Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:02]

EVERYTHING. LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. ITEM NUMBER 2 TO PROVIDE COMMENTS FOR THE MEETING PLEASE SEND AN E-MAIL TO CITIZEN -- THAT'S THE WORK SESSION, ITEM 3.

TO PROVIDE A COMMENT FOR THE MEETING PLEASE SEND AN E-MAIL TO CITIZEN INPUTT@ROWLETT.COM BY 3:30 THE DAY OF THE MEETING, STATE WHETHER YOUR COMMENT IS REGARDING A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM OR GENERAL COMMENT TO THE COMMISSION. YOUR COMMENT WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD DURING THE MEETING WITH A 3-MINUTE TIME LIMIT. THERE WILL BE NO COMMENTS TAKEN DURING THE MEETING. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE

[4. CONSENT AGENDA]

CONSENT AGENDA, IFEM FOUR A. CONSIDER THE MINUTE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FROM MARCH, 2021. DID EVERYONE HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? ARE THERE ANY CHANGES? THEN I'M

READY FOR A MOTION. >>

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS

PRESENTED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES BY JOHN COTE.

WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. ENGEN.

LAURA, DO YOU WANT TO SHOW OF HANDS OR DO YOU WANT US TO -- GO OKAY. EVERYBODY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 9. EVERYBODY IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND P. MR. DAVIS, CAN YOU --

>> I WAS NOT PRESENT SO I'M GOING TO ABEDIN.

>> OKAY. WE'VE EVERYONE EXPECT MR. DAVIS, HE IS GOING TO DO AN ABSTENTION BECAUSE HE WAS NORTH PRESENT. WE HAVE FIVE IN FAVOR.

HAVE ANYONE IN DENIAL? MR. WINTON, ARE YOU DOING AN AN ABSTENTION? OKAY. CAN WE GET A SHOW OF HANDS FOR ABSTENTIONS, PLEASE? FOR THE RECORD? THANK YOU.

OKAY. THAT MOTION CARRIES.

WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 5. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ITEM 5 A. CONSIDER AND TAKE

[5A. Consider and take action on a Final Plat for Lakeview Senior Living. The 10.98 acres site is situated in the James Saunders Survey, Abstract Number 1424 and the James W. Gardner Survey, Abstract Number 526 and is located at 7420 Lakeview Parkway in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

ACTION ON A FINAL PLATT FOR LAKE VIEW SENIOR LIVING.

THE 10.8 ACRES SITE IS SITUATED IN THE JAMES SAUNDERS SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 1424 AND THE JAMES W.

GARTNER SURVEY ABINSTRUCT 526 AND LOCATED AT 7420 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY IN THE CITY MUCH ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, I BELIEVE MR. KARLOS IS PRESENTING.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, COMMISSIONERS. IF YOU COULD PLEASE POP UP THE SLIDE SHOW. PRESENTATION.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AS YOU VERY DEVELOP JUST STATED WE'RE LOOKING AT A 10.98 ACRE SITE ALONG LAKE VIEW PARKWAY. SPECIFICALLY LOCATED IN 7420 LAKE VIEW PARKWAY. THIS IS ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND MULTIFAMILY USES. A PRELIMINARY PLATT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2018 BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE PURPOSE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS TO ESTABLISH 272 UNITS FOR INDEPENDENT SENIOR LIVING. AND APARTMENT COMPLEXES OF SORTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THE REQUEST IS TO ESTABLISH PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AS PART OF THE PLATT. UTILITY EASEMENTS AS WELL AS DRAINAGE AND FLOODWAY MANAGEMENT EASEMENTS.

IN THE NEXT PAGE YOU WILL SEE ALL THOSE TOGETHER, BUT THEY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER SHEET THAT DOES SHOW THEM SEPARATELY. TO CLARIFY THINGS.

THE LIMITS OF THE FLOOD PLAIN ARION ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE AND ACCESS TO THE SITE IS PROVIDED FROM THE NORTH AT ONE POINT SHOWN IN RED THERE. ALONG ONE POINT OF ACCESS FROM LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT WAS PROVIDED FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AS THEY HAVE SECURED AN OFF-SITE EASEMENT THAT DOES ALLOW THEM TO CROSS AND TURN LEFT AT THAT MEDIUM BREAK.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE YOU WILL SEE THE PLATT

[00:05:05]

ITSELF. THE FIRST SHEET.

IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING TO SEE ALL THOSE LINES THERE, BUT YOU CAN SEE ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE THERE IS A CREEK THAT RUNS MOST OF THE EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND THEN THERE ARE EASEMENTS ASSOCIATED ALONG THE INTERNAL PORTIONS OF IT. THAT ARE SHOWN CLEARLY ON THE SECOND PAGE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO THEY HAVE GONE AHEAD AND SHOWN THE DIFFERENT EASEMENTS WHETHER THEY'RE FLOODWAY, WHETHER THEY'RE UTILITY EASEMENTS OR ACCESS EASEMENTS CLEARLY IN THIS AND IN THE LAST PAGE WHICH ARE MOSTLY THE CERTIFICATES AND THE SIGNATURES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, LAURA? SO DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE MET ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE WE HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THIS FINAL PLATT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM.

I'M ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANYTHING YOU HAVE.

>> COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THE APPLICANT HAS SPOKEN THEN WE'LL DO QUESTIONS? IS THAT OKAY. OKAY.

IF THE APPLICANT WILL GO AHEAD.

>> I WAS GOING TO CLARIFY HE DOESN'T PARTICULARLY HAVE A PRESENTATION. BUT HE IS AVAILABLE FOR

ANSWERS. >> OH, OKAY.

>> RATHER FOR QUESTIONS TO PROVIDE ANSWERS.

>> ALL RIGHT. IF THE APPLICANT WILL STATE HIS NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.

>> MY NAME IS SCOTT ZOE, I'M WITH RISE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCT AND SONOMA HOUSING AND IT IS 16812 DALLAS

PARKWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS. >> COMMISSIONERS IN, ANY QUESTION FORCE STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT.

MR. JOHN COTE.

>> ON THIS PARTICULAR PLATT THAT HAS BEEN SUPPOSE LID ABANDONED BY A CERTAIN INSTRUMENT BUT THAT IS NOT RECORDED HERE IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THAT IS MISSING?

>> IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS.

THIS WAS DONE SO BACK IN I WANT TO SAY 2018.

SCOTT, WOULD YOU CONFIRM THAT?

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. >> WE DO HAVE THE FORM THAT OF THE SEPARATE INSTRUMENT TO CONFIRM.

OR RATHER THE AGREEMENT THAT ESTABLISHED THAT EASEMENT.

>> DO YOU NOT WANT IT LISTED ON THIS PARTICULAR PLATT

>> TYPICALLY WHEN THEY'RE OFF-SITE EASEMENTS WE DON'T PROVIDE THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION BUT IF YOU CARE TO DO SO, PERHAPS WE CAN CONSIDER IT.

>> COMMISSIONERS IN, IF THIS IS A RECORDED EASE.

OR AN EASEMENT TO BE RECORDED BY A SEPARATE INSTRUMENT AND IT IS OFF-SITE IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE REFLECTED BY THE PLATT.

THE EASE. WAS NOT CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE PLATT BUT WAS CREATED AS A SEPARATE PROCESS.

>> CORRECT. >> SO IT'LL STAND AS

REFLECTED. >> OKAY.

I JUST I GUESS I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE ON THIS PARTICULAR PLATT YOU HAVE IT LISTED AS APPROXIMATELY LOCATION AS S.

S. E. CITY OF ROWLETT, VOLUME EMPTY SQUAT, ABANDONED BY INSTRUMENT NUMBER BLANK.

>> ABSOLUTELY PRIOR TO FINDING THIS PLATT THE RECORD WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT GOES AHEAD AND POPULATES THAT ABANDON, THAT VOLUME AND PAGE NUMBER FOR

THE ABANDONMENT. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING THAT BE DONE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE? OKAY. WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLATT AS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CORD, ORDINANCE 00417 AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE HAVE BEEN --

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. SEGARS, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. ENGIN.

ANY COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND. LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

[00:10:07]

ANYONE FOR DENIAL PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? OKAY.

THAT WAS' 7. WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS APPROVAL ON THAT ITEM. NOW WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 5 B.

[5B. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Mark Zale, Zale Properties, on behalf of property owner Rowlett Station Apartments, LLC., regarding Major Warrants to Article 5.4.1 of the Form-Based Code to allow for 1) Three Wall Signs on facades without street frontage; and 2) Three Wall Signs that exceed 30 square feet located 12 feet or higher above grade. These properties are approximately 7.31 acres, and are located at 3601, 3705, and 3702 Melcer Drive contained within Lot 1R, Block 2 and Lot 4R, Block 5, Rowlett Station Addition, City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

THAT IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDS TO CITY COUP ON A REQUEST BY MARK ZEAL, ZEAL PROPERTIES ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER ROWLETT STATION APARTMENTS L.L.C., REGARDING MAJOR WARRANTS TO ARTICLE 5.4.1 OF THE FORM BASED CODE TO ALLOW FOR THREE WALL SIGNS ON FAST AIDES WITHOUT STREET FRONTAGE, AND TWO, THREE WALL SIGNS THAT EXCEED 30 SQUARE FEET LOCATED 12 FEET OR HIGHER ABOVE GRADE.

THESE PROPERTIES ARE APPROXIMATELY 7.31 ACRES AND ARE LOCATED AT 3601, 3705, AND 3702 MELSER DRIVE CONTAINED WITHIN LOT 1 R. BLOCK 2 AND LOT 4 R. BLOCK 5 ROWLETT STATION ADDITION CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS, I BELIEVE MR. ROBERTS IS PRESENTING.

>> YES, MA'AM, EVERYBODY HEAR ME? EVERYBODY? EXCELLENT. THANK YOU, LAURA, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS IN, GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. HERE I'LL DISCUSS A MAJOR WARRANT CITY FOR THE SIGN REQUIREMENT FOR THE URBAN DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT SITE IS SPLIT BETWEEN TWO PORTIONS. ONE NORTH OF MELSER DRIVE AND ONE SOUTH OF MELSER DRIVE.

IN THE DOWNTOWN OPPORTUNITY AREA.

THIS THREE BUILDING MULTIFAMILY MELT KNOWN AS ROWLETT STATIONS TWO OF THE BUILDING ARE NORTH OF MELLERS DRIVE. THEY'RE FOUR STORIES IN HEIGHT AND 102 APARTMENT UNITS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, LAURA.

SECTION OR ARTICLE 5.4.1 OF THE F.B.C., THE FORM BASED CODE DOES OUTLINE DIMENSIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR WALL SIGNS IN THE F.B.C. .

THE FIRST REQUEST FOR YOU TONIGHT IS THE LOCATE OF THESE WALL SIGNS. ARTICLE 5.4.1 REQUIRES WALL SIGNS TO BE LOCATED ALONG STREET FRONTAGES OF ABUTTING RIGHT OF WAYS OR RIGHTS OF WAY.

THESE REQUESTED LOCATED WILL YOU SEE IS B-1, B-2 AND B.

3, LOCATION LOCATIONS THERE ON THE SITE MAP ARE NOT LOCATED AT LONG EXISTING STREET FRONTAGES.

IT'S WORTH NOTING B-2 IS ADJACENT TO A DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY EASE 789, HOWEVER THAT RIGHT OF WAY IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE VENT OF THIS SITE AND IT'LL NOT EXIST UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE SITE.

THEREFORE IT'S NOT ON THE STREET FRONTAGE.

THESE REQUESTED LOCATIONS ARE ORIENTED TOWARDS IT SEEMS TO BE ORIENTED TOWARDS ADJACENT THOROUGH FARES NOT IMMEDIATELY ABUTTING THE SIDE THAT.

WOULD BE LAKE VIEW PARKWAY TO THE NORTH, ROWLETT TO THE WEST AND THE DART RAIL AND STATION TO THE SOUTH, SOUTHEAST. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO IN ASSESSING THIS REQUEST, WE LOOKED AT THE INTENT OF THE -- I SEE A -- I APOLOGIZE, THE INTENT OF THE FORM BASED CODE DISTRICTS WHICH IS TO PROVIDE A HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN A PEDESTRIAN CENTERED ENVIRONMENT THAT. IS KEY IN OUR ASSESSMENT OF THIS REQUEST. THE SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS ARE CATER TO THE PEDESTRIAN REALM HENCE THE LOCATION OF THE SIGNS ALONG STREET FRONTAGE WHICH WILL INCLUDE AMENITY ZONE WITH WALKS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE: IT APPEARS THE SIGNS ARE NOT ORIENTED TOWARDS THAT PEDESTRIAN REALM BUT THEY'RE MUCH HIGHER UP ON THE BUILDING WHICH I WILL PROVIDE ELEVATIONS LATER ON AND ARE LARGELY FOCUSED TOWARDS VEHICLE COLLAR TRAFFIC ON SURROUNDING THOROUGH FATHERS.

THERE IS 3 -- THOROUGH FARES, IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, THESE BUILDINGS ARE SOME IN THE IMMEDIATE ADJACENTLY THAT ARE MEETING THE FORM BASED CODE REQUIREMENT IN TERMS OF REDEVELOPMENT IN SIZE AND FORM AS PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA DO REDEVELOP IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IMMEDIATELY ABUTTING PROPERTIES WILL EXCEED THE HEIGHT OR COULD EXCEED THE SO THE SIGNS WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE RENDERED INVISIBLE.

NEXT SLIDE ME, LAURA. THE SECOND REQUEST IS AN

[00:15:01]

INCREASE IN THE SIGN AREA. WE'VE GONE OVER SIGN LOCATION. NEXT WE'LL DISCUSS THE WARRANTS TO THE SIPE AREA. THE SAME ARTICLE THE FORM BASED CODE CAPS THE AREA AT 30 SQUARE FEET IF THE SIGNS ARE LOCATED HIGHER THAN 12 FEET ABOVE GRADE.

THESE YOU CAN SEE THEY ARE ON SCREEN ARE LOCATED ANYWHEREBY FROM 42-48 FEET FOR B-1, B-2 AND B. 3.

THEY INTENT OR THE PURPOSE OF THE 30 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM IS TO ENCOURAGE SIGNS TO BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE STREET, BRING THEM LOWER DOWN ON THE BUILDING, CATERING TO THE PEDESTRIAN REALM.

THE REQUESTED WARRANT IS TO INCREASE THE AREA FROM 30 SQUARE FEET TO 60 SQUARE FEET ON ALL THE SIGNS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. FROM HERE I'VE TAKEN PHOTOS OF THOSE REQUESTED SIGN LOCATIONS.

THIS IS TAKEN FROM LAKEVIEW PARKWAY LOOKING SOUTH.

THIS WILL BE THE SIGN LOBBIES OF B-1, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE YOU WILL SEE THE LOCATION OF SIGN B-2. THIS IS FROM ROWLETT ROAD LOOKING EAST. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AGAIN LEAR IS SIDE, SIGN B. 3.

THIS IS ACTUALLY TAKEN MORE TOWARDS THE DART STATION TO THE SOUTHEASTMENT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, LAURA.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THERE WAS AS PART OF THE REQUEST WHY THE SIGNS ARE CALLED B. 1,B-2 AND B. 3 AND WHY NOT A. 1. A. 2 AND A. 3.

WE DID A REVIEW AND INCLUDED A SIGN MARKED AS SIGN A. AT THE TIME SO. THAT WILL BE LOCATED ALONG MELSER DRIVE, THERE ARE SIGNAGE OPPORTUNITIES HERE ALREADY. THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THESE REQUESTED WARRANTS ARE TO INCREASE VISIBILITY AND RECOGNIZE ANYTHING OF THE BUILDINGS -- RECOGNITION OF THE BUILDINGS FROM NEARBY STREETS.

THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOUR STORIES IN HIGH.

ITS PROMINENCE IN THE AREA AT THIS TIME LENDS ITSELF TO A LARGE RANGE OF VISIBILITY. WHILE THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PROPOSALS AGAIN IN THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT SITES, ANY REDEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA COULD BE UP WARDS OF 7 STORIES. AND COULD ACTUALLY BLOCK THE VISIBILITY OF THE LOCATION OF THE SIGNS.

AT TIME OF ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IT'S ANTICIPATE THAT HAD THIS BUILDINGS OR THIS SETTINGS OF BUILDINGS PROMINENCE IN THE AREA WILL ESTABLISH SOME BRAND IDENTITY FOR THE APPLICANT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

WE NOTICED FOR -- PARDON ME, THIS LOOKS TO BE A TYPO ON THE NOTIFIES DATE. 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE SEND OUT 26, 200 FOOT NOTICINGS AND 60, 500 FOOT NOTICE, WE DID RECEIVE ONE IN FAVOR OF THE 200 FOOT AND TWO IF FAVOR BEYOND THE 500 FOOT.

YOU CAN SEE BEYOND SCREEN IN GREEN THERE TO THE LOWER LEFT. WITH THAT STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE MAJOR WARRANTS TO ALLOW THREE WALL SIGNS ON FASTIDS WITH NO STREET FRONTAGE AND INCREASE IN THE WALL SIGN AREA FROM 30 SQUARE FEET TO 60 SQUARE FEET. THE REQUESTED LOCATIONS AND PROPOSED AREAS DO NOT MEET THE DESIGN AS THEY'RE ORIENTED TOWARDS A THOROUGH FARES NOT ABUTTING OR OR ADJACENT TO THE SITE AND THEREFORE ARE NOT PEDESTRIAN ELECTED. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THAT CONCLUSION STAFF'S PRESENTATION.

THE APPLICANT ROBERTDALE IS HERE.

HE DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION OF HIS OWN AND OF COURSE WE'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER.

>> THANK YOU. >> IS SOMEONE GOING TO POST

THE PRESENTATION I SEND YOU. >> I THINK WE'LL GET IT UP FOR YOU. OKAY.

>> I WAS GOING TO SEE IF ANYBODY HAD ANY QUESTIONS

FOR STAFF? MR. SWIFT. >> CONOR, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE PRESENTATION, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SIGNS THAT WE CALL THE A. SIGNS. YOU CALLED IT A BLADE SIGN.

I COULDN'T READ THE DIMENSIONS, CAN YOU SHOW ME OR TELL ME WHAT THE DIMENSIONS -- THERE YOU GO.

>> IT'S 16 FEET HIGH. I BELIEVE IT PROPER TRUDES IN THE PRESIDENT BIDEN PROTRUDE IN THE 3 FOOT, 3 FOOT 8 OFF THE WALL, IT DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

IT IS 16 FEET IN HEIGHT. THAT'S WHY IT WAS APPROVED.

[00:20:02]

>> THANK YOU. >> NO PROBLEM.

>> MR.COATCOAT. >> IS THAT THE -- IS THAT THE ONLY OTHER SIGN ON THIS SITE?

>> YES, I BELIEVE SO. THAT'S THE ONLY SIGN PERMIT WE RECEIVED. WE RECEIVED IT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WALL SIGNS AND WE NOTIFIED MR. ZALE AND THE MAJOR WARRANT PROCESS WOULD BE

REQUIRED FOR THE SIGNS? >> ANYONE ELSE, MR. DAVIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO? OKAY.

IF THE APPLICANT WILL COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> ROBERT ZALE, OUR COMPANY ADDRESS IS 8223 DOUGLAS AVENUE, DALLAS TEXAS, 75225. OKAY.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, FIRST I WANT TO SAY HOW MUCH WE'VE ENJOYED PARTNERING WITH THE CITY OF ROWLETT STATION AND ROWLETT STATION, INSPECTORS HAVE BEEN GREAT.

TONIGHT WE'RE ASKING HELP TO GUARANTEE THE SUCCESS OF OUR $45 MILLION DEVELOPMENT INTO DOWNTOWN ROWLETT.

RULELET STATION IS LOCATED IN THE HEART OF ROWLETT BUT THE PROJECT HAS VISUAL CHALLENGES, WE'RE SURROUNDED BY THE BACK OF RETAIL CERTAINTIES, WE'RE ASKING TO FACE THE SIGNS TO THE MAJOR ROADS AND INCREASE THE SIZE OF SIGNAGE. THE SIGNAGE EXPOSURE IS CRITICAL FOR THE ABILITY TO LEASE OUR PROJECT AND SEE SUCCESS.

ONE A SIGNS ARE NOT ON ROAD FRONTAGE SIPE ALSO BE BLOCKED BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

TWO THE INTENT OF THE FORM -- THIS SIGNAGE IS GEARED TOWARD VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. >> ILLUSTRATED HERE.

ROWLETT STATION, DESIRED SIGN LOCATIONS.

AS CONOR BROUGHT UP WE WANT TO PLAY PLACE THREE WALL SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY. B-1 FACING NORTH TO LAKEWAY, B-2 WESTING WEST. B. 3 FACING SO.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN IS THE FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY. WHEN WE WENT THROUGH PLANNING WE BELT OUR SITE PLAN AROUND MAKING SURE TO RESPECT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

B.2 FALL ONS A FUTURE PLANNED ROAD AND IT'LL NEVER HAVE A BUILDING ERECTED IN FRONT OF IT: THIS IS BUILDING B. 3 SIGNAGE. IT WILL SHOW THE PAGE IS DIRECTLY SOUTH OF SIGN B. 3 FACING DOWNTOWN ROWLETT.

THE LOT, EXCUSE ME, THE, IT'S .42 ACRES WHICH IS TOO SMALL TO ERECT A BUILDING BECAUSE YOU CANNOT MEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THE RULE OF THUMB IS YOU NEED AT LEAST TWO ACRES. MAKING IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR A DEVELOPER TO EVER BLOCK OUR SIGNAGE THERE.

WE'VE TRIED TO PURCHASE THIS HOME.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE BASE CODE IS WRITTEN FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC, OUR SIGNAGE IS GEARED TOWARD VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, THERE IS NO PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLAY, WE'LL PUT IN THE FIRST SIDEWALK ON MELSER AT ROWLETT STATION. IF WE FOLLOWED A FORM BASED CODE PEDESTRIAN USE SIGNAGE WILL NOT BE SEEN.

THERE IS NO CURRENT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FOR US TO BE SEEN FROM. I WOULD LIKE TO QUICKLY NOTE THAT PROPERTIES HAVE SPEND OVER $500,000 TO APPROVE THE STORM AND ROAD FREEZING RAIN STRUCTURE OF MELSER, SEE THAT ON THE LEFT SIDE OF US DROPPING IN THE STORM LINE.

THE NEW STORM LINE WILL BE A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT FOR ALL AREAS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO TIE INTO ALONG WITH IMPROVING MANY OF THE STREET AND THE POT HOLES.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. PLANNING IS CONCERNED IF THEY APPROVE THE LARGE SIGNAGE AND LOBBIES IT IS WILL BE SETTING A PRECEDENT AND FUTURE BUSINESSES WILL WANT FUTURE CHANGES. ROWLETT STATION IS ONE OF THE LARGEST BUILDINGS IN ALL OF ROWLETT.

LARGER DEVELOPMENTS DESERVE A LARGER SIGNAGE PACKAGE.

THIS COULD BE SEEN A FEW, AS THE IMAGE SHOWS THAT CAN BE SEEN A FEW BLOCKS AWAY AT A VILLAGE.

IT HAS BEEN GRANTED A SIPE MUCH LARGER THAN 0 SQUARE FEET. PLANNING ACKNOWLEDGES A LARGER SIGN IS APPROPRIATE AND SCALED TO THE SIZE OF ROWLETT STAY, WE HOPE THE CITY WILL GRANT US THIS MAJOR WARRANT. OUR SUCCESS DEPENDS ON CITY OF ROWLETT. I WANT TO PASS IT OVER TO MURPHY WEBSTER. HE HAS BEEN OUR SIGNAGE SUBFOR THE PAST 30 YEARS, WE WORKED WITH HIM ON A LOT OF

[00:25:01]

PROJECTS, HE HAS DONE LOOT OF STUFF OVER THE U.S.

MURPHY. >> MURPHY WEBSTERS, FORCE COMMUNICATION, ADDRESS 1351 REGAL ROAD, DALLAS, 75247.

TO CONTINUE WITH WITH ALL RIGHT SAID.

WHAT I'VE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST AND I'VE DONE MANY VARIANCES IS THAT YOU'VE SAID THE SYSTEM UP TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THINGS OF THIS NATURE TO FIND SOMETHING THAT IS APPLICABLE FOR THE CONDITIONS, SITUATION, MASS OF THE THE TRAFC FLOW SURROUNDING IT.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS ROBERT BROUGHT UP THAT WAS INTEGRAL TO THIS SUBMITTAL IS THAT THE CODE WAS SET UP UNDER A PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED GUIDELINES AS WELL AS THE SIGN ALLOWANCES. AND EVEN FROM THE AIR ROWS YOU CAN SEE THAT THE FUTURE MAY HOLD THAT, IT'S TRULY NOT THAT YET. THE VISUAL IMPACT THESE SIGNS WOULD GIVE EVEN IN CONOR'S EXHIBIT, YOU CAN SEE THAT A 30 SQUARE FEET SIGN WOULD BE MINIMUMS CURE FROM LAKE VIEW VISIBILITY. SO IN TRYING TO REACH OUT AND GET A LARGER FORMATTED SIGN FOR THAT ARE THE PARTICULAR FRONTAGE, THOUGH NOT ON THE STREET, STILL LAKE VIEW VISIBILITY WOULD BE IDEAL FOR THE ROWLETT STATION PROJECT IN WHOLE ESPECIALLY, I MUST SAY THIS, LEASE IS VERY DIFFICULT IN THESE TIMES, AND TO BE ABLE TO GET THE NAME OUT THERE AND TO HAVE IT PROMOTE AND SERMTO HAVE THE VISUAL IMPACT BOTH DAY AND NIGHT WOULD BE INTEGRAL TO THE SUCCESS.

THE BASIS OF THE CODE THE WAY I READ IT WAS SET FORTH FOR, WAS TO ME PRIMARILY FOR RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS AND SUCH. THOUGH I'M SURE THERE WAS RESIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION INVOLVED IN IT.

AGAIN WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN, THIS PRODUCT WASN'T PROBABLY IDEALLY SUITED TO BE APPLIED TO.

AGAIN MY, LIKE ROBERT AND ZALE COMPANY, THE PREMISE OF A MAJOR WARRANT WAS FOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND SITUATIONS WHEREAS I FEEL LIKE THIS IN AND EVER ITSELF AND THE OTHER EXPERIENCES THAT I'VE HAD THROUGHOUT THE NATION AND ESPECIALLY IN THE DALLAS AREA WARRANTS DEEP

CONSIDERATION. >> I WILL SAY IF YOU GO TO THE END OF THE PRESENTATION, YOU CAN SEE WE IMPOSED THE SIGNAGE OVER DRONE PICTURES TO REALLY GET A BETTER IDEA OF YOU CAN CHECK OUT SOME OF THESE.

IT'S 30 SOMEWHERE -- SQUARE FEET ON A 55 FOOT TALL BUILDING IS VERY INSIGNIFICANT.

MURPHY,DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?

>> I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ME. >> OKAY.

WE LOVE WORKING WITH THE CITY OF ROWLETT.

EVERYONE HAS BEEN GREAT TO US.

AND THIS, THIS WILL BE VERY, VERY BIG IF WE COULD GET THE SIGNAGE. IT'S EVERYTHING TO OUR PROJECT RIGHT NOW. IT'S LEASE IS TOUGH LIKE MURPHY SAID. AND WE NEED T. IT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS IN.

>> COMMISSIONERS IN, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER QUESTION FORCE STAFF? YES,

SIR MR. ENGEN? >> YES FOR STAFF.

>> I WAS NOT HERE WHEN THEY BUILT THE VILLAGE.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT WHY THEY WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE THE LARGER SIGNAGE? WHILE MANY OF US HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD AND HAD TO FACE THE SAME KIND OF QUESTIONING WITH OTHER BUSINESSES IN THAT AREA, WHERE WE HAD TO CONFORM TO THE CITY REGULATIONS, BUT JUST CURIOUS KNOWING THE BACKGROUND WHY THE VILLAGE

HAS SUCH LARGE SIGNS. >> CERTAINLY.

THANK YOU FOR THE REQUEST, COMMISSIONER.

SO IN APRIL OF 2015, A MAJOR WARRANT WAYS PROVED FOR THAT ROOF SIGN. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT NOTATION THAT THE SIGN APPROVED AS PART OF THE ROWLETT STATION DEVELOPMENT WAS PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED AS A LAND MARK OPPORTUNITY AND LAND MARK SIGN.

THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE MAJOR WARRANT PROCESS.

WITH THE CONJUNCTION AT THAT DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT DID GO THROUGH THE SAME PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.

AND AGAIN WAS PITCHED AS A LAND MARK SIGN GIVEN ITS

[00:30:05]

PROXIMITY TO THE CITY HALL AS WELL AS TO THE WATER TOWER THAT WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH IN DOWNTOWN AS WELL.

SO GIVEN ITS LOCATION, TOWARDS THE WESTERN PART OF THE BUILDING, AGAIN IT'S A ROOF SIGN.

SO ONLY ALLOWED BY WARRANT IN GENERAL.

IS HOW IT CAME TO BE. >> ANOTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF AND I THINK WE'RE ASKING A LOCALITY OF QUESTIONS BECAUSE I THINK P. AND Z. WE STRIVE TO BE CONSISTENT. YOU TALK ABOUT THE ROOF SIGN. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SIGN ON THE SIDE OF THE WALL THERE.

EXPLAIN TO ME, I KNOW THE OBVIOUS, THAT ONE IS ON A ROOF. ONE IS ON THE SIDE BUT WHAT IS THE INTENDED PURPOSE? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE, WHAT IS BEING HERE, VERSUS WHAT IS

AT THE VILLAGE NOW I GUESS? >> SURE.

SO AGAIN I THINK THE KEY OF THIS COMES DOWN TO THE CRUX OF THIS IS HOW THE VILLAGE SIGN WAS PRESENTED AND PITCHED TO THE CITY. NOT ONLY STAFF, BUT THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL AS WELL BY EXTENSION HAS A LANDMARK SIGN. SOMETHING THAT WAS INTENDED TO CREATE A SENSE OF PLACE, A RECOGNITION WITH THE DART RAIL LINE RIGHT THERE. YOU KNOW, VIEW CORRIDORS AND WHAT NOT DIRECTLY TO THE ROOF SIGN.

WALL SIGNS ASIDE FROM BEING MOUNTED TO THE WALL AND NOT TO THE ROOF ARE INTENDED TO CATER TO MORE OF A PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT. THAT'S WHY WE LIMIT THEM TO THE 30 SQUARE FEET. I SEE KARLOS POPPED ON.

I DON'T KNOW IF HE WANTS TO JUMP IN AS WELLBEING OUR

URBAN DESIGNER. >> JUST VERY MINOR ADDITION TO THE ROOF SIGN PACKET, THAT IT WAS OBVIOUSLY HE MENTIONED THAT HE WAS INTENDED TO BE A LAND MARK BUT HE ALSO, WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE STAFF REPORT. IT DOES SAY THIS IS INTENDED TO ESTABLISH THE DISTRICT IN KIND OF GIVE IT A NAME.

SO IT'S KIND OF THE DESTINATION THE VILLAGE OF ROWLETT. IT WAS INTENDED TO FUNCTION AS AS AS A COMMUNITY AAMENNITY AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY AN APARTMENT, AN APARTMENT VIEW POINT.

SO THE IT IS, IT SETS IT APART.

ANOTHER THINGS THAT FORM BASED CODE, ROOF SIGNS ARE NOT PERMITTED UNLESS THEY GO THROUGH THIS REVIEW PROCESS.

THEY'RE NOT PERMITTED SO THEY DON'T TECHNICALLY HAVE SPECIFICITY IF REGARDS TO THE SPECS,.

SO THEY HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY THIS BOARD TO SEE IF THEY ARE IN ESSENCE RELEVANT OR IF THEY DO MEET THEIR REQUIREMENTS OF BEING AN AMENITY TO COMMUNITY.

AND SO, BUT IN OPPOSITION WE'VE WALL SIGN THAT IS DO HAVE SPECIFICITY, THEY DO HAVE, YOU KNOW HEIGHT AND.

, MINIMUM HEIGHTS FOR A SPECIFIC SITES AND IT DOES CAP IT AT 30 SQUARE FEET OR 30 SQUARE FEET WITH THE INTENT OF IT BEING A PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED SIGNAGE.

SO JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT TO THE CONVERSATION THE.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? YES, SIR, MR. COTE.

>> I CAN UNDERSTAND STAFF'S DESIRE TO MAINTAIN WALL SIGNS CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT. AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

HOWEVER, WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT THIS THE FIRST THING THAT CAME TO MY MIND WAS VILLAGE. OKAY.

AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IF I SAW A ROOF TOP SIGN ACROSS THE DART RAIL THAT SAID ROWLETT STATION, VERSUS VILLAGE, TO ME, THAT IS, THAT, THEY ARE THE SAME.

THEY WOULD BE THE SAME CONCEPT.

THE SAME RULES, SAME REGULATIONS THEY WOULD MEET THE SAME INTENT. IN FACT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU I THINK ROWLETT STATION WILL BE MORE SIT TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT THAN VILLAGE, BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, THAT IS NOT BEING REQUESTED. ROOF TOP SIGN IS NOT BEING REQUESTED AT THIS TIME. SO I WOULD FALL BACK TO WALL SIGNS AND I AGREE WITH STAFF WANTING TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF WALL SIGNS. I HOPE THAT MR. ZALE UNDERSTANDS WHAT I JUST SAID.

[00:35:03]

>> ANYTHING ELSE. >> ROOF SIGNS,.

NO MORE QUESTIONS? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO.

AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I SEE NO ONE HERE AT CITY BUT DO WE HAVE ANY CALLERS,

LAURA? >> YES, MA'AM, WE'VE ONE CALLER. AND --

>> LAURA I THINK THAT IS -- OKAY.

YOU DIDN'T HAVE AUDIO. >> GOT YOU.

MOM, WE'VE NO CALLERS. >> OH, OKAY.

SUSAN, DO WE HAVE ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS?

>> WE DO NOT HAVE ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS.

>> IF THERE IS NO SPEAKERS AT THIS TIME I'LL FORMALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONERS? 1 HOW ARE

YOU FEELING ABOUT IT? >> CONFLICTED.

>> THE WHAT? >> WE TALK ABOUT THE PURPOSE AND CONSISTENCY OUT THERE AND SIGH THE VILLAGE SIGN -- SEE THE VILLAGE SIGN AND IT TALKS -- MR. COTE'S POINT.

THE STAY, ROWLETT STATION IS COMPAIGNING WHAT IS UNDERNEATH IT AND IT HAS A FUNS AS WELL.

HOWEVER, ON A WALL VERSUS A ROOF.

THAT IS WHERE I HAVE A CONFLICT.

THERE I THINK IT'S FINE ON THE WALL.

I REALLY DO. THAT MAY JUST BE MY OPINION.

IT MAY BE MINE ALONE BUT THAT IS WHERE I SIT RIGHT

NOW. >> ANYBODY ELSE? MR. SEGARS? I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER COTE.

I DON'T BELIEVE PEOPLE NEEDS SIGNS TO IDENTIFY AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. WITH TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY, PHONE, ALL THAT FANCY STUFF. SO, I THINK IT WILL BE A LITTLE TACKY AND I DO AGREE IF THEY WANT TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING WITH THE ORIGINAL SIGN AND HAVE AN IDEA, I LIKE THE SIDE SIGN THAT THEY HAVE, BUT MAYBE ON TOP WOULD BE COOL, TOO. BUT I AGREE WITH STAFF.

>> I FEEL THAT WE HAVE TO STAY WITH CONFORMITY BECAUSE WE'VE ENCOUNTERED THIS ISSUE AGAIN WITH OTHER COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WHO HAVE WANTED THE SAME CONCEPT OF BIGGER SIGNS. SO THEY WOULD HAVE MORE VISIBILITY ON LAKEVIEW. RIGHT NOW THOSE BUILDINGS ARE VERY VISIBLE. AND I DO LIKE SOME OF THE SIGNS AT ENTRANCES AT, THAT ARE LEADING INTO THEIR BUILDING. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN DO ANY SIGNS THAT ARE OFF OF ROWLETT OR ANYTHING THAT HAS SOME NICE THAT SAYS ROWLETT THAT WAY.

BUT THAT IS UP TO CITY CODES AND REQUIREMENT ON THAT.

BUT THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER IDENTIFICATION FOR THAT

AREA. >> MR. DAVIS, WOULD YOU LIKE

TO COMMENT? >> I TOO, AM A LITTLE CONFLICTED WITH T. WHAT I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY THE CODE IS THE CODE FOR A REASON AND WE NEED TO MAINTAIN THE LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY WHENEVER

POSSIBLE. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. I CAN CERTAINLY SEE THE APPLICANT WHEN LOOKING AT THE PICTURES FROM BOTH ROWLETT ROAD AND 66, I CAN CERTAINLY SEE THEIR DESIRE TO STAND OUT, BUT I THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO WITH THE CITY ON THIS AND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

ANY MORE DISCUSSION? I DON'T THINK THIS MICROPHONE IS WORKING. STEPHEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY

COMMENTS? >> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WITH THE CHALLENGES OF REDEVELOPMENT THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND THE FACT THAT THE VISIBILITY OF THE APARTMENTS, MULTIFAMILY, BUILDINGS BEING VISIBLE TO FAR AWAY THAT, I'M LIKE THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFLICTED WITH THE NEED OF SIGNS BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE VISIBLE AND DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF REDEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE VISIBILITY OF THE BILLING DOWN THE ROAD. SO -- BUILDING SO IT'S A DIFFICULT ONE BUT DEFINITELY I THINK CONSISTENCY WITH WHAT WE NEED TO BE DOING JUST BECAUSE MY CONCERN WOULD BE WE START APPROVING A BUNCH OF SIPES AND NO -- SIGNS AND NO TELLING WHAT THE FUTURE IS GOING TO,

[00:40:01]

TRYING TO HOLD TO WHAT THE, WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS CRITERIA THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING IS WHAT I

WOULD RECOMMEND. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

ANYTHING ELSE? ANYBODY? OKAY.

I BELIEVE WE'VE HEARD FROM EVERYONE.

I'M READY FOR A MOTION. ANYBODY, YES, SIR, MR. COTE.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE THE MAJOR WARRANT

REQUEST. >> OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL OF THIS ITEM.

MR. COTE. WE HAVE A SECOND --

>> SECOND FROM MR. WINTON. ANY DISCUSSION? AT THIS TIME, ALL IN FAVOR FOR THE MOTION TO DENY PLEASE RAISE

YOUR HAND? >> EVERYONE'S FINAL ANSWER.

>> WE'VE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, IN FAVOR AND -- OKAY.

I'M SORRY, 5, 6, 7 AND ANYONE OPPOSED.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ONE IN OPPOSITION.

SO THAT MOTION CARRIES

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.