THE SF-40 TO THE EAST.

[01:10:02]

JUST LIKE I DOES TO THE EAST WE HAVE C-1 40S THEN SF-8 MEDIUM DENSITY. AND TO THE NORTH THERE WAS PLANNED COMMERCIAL AND SOME RESIDENTIAL BUT WE ALL NOTICED THAT THE CREEK IS DIRECTLY ON THE BACK OF THE ROAD SO WE COULDN'T PUT COMMERCIAL THERE SO WE GO WITH THE 40S TO THE SF-40 WHICH IS ACTUALLY ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN SF, I THINK IT'S 7,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOTS. NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS JUST A ZOOM IN OF THE WEST AND THE NORTH SHOWING THAT WE ARE MIRRORING THOSE USES AND THAT BUILT ENVIRONMENT.

NEXT SLIDE. ALL OF THE SURROUNDING AREA WITHIN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT THREE OUT OF FOUR OF THE CORNERS ARE HIGH INTENSITY USES. 3 OR 4 OF OUR SITES.

ALSO THREE OUT OF FOUR OF THE SUBDIVISIONS, OF THE THREE OF THE FOUR SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED WITHIN 500-FOOT, WE HAVE A LARGER MINIMUM BUILDING AREA. TWO OUT OF THE FOUR SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED WITHIN 500-FOOT, WE HAVE A LARGER MINIMUM LOT AREA AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE TABLE BELOW, NORTH ACROSS MILLER WE HAVE A LARGER MINIMUM LOT AREA AND BUILDING AREA.

TO THE SOUTH WE HAVE A LARGER BUILDING AREA AND THEN WEST ACROSS THE STREET WE HAVE BOTH AGAIN A LARGER MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LARGER BUILDING AREA. NEXT SLIDE.

THIS SLIDE IS TO SHOW WE'VE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE HOMES IN THE AREA AND OUR NORTHWEST QUADRANT, 89 OF THE EXISTING HOMES WITHIN THAT CIRCLE ARE UNDER 5400 SQUARE FEET.

SO UNDER OUR AVERAGE. TO THE NORTH VILLAS AT LONG BRANCH, 32 OF THOSE HOMES ARE 4600 SQUARE FOOT.

AND OUR SOUTHWEST QUADRANT, THERE'S 58 EXISTING HOMES.

AROUND 4,000 SQUARE FOOT. OUR DEVELOPMENT IS 58 HOMES AND OUR PROPOSED AVERAGE IS ALMOST 6,000 SQUARE FOOT.

NEXT SLIDE. PREPARING TO BRING IN LARGER HOUSES AND HIGH QUALITY TO THE AREA.

AGAIN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT THOSE HOME SIZES ARE AVERAGES AROUND 1600 SQUARE FOOT. TO THE NORTH NOT THOSE HOME SIZES ARE ABOUT 6800 SQUARE FOOT.

TO THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT IT'S A LITTLE HIGHER VALUE OF 7200, AROUND 270,000 AND ABOUT A 2300 SQUARE FOOT AVERAGE HOME SIZE.

AND IN OUR QUADRANT IT'S AROUND 270,000 WITH AN AVERAGE HOME SIZE SOLD OF 2,000 SQUARE FOOT. OUR AVERAGE HOME SIZE IS PROJECTED TO BE AROUND 2200 SQUARE FOOT STARTING AT 320.

NEXT SLIDE. A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICS ON THE PLAN ITSELF. THERE'S CONCERNS REGARDING HOA MAINTENANCE. WE PUT THE BUFFER BETWEEN LOT 22 AND OUR NEIGHBORS AT HIDDEN VALLEY TO ACCESS WHICH COULD BE A DETENTION POND, BUT HOPEFULLY IS JUST AN OPEN SPACE WITH THE TRAIL BEHIND IT. AND THEN WE PUT A DEEPER BUFFER JUST TO THE NORTH OF OUR NEIGHBORS ON HIDDEN VALLEY TO CREATE A LITTLE MORE BUFFER. NEXT SLIDE.

BOTH OF THESE AREAS ARE EASILY MAINTAINABLE.

OUR HOA WE HAVE MANY AREAS THAT ARE ACCESS AREAS, YOU CAN FIT A LOT MORE BACK THERE IN EASE OF ACCESS.

BOTH HAVE LOOKED AT THESE AREAS AND AGREE THEY'RE EASILY MAINTAINABLE BY THE HOA. NEXT SLIDE.

THE WALL. THERE'S A SLIDE IN THE, THERE'S A PICTURE IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT POINTS TOWARDS THIS PICTURE THAT THIS IS A VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IN THIS PICTURE IS THAT THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH OUR PROJECT.

THAT ALLEY WOULD BE ON TOP OF THAT WALL IF WE PUT IT ALONG THE CREEK. AND IMAGINE THE ALLEY BEING ON TOP OF THE WALL, TRASH TRUCKS DRIVING DOWN IT AND TRASH TRUCKS DRIVING DOWN THAT, PEOPLE DRIVING THEIR CARS DOWN IT.

[01:15:01]

THE 14, 15-FOOT WALL WITH TRASH TRUCKS AND CARS ON IT, IS NOT AN IDEAL ENVIRONMENT FOR SAFETY. AND IF YOU PUT THE ALLEY BELOW THE WALL, IMAGINE ACCESSING A DRIVEWAY UP A 15-FOOT INCLINE.

WE CAN'T LOWER IT ANY FURTHER, A BECAUSE OF THE FLOODPLAIN, AND B BECAUSE OF SEWER. THE SEWER ACCESS TO THE SITE, I'LL SHOW YOU A LITTLE BIT LATER WAS ACROSS THE STREET, ACROSS THE CREEK ON ROWLETT ROAD, BUT THAT SEWER IS TOO HIGH TO HIT THIS SITE. SO WE'VE ACTUALLY MADE ADJUSTMENTS LUCKILY. WE'VE MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO GET TO THE MINIMUM SEWER HEIGHT BUT BY DOING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RAISE THIS SITE. SO WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOWER THAT. SO IT CREATES AN UNSAFE ENVIRONMENT HAVING AN ALLEY ON TOP OF THAT WALL.

NEXT SLIDE. ALSO WE BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO BE DISRUPTIVE TO VIEW CORRIDORS, BOTH TO THE WEST.

IF I WAS A NEIGHBOR LOOKING INTO THE BACK OF THIS, I WOULD RATHER LOOK AT AN OPEN SPACE AND FENCING RATHER THAN AN ALLEY WITH TRASH CANS AND AN AREA WHERE PEOPLE DON'T MAINTAIN IT.

AND IF I WAS LIVING ALONG THE CREEK I WOULD MUCH RATHER LOOK OUT MY FENCE AND LOOK AT THE TRAIL AND LOOK AT THE CREEK, BE ABLE TO SEE THAT BEAUTY INSTEAD OF AN ALLEY.

NEXT SLIDE. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.

IT'S A CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR US.

OUR PREVIOUS APPROVED PROJECTS IN ROWLETT DON'T HAVE AN ALLEY, THEY HAVE AN APPROVED USEABLE BACKYARD.

WHETHER IT'S 20 FEET OR 30 FEET, DEPENDING ON THE PAD DEPTH OF THE HOME SIZE, THAT ALLEY CUTS OUT HALF OF THAT BACKYARD.

SO IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO USE THE WHOLE BACK OF THE YARD INSTEAD OF HALF OF IT BEING AN ALLEY. NEXT SLIDE.

I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ALLEYS, THEY AREN'T MAINTAINED AS WELL. THERE'S TRASH, THERE'S DEBRIS, WE DON'T MOW THEM, WE DON'T WEED EAT THEM.

THE CITY HAS TO SEND ME LETTERS TO DO MY OWN.

AND THEN IT'S DOUBLE THE CONCRETE FOR THE CITY TO MAINTAIN. IT'S VERY COSTLY.

NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS BACK TO THE DRIVEWAY AS COUNCILMAN MARGOLIS ASKED EARLIER, WHAT'S THE DEPTH OF OUR DRIVEWAY. WELL THE PICTURES THAT WERE IN THE PRESENTATION EARLIER ACCOUNT FOR A 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY.

AND THAT'S WHY THE CITY ASKED FOR THE 4-FOOT OFFSET.

WELL WE'RE NOT GIVEN A 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY IN THIS PROJECT, WE'RE GIVING A 25-FOOT DRIVEWAY. BOTH OF THOSE PICTURES SHOW A 25-FOOT DRIVEWAY AND PEOPLE PARKING VERY ERRATICALLY.

NEXT SLIDE. WITH A 25-FOOT DRIVEWAY, ACTUALLY IN OUR FIRST SLIDE IT WILL BE 26 TO THE SIDEWALK.

TYPICAL CHEVY SILVERADO AND CHEVY SUBURBAN ARE UNDER 20 FEET. SO THEY'LL HAVE 26 FEET TO PARK THE 20-FOOT CAR. SO PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PULL UP INTO THEIR DRIVEWAY AND NOT REACH OVER THE SIDEWALK.

NEXT SLIDE. ALL OF OUR 60-FOOT LOTS WILL HAVE J-SWINGS AS POINTED OUT. AND SHE IS CORRECT, THE 40-FOOT LOTS CANNOT HAVE A J-SWING, NEITHER CAN A 50-FOOT LOT.

A 50-FOOT LOT WILL NOT ALLOW FOR A J-SWING DRIVEWAY.

THE WIDTH OF THE LOT AND THE DEPTH NEEDED FOR A GARAGE TO SWING IN, THEY DO NOT, THERE'S NOT A PRODUCT ABLE TO DO A SWING DRIVEWAY ON A 50-FOOT LOT. IT DOESN'T WORK WITH THE 5-FOOT SETBACK SO IT'S NOT A POSSIBILITY.

BUT FOR ALL 60-FOOT LOTS, WE ARE GOING TO BE PUTTING A J-SWING DRIVEWAY. NEXT SLIDE.

AGAIN BACK TO, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, WE WERE WILLING TO STICK WITH OUR 50-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY THAT WE ARE USING IN ALL OF OUR OTHER SUBDIVISIONS IF THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT THING TO THE CITY AND COUNCIL, WE'RE WILLING TO GO TO A 50-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.

THIS IS NOT A DRASTIC CHANGE. ALL WE'RE DOING IS TAKING ONE LINE IN THE FRONT OF OUR LOT AND MOVING IT BACK 5-FOOT.

WE'LL SHIFT THE LOT LENGTH TO 115 AND THE REAR SETBACK TO TEN.

IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE LAYOUT, IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE DIVIDE OF THE LOTS BACKING UP TO EACH OTHER, IT WON'T MAKE IT ANY CLOSER TO THE CREEK, IT WON'T MAKE IT ANY CLOSER TO OUR NEIGHBORS. REALLY ALL WE'RE DOING IS TAKING 5-FOOT FROM EACH SIDE OF THE FOOT AND WE'RE ADDING 5-FOOT BACK. SO IT WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT PLAN CHANGE. NEXT SLIDE.

ENTRYWAY CONSIDERATIONS, STAFF ASKED FOR THE 40-FOOT DEPTH.

[01:20:03]

RIGHT NOW WE TECHNICALLY HAVE A 20-FOOT BUFFER.

I'LL SHOW YOU THAT ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE PROVIDING A TRAILHEAD FEATURE IN LIEU OF THIS. WE ADDED AN OPEN SPACE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT. THIS PROJECT HAS A LOT OF CONSTRAINTS WITH THE CREEK, WITH THE JAGGED NATURE OF THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. SO BY GIVING THE OPEN SPACE IN THE MIDDLE, WE COULDN'T GIVE AS MUCH ON THE FRONTAGE, BUT WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GIVING IS 35-FOOT OF THE 40-FOOT.

AND WE ALSO GAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE 6-FOOT FUTURE CONDITION TO MILLER ROAD. NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS A LITTLE MORE DETAILED PICTURE WHAT OUR TRAILHEAD WOULD LOOK LIKE DRIVING DOWN MILLER ROAD, ENTERING ROWLETT, CROSSING ROWLETT, THIS IS THE FIRST THING YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ON YOUR RIGHT. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A TRAILHEAD WITH A TRAIL THAT WALKS DOWN MILLER ROAD.

A MASSIVE IMPROVEMENT TO THIS LOCATION AND THIS CORNER.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE BEAUTIFUL AND BE A GREAT ENTRY STATEMENT INTO THE CITY. NEXT SLIDE.

A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON OUR BUFFER FOR MILLER ROAD.

ONE, WE'RE GIVING THE FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO WE'RE ALREADY GIVING 15-FOOT THERE.

THEN WE'RE PUTTING A 20-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

THEN WE ALSO HAVE A 15-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT THAT'S NOT COUNTED IN THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

SO OFFSET FOR THE BACK OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WE HAVE 35-FOOT, NOT THE 40-FOOT. WE'RE GIVING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

THAT 35-FOOT WILL ALL BE SIDED, WE'LL HAVE LANDSCAPE ON IT.

SO FROM THE BACK OF CURB CURRENTLY WE ARE APPROXIMATELY 50-FOOT. SO WE BELIEVE WE MEET THAT INTENT AND CONDITION TO THE RDC. NEXT SLIDE.

IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER BY STAFF THAT THE 15-FOOT SETBACK WOULD RESULT IN LARGER ESTATE TYPE LOTS TO THE EAST.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE THREE NEIGHBORS BACKING UP TO US AT THIS CURRENT MOMENT AND SINCE OUR FIRST PLAN WAS SUBMITTED, WE HAVE MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO INCREASE THAT BUFFER. IT'S NOT A 15-FOOT BUFFER.

IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, OUR LANDOWNER TO THE WEST, THERE'S ONE LANDOWNER AND THAT HOME IS RIGHT AROUND WHERE THE PINK AND YELLOW BOXES ARE. WE ADDED A 30-FOOT BUFFER BEHIND THOSE LOTS AND WE STILL HAVE OUR 10 OR 15-FOOT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUFFER. SO WE HAVE 40 TO 45-FOOT BUFFER FROM THAT NEIGHBOR WHO'S NOT DIRECTLY BACKING ONTO US.

AND WE DECREASED THE AMOUNT OF LOTS FROM OUR ORIGINAL LAYOUT FROM 17 TO 11 LOTS. NEXT SLIDE.

OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY LOTS BACKING DIRECTLY TO THEM. OUR ORIGINAL PLAN DID.

OUR ORIGINAL PLAN, YES, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE FIVE LOTS BACK INTO IT. WE CHANGED OUR LAYOUT, WE ADDED A BUFFER, MAINTENANCE ACCESS, AND WE ADDED A BUFFER TO THE NORTH. SO THERE ARE NO LOTS ACTUALLY BACKING ONTO THOSE RESIDENCES. SO IN TURN THE 15-FOOT REAR SETBACK IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT EITHER OF THOSE LANDOWNERS.

NEXT SLIDE. AND TO THE POINT ON THE SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE STAFF REPORT SAYS SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE THE FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS OF OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S CONCERNING THAT THIS DOES NOT LEND TO A SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SUCH PLACES SHOULD PROVIDE RESIDENTS WITH A SUBDIVISION WITH A MENTAL AND PHYSICAL SENSE OF PLACE AND BELONGING.

ASIDE FROM THE TRAILHEAD FEATURE THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT OFFER UNIQUE SPACES OF RECOGNITION LIMITING THE PROPOSAL TO A COMMUNAL RECOGNITION OF BELONGING.

ALSO AS DESCRIBED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THIS FOCUSES ON INCORPORATING LOT MIX OF HOUSING TYPES TO CREATE A UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD. I BELIEVE WE DO ACHIEVE ALL OF THESE. ONE, WE DO HAVE OUR TRAILHEAD FEATURE. WE ALSO ADDED AN ACTIVE OPEN SPACE AT STAFF'S REQUEST WITH A COMMUNITY GARDEN IN IT.

IT CONNECTS THE WEST OF OUR PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF OUR PROPERTY. I THINK THAT MEETS COMMUNAL BELONGING AND ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY.

WITH THE TRAILHEAD FEATURE THERE'S A 1,000-FOOT TRAIL THAT CONNECTS INTO OUR SUBDIVISION. THIS CONNECTS THE SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY. IT CONNECT THE SUBDIVISION TO OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH. HOPEFULLY THE SOUTH AT ONE

[01:25:03]

POINT. SO I THINK IT GIVES THAT SENSE OF BELONGING AND COMMUNITY MORE THAN SOME OF THE OLDER COMMUNITIES THAT ARE SITTING HERE.

AND THEN INCORPORATING A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES.

WE INCORPORATE A MIX OF DENSITIES, A MIX OF LAND USES, THREE DIFFERENT LOT SIZES. SO I THINK WE KIND OF HIT THIS SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE HEAD.

WITH THIS SUBDIVISION. NEXT SLIDE.

A COUPLE ITEMS, I'LL POINT THEM OUT.

THE LANDSCAPE PROVISIONS AND OPEN SPACE, WE HAVE A CENTRAL OPEN SPACE. WE'RE ADDING A GAZEBO.

WE HAVE THE TRAIL AND A COMMUNITY GARDEN.

NEXT SLIDE. THE TRAIL ALONG LONG BRANCH, IT'S GOING TO BE 1,000-FOOT OF THE LONG BRANCH TRAIL SEGMENT, A LARGE PORTION OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, I THINK IT WAS SIX MILES LONG. WE'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING ALMOST 1/6 OF IT. I'M SORRY WE'LL BE BUILDING 1,000 FEET OF IT. NEXT SLIDE.

MIX OF HOUSING TYPES. WE'VE GONE OVER THIS MULTIPLE TIMES. WE HAVE LOW DENSITY, MEDIUM DENSITY, WE'RE HITTING THAT MIX THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JUST STATED WE SHOULD HIT. WE DIDN'T WITH THE 40-FOOT LOTS.

AND WE BELIEVE AT THAT DIRECTION WE'VE NOW HIT IT WITH THIS MIX.

NEXT SLIDE. THE QUESTION WAS ASKED EARLIER, I THINK BY COUNCILMAN MARGOLIS, ARE WE GOING TO CLEAN UP SOME OF THE EROSION ISSUES ALONG THIS CREEK.

BY PUTTING A TRAIL IN, YES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT SIDE OF THE CREEK, SHORE UP ANY ISSUES ON THAT SIDE OF THE CREEK TO BUILD A TRAIL. THERE'S CURRENTLY A COLLAPSED BRIDGE THAT'S CAUSING MASSIVE EROSION PROBLEMS. THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE TASKS THAT WE TAKE ON WITH THIS PROJECT, WE'RE GOING TO CLEAN IT UP AND GET THAT OUT OF THERE.

NEXT SLIDE. A COUPLE MORE PICTURES ON THE CURRENT CONDITION THAT WE WILL MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO.

NEXT SLIDE. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE EARLIER, HARDSHIPS ON THE PROPERTY.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RAISE THIS SITE.

IT DOESN'T LEND FOR A ONE ACRE SUBDIVISION WITH SEPTIC.

THAT'S NOT EVEN AN OPTION TO PUT SEPTIC IN THERE RIGHT NOW.

BUT WE HAVE TO RAISE THIS SITE, GET IT OVER THE SEWER.

THE COST OF THAT IS TREMENDOUS. NEXT SLIDE.

TOPOGRAPHY AND NATURAL CREEK, WE HAVE CONSTRAINTS JUST AS WE DID ON THE NORTH SIDE. COMMERCIAL IS CONSTRAINED, PLUS THIS SITE IS CONSTRAINED BY YOU CAN SEE THE TOPOGRAPHY, IT DROPS RIGHT DOWN TO THAT CREEK. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LARGE WELLS.

WE'RE GOING TO BE IMPORTING DIRT, ENGINEERING AS IT HAS BEEN ON OUR OTHER PROJECTS IN ROWLETT TO MAKE SURE THESE PROJECTS ARE SUCCESSFUL, WE'LL BE SUBMITTING TO FEMA.

IT ADDS ON A LOT OF COST TO A PROJECT LIKE THIS.

AND PROJECTS LIKE THIS THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP NEED DENSITY. THEY DON'T WORK, IT'S ALMOST THE SAME COST WITH LARGE LOTS. YOU CAN'T TAKE THESE FACTORS OUT. NEXT PROJECT, I MEAN NEXT SLIDE.

STAFF CONCLUDED THEIR PRESENTATION WITH IN CONCLUSION IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO REALIZE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RDC.

INSTEAD IT SEEMS TO BE GOVERNED BY THE APPLICANT'S BUSINESS MODEL TO PRESCRIBED LOT COUNT. WE JUST WENT OVER THAT WITH OUR ENTRY FEATURE, OUR COMMUNITY GARDEN, OUR TRAIL, THE ACTIVE OPEN SPACE IN THE MIDDLE CONNECTING THIS COMMUNITY.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE SLIDES BELOW, THIS ISN'T ABOUT LOT COUNT. THIS IS ABOUT US WANTING ANOTHER PROJECT IN ROWLETT. WE BELIEVE ROWLETT IS A SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY. WE'VE BEEN HONORED TO BE A PART OF IT AND WE'VE GONE FROM 88 LOTS DOWN TO 58 LOTS.

WE WENT FROM 40-FOOT LOTS THAT MATCHED PERFECTLY WITH WHAT WE DID TO THE NORTH AND THOUGHT WOULD BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THE COMMUNITY TO A MIX TO MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE'VE GONE FROM 88 TO 58 LOTS. WE'VE INCREASED THE LOT SIZE, WE ADDED THE OPEN SPACE AND WE'VE MAINTAINED THAT HIGH QUALITY THROUGHOUT. WE DIDN'T SAY NO TO THE TRAIL.

WE ADDED ACTIVE OPEN SPACE, WE ADJUSTED THE SITE PLAN FOR OUR NEIGHBORS. THIS ISN'T ABOUT A BUSINESS MODEL, IT'S ABOUT SKORBURG COMPANY WANTING ANOTHER PROJECT IN ROWLETT. NEXT SLIDE, I JUST KIND OF

[01:30:02]

WANTED TO HIT ON THESE AGAIN. OF THE EXISTING HOME SALES, WE'RE ABOVE THAT AVERAGE LOT SIZE.

NEXT SLIDE. JUST HIT ON THIS AGAIN, OF THE EXISTING RECENT HOME SALES WE'RE RIGHT IN LINE AND ABOVE THE AVERAGE HOME SIZE THAT'S BEEN SOLD.

NEXT SLIDE. AND I WANTED TO HIT MY PART OF THIS PRESENTATION WITH THIS SLIDE.

OF THE ENVIRONMENT I BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT MATCHES THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. YES THERE'S ESTATE LOTS TO OUR WEST, BUT THERE'S ALSO ESTATE LOTS CURRENTLY TO THE NORTH OF US IN OUR 40S. THERE'S ESTATE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF US BACKING UP TO 40S. THIS PROJECT MATCHES THE HIGH INTENSITY OF ALL FOUR CORNERS OF ROWLETT AND MILLER ROAD.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER FOUR QUADRANTS.

I'M GOING TO END ON THIS SLIDE. ALSO STAFF KNOWS ONE OF OUR LANDOWNERS IS ELDERLY AND SHE PUT A LITTLE VIDEO TOGETHER AS PART OF HER PUBLIC FORUM SO WE HAVE THAT, STAFF CAN GO TO THAT IF THEY WISH, THEY CAN GO TO THAT LATER OR NOW.

BUT I WANTED TO END MY PRESENTATION ON THIS SLIDE AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ARE STILL OUTSTANDING.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. ARNOLD.

I'M CONFUSED BY THE VIDEO REFERENCE.

>> MAYBE STAFF CAN ANSWER THAT. ONE OF OUR LANDOWNERS IS ELDERLY AND SHE COULDN'T GET ON ZOOM, SHE OBVIOUSLY CAN'T COME TO THE MEETING. SHE TAPED SOMETHING, WE GAVE IT TO STAFF EARLIER IN THIS AFTERNOON AND IT'S ACTUALLY EMBEDDED IN MY PITCH SO WE CAN GO TO THAT DURING THE PUBLIC

COMMENTS. >> I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN OR

NOT. >> STAFF HAD SAID WE COULD

EARLIER TODAY. >> I'M SORRY?

>> WE HAD RAN IT BY STAFF EARLIER TODAY.

>> OKAY I'M ABOUT TO TALK TO STAFF, MR. ARNOLD.

LET ME MANAGE. >> I APOLOGIZE.

>> NO, IT'S OKAY. I HAD TALKED TO THE LANDOWNER AT THEIR REQUEST AND TOLD THEM THEY COULD DO THEIR PRESENTATION VERBALLY IN THE ZOOM MEETING. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT

LANDOWNER? >> NO, THEY'RE TWO LANDOWNERS.

YOU'VE BEEN TALKING TO MS. CATHERINE DRUM, THERE'S ALSO SANDY DRUM WHO'S A RELATIVE WHO OWNS ANOTHER PORTION OF THE

PROPERTY. >> OKAY.

LET ME TAKE CONTROL OF THE MEETING FOR A SECOND.

THANK YOU, MR. ARNOLD. TELL ME WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE

VIDEO, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. >> COUNCIL, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THAT IF ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WAS ELDERLY THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO ATTEND THE ZOOM MEETING AND SO THEY HAVE A RECORDED MESSAGE FROM THEM WHICH WE THOUGHT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO JUST PLAY AS PART OF JOHN ARNOLD'S PRESENTATION JUST SO THAT THEY COULD BE HEARD AND THEN THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER IS PRESENT AND SHE WILL SPEAK AS WELL.

>> HI, CATHERINE. GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE.

SO I'M GOING TO PAUSE FOR A MINUTE AND SEE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS ANYBODY WANTS TO ASK OF MR. ARNOLD.

AND THEN I GUESS WE'LL GO TO THE TWO LANDOWNERS.

I'M NOT SEEING ANY HANDS RAISED. WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO? CATHERINE, DO YOU WANT TO GO TO YOU FIRST?

>> WHATEVER WORKS FOR YOU, MAYOR.

>> WHY DON'T YOU GO AND TELL US WHO YOU ARE, WHAT YOUR ADDRESS IS, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH EVERYONE TODAY. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME?

>> YES. >> OKAY, GREAT.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN MY FAMILY SINCE THE '70S AND FOR SALE FOR OVER TWO DECADES.

WITH THE TYPE OF HOMES BUILT UP IN THE AREA, THERE HAVE BEEN NO BUYERS INTERESTED IN BUILDING ESTATES BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEMAND FOR HOUSES ON LARGE LOTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE MORE MAINTENANCE THAN DESIRED FOR TODAY'S BUSY FAMILIES.

I'M 55 YEARS OLD AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO MANAGE THE UPKEEP FOR THIS PROPERTY. TODAY I'M ASKING THE CITY LEADERS TO PLEASE ALLOW ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS AS A LANDOWNER AND SELL TO THIS REPUTABLE DEVELOPER TO APPROVE THE REZONING TO REFLECT THE CURRENT SURROUNDING HOMES.

MY PARENTS PURCHASED THIS LAND LONG BEFORE ANY OF THE HOMES

[01:35:03]

AROUND IT WERE BUILT IN THE '80S.

MY FATHER SERVED FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT ON PLANNING AND ZONING IN 1981 AND CITY COUNCIL FROM 1981 TO 1983.

AND HE DIDN'T PROTEST OR MAKE A BIG STINK WHEN THE SURROUNDING HOMES WERE DEVELOPED IN THE EARLY '80S.

INSTEAD THEY BROUGHT SOME PROPERTY EQUIPMENT AND MOVED THERE RATHER THAN TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH THEIR OWN PROPERTY. BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2018P&Z CAME WITHIN ONE VOTE OF PROVING 175 TOWN HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY.

NOW THEY REFUSE TO APPROVE 58 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DESPITE HAVING 1/3 OF THE TOWN HOME DENSITY, CITY STAFF AND P&Z HAVE BEEN LESS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S BEEN A CONSTANT MOVING TARGET AND LOGICALLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. WITH THE STEEP TERRAIN AND ALMOST FOUR ACRES OF FLOODPLAIN, IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY SINCE THERE'S CLOSE TO FOUR ACRES THAT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED. IF THIS DEVELOPER HAS DONE MULTIPLE SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENTS IN ROWLETT AND IS WILLING TO DEAL WITH THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE EXTRA EXPENSE THIS PROPERTY REQUIRES, IT'S FORCED AS A DEVELOPER TO DO SOME SMALLER LOTS TO MAKE UP FOR ALL OF THE GROUND THAT CAN'T BE DEVELOPED IN THE FLOODPLAIN WHICH STILL PROVIDES A LOT OF OPEN SPACE IN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO DO A WALKING TRAIL WHICH IS AN AMENITY THAT WILL NOT EXIST IF THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT GO FORWARD.

THIS IS NOT REQUIRED SINCE THE LOCATION IS NOT IN THE ROWLETT'S LONG BRANCH TRAIL PLAN. BUT THE DEVELOPER AGREED TO DO IT FOR CITY STAFF'S BENEFIT. SEEMINGLY IT'S NOT RECEIVING ANY APPRECIATION FOR THIS GESTURE. THEY WOULD BUILD A TRAILHEAD FEATURE WHICH WOULD BE THE BEGINNING POINT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT TRAIL THROUGHOUT ROWLETT MAKING IT A PUBLIC AMENITY FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND NOT JUST THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS WILL BE THE ONLY CORE PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE EXISTING CORNER PROPERTIES WITH LIKE-MINDED DEVELOPMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROWLETT AND MILLER ROAD.

ASSISTED LIVING IS ALLOWED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, 40-FOOT WIDE LOTS ARE ALLOWED DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND COMMERCIAL ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER.

THE AVERAGE SIZE OF LOTS PROPOSED TONIGHT IS JUST UNDER 6,000 SQUARE FEET. SO THESE LOTS WILL BE LARGER THAN THE SMALLEST LOTS ON THE REMAINING THREE CORNERS SURROUNDING THE INTERSECTION. THE SOUTHWEST CORNER HAS 58 LOTS THAT ARE ROUGHLY 4,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE NORTHWEST CORNER HAS 89 LILTS THAT ARE BETWEEN 5 AND 54 -- LOTS THAT ARE BETWEEN 5 AND 5400 SQUARE FEET.

THE CITY HAS MANDATED THAT MY PROPERTY ON ROWLETT ROAD BE MADE COMMERCIAL WITHOUT NOTIFYING ME AND DESPITE IT NOT HAVING ACCESS TO SEWER UTILITIES NEARBY. THE SEWER LOCATED ALONG ROWLETT ROAD DOES NOT WORK BECAUSE IT'S TOO HIGH FOR THIS PROPERTY TO DRAIN TO. IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND ANOTHER DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY FOR HOMES AND BUY THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON ROWLETT ROAD THAT DOESN'T HAVE SEWER UTILITIES. THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN REVISING THIS PLAN FOR MORE THAN A YEAR WORKING ALONG CITY STAFF AND HAS SPENT OVER 100,000 ON SITE PLANS AND ENGINEERING TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE ROWLETT CITY STAFF ONLY TO BE TOLD JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE SCHEDULED P&Z MEETING THAT THE STAFF WOULDN'T APPROVE IT. THERE'S SIMPLY NO DEMAND FOR PEOPLE TO SPEND 800,000 PLUS ON NEW HOMES ON 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS LOCATED ON A BUSY INTERSECTION LIKE ROWLETT AND MILLER ROAD. THE FACT IS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HOME PRICES THAT SURROUND THE INTERSECTION OF ROWLETT ROAD AND MILLER ROAD, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPOSED HOMES FROM SKORBURG AND WINDHAM HOMES WILL BE LARGER THAN THOSE BUILT BACK IN THE EARLY '70S AND '80S. SO THE ARGUMENT MADE THAT THESE HOMES DON'T MATCH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD OR WILL SOMEHOW NEGATIVELY IMPACT EXISTING HOME VALUES IS PATENTLY FALSE.

THESE HOMES WILL SELL FOR MORE THAN THE EXISTING HOMES AT A HIGHER PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT WHICH WILL HELP BOOST THE VALUE OF EXISTING HOMES. UPON COMPILING THE SALES DATA WITH ONLY ONE HOME UNDER CONTRACT, THERE'S DEFINITELY A NEED FOR MORE HOMES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE IN THIS AREA SURROUNDING THE INTERSECTION.

THE LAND COULD BE BETTER UTILIZED FOR 58 FAMILIES THAT WOULD LIKE TO CALL ROWLETT HOME AND SPEND THEIR MONEY IN LOCAL

[01:40:02]

ROWLETT BUSINESSES. THE HOMES WILL BE MORE UPDATED WITH LATEST HOUSING TRENDS WHICH ROWLETT LACKS IN THIS AREA OF TOWN. THIS WILL CREATE MORE TAX REVENUES FOR THE CITY OF OVER 100,000 INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT 2,000 A YEAR ADDING UP TO OVER 2 MILLION IN 20 YEARS, A NET POSITIVE FOR ALL OF ROWLETT. THE LAND DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET ON MILLER ROAD HAD THE EXACT SAME ZONING AS MINE.

AND THIS CITY COUNCIL SAW THE VALUE AND NEED FOR HOMES WITH SMALLER LOT SIZES SO SURELY YOU CAN SEE HOW THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH LARGER LOT SIZES WILL BENEFIT THE CITY AND ALL RESIDENTS. WHY SHOULD MY PROPERTY BE HELD TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD? LASTLY I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY HOPEFULLY THE ROWLETT LEADERS WILL DECIDE THAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO SERVE ALL OF THEIR CITIZENS AND FUTURE CITIZENS, NOT JUST A HANDFUL OF NEIGHBORS THAT PROTEST AND COMPLAIN, NOT IN MY BACKYARD. PLEASE VOTE YES FOR PROGRESS.

THANK YOU AGAIN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

REALLY APPRECIATE THOSE WORDS. WHO AM I TALKING TO ABOUT THE

VIDEO? >> I AM SANDY JEROME.

I'M 76 YEARS OLD. I'VE OWNED PROPERTY ON 1409 ROWLETT ROAD. I'VE OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR 40 TO 50 YEARS AND I'VE WATCHED THE PROGRESS IN ROWLETT OVER THOSE YEARS. I NOW HAVE A GOOD PERSPECTIVE BUYER IN MIND. I WATCHED PROGRESS --.

>> I CAN'T HEAR THE AUDIO. >> I THINK IT WAS A PROBLEM FOR

EVERYBODY, BLAKE. >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO REPLAY IT? IT'S SHORT.

>> LET'S GO AHEAD AND TRY THAT, LAURA.

>> OKAY. >>> I STILL CAN'T HEAR.

>>> ON 1409 ROWLETT ROAD. I'VE OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR 40 TO 50 YEARS. AND I'VE WATCHED THE PROGRESS IN ROWLETT OVER THOSE YEARS. I NOW HAVE A GOOD PERSPECTIVE BUYER IN MIND. I'VE WATCHED PROGRESS OF HOMES BEING BUILT AROUND ME AND NOW IT'S MY TURN TO TRY TO DO THE SAME. I HAVE FOUND THE BEST HOME DEVELOPER IN THE AREA IS SKORBURG.

THEIR HOMES ARE BEAUTIFUL AND I FEEL LIKE IT WILL UPGRADE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO LOOK SO MUCH NICER.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU, LAURA. COUNCIL, BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO ADDRESS AT THIS TIME? COUNCILMAN MARGOLIS.

>> YES. SO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG MILLER ROAD WITH THE 60-FOOT THAT SHOULD BE THERE, WOULD THAT BE ENOUGH, I ASSUME THAT'S ENOUGH FOR LET'S SAY IN THE FUTURE WE GO BACK AND WIDEN MILLER ROAD, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH RIGHT OF WAY THERE TO ALLOW THAT, CORRECT?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER MARGOLIS THE 60-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ONLY FOR THE INTERNAL STREET LEVEL, NOT FOR MILLER ROAD.

SO THEY ARE REQUESTING A REDUCTION FOR THOSE INTERIOR

STREETS FROM 60 FEET. >> OKAY THAT MAKES SENSE.

BUT ALONG MILLER ROAD WOULD THERE BE ENOUGH RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE FUTURE -- YES. OKAY.

>> THEY WOULD BE PER THE PROCESS THE REQUISITE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

[01:45:02]

THEY WILL BE DEDICATING THAT TO ENSURE THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF

MILLER ROAD. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> I HAD A QUICK QUESTION ON THE 60, 50, THE APPLICANT MADE A COMMENT DURING HIS COMMENTS DURING HIS REMARKS THAT WE'VE DONE 50 IN THE PAST AND THIS HAS CHANGED. HAVE OUR CITY STANDARDS CHANGED OR THE RECOMMENDATIONS CHANGED? .

>> COUNCIL MEMBER GRUBISICH, THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE IS VERY CLEAR IN ITS REQUIREMENT THAT A 60-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS REQUIRED UNLESS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REQUIRED FROM PUBLIC WORKS.

IN THE PAST WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT AND APPROVED IT IN INSTANCES. BUT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE ADDITIONAL RAMIFICATIONS OR POTENTIAL RAMIFICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO WITH OUR CURRENT DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, WE ASSESS EACH DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. AND AT THIS TIME PUBLIC WORKS WANTS TO STICK TO THE 60-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAVE 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAYS BECAUSE OUR SIDEWALKS WERE NARROWER AT THAT TIME.

THEY ARE FOUR FEET WIDE NOW THEY ARE REQUIRED AT A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET. AND SO TO MAINTAIN THAT

APPROPRIATE RATIO ASPECT. >> I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE WITH THAT, BUT SO WE APPROVED 50 ON THE DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE

STREET? >> YES, WE DID.

>> OKAY. >> COUNCIL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NONE AT THIS TIME, AISLE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, LAURA WILL HANDLE THAT.

>> YES, MA'AM. WE'LL GO OVER THE HOUSEKEEPING ISSUES FIRST. FOR THE CALLERS ON THE LINE, PLEASE MUTE ALL ELECTRONICS IN THE BACKGROUND.

CALLERS WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY THE LAST FOUR DIGITS OF THEIR PHONE NUMBER THAT THEY USED TO SIGN IN.

ONCE YOUR LAST FOUR DIGITS ARE ANNOUNCED, YOU'LL BE PROMPTED TO UNMUTE BY PRESSING STAR 6. ONCE YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, YOU PW SPEAK AFTER PROVIDING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND SOUND WILL BE MUTED AT THE END OF YOUR TIME.

IF YOU SUBMITTED YOUR COMMENTS VIA EMAIL THEY WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD. NUMBER 2449.

DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM?

>> YES, I DO. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> I AM DENNIS O'REILLY.

WE RECEIVED A 500-FOOT NOTICE FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE.

WE FEEL THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THE CITY OF ROWLETT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY. THE NUMBER OF WAIVERS IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT. THE MOST CONCERNING TO US ARE THE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES, LOT SIZE, AND SETBACKS.

OVER HALF OF THE LOTS ARE VERY SMALL, IN FACT BELOW THE REQUESTED ZONING. MOST HOMES HAVE REASONABLE FRONT, BACK, AND SIDE OFFSETS. THE LOTS WITH THE HOME SIZE PROPOSED WILL CREATE A VERY SMALL YARD AGAIN INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ROWLETT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE WESTERN MOST LOTS WILL BE SUPPORTED BY 14 TO 15-FOOT WALLS WHICH WILL FACE ROWLETT ROAD.

THAT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF WALL RUNNING ALMOST THE LENGTH OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE LAYOUT OF THE WESTERN-MOST PROPOSED ROAD COMBINED WITH THE SMALLER LOTS ON THAT ROAD, THE NUMBER OF HOMES AND THE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES WILL CREATE A TUNNEL VISION EFFECT WHEN LOOKING DOWN THE STREET.

WHEN CARS ARE PARKED ON THE STREET, THE TUNNEL WILL BE EVEN MORE APPARENT AND LESS APPEALING.

THE PROPOSAL COMBINED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROWLETT AND MILLER ROAD AND THE RECENTLY COMPLETED APARTMENTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROWLETT ROAD TO THE NORTH WILL LIKELY INCREASE THE RUNOFF INTO LONG BRANCH CREEK, POSSIBLY EXACERBATING THE ISSUE DOWNSTREAM.

LET'S NOT KID OURSELVES, IT IS ABOUT A BUSINESS MODEL.

[01:50:02]

SKORBURG WOULDN'T BE IN BUSINESS IN ROWLETT IF IT WASN'T.

THE PROPOSAL IS FOR 58 HOMES EAST OF THE CREEK, ALTHOUGH THIS IS LESS THAN THE NUMBER PROPOSED EARLIER, WE BELIEVE THIS IS STILL TOO MANY HOMES FOR THIS PROPERTY AND IS UNACCEPTABLE.

WE BELIEVE A LOWER DENSITY, HIGHER-QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND ROWLETT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND STILL BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, POSSIBLY SF20.

FOR THESE REASONS STACY AND I ARE OPPOSED TO THE ZONING.

ONE FINAL THOUGHT, I HAVE VERBALLY SPOKEN TO 36 RESIDENTS.

TWO WERE INDIFFERENT TO THE PROPOSAL, THREE I AM NOT SURE OF THEIR POSITION, AND 31 OR 86% OF THOSE I SPOKE WITH WERE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED REZONE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND

DUE DILIGENCE IN THIS MATTER. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT CALLER 2662, DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS TIME? PLEASE PRESS STAR 6 TO RESPOND. OKAY MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT, OH SORRY. 2662, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS

THIS ITEM? >> YES, I WOULD.

>> OKAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> MY NAME IS TERRY, I LIVE AT 3802 HIDDEN VALLEY CIRCLE IN ROWLETT.

>> GO AHEAD. >> OKAY.

THEY POINTED OUT IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW THAT THE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE WITH THE COMP PLAN.

I'LL POINT OUT WHAT TEXAS LAW SAYS REGARDING COMP PLANS.

YOU MAY WONDER WHAT THIS OLD MAN KNOWS ABOUT ZONING LAW, BUT LET ME EXPLAIN BEFORE I RETIRED FOR OVER 40 YEARS I WAS A CIVIL ENGINEER AND CONSULTANT TO CITY MUNICIPALITIES IN THE AREA.

AND FOR 20 YEARS OF THAT PRACTICE, I CONSULTED WITH CITY ZONE PLANNING ISSUES INCLUDING ZONING REGULATIONS AND IN THE COURSE OF THAT TIME, I WORKED FOR THREE DIFFERENT ZONING ATTORNEYS ABOUT ZONING STATUTES FOR THEM.

DOES THAT MAKE ME AN EXPERT, MAYBE NOT.

BUT YOU CAN TALK TO ANY QUALIFIED ZONING ATTORNEY AND HE WILL VERIFY EXACTLY WHAT I'M ABOUT TO TELL YOU.

I FOUND THAT SEVERAL IN ROWLETT ARE OF THE OPINION THAT A COMP PLAN IS JUST A GUIDELINE FOR ZONING AND THAT THE CITY CAN DEPART FROM IT AT WILL. THAT'S CLEARLY NOT THE CASE.

INSTEAD IT'S A LEGAL DOCUMENT BACKED UP BY STATE LAW THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED. NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS.

HERE'S WHAT SECTION 211 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SAYS, ZONING REGULATIONS MUST BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. NOW THAT'S NOT SHOULD BE, BUT INSTEAD IT'S MUST BE. AND THEREFORE COMPLYING WITH THE COMP PLAN IS NOT OPTIONAL. NOW COMP PLAN CAN CERTAINLY BE CHANGED AS CONDITIONS CHANGE, AND STATE LAW COVERS THAT TOO.

SECTION 213 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SAYS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAY BE ADOPTED OR AMENDED BY ORDINANCE ONE, A HEARING AT WHICH POINT THE PUBLIC IS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TESTIMONY AND PRESENT WRITTEN EVIDENCE AND SECONDLY A REVIEW BY THE MUNICIPALITIES PLANNING COMMISSION OR DEPARTMENT. SINCE ROWLETT'S COMP PLAN WAS ADOPTED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED BY LAW, NEVER HAS P&Z NEVER ISSUED A REREVIEW OF THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY LAW. SO THE COMP PLAN REMAINS AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED AND HAS NOT LEGALLY BEEN ADOPTED.

YOU MAY ASK WHY A COMP PLAN IS SO IMPORTANT AND PROTECTED BY STATE LAW. AMONG OTHER THINGS IT PROTECTS THE CITIZENS FROM THE CITY FROM REZONING PROPERTY TO ALLOW USES LIKE A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BEING PLACED ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. CITIZENS DEPEND ON THE COMP PLAN

BEING FOLLOWED. >> THANK YOU, MR. MILLER.

YOUR TIME IS UP. NEXT CALLER 2669.

DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM?

[01:55:02]

PLEASE PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE. DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS

ITEM? >> YES.

>> HI THIS IS SANDY MALTESE. I'M SANDRA JEROME'S REALTOR AT 1409 ROWLETT ROAD. I'VE BEEN HELPING MRS. JEROME WITH SELLING HER PROPERTY FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS.

WE'VE GONE THROUGH SOME DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROPERTIES THAT WE'VE FOUND DIDN'T WORK FOR THE CITY OR NEIGHBORS.

THE TOWN HOMES AND WE'VE TURNED DOWN APARTMENT OFFERS BECAUSE WE FOUND OUT THAT HOUSES WERE WHAT PEOPLE WANTED ALTHOUGH I DID DO A POLL ON THE ROWLETT FACEBOOK PAGE ASKING PEOPLE AFTER THE TOWN HOMES WERE TURNED DOWN, WHAT WOULD THEY WANT.

AND YOU KNOW THEY SAID WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING THERE.

WE LIKE THE LAND AS IT IS. BUT YOU KNOW THAT'S NOT FEASIBLE. MRS. JEROME IS 76 YEARS OLD.

SHE'S BEEN ON THAT PROPERTY FOR 48 YEARS.

SHE'S WATCHED THE WHOLE CITY GROW UP AROUND HER AND PROGRESS.

SHE USED TO BE OUT IN THE COUNTRY AND NOW SHE'S IN THE CITY WITH HER LAND. AND SHE WOULD LIKE TO RETIRE.

WE FOUND ONE OF THE BEST BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS IN DALLAS, THEY'VE BEEN ALREADY WORKING WITH THE CITY, SKORBURG IS FABULOUS. THEIR HOUSES ARE GORGEOUS.

IT'S GOING TO ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

MOST OF THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WERE BUILT IN THE '80S. THAT'S A LONG TIME AGO.

WHEN THESE HOUSES ARE BUILT, THERE'S ONLY 58 OF THEM, 58 NEW FAMILIES COMING. WHEN THEY'RE BUILT, IT WILL ENHANCE THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU'LL HAVE NEW, NICE NEIGHBORS. IF WE COULD DO ONE HOUSE PER ACRE, WE WOULD DO IT. HIDDEN VALLEY, THEY'RE ONE HOUSE PER ACRE AND SOME HAVE TWO ACRES, BUT THEY HAVE SEPTIC TANKS. SO SKORBURG HAS EVEN ASKED THE CITY IF WE COULD GET SEPTIC TANKS FOR ONE HOUSE PER ACRE AND THEY SAID NO. WELL THIS LAND KIND OF HAS A SLOPE SO THEY HAVE TO HAVE A WHOLE NEW SEWER SYSTEM PUT IN AND THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO DO SMALLER HOUSES SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE A LITTLE MORE MONEY TO PAY FOR THE SEWER SYSTEM AND USE THEIR PRODUCTS, THE HOMES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING.

THEY'RE 40, 50, AND 60-FOOT LOTS.

THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH IN LINE WITH MOST OF THE HOUSES AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF ROWLETT ROAD, THERE'S 40-FOOT LOT HOMES OVER THERE AND BEHIND TO THE SOUTH OF 1409 ROWLETT ROAD, THERE'S 70-FOOT LOTS.

SO MRS. JEROME WOULD LOVE TO MOVE ON, SELL HER LAND TO ONE OF THE BEST DEVELOPER BUILDERS IN THE AREA AND MAKE IT AFFORDABLE.

IF WE WERE TO BUILD ANY KIND OF HOUSE --

>> YOUR TIME IS UP. CALLER 7881, DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? IF SO PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE.

OKAY WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT. JR, DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS

ITEM? >> YES, I DO, PLEASE.

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

>> HI, MY NAME IS JR SKOLA AND I LIVE AT 3808 HIDDEN VALLEY CIRCLE. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

FIRST I MUST POINT OUT THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS ONLY ABLE TO PREPARE FOR THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS POSTED TO THE CITY WEBSITE AND SO THE DEVELOPERS PROMISES AND ON THE FLY PROPOSAL MODIFICATIONS ARE ACTUALLY INELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION.

TODAY IS GROUNDHOG DAY AND I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ALL FORCED TO RELIVE THIS SAME PROPOSAL DAY AFTER DAY.

I WANT TO REINFORCE WHAT TERRY SAID ABOUT THE IMPORTANT PURPOSE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT ALLOWS THE RESIDENTS AND DEVELOPERS TO PREPARE FOR THEIR FUTURES.

THERE'S A FUNDAMNTAL REASON WHY THE STATE OF TEXAS DOES REQUIRE MUNICIPALITIES TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOLLOW IT. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT IT'S CLEAR THE ZONING AGAINST THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ILLEGAL, NOT ONLY THAT, IT ROBS THE RESIDENTS OF THE FUTURES THEY'VE INVESTED IN AND AGREED TO AND COMMITTED TO BY VOTING FOR THOSE GUIDING DOCUMENTS. OUR HOME IN HIDDEN VALLEY IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND HAD WE

[02:00:03]

KNOWN THAT THE CITY WOULD CONSIDER SPOT ZONING THAT PROPERTY TO BARELY LARGER THAN T TEN ACRE LOT ON TOP OF EMBANKMENTS SEVEN FEET FROM OUR BACKYARD TOWERING OVER THAT TINY SEPARATION FENCE THAT PEER DIRECTLY INTO OUR PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL, WE WOULD HAVE LOOKED ELSEWHERE. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS ARE INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE USE OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT RESULT IN HIGHER QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT.

WHERE IN THIS PROPOSAL DID WE SEE ANYTHING REQUIRING HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENT. ALL WE SEE IS A LITANY OF WAIVERS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS WITH NO RATIONALE AS TO WHY THE CODES CAN'T SIMPLY BE COMPLIED WITH.

IT'S LIKE THE MOVIE INCEPTION BUT WITH WAIVERS.

GOING BACK TO LOT SIZES, SKORBURG IS PROPOSING HIGH DENSITY, HIGHER THAN EVEN THE HIGHEST DENSITY ALLOWED IN ROWLETT. YES THEY'VE ADDED A HANDFUL OF SLIGHTLY LARGER LOTS ALTHOUGH THOSE ARE STILL NONCOMPLIANT.

NOW THE NEIGHBOR MS. THOMPSON WILL HAVE 12 NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO HER PROPERTY INSTEAD OF 16.

THEY TOLD YOU SEWERS PREVENT THEM FROM COMPLYING WITH THE ROLETT CODE. THIS CONDITION DOESN'T EXIT IF THEY BUILD TO THE SF20. ON SITE SEPTIC CAN BE UTILIZED LIKE THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT AND NO LIFT STATION MAINTENANCE BY THE CITY WOULD BE NEEDED. SKORBURG TOLD YOU IT'S A NATURAL MATCH FOR THE SURROUNDING ZONING.

HE SHOWED YOU IF YOU ZOOM OUT FAR ENOUGH, HIS LARGEST LOT SIZES DON'T SEEM THAT SMALL. HOWEVER THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE DIRECTLY SURROUNDING THIS PROPOSAL CONSISTS OF CONSIDERABLY LARGER THAN ANYTHING PROPOSED.

>> THANK YOU. YOUR TIME IS UP.

WE'LL TRY THE LAST CALLER ONCE AGAIN.

7881, DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? IF SO PRESS STAR 6. OKAY.

THAT'S IT FOR THE CALLERS, MAYOR.

BUT WE DO HAVE ONE COMMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL.

>> YES, PLEASE, LAURA, WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE CAN YOU READ THAT

INTO THE RECORD? >> OKAY.

>> WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, LAURA. >> SORRY.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> THAT'S BETTER.

>> OKAY. MY NAME IS LAURA SKOLA, I LIVE AT 3803 HIDDEN VALLEY CIRCLE. MY HOME IS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR REZONING.

I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT PLANNING AND ZONING UNANIMOUSLY DENIED THE REQUEST FROM SKORBURG FOR REZONING IN JANUARY.

THERE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION IN JUNE, OCTOBER, AND PREVIOUS YEARS. THE REQUEST IS STILL IN CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD. THE MODIFICATIONS MADE SINCE THEN TO ACCOMMODATE US AS ADJACENT NEIGHBORS IS NOT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTUAL VARIATIONS AND DEVIATIONS FROM THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

THE 6-FOOT FENCE AND NOT CHOPPING DOWN TREES IS IRRELEVANT IF THE LAND WAS DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE CURRENT ZONING. THE TRANSITIONS THAT WERE SHOWN ARE ABSOLUTELY MISLEADING. THE UNIQUE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, THAT'S THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WITH A MERE FEW FEET OF TRANSITION TO MY HOME IS NOT A ZONING TRANSITION FROM ESTATE RESIDENTIAL TO SUB SF-5. PLEASE ALSO FORGIVE ME BUT WHAT WAS REPRESENTED BY THE DEVELOPER AS A TRAIL IS A GLORIFIED SIDEWALK. I KNOW THE ROWLETT TRAILS AND FREQUENT MOUNTAIN BIKING TRAILS AND LOVE THEM.

THIS IS NOT EITHER OF THOSE. THIS REZONING WOULD AFFECT EVERY NEIGHBOR WE HAVE ON THE ENTIRE SURROUNDING AREA.

THE REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC, SCHOOLS, NOISE, AND THE OVERALL VALUE OF HOMES.

AS WE REACHED OUT TO OUR NEIGHBORS TO UNDERSTAND THEIR VIEWS, THERE WAS AN OUTPOURING OF FRUSTRATION AND IRRITATION.

WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT CITY COUNCIL FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING AND ZONING AS WELL AS LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS WHO DESPERATELY WANT TO PROTECT THE CITY OF ROWLETT AS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE AND TO NOT BE PERSUADED TO DEVIATE FROM APPROVED PLANS JUST FOR THE DEVELOPER TO TURN A PROFIT BY CONDENSED HOUSING. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS HIGHLIGHTED THIS IN THE REVIEW OF HIS REQUEST.

THE PRODUCT BEING OFFERED BY THE DEVELOPER IS NOT WHAT WAS ENVISIONED FOR THIS LAND WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND WAS APPROVED. THESE SMALL LOTS, FRONT ENTRY GARAGES, AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONGESTION TO NAME JUST A FEW ARE TO SAY THE LEAST INCOMPATIBLE.

THE DEVELOPER IS ATTEMPTING TO USE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND THE FACT THEY ARE SOLD IN COMPLEMENTARY AS THE FOUNDATIONAL ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR DESIRED ACCEPTANCE IN THIS DESIRED ZONING REQUEST. THIS DOES NOT GIVE WARRANT TO

[02:05:01]

THIS REQUEST, IT IS IRRELEVANT. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SHEER NUMBER OF DEVIATIONS BEING REQUESTED IN THIS PROPOSAL AS NEIGHBORS TO THIS PROPERTY WE ARE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPING IT.

WE ARE MERELY ADVOCATING THAT IT IS DEVELOPED IN A WAY THAT COMPLIES WITH THE CURRENT ZONING OR APPROVED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE CITY SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY AND MY HOME TO BE REDUCED THROUGH THIS REZONING THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I WILL EMPHASIZE IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT. IF HOUSING MUST BE BUILT THERE, LET IT NOT BE AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS, LET IT BE IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SUPPORTED BY THE COMMUNITY.

AND THAT'S IT, MAYOR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IF YOU COULD PULL DOWN, THAT SPEAKER THING IS REALLY COOL BY

THE WAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> AT THIS TIME I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I ASK FOR A MOTION.

I'LL HAVE ONE QUESTION I'LL START US WITH.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION BY AT LEAST TWO CALLERS ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE POTENTIAL REZONING BEING AGAINST STATE LAW. CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT A LITTLE

BIT, PLEASE, FOR US. >> IT'S NOT AGAINST STATE LAW.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE DOES ALLOW US TO AMEND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ZONING DECISIONS ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT YOU'LL NOTE THAT THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE IN THE PACKETS THAT IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS ALL OTHER ORDINANCES THAT WE DO WHEN WE REZONE PROPERTY, PARTICULARLY FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS BEGINS WITH THE PHRASE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. PROCEDURES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE IDEAL TO THOSE FOR CHANGING ZONING. WE HAVE FOLLOWED THOSE PROCEDURES IN THIS CASE AND IN ALL OTHERS WHEN WE DO REZONES ABOUT PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT THIS. THERE IS NOTHING IMPROPER ABOUT THIS. WE ARE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH NOT JUST STATE LAW BUT OUR OWN REGULATIONS.

THERE IS ONE THING THAT I NEED TO BE CLEAR, BECAUSE I WASN'T CLEAR ABOUT THE PRIOR PRESENTATIONS, ASSUMING MAJORITY VOTE IN THIS CASE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROVOKED OR INCITED BY A WRITTEN PROTEST. BUT WE DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE P&Z TO DENY. SO THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO

APPROVE THE ZONING IN THIS CASE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION, DAVID.

COUNCIL, BEFORE I ASK FOR A MOTION, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE? I SAW A HAND AND THEN IT WENT AWAY. I THINK YOU MOVED ON MY SCREEN SO I COULDN'T FIND THE HAND. GO AHEAD.

>> YOU KNOW, I TRIED TO WHEN I GOT ON THE COUNCIL I SAID I WAS TRYING TO FOLLOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOLLOW WHAT OUR ZONING IS BUT ALSO LOOK AT EACH SITE AS AN INDIVIDUAL CASE BECAUSE EVERY SITE IS NOT TREATED EQUALLY AND THIS SITE IS AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT SITE TO DEVELOP.

EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. MY GUESS IS IS THE REASON IT'S NOT ONE ACRE LOTS RIGHT NOW IS BECAUSE WHEN THEY WERE DEVELOPING THAT SUBDIVISION, THEY STOPPED BECAUSE OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE CREEK. AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE A DEVELOPER THAT HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD WITHIN THIS CITY AND HAS DONE A LOT OF THINGS TO BUILD A GOOD PRODUCT AND HAS A PROVEN PRODUCT IT IS SELLING AND IS WILLING TO JUMP THROUGH SOME OF THESE HOOPS, THEY HAVE THEIR ABILITY, THE JEROMES HAVE THE ABILITY TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY TOO, AND THEY'VE JUMPED THROUGH A LOT OF HOOPS. SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE REST OF MY COUNCIL MEMBERS STAND BUT I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS ZONING

REQUEST CHANGE. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN GRUBISICH. COUNCILMAN MARGOLIS DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE?

>> COMMENT. I AGREE.

I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS PROPOSED REZONING REQUEST WITH THE ACCOMMODATION THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS INCREASED TO 60-FOOT IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. WHILE I HEAR THE CONCERNS SHARED ABOUT DENSITY, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT 58 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WILL HAVE A NOTICEABLE OR ADVERSE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. I PERSONALLY WOULD RATHER SEE THIS LAND DEVELOPED WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES RATHER THAN

[02:10:04]

ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT LIKE MULTI-FAMILY OR OTHER MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENTS. I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WILL LOOK OUT OF PLACE GIVEN A VERY SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE STREET BEING CONSTRUCTED.

AND SINCE THIS PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT FACE ANY OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. THE HOUSING MARKET SEEMS TO BE PRETTY THIRSTY FOR MORE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES RIGHT NOW WITH MINIMAL LOT SIZE, NOT SF-40 LOT SIZES.

I'M ALSO VERY PLEASED WITH THE DEVELOPER INCLUDING THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO ROWLETT ROAD AS COMMERCIAL.

AND FOR THE REASONS ABOVE, I WILL SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH THE AMENDMENT IF THAT'S POSSIBLE TO INCREASE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM 50 TO 60 FEET.

THANK YOU. >> I'LL MAKE MY COMMENTS AFTER THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND A SECOND, JUST FYI.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?

MR. MARGOLIS? >> YES, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE THE ITEM AS READ. >> DID YOU WANT TO SPECIFY --

>> YES, I'M SORRY. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS READ WITH THE ACCOMMODATION THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS INCREASED FROM 50 TO 60 FEET.

>> ARE YOU SPECIFYING WHERE THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDS TO BE INCREASED, DAVID, UNLESS YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT POINT THAN I

DO. >> NO.

IF HE'S GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, IT'S AN INCREASE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH TO 60 FEET PLUS WITH A REDUCTION IN DEPTH OF THE ADJACENT LOTS TO 115 WITH REAR SETBACKS OF A MINIMUM OF TEN. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> I REALLY LIKE THAT YOU WERE PAYING ATTENTION, DAVID.

>> SO I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION WITH WHAT HE SAID.

>> THANK YOU. >> AS LONG AS IS DAVID IS OKAY WITH THAT MOTION, I'LL SECOND IT.

>> I WAS MUTED UNTIL MY GRANDFATHER CLOCK STOPPED MAKING NOISE, THAT'S WHY I WAS A LITTLE LATE COMING IN.

NOTHING IS EASY ON ZOOM, Y'ALL. DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE TABLE AND THEY HAVE A SECOND. ANY COMMENTS BEFORE I CALL A VOTE? I'M NOT SEEING ANY HANDS SO I'LL MAKE MY COMMENTS, I GUESS. THERE WAS A 6-1 VOTE ON THE VILLAS ON LONG BRANCH AND I WAS THE NO.

AND I DON'T SEE THIS ANY DIFFERENTLY.

AND I THINK THIS PROPERTY IS VERY HARD TO DEVELOP AND I GIVE SKORBURG A LOT OF CREDIT FOR WORKING VERY HARD ON THIS.

BUT I THINK THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL REFINEMENTS TO MAKE THIS A BETTER PRODUCT. I THINK IT'S WAY TOO DENSE.

I HAVE NOT YET VOTED FOR LESS THAN AN SF-5 ON THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND I WON'T ON THIS ONE EITHER.

I THINK IT CAN BE REVISED, I'M NOT ASKING FOR 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE DENSITY OF THIS PROJECT. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE CALLING THE VOTE? ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE WITH THOSE REFINEMENTS THAT WERE SAID.

IF ANYBODY WANTS THOSE REPEATED, I'M SURE HE CAN.

SO ALL THOSE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? 1, 2.

AND ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5. SO THAT MOTION FAILS ON A 2-5 VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I KNOW THAT WAS A VERY LENGTHY DISCUSSION, VERY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION. WE APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S TIME ON THAT. AT THIS POINT WE WILL MOVE TO

[8B. Conduct a public hearing and take action on an ordinance regarding an application by Austin Entrop for the approval of a Special Use Permit to allow for a 1,500 square foot accessory structure on property zoned Single-Family Residential (SF-40) District. The approximately 1- acre site is located approximately 730 feet west of the intersection of Toler Road and Liberty Grove Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

ITEM 8B, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE REGARDING AN APPLICATION BY AUSTIN ENTROP FOR

[02:15:04]

THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1500 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF-40 DISTRICT. THE APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE SITE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 730 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TOLER ROAD AND LIBERTY GROVE ROAD IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AND I THINK ALEX IS TAKING THIS.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. I WILL BE COVERING THIS ITEM.

>> ALEX, DO YOU PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME KOEHNIG.

I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO REMEMBER IT.

JUST IGNORE THE VOWELS IN THE MIDDLE, PRONOUNCE THE K AND THE

N AS YOU GET TO THE END. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT WILL HELP ME. >> I WILL ALSO STATE HERE IF YOU SEE ME MOVING AROUND, FS BECAUSE IN MY OFFICE SPACE HERE -- IT'S BECAUSE IN MY OFFICE SPACE HERE AT THE CITY I HAVE A MOTION SENSOR THAT WILL TURN THE LIGHT OFF FOR ENERGY SAVINGS ON THERE SO THAT'S WHY I MIGHT BE LOOKING HOPEFULLY NOT SHIFTY, BUT I WILL BE PERHAPS MOVING AROUND TO TRY AND KEEP THE LIGHT FROM GOING OUT. SO AGAIN THIS IS A SEP REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT EXCEEDS 500 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SF-40. THE SPECIFICS ON THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS THAT IT WILL BE A 1,500 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DETACHED STRUCTURE. AGAIN THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THE SDP.

THIS PROPERTY IS ABOUT ONE ACRE IN SIZE AND IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TOLER ROAD. THIS SLIDE, WE APOLOGIZE FOR HOW IT COMES IN, BUT BASED UPON THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR PRESENTATION MEDIUM HERE, THE POWERPOINT, IT DOES READ EASIER IN THE LANDSCAPE RATHER THAN IN THE PORTRAIT FORM.

SO NORTH IS TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN HERE.

SO TOLER ROAD IS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.

THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG TOLER ROAD AND THAT'S THE NORTH PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

THE EXISTING HOME IS SHOWN IN THE, I'M GOING TO GO WITH OLIVE GREEN COLOR THERE ALSO CLOSER TO TOLER ROAD.

THAT'S ABOUT 2,820 SQUARE FEET, THERE ARE TWO EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON THE SITE THAT ARE SHOWN IN RED.

ONE OF WHICH IS A DETACHED CARPORT, THE SECOND BEING A FRAME SHED. AND THEN LASTLY THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER OF THAT DIAGRAM IS WHERE THIS PROPOSED GARAGE WOULD BE LOCATED. FOR NOTE AND SOME SCALE OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, THE CARPORT IS 440 SQUARE FEET AND THEN THE SHED IS 220 SQUARE FEET.

REMINDER AGAIN THIS PROPOSED GARAGE WOULD BE 1500 SQUARE FEET. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE SITE AND A COUPLE OF PHOTOS HERE. THE SITE DOES HAVE TREES THAT ARE SCATTERED AROUND ON THE PROPERTY THAT YOU CAN SEE FROM AN AERIAL VIEW. ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE MANY OF THESE TREES ARE INDEED OVER TEN FEET TALL WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROPERTY, I'M SORRY, THIS REQUEST ON THIS PROPERTY, THERE IS ONE SEVEN INCH PECAN TREE WHICH WOULD BE REMOVED SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THIS NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO AGAIN TO GET MORE INTO THE DETAILS OF THE RDC REQUIREMENTS REGARDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, THE PARAMETERS AROUND THEM FOR APPROVAL OR REQUIREMENT FOR AN SDP ARE THAT THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS WILL BE REGULATED BY THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE PERMITTED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT OR 35% OF THE REAR YARD.

WHICHEVER IS LESS. SECOND THAT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE, THE HOME ON THE SITE, OR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, AGAIN WHICHEVER IS THE LESSER NUMBER.

AND THIRD, WHEN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD, A MINIMUM 3-FOOT SIDE AND REAR SETBACK IS REQUIRED.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. SO GOING A BIT MORE IN DEPTH TO THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, FIRST WE'LL TOUCH UPON THE LOT COVERAGE. SO I WOULD NOTE THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE IN THE SF-40 DISTRICT.

[02:20:06]

AND THEREFORE THE 35% OF THE REAR YARD MAXIMUM IS WHAT WILL GOVERN IN THIS CASE AS TO WHAT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED COVERAE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WOULD BE ON THIS PROPERTY.

THE REAR YARD IS 8,410 SQUARE FEET.

AND THEN 35% OF THAT YIELDS APPROXIMATELY 3,760 SQUARE FEET.

THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE WITH THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD NOT EXCEED THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED LIMIT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SECONDLY, THAT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT.

FIRST THE HEIGHT OF THE HOME ON THE PROPERTY IS 19 FEET AND THEN SECONDLY THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED UNDER THE SF-40 DISTRICT IS 40 FEET. THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PLAN HERE THAT THE PEAK OF THE ROOF WOULD BE AT 14 FEET THREE INCHES.

THEREFORE IT DOES COMPLY WITH BOTH THE LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED UNDER THE ZONING DISTRICT OF 40 FEET AS WELL AS BEING LESS THAN THE 19-FOOT HEIGHT OF THE HOME.

I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT A FENCE EITHER EXISTING OR PROPOSED TO BE A SCREEN FROM THE MORE DENSELY DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH. THERE ARE EXISTING TREES, EXISTING VEGETATION THAT DO ACT AS A NATURAL SCREEN BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THOSE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND THEN LASTLY THE CONSIDERATION REGARDING SETBACKS.

THIS PROPERTY OR THIS PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD SO THEREFORE THERE WOULD BE A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT TO BE SET FORGOT TO MOVE. SO IT WOULD LAY OUT THAT THE PROPOSED SETBACKS WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 220 FEET THE TOLER ROAD TO THE NORTH. 23 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TO THE SOUTH WHICH ABUTS THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION THERE AND THEN ON THE SIDE TO THE EAST THE SETBACK WOULD BE TEN FEET WHICH IS THE CLOSER OF THE TWO SIDE YARDS AND THEN IT WOULD BE 115 FEET FROM THE WEST SIDE PROPERTY LINE.

I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE SEPARATED FROM THE HOME BY APPROXIMATELY 86 FEET.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. SOME MORE SITE PHOTOS TO GIVE YOU A FEEL FOR THE CURRENT CONDITIONS AT THE PROPERTY AND WHAT IS PROPOSED. THIS SHOWS MORE CLOSE UP THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE AS WELL AS THAT PECAN TREE THAT WOULD BE REMOVED SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED AND THE STRUCTURE BUILT AND ALSO WOULD SHOW THE SURROUNDING TREES THAT WOULD REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

THIS ALSO IS ANOTHER VIEW OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE. THIS IS BASICALLY LOOKING FROM WEST TO EAST ON THE PROPERTY OF THE BACKYARD.

THIS ALSO SHOWS ANOTHER EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE EAST.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS ALSO ANOTHER PHOTO THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND WAS INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE AS WERE THE OTHER PHOTOS.

BUT IT WAS INCLUDED IN JUST THE PRESENTATION MADE BY THE APPLICANT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HOWEVER HE ALLOWED US TO INCORPORATE THIS INTO OUR PRESENTATION THIS EVENING.

IT DOES SHOW THE EXISTING TREES, SHRUBS, THAT ARE LOCATED, THE HEDGE GROW THE VEGETATION THAT PROVIDES THAT NATURAL SCREEN BETWEEN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE, YOU CAN SEE THAT WOULD BE LOCATED AS INDICATED WITH THE ARROW THAT SAYS AND ALSO WITH THE CAPTION GARAGE WILL BE HERE. AND THEN THREE MORE ADDITIONAL ARROWS THAT WILL SHOW THE DIRECTION TOWARD THE PROPERTY IN THE SUBDIVISION BEHIND AND HOW THIS DOES SERVE AS A NATURAL SCREEN BETWEEN THOSE PROPERTIES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

AGAIN BUILDING UPON THAT, ALL OF THESE DO REQUIRE NOTIFICATIONS, SO THOSE NOTIFICATIONS WERE SEPTEMBER OUT BACK IN DECEMBER

[02:25:01]

OF LAST YEAR. THERE WERE 20 NOTICES SENT OUT TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 200-FOOT BUFFER, 500 NOTICES SET OUT TO THOSE, I'M SORRY, 35 SET OUT TO THOSE WITHIN THE 500-FOOT RADIUS. WE DID RECEIVE BACK THREE NOTICES OF OPPOSITION FROM THOSE PROPERTIES SHOWN IN RED WHICH ABUT THIS PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. THEY ARE WITHIN THE 200-FOOT LEGAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION. AND THEN ALSO THE PROPERTIES IN GREEN, TWO OF WHICH ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE 200-FOOT BUFFER THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST AND THEN ANOTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE 500-FOOT COURTESY BUFFER WHICH IS ALSO IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

I WOULD ALSO STATE HERE THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR ON OUR SIDE WHEN IT CAME TO THE CALCULATION OF THE 20% RULE.

THE SUPERMAJORITY DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS.

THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION DURING LATE IN THE PROCESS WITH THAT, SO THE 20% RULE DOES NOT APPLY ALTHOUGH THERE WERE, SORRY, THERE WERE RESPONSES THAT WERE RECEIVED TO THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION, THE NUMBER AND THE AREA OF PROPERTY OWNED DOES NOT TRIGGER THAT 20% RULE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THEIR MEETING ON JANUARY 12TH OF THIS YEAR DID VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM UNANIMOUSLY 7-0. AGAIN THE OPPOSITION STATEMENT THERE, THE 20% RULE DOES NOT APPLY.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE SDP TO ALLOW FOR AN ENCLOSED 1500-FOOT METAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

WE BELIEVE THIS WOULD NOT COMPROMISE THE INTENT OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT OR THE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DUE TO ITS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND-USE PATTERN PREVAILING IN THE AREA. I WOULD ALSO NOTE THE MATERIAL, COLOR, AND USE OF THE STRUCTURE ARE ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL ENCLOSED STORAGE SPACE.

AGAIN, I WOULD NOTE THAT THERE ARE SIMILAR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OF SIMILAR SIZE AND FUNCTION.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. AND WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE.

THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT ON THIS CALL, HE DOES NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION TO MAKE, HOWEVER HE IS ALSO AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX.

APPRECIATE THAT. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT? I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.

I NOTICED IN THE PACKET THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF NEIGHBORS THAT WERE OBJECTING. ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? IS THIS, I KNOW IT'S A BIG LOT. IS THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OUT OF SIZE FROM COMPARATIVE PROPERTIES AROUND THERE? I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IT WAS REALLY GOING TO CAUSE

A PROBLEM IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> I'LL ADDRESS THAT A LITTLE BIT AND AGAIN CERTAINLY CANNOT SPEAK FOR THOSE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE CONCERNED, HOWEVER THIS IS PERHAPS A SITUATION THAT IS A RESULT OF THE LARGER ESTATE LOTS, THE ACREAGE LOTS OF WHICH MR. ENTROP'S PROPERTY IS ONE OF THOSE.

AND WITH THAT ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDIVISION THAT WAS DEVELOPED AT A MORE DENSE KIND OF, CERTAINLY MORE DENSE AND SMALLER LOT SIZE THAT WOULD NOT TYPICALLY HAVE THE SPACE OR THE NEED FOR SUCH A LARGE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THERE.

SO WE FROM THE STAFF ALSO HAVE NOT DONE A PARTICULARLY ROBUST ANALYSIS FOR CERTAIN AS TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE AREA WITH THAT. BUT WE WOULD STAND BY THAT IT IS A FAIRLY COMMON THING THAT YOU SEE IN TOLER ROAD AND IN THE OLDER SECTIONS OF THE CITY THAT DO HAVE THE LARGER ACREAGE LOTS.

[02:30:01]

>> THANK YOU, ALEX. >> SURE.

>> DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, MR. ENTROP?

>> YES, IF I COULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY YOUR QUESTION, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SUBDIVISION BEHIND US IS MUCH SMALLER LOTS, A LOT MORE DENSE BUILDING THERE. I'M SURE YOU'VE READ SOME OF THE COMMENTS OF THOSE NEIGHBORS AND THAT'S WHY ON THE DRAWING WE POSTED A PHOTO OF OUR 18-FOOT TALL HEDGEROW THAT COMPLETELY COVERS THAT ALONG WITH THE VIEW TO WHERE YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THEIR PROPERTIES. THAT PHOTO WAS TAKEN HERE IN JANUARY, JUST TWO WEEKS AGO FOR THE P&Z MEETING SO IT WAS TAKEN IN WINTER, YOU COULD SEE ALL OF THE TREES THERE HAD NO LEAVES.

BUT THAT HEDGE ROW THERE IS EVERGREEN, THEY STAY FILLED WITH FOLIAGE ALL YEAR ROUND. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE LEAVES DON'T DROP IN THE WINTERTIME AND GO AWAY.

IT IS A 24/7 ALL YEAR ROUND HEDGE ROW THAT KIND OF BLOCKS OFF. AND THOSE THREE PROPERTIES THAT SENT IN, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE THE IT'S THE NOT IN MY BACKYARD COMPLAINT. BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, THAT'S WHY I TOOK THOSE PHOTO. THOSE THREE THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION, I HAVE THE ARROWS POINTING TO THEIR HOUSES TO HELP GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT BETTER FEEL OF THE LOCATION AND THE SITE. SO HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS.

THAT'S ALL I HAD FOR TODAY. >> THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. COUNCILWOMAN BROWN, YOU LOWERED

YOUR HAND. >> I DID.

MY QUESTION WAS WAS HIS BUILDING GOING TO BE SCREENED FROM THOSE THREE HOUSES THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION.

AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU DID ANSWER MY QUESTION, MR. ENTROP, THAT IT WOULD SCREEN THE BUILDING FROM THOSE HOUSES.

>> THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO AT THIS TIME. MS. LAURA, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON

THE LINE? >> WE DO.

JUST A REMINDER TO THE CALLERS ON THE LINE.

SHOULD YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM, REMINDER TO MUTE ALL OF THE BACKGROUND NOISE. WHEN CALLED UPON, PLEASE PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE. SO CALLER 7881, DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? PLEASE PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE.

OKAY. NO COMMENT.

AND MAYOR, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SUBMITTED COMMENTS FOR THIS EITHER. SO THAT'S IT FOR THIS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO AT THIS TIME I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

COUNCILWOMAN BROWN. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

ITEM 8B. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILWOMAN BELL. I READ HER LIPS.

>> I SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION, COUNCIL? DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE, MARTHA? OKAY. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

WHO AM I NOT SEEING? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, MR. ENTROP. HAPPY BUILDING.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.

APPRECIATE IT. >> ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO

[8C. Consider action to approve a resolution to amend the Development Agreement (Hotel and Convention Center Project) with Sapphire Bay Land Holdings I, LLC for the Sapphire Bay project. ]

MOVE TO ITEM 8C CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT WITH SAPPHIRE BAY LAND HOLDINGS I, LLC FOR THE SAPPHIRE BAY PROJECT. WELCOME.

CAN YOU HEAR ME, JIM? CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME?

>> YEAH, I CAN HEAR YOU. >> WE CAN HEAR YOU.

>> A RESOLUTION TO THE, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YOU'RE BREAKING UP ON MY END. >> MAYOR, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES. YOU WERE FROZEN FOR A MINUTE.

[02:35:04]

>> YOU'RE GOOD NOW, JIM. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES, I CAN. >> LET'S TRY IT AGAIN.

IF I DO THIS WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM.

>> OKAY. THEN WE'LL HAVE OUR ACE CITY ATTORNEY READY TO STEP IN IF FOR SOME REASON I LOSE INTERNET CONNECTION HERE. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

ALL RIGHT WE'LL TRY THIS AGAIN. MAYOR, AGAIN, THE ACTION ITEM FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING IS TO APPROVE A AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT AT SAPPHIRE BAY.

JUST TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN JULY OF 2019 AS A RESULT OF THE CITY'S EFFORT IN THE 85TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO GET LEGISLATION APPROVED TO ALLOW THE CITY TO HAVE ACCESS TO REFUNDS FROM STATE REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER PROJECTS.

ROWLETT WAS FORTUNATE TO BE PART BACK IN 2017 IN THE 85TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION WITH SUPPORT FROM OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TO BE ONE OF SEVERAL CITIES APPROVED DURING THAT LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE THIS LEGISLATION TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE REFUNDS. IN THE 86TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN 2019 THERE WERE 22 ADDITIONAL CITIES THAT WERE GRANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVING STATE REVENUE IN SUPPORT OF HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER PROJECTS AND AT THAT IN THE 86TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THEY ALSO PUT A PROVISION THAT CITIES WERE REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY 2019 IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE STATE REFUND, A CERTAIN PORTION OF STATE REFUNDS. SO AGAIN AS I MENTIONED IN JULY OF 2018 THE CITY ENTERED INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT PARTER SAPPHIRE BAY LAND HOLDINGS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT AT THE SAPPHIRE BAY PROJECT. AND JUST FOR BACKGROUND FOR FOLKS THAT MAY NOT BE AWARE, SAPPHIRE BAY IS THE 120 ACRE SITE SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 30 AT DALROCK ROAD.

IT'S LOCATED IN BOTH DALLAS AND ROCKWALL COUNTIES.

AS I MENTIONED AFTER COUNCIL APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN JULY OF 2019, THE CITY PREPARED A REQUEST FOR WHAT THEY CALL A PRIVATE LETTER RULING WHICH IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING WITH THE STATE.

THAT PRIVATE LETTER RULING REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE AND REQUESTS THAT THE COMPTROLLER DESIGNATE THE SAPPHIRE BAY PROJECT AS ELIGIBLE AND MEETING ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A PORTION OF STATE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 351 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE.

AS A RESULT OF THAT REQUEST THE PRIVATE LETTER RULING REQUEST THE CITY RECEIVED ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FROM THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE ON CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE JULY OF 2019 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT NEEDED TO BE AMENDED TO INCORPORATE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE RELATIVE TO THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE.

AND SO THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING MODIFIES THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE GUIDANCE THAT THE CITY RECEIVED FROM THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE.

AND SO THE AMENDMENT INCORPORATES GUIDANCE THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL CONVEY THE LAND TO THE CITY IN FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP FORM ON OR BEFORE THE OPENING OF THE HOTEL PROJECT.

THE CITY WOULD THEN ENTER INTO A GROUND LEASE AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER FOR A TERM OF 40 YEARS WITH THE RIGHT TO EXTEND FOR UP TO TWO 20 YEAR PERIODS.

THE CITY WILL GRANT A PURCHASE OPTION TO ACQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO ACQUIRE THE LAND AFTER THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GROUND LEASE EFFECTIVE DATE AND SHOULD THE DEVELOPER DECIDE TO EXERCISE THAT PURCHASE OPTION, THE PRICE ON THAT FOR THE CITY TO SELL THE GROUND BACK TO THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE DETERMINED BY FAIR MARKET VALUE ASSET FORTH IN THE PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT.

AND ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC UNDERSTOOD IS THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE PRIVATE LETTER RULING IS REALLY THE FIRST STEP IN THE CITY BEING

[02:40:02]

ABLE TO STRUCTURE THE FINANCING FOR THE RESORT AND THE CONFERENCE CENTER, THE PLAN IS FOR THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO ISSUE SPECIAL REVENUE BONDS THAT WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THE REVENUE STREAM THAT THE STATE WOULD PROVIDE AS WELL AS REVENUE FROM THE CITY'S HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX AND THE TOURIST DISTRICT FOR SAPPHIRE BAY. SO THE GUIDANCE FROM THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE AND THE ISSUANCE OF THE PRIVATE LETTER RULING IS THE FIRST STEP FOR THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO FINALIZE AND SECURE THE FINANCING STRUCTURE, AND WE WOULD BE BRINGING THAT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION ONCE WE RECEIVE THIS PRIVATE LETTER RULING FROM THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE.

WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE MAYOR OR COUNCIL MAY HAVE AND ALSO OFFER CITY ATTORNEY DAVID BEHRMAN WHO'S BEEN WORKING WITH THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE TO SEE IF HE HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO ADD.

>> ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS,

MR. BEHRMAN, ANY COMMENTS? >> NO, JIM PRETTY MUCH SQUARED IT AWAY. WE NEED TO RESTRUCTURE THE OWNERSHIP TRANSACTION IN THIS DEAL IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE.

AND WE NEED TO DO IT QUICKLY. >> AND I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT. THIS HAS BEEN THE PLAN ALL ALONG, FOLKS. AND I KNOW COUNCIL KNOWS THAT AND I KNOW STAFF KNOWS THAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC IS VERY CLEAR ON THAT. WE'VE ALWAYS PLANNED TO HAVE IT STRUCTURED THIS WAY. SO THIS IS JUST A STEP IN THE PROCESS. ALL RIGHT, I'M NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH SAPPHIRE BAY LAND HOLDINGS LLC FOR THE SAPPHIRE BAY PROJECT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILMAN GRUBISICH.

DO I HAVE A SECOND FROM CONCILMAN SHERRILL?

>> I'LL SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CALL THE ROLL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THAT CARRIES 7-0.

THANK YOU, JIM. >> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

[8D. Consider an ordinance calling a Special Election for amendments to the Home Rule Charter to be held on May 1, 2021, and establishing the ballot language for the propositions therein. ]

>> ITEM 8D, CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO BE HELD ON MAY 1, 2021, IN ESTABLISHING THE BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR THE PROPOSITIONS THEREIN. WHO IS TAKING THIS ONE, BRIAN?

>> I THINK IT WILL BE LAURA, MAYOR.

LAURA. >> ME.

AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED WE'RE HERE TO REVIEW THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO CALL THE SPECIAL ELECTION FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE HOME RULE CHARTER.

THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WAS APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN JUNE OF 2020. THEY PRESENTED THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL ON JANUARY 5TH AND COUNCIL REVIEWED THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAME TO CONSENSUS FOR BALLOT ON JANUARY 19TH. LISTED ARE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEMBERS AND I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK FEMME FOR THEIR DILIGENT AND THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE CHARTER. OVER THE COURSE OF THEIR DELIBERATIONS, THEY DIVIDED IN SUBCOMMITTEES AND REPORTED ON THEIR AREAS OF REVIEW. THE COMMISSION RECEIVED INPUT FROM JUDGE LISTON REGARDING LEGISLATIVE CHANGES AND PROPOSED UPDATES, RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING ANY LEGAL ISSUES AND THAT'S HOW THEY FINALIZED THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WERE REPRESENTED TO COUNCIL.

THE FIRST PROPOSITION, PROPOSITION A IS AN EXTENSION OF THE NUMBER OF EXECUTIVE TERMS A PERSON CAN SERVE ON CITY COUNCIL WHETHER IT BE AS A CITY COUNCIL OR AS MAYOR.

THEY CAN SERVE, THEY CHANGED IT FROM 2, 2 YEAR TERMS TO 2, 3 YEAR TERMS AND LIMITS THE NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBER TO NINE AND MAYOR TO NINE FOR A TOTAL OF 18 YEARS.

IN REVIEW OF THIS SLIDE, PLEASE NOTE THE STRICKEN THROUGH TEXT WILL BE REMOVED AND UNDERLINED TEXT WILL BE ADDED.

[02:45:08]

PROPOSITION B, THIS INCREASES THE AMOUNT THAT THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD RECEIVE EACH MONTH.

THE LAST TIME THERE WAS AN INCREASE WAS IN MAY 2016 WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE LAST CHARTER AMENDMENTS.

IT CHANGES THE AMOUNT FROM THE MAYOR FOR $500 PER MONTH TO $750 AND FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM $300 TO $450.

PROPOSITION C RELATES TO THE CITY AUDITOR POSITION, AND THIS PROFESSION CHANGES MAY TO SHALL IN ORDER TO REQUIRE THE APPOINTMENT OF A CITY AUDITOR RATHER THAN OPTIONAL AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. PROPOSITION D ADDS SOCIAL MEDIA TO THE CODE OF ETHICS AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL UPDATED THE ETHICS POLICY TO INCLUDE THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AS WELL. THE NEXT TWO PROPOSITIONS RELATE TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT. PROPOSITION E MOVES THE APPOINTMENT OF COURT STAFF FROM THE PRESIDING JUDGE TO THE CITY MANAGER, PROVIDES THE INCLUSION OF A NOTE EXPLAINING TERMS OF OFFICE AND PROVIDING FOR CIVIL AND CONCURRENT JURISDICTION AND IT RATE OF SPEED THE SPECIFICITY OF TWO YEAR TERMS FOR THE CHIEF AND ALTERNATE OR ASSOCIATE JUDGES, BUT DOES NOT RESTRICT THE ABILITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THOSE APPOINTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. AND HERE IS THE VERBAGE.

I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THE FOOTNOTES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S CHANGING AND THEN THE TEXT AT THE BOTTOM FOR THE ACTUAL END NOTE.

AND IT CONTINUES ON THIS SLIDE. THIS SHOWS THE APPOINTMENT CHANGE AND THE ADDITION OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.

AND THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE EMPLOYMENT OF STAFF BY THE CHIEF JUDGE RATHER THAN THE CITY MANAGER.

NEXT PROPOSITION F AGAIN REMOVES THE SPECIFICITY OF TWO YEAR TERMS FOR THE JUDGES AND DOES NOT ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THOSE APPOINTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.

THIS ALSO MOVES THE LAST SENTENCE STRICKEN ON THE SLIDE UP IN THE PARAGRAPH FOR EASE OF READING.

THIS SECTION REGARDING DUTIES CLEANS UP THE LANGUAGE.

AND THE NEXT STEPS, SHOULD CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE, CITY STAFF AND THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ARE WORKING ON THE VOTER EDUCATION COMPONENT WHICH WILL PROVIDE ALL OF THE DETAILS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROPOSITIONS.

THAT INFORMATION WILL BE UPDATED TO THE CITY'S ELECTION PAGE ON THE WEBSITE AND DISSEMINATED THROUGH THE VARIOUS CHANNELS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY VIA NEWSLETTERS, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND OTHER AVENUES. EARLY VOTING BEGINS APRIL 19TH AND RUNS THROUGH APRIL 27TH AND ELECTION DAY IS SATURDAY, MAY 1ST. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, I'M ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, LAURA. APPRECIATE THAT.

I'LL JUST MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS WHILE YOU'RE PULLING THAT PRESENTATION DOWN. AGAIN, LAURA SAID THIS BECAUSE JUST ON BEHALF OF CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU SO MUCH TO THE CITIZEN VOLUNTEER GROUP THAT PUT THIS TOGETHER AND THERE'S A VERY LENGTHY DISCUSSION OF THIS IN A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

I DON'T REMEMBER THE DATE, LAURA.

BUT YOU MIGHT KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD.

ANYWAY, I FOUND IT INTERESTING THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION SPENT A LOT OF GOOD QUALITY TIME, CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS TO COME UP WITH ALL OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN WHEN WE HAD OUR JOINT MEETING WITH COUNCIL, WE TRIED TO FIND WAYS TO REFINE WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED AND WE CAME RIGHT BACK TO THEIR RECOMMENDATION ACROSS THE BOARD. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD PROCESS. SO ANY QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

COME ON, GUYS, IT'S GETTING LATE.

[02:50:03]

MARTHA OR COUNCILWOMAN BROWN. >> YES, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE ITEM 8D. >> THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN SHERRILL. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

AND THAT ITEM PASSES 7-0. WE'RE ON THE HOMESTRETCH.

[8E. Consider action to approve an ordinance calling a special bond election to be held on May 1, 2021, and establishing the ballot language for the propositions therein as recommended by the City Council and the Community Investment Advisory Board.]

ITEM 8E, CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE CALLING A SPECIAL BOND ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MAY 1, 2021, AND ESTABLISHING THE BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR THE PROPOSITIONS THEREIN AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD. MISS LAURA, THANK YOU.

>> OKAY, LISTED ARE THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS WHO WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN PUTTING TOGETHER THIS RECOMMENDED SLATE OF PROJECTS.

AGAIN DILIGENT AND THOROUGH IN THEIR DELIBERATIONS.

THE BOARD ITSELF IS A STANDING BOARD CREATED IN 2016 AND THEY PRESENTED THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 10TH.

COUNCIL REVIEWED THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION FOR THIS SLATE OF PROJECTS ON JANUARY 11TH, CONFIRMING THEIR FINAL SLATE OF PROJECTS AT THE WORK SESSION THIS EVENING. THESE ARE THE PROPOSITIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AS FINALIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE WORK SESSION THIS EVENING. THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CIAB MEMBERS IN DECEMBER INCLUDED A $40 MILLION PACKAGE AS WELL AS A $50 MILLION PACKAGE DIVIDED INTO THREE AREAS OF FOCUS, PAVEMENT AND DRAINAGE, PARKS TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE OR QUALITY OF LIFE, AND PUBLIC SAFETY.

THE $40 MILLION PACKAGE HAD A FOCUS FOR MATCHING MASTER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FUNDS, SAFETY, AND TO FOCUS ON THE WORST STREETS. THE $50 MILLION PACKAGE HAD A FOCUS ON COMPLETING HERFURTH PARK TO FOCUS ON REDEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN ROWLETT AND CONCRETE REPLACEMENT.

SO IN THOSE THREE AREAS OF FOCUS, THE PACKAGE IS LISTED AS THIS AS DETERMINED BY COUNCIL AFTER THEIR DELIBERATION THIS EVENING. SO PAVEMENT AND DRAINAGE FOR AN AMOUNT OF 19,499,000 QUALITY OF LIFE PROJECTS, PARKS AND RECREATION. 7,00 7,365,000 AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF 2,286,000. FOR SPECIFICS, PAVEMENT AND DRAINAGE, THE FIRST COLUMN SHOWS THE TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE AND THEN THE NEXT THREE COLUMNS SHOW THE AMOUNTS ISSUED OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS. LAKELAND HEIGHTS PHASE TWO IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WHICH WAS DESIGNED WITH FUNDS FROM 2018 BONDS. CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT IS PANEL REPAIRS FOR CONCRETE ROADS, MERIT ROAD INTERCONNECTER RESERVES THESE FOR SHOVEL READY FOR PROJECTS.

LONG BRANCH CREEK EROSION CONTROL FOR DRAINAGE REPAIR.

TOLEP BUSINESS PARK PHASE ONE AND ENGINEERING IS FOR STREET DRAINAGE, WATER, AND SEWER REPLACEMENT.

COUNTRY AIR ESTATES IS FOR STREET DRAINAGE, WATER, AND SEWER REPLACEMENT. ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION FOR THE TOP 50 LIST OF ALLEYS REQUIRING REPLACEMENT.

EAST INDUSTRIAL PROVIDES FUNDS TO REPLACE THE SECTION OF INDUSTRIAL FROM PGBT FRONTAGE ROAD TO THE DART STATION.

THE NEXT PROPOSITION B QUALITY OF LIFE PROJECTS, HERFURTH PARK PROVIDES FUNDING FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR PHASE 2 AND 3 FOR HERFURTH PARK. WET ZONE PROVIDES PARK COMMUNITY UPGRADES IN TURTLE GROVE AND NEW PAINT AND AMENITY UPDATES.

TRAIL CONSTRUCTION PROVIDES FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRAILS FOR THE PARKS RECREATION OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL MASTER PLAN.

EROSION CONTROL PROVIDES FUNDS FOR EROSION CONTROL FOR THOSE PARKS ALONG LAKE RAY HUBBARD. COMMUNITY PARK PROVIDES FUNDING

[02:55:04]

FOR SPORTS FIELD UPGRADES INCLUDING SOCCER, BASEBALL, AND SOFTBALL FIELDS. PROPOSITION C IS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. THE EMERGENCY SIREN SYSTEM UPGRADE REVAMPS AND IMPROVES THE OUTDOOR WARNING SYSTEM AS WELL AS PROVIDING OTHER WEATHER-RELATED FEATURES SUCH AS WEATHER STATIONS AND LIGHTNING WARNING CAPABILITIES.

THE SAPPHIRE BAY FIRE POLICE STATION DESIGN PROVIDES FUNDS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE JOINT STATION.

AND THE BALLOT LANGUAGE IS AS FOLLOWS --

>> HEY LAURA. >> YES.

>> THAT LAST SLIDE HAD THE WRONG AMOUNT FOR THE DESIGN.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE. AND SOMEBODY SPECIFY WHAT THAT

REVISED AMOUNT IS, PLEASE. >> IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE $950,000 FOR JUST THE DESIGN AND WE WOULD ISSUE ALL OF THAT IN YEAR ONE.

>> AND I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE LISTENING TO HEAR A MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, THEY COULD GO TO TONIGHT'S WORK SESSION. THANK YOU, LAURA.

THANK YOU, BRIAN. >> THIS IS WHAT WOULD APPEAR ON THE BALLOT. THE ISSUANCE OF $19,499,000 IN BONDS BY THE CITY OF ROWLETT, TEXAS FOR STREET AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY AND TO MAKE THE TAX PAYMENTS AND INTEREST THEREON. RESIDENTS WOULD EITHER VOTE FOR OR AGAINST. PROPOSITION B, FOR PARKS AND RECREATION ITEMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,365,000, BALLOT LANGUAGE, THE ISSUANCE OF $7,365,000 IN BONDS BY THE CITY OF ROWLETT, TEXAS FOR DESIGNING, CONSTRUCTING, IMPROVING, AND EQUIPPING, PARKS, TRAILS, AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND LEVIES A TAX SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE PRINCIPAL, INTEREST, AND PAYMENTS THEREON. PROPOSITION C, FOR PUBLIC SAFETY ITEMS. THE ISSUANCE OF $2,286,000 BONDS BY THE CITY OF ROWLETT, TEXAS FOR DESIGNING, CONSTRUCTING, IMPROVING, AND EQUIPPING PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES INCLUDING FIRE AND POLICE FACILITIES AND AN EMERGENCY WARNING SYSTEM AND LEVIES A TAX SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS, PRINCIPAL, AND INTEREST THEREON. FOR THE BOND ISSUANCE WITH THE REPAYMENT OF CURRENT DEBT AND THE END OF DEBT OBLIGATIONS, THIS PROPOSED SLATE OF PROJECTS AND THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS CAN BE OFFERED TO THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT AT NO INCREASE TO THE CURRENT TAX RATE.

IF APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN MAY, THE FIRST ISSUANCE WOULD TAKE PLACE THIS YEAR IN LATE SUMMER.

SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE, CITY STAFF AND THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD ARE WORKING ON THE VOTER EDUCATION COMPONENT AND AS WITH THE BOND ITEMS THIS INFORMATION WILL BE UPDATED TO THE CITY'S ELECTION PAGE ON THE WEBSITE AND DISSEMINATED THROUGH THE VARIOUS CHANNELS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY VIA NEWSLETTERS, SOCIAL MEDIA, RTN16, ET CETERA.

AGAIN EARLY VOTING BEGINS APRIL 19TH AND RUNS THROUGH APRIL 27TH. AND ELECTION DAY IS SATURDAY, MAY 1ST. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, LAURA. APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS WRITTEN TO THE RECORD.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN MARGOLIS.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL GO TO COUNCILWOMAN BELL.

>> OKAY, I SECOND IT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY DISCUSSION, COUNCIL? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THAT PASSES 7-0.

AND AREN'T WE GLAD WE ALREADY DID OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION?

>> WE ARE. >> WE ARE.

>> LONG NIGHT. >> I'M SORRY, BUT CAN WE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK OF THE CIAB.

THEY HAVE DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB ON THIS.

IT'S SUCH A LONG PROCESS TO GET THROUGH.

>> I'M SORRY, THANK YOU, BRIAN. >> THEY CONSIDERED EVERYTHING.

AND I REALLY ENJOYED WORKING WITH THEM.

IT WAS SO CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY HAD GREAT LEADERSHIP.

[03:00:03]

THEY TOOK ALL OF THE PROJECTS SERIOUSLY.

THEY WENT THROUGH THE RATING SYSTEM JUST TO BE ABLE TO RANK THE PROJECTS WAS AN AMAZING PART OF WHAT THEY DID AND THEN HOW THEY ALL CAME TOGETHER AND REALLY WORKED THROUGH THAT.

SO I JUST REALLY, REALLY WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THEIR WORK,

MAYOR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I APPRECIATE THAT, I'M SORRY I WAS REMISS IN NOT SAYING THAT ALSO.

WE'VE GOT SUCH HIGH QUALITY PEOPLE IN THIS TOWN THAT STEP UP AND VOLUNTEER AND DO GREAT THINGS FOR OUR CITY.

AND THIS IS ANOTHER GROUP OF THEM.

SO WE SINCERELY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING.

WITH THAT SAID, GOOD EVENING

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.