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

THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 5B UPDATE FROM COUNCIL AND MANAGEMENT, MAJOR PROJECTS, OPERATIONAL ISSUES, UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST AND ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST. COUNCILWOMAN BROWN?

SORRY. >> I HAVE THREE DIFFERENT THINGS FOR KEEP ROWLETT BEAUTIFUL. WE ARE HAVING A CONTEST FOR ROWLETT HIGH SCHOOL AND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.

THERE ARE CASH PRIZES. THE CONTEST IS ONGOING.

THE SELECTIONS WILL BE MADE THROUGH A PROCESS THAT YOU CAN SEE ONLINE. ALSO ON APRIL 24, WHICH IS JUST A COUPLE OF SATURDAYS FROM NOW, WE'LL HAVE THE GREAT AMERICAN CLEANUP. WE'LL HAVE SOCIAL DISTANCING.

WE'LL HAVE LIMITED NUMBER OF VOLUNTEERS AT EACH CLEANUP SITE THAT VOLUNTEERS WILL GO DIRECTLY TO AND ALL OF THE SAFETY PROTOCOLS. THEN ON MAY 8, WE'LL HAVE THE ELECTRONICS RECYCLING AND DOCUMENT SHREDDING EVENT THAT IS COSPONSORED WITH LIFE MESSAGE. YOU CAN GET INFORMATION ON ALL

[00:10:04]

THESE AT KEEP ROWLETT BEAUTIFUL.ORG.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU A

ALL. >> COUNCILMAN SHERRILL?

>> ON APRIL 24, WE WILL HAVE THE PHARMACEUTICAL TAKE-BACK DAY HELD AT THE RCC. IT WILL BE LIKE A DRIVE-BY.

IT RUNS FROM 10:00 UNTIL 2:00, YOU CAN DRIVE BY THE RCC PARKING LOT. YOU CAN DROP OFF ANY UNUSED PRESCRIPTIONS OR DRUGS OF ANY SORT.

WE ARE ABLE TO TAKE SYRINGES OR AS THEY CALL THEM SHARPS.

WE'LL BE THERE FROM 10:00 UNTIL 2:00 ON APRIL 24 AT THE RCC,

THANKS. >> COUNCILMAN BLAKE?

>> YES. I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT, THIS WEEKEND FROM APRIL 11 FROM 11:00 A.M. UNTIL 2:00 P.M., THE ROWLETT YOUTH ADVISOR COUNCIL WILL BE HOSTING A CANNED FOOD AND WATER BOTTLE DRIVE IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE BOWLARAMA.

THE FOOD WILL BE DONATED TO THE FOOD PANTRIES IN ROWLETT.

>> WHAT DAY AND TIME. >> APRIL 11 FROM 11:00 UNTIL

2:00 P.M. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> BRIAN?

>> MAYOR, THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE THE PUBLIC TO OUR LUNCH ON THE LAWN SERIES.

WE ARE CONTINUING THAT THROUGH APRIL 19.

THE NEXT TWO MONDAYSES FROM 11:00 UNTIL 2:00, YOU ARE INVITED TO COME DOWN TO DOWNTOWN ROWLETT.

WE ARE HAVING LUNCH ON THE LAWN. THERE ARE FOOD TRUCKS.

IT HAS BEEN PRETTY COOL SO FAR. >> IT HAS BEEN EXCELLENT.

THE FOOD TRUCKS HAVE BEEN EXCELLENT AND LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE COMING OUT. IT IS FUN.

IF YOU WANT TO YELL AT YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, COME ON DOWN.

WE ARE THERE. IT IS A GOOD PLACE TO TALK TO US

ABOUT TRASH. >> THERE IS FOOD, WE ARE THERE.

>> DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YES, GO AHEAD.

I'M SORRY, BRIAN. >> I'M SORRY.

THANK YOU. THIS MONDAY EVENING WE ARING IS A VIRTUAL TOWN HALL MEETING ON THE BOND ELECTION.

PLEASE TUNE INTO THAT. YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT ON FACEBOOK LIVE. YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ASK YOUR QUESTIONS. WE'LL HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION UP FRONT. WE'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> AND ALL OF CITY DEPARTMENT HEADS THIS BE THERE TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BOND.

IF YOU CAN'T BE THERE LIVE, YOU CAN VIEW IT AT ANY TIME LATER, IT WILL BE PUBLISHED ON OUR CITY FACEBOOK PAGE.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS, TUNE IN AND ASK QUESTIONS IN THE COMMENTS. I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ANNOUNCEMENTS. I WILL MOVE TO ITEM 6 WHICH IS

[6. CITIZENS’ INPUT]

CITIZEN INPUT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE COMMENT DURING A MEETING, YOU CAN SEND AN E-MAIL TO CITIZENINPUT@ROWLETT.COM BY 3:30 THE DAY OF THE MEETING.

WHEN YOU DO THAT, STATE WHETHER YOUR COMMENT IS REGARDING A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM OR GENERAL COMMENT TO COUNCIL.

YOUR COMMENT WILL BE READ INTO RECORD DURING A THREE-MINUTE TIME LIMIT. DUE TO THE HEALTH EMERGENCY, WE ARE NOT TAKING COMMENTS LIVE DURING THE MEETING.

I'M LOGGING IN TO READ MY ONE COMMENT.

THIS IS FROM TIFFANY BATISTE. I HAVE LIVED IN ROWLETT FOR 10 YEARS. I HAVE NOTICED THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND STREETS GO UNATTENDED TO.

EVEN WHEN REPAIRS ARE DONE, THEY ARE DONE POORLY.

OVER THE PAST YEAR THERE HAS BEEN AN ONGOING ISSUE WITH TRASH COLLECTION, SPECIFICALLY BULK COLLECTION.

I REQUESTED A COPY OF THE FCC CONTRACT WHICH WAS AWARDED IN NOVEMBER OF 2017. FCC CONTINUES TO BE IN VITAL -- VIOLATION OF THEIR CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.

NEIGHBORHOODS ARE LEFT WITH BULK TRASH ON CURBS FOR WEEKS.

I'M DISAPPOINTED THE CITY DOES NOT DO A BETTER JOB OF MANAGING THIS CONTRACT. THIS AFFECTS EVERY TAXPAYER.

THERE SHOULD NOT BE A NEED TO SEND NUMEROUS E-MAILS TO GET BASIC SERVICE. AS THE CITY PREPARES FOR THE BOND ELECTION, I URGE CITIZENS TO HOLD OFFICIAL ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT FOR SPENDING OF TAX DOLLARS.

WHY SHOULD WE SUPPORT BOND INITIATIVES WHEN WE DON'T SEE CHANGE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. WE WANT BETTER PARKS BUT LET'S WORK ON MAINTAINING OUR EXISTING PARKS, ETC.

WE'LL ENSURE OUR VOICES ARE HEARD AND EACH OF YOU ARE HELD

[00:15:02]

ACCOUNTABLE. THAT WAS OUR ONE CITIZEN INPUT.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE BULK TRASH AND REGULAR TRASH UPDATE THAT WE GOT TONIGHT FROM FCC, YOU CAN TUNE INTO THE WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM 3D. AS BRIAN JUST ANNOUNCED, WE WILL BE HAVING A FACEBOOK LIVE BOND ELECTION SESSION MONDAY OF NEXT WEEK, STARTING AT 7:00 P.M. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL MOVE TO

[7. CONSENT AGENDA]

OUR CONSENT AGENDA. WE ARE PULLING ONE ITEM WHICH IS ITEM 7H. OTHER THAN THAT, LAURA, WILL YOU READ THE REMAINING ITEMS INTO THE RECORD.

>> 7A, CONSIDER APPROVING THE MINUTES.

7B, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A BID FOR ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION. 7C, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT TO INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT. 7D CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCOUNT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAKE HIGHLAND TRAIL SYSTEM. 7E, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT FOR FIRE RESCUE.

7F, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION EXERCISING A RENEWAL OPTION FOR MOWING SERVICES FOR SECTION 3. 7G, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND RATIFYING A GRANT AWARD.

7I CONSIDER A RESOLUTION EXERCISING A RENEWAL OPTION FOR

MOWING SERVICES FOR SECTION IV. >> DO I HAVE A MOTION?

>> YES, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

READ INTO THE RECORD. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND FROM

COUNCILMAN SHERRILL? >> SECOND.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HANDS.

[7H. Consider a resolution accepting and ratifying a mental health program. Consider action to ratify accepting the First Responder Mental Health Program in the amount of $138,063.75.]

THOSE ITEMS PASSED. WE'LL MOVE TO 7H, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND RATIFYING A MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM, CONSIDER ACTION TO RALPHIE ACCEPTING THE FIRST SPORNGD MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $138,063.75.

IS THIS YOU LAURA? >> IT IS MYSELF, RON HOWARD.

>> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. >> THIS AWARD --

>> HANG ON. >> THIS IS AN EXPANSION OF ROWLETT FIRST RESPONDER MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM, TO PROVIDE AWARENESS, EDUCATIONAL, COPING STRATEGIES FOR FIRST RESPONDERS DEALING WITH POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS.

THIS RESOLUTION IS A REQUIREMENT IN ORDER FOR US TO APPLY FOR THE FUNDING, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE FUNDING IS THAT IT HAS TO HAVE SOME VERY SPECIFIC VERBIAGE THAT READS IN THE EVENT OF LOSS OR MISUSE OF GRANT FUNDS, THE CITY WILL RETURN ALL FUNDS TO THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE AS REQUIRED BY THE GRANT. THAT IS STANDARD LANGUAGE.

WE JUST WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE RESOLUTION. I ASKED OF THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION WITH THE ADDITIONAL VERBIAGE RELATED

TO MISUSE OF GRANT FUNDS. >> THANK YOU, RON.

I'M SORRY. I HAVE NOT MET YOU.

WE ARE GLAD TO HAVE YOU ABOARD AS OUR GRANT COORDINATOR.

>> YES, MA'AM. I'M VERY EXCITED TO BE HERE IN ROWLETT. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR TO COME IN

FRONT OF YOU. >> WE HAVE LOTS OF NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR WORK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY QUESTIONS? YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? GO AHEAD.

COUNCILWOMAN, BROWN. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE 7H WITH THE AMENDED LANGUAGE AS DESCRIBED BY RON HARPER.

>> I HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? CALL THE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND, PLEASE. THAT PASSES 7-0.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

HAVE A GREAT EVENING. >> WE WILL NEXT MOVE TO OUR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE COMMENT, CALLE 33-568-8864 AND ENTER MEETING I.D.

[8A. Consider and take action on a request by Sam Lawrence, Narrowpath LLC., on behalf of property owner Chiesa Miller Development, LLC., for approval of a Tree Removal Permit application and reduction in the mitigation fee calculation for properties zoned Planned Development (PD) District for Single-Family (SF-15) District, (SF-7) District, (SF-5) District, Mixed-Use Waterfront (MU-WF) District, and Limited Commercial (C-1) District Uses. The approximate 25.426-acre site is located in the James Hobbs Survey, Abstract Number 571, at the northwest corner of Miller and Chiesa Roads, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

WE'LL START WITH ITEM 8A, CONSIDER ACTION ON REQUEST BY SAM LAWRENCE ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER CHESA MILLER DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY SF 15, FS 5 DISTRICT, MIXED USE WATER FRONT DISTRICT AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT USES. THE APPROXIMATE -- I LIKE WHEN IT SAYS APPROXIMATE AND THEN IT GIVES IT OUT TO THREE DECIMAL

[00:20:03]

POINTS. THE APPROXIMATELY 25.426 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT JAMES HOBS AND NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROWLETT,

TEXAS. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.

TO ASSIST WITH THE SLIDE SHOW, PLEASE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL AND FOR THE EDIFICATION OF OUR VIEWING AUDIENCE, THIS IS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT PROJECT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CHIESA ROAD. THE PROPERTY SHARES FRONTAGE ALONG THE AREA OF THE LAKE, IT IS APPROXIMATELY 25 ACRES IN AREA. THE APPLICANT IS PREPARING THE SITE, GETTING IT READY FOR DEVELOPMENT WITH RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND COMMON USES. THERE IS A TREE POPULATION CONCENTRATION TO THE WEST OF THE SITE AS YOU CAN SEE.

IT IS CIRCLED IN RED. AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AS WELL AS A REDUCTION IN MITIGATION FEE CALCULATED ON THE APPLICATION. NEXT SLIDE, LAURA.

IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SOME SEMBLANCE OR BACKGROUND AS TO WHY WE ARE HERE WITH THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, I WANTED TO QUICKLY TOUCH ON THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND WHAT APPLICATIONS HAVE COME FORWARD SO I CAN OUTLINE OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF WHAT ACTIONS TAKE PLACE AT WHAT TIME.

THIS IS A TYPICAL PROCESS. YOU START WITH YOUR ZONING.

THE APPLICANT SEEKING ZONING TO ACCOMMODATE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS SUBMITTED FOR STAFF'S REVIEW. THAT APPLICATION IN ITSELF IS REQUIRED TO CONTAIN A SITE PLAN, SPATIAL CONCEPT AND LIGHTING PLAN. ONCE THOSE ARE APPROVED, YOU GO TO THE NEXT STEP, AND UPON INSTALLATION OF YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE, A PLOT IS SUBMITTED AND BUSINESS PERMITS ISSUED. WHERE DOES TREE REMOVAL TAKE PLACE? ONCE YOU HAVE DONE YOUR SITE PLANNING, YOU HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING.

YOU GET READY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, IF YOU ARE REMOVING THREE OR MORE PROTECTED TREES ON SITE, A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

TREE REMOVAL PERMITS GENERALLY ARE ISSUED AFTER SITE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. IT INCLUDES THE LAND SKAP, TREE SURVEY DOCS AND OTHER ELEMENTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

MOVING ON TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IN DECEMBER, COUNCIL OF 2019, THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, IT WAS REZONED TO ALLOW A PLANNED DISTRICT.

INCLUDED WERE A SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN.

FOLLOWING THAT IN JUNE OF 2020, STAFF DID APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBJECT TO A REMOVAL PERMIT APPROVAL.

THIS WAS PRIMARILY DONE TO AFFORD THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR TREE SURVEY.

THERE WERE CONCERNS THEY RAISED. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY WEREN'T IMPACTED SO WE ALLOWED THEM TO MOVE FORWARD IN THAT INSTANCE. AS REFLECTED IN THE EARLIER SLIDE, IT IS NOT CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.

IT INCLUDES A LANDSCAPE PLAN, THE APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS A TREE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCOMPANIED WITH THE FOLLOWING, A TREE SURVEY THAT REFLECTS THE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE MITIGATION OF TREES.

SO AS WE LOOK AT THIS APPLICATION THAT IS BEFORE US, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN INCLUDED IN THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DURING THE REVIEW TIME IT WAS SUBMITTED IN IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, NOR IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. WE DID ASK THE APPLICANT TO INCLUDE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. COMMENTS WERE ISSUED BASED ON THOSE SUBMITTALS. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WERE

[00:25:05]

ADDITIONAL DEFICIENCIES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED.

THE APPLICANT WERE NOT ABLE TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES.

THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A DOCUMENT IN A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US, STAFF, A DAY PRIOR TO, I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT. IT DID CONTAIN SOME DEFICIENCIES OR INSUFFICIENCIES BETWEEN THE APPROVED PLANS AND WILL REQUIRE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVISION IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. I BRING THIS BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND I'LL SPEAK TO EACH ITEM AS WE WALK THROUGH IT.

NEXT SLIDE, LAURA. ONE OF THE ELEMENTS WE RECEIVED WAS THAT SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN. I WANTED TO SPEAK TO THAT SPECIFICALLY. AGAIN, I HAVE LAID THE FOUNDATION IN SPEAKING TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS WELL AS THE APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THIS SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN WAS APPROVED DURING THE MEETING.

IT DOES REFLECT A REDUCTION IN THE STREET TREES ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS FROM 63 TO 55.

THE SPECIES THAT WERE REFLECTED IN THE LANDSCAPE -- APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND SITE PLAN ARE DIFFERENT FROM LIVE OAK AND CEDAR ELM AND OTHER SPECIES, SOME THAT ARE NOT APPROVED WITHIN THE PLANT LIST, AN ELIMINATE OF CALLPER ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, A REDUCTION OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET OF CENTRAL PARK AREA TO ACCOMMODATE AN IRRIGATION POND AND A CHANGE IN SPECIES AND DISTRIBUTION OF TREESES ALONG MILLER AND AS THE APPLICANT WAS SUBMITTING THEIR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTATION, IT WAS ALMOST AS THOUGH IT WAS USING THIS AVENUE TO MAKE THOSE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. NOW TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN, I WNTED TO BRING SOME VISUALS TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT IS OCCURRING. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE TWO IMAGES, ONE IS THE APPROVED PLAN AND THE OTHER IS A SUPPLEMENT LANDSCAPE PLAN. THERE IS A REDUCTION IN THE TREE COUNT FROM 63 TO 55. THE SNIPPET OF THESE IMAGES REFLECTS A SPECIFIC TREE SPECIES AND HOW THEY WERE DISTRIBUTED WITHIN THOSE INTERNAL STREET NETWORK.

AS I MENTIONED, RED MAPLE AS REFLECTED IN THE SUPPLEMENT LANDSCAPE PLAN IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THE TREES YOU SEE IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT REFLECTED IN BLUE ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DISCUSSION AS THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TREES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

>> CAN YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE? I THINK YOU SAID THEY ARE NOT -- HANG ON. THE VERBIAGE SAYS THEY ARE REQUIRED. IS IT JUST --

>> THE TREES THAT ARE REFLECTED IN BLUE, THEY ARE NOT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE THESE TREES THAT ARE REFLECTED IN BLUE ARE SUPPLEMENTAL TREES THAT ARE CONTAINED TO SPECIFIC OR WITHIN SPECIFIC LOTS. THE REQUEST FOR THIS -- WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IN TERMS OF OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ARE RELATED TO THE INTERNAL STREET NETWORK.

>> A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION. YOU SAID BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED BUT THE VERBIAGE SAYS THEY ARE REQUIRED.

I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION. >> RIGHT, THEY ARE REQUIRED PER LOT BUT NOT PERTINENT TO THE DISCUSSION FOR THIS.

>> GOT IT, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU, THERE IS AN AREA THAT IS BUBBLED IN GREEN.

THAT'S THE APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THERE IS A SUPPLEMENTAL LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT IS SHOWN, THE APPLICANT HAD SHOWN AS THE APPROVED PLAN, 17 TREES ALONG THIS NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THE REDUCTION OF THESE TREES DOES ALTER THE TOTAL COST TO BE PAID INTO THE REFORSTATION PLAN.

THOSE ARE SOME OF THE DISCONNECTS WE ARE REALIZING IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO APPROVE A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IF WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THOSE PLANTINGS WILL OCCUR AND THEN DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ALTERNATE PARAMETERS IF HE IS.

IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO REMOVE TEASE TREES, A SITE PLAN SHOULD

[00:30:05]

BE REQUIRED FOR COMPLIANCE FIRST.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. JUST TO GIVE SOME PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT WAS APPROVED PER THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ITSELF AND MOVING FORWARD AS PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A CENTRAL PARK THAT IS LOCATED THERE, APPROXIMATELY 30,000 SQUARE FEET.

AS THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN MOVING FORWARD WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, THEY HAVE SHOWN AN IRRIGATION POND THAT IT WOULD EKE INTO THE PARK AREA. I BELIEVE IT IS ABOUT 6,000 SQUARE FEET. SO THE DISCREPANCY ARISES WHERE WE HAVE AN APPROVED PLAN THAT DOES NOT REFLECT THIS.

SO THE PLANS WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDED IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE IRRIGATION POND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

DETENTION IS NOT REQUIRED ON SITE PER CODE.

THIS I BELIEVE IS AN IRRIGATION MECHANISM THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO INSTALL. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

AGAIN, TO GIVE SOME PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF OF THE REVIEW THAT STAFF DID CONDUCT AS IT RELATES TO A COMPARISON ANALYSISES OF THESE PLANS SUBMITTED ON SEVERAL LOCATIONS, THIS IS THE LAST ONE, THE SUPPLEMENTAL AS WE CALL IT, AND THERE IS A BIT OF A CHANGE IN THE SPECIES THAT ARE REFLECTED ALONG MILLER AND CHIESA. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

THE PREVIOUS SLIDES I HAVE SHOWN WAS TO PROVIDE PERSPECTIVE AS TO WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED AND WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE SO NOW WE CAN TALK SPECIFICALLY TO THE TREE REMOVAL THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED.

THIS IS SMALL BUT THERE ARE RED SHADED AREAS THAT WILL PROVIDE PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF OF THE CONCENTRATION OF TREES.

AGAIN, THE ROWLETT CODE SAID PROTECT TREES THAT ARE HEALTHY AND WITH A MINIMUM OF EIGHT INCHES OF DIAMETER, EXCEPTION OF BLACKBERRIES PROTECTED AT 11 INCHES AT DBH, HAVE TO BE PROTECTED OR PRESERVED OR MITIGATED.

THE TREE SURVEY THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DATE, THE LATEST ONE WE HAVE, REFLECTS A TOTAL OF 313 TOTAL TREES OF WHICH 147 ARE CLASSIFIED AS PROTECTED TREES. 139 OF THESE PROTECTED TREES ARE ISOLATED TO BE REMOVED AND EIGHT ARE TO BE PRESERVED.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. NOW, THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE IS CLEAR WHERE MEASURES ARE APPROPRIATE OR CAN BE ACHIEVED THEY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. IT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION GRADE IMPEDE THAT OPPORTUNITY. PROTECTED TREES BEING REMOVED DUE TO SITE GRADING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE WESTERN PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY.

WE HAVE TRIED TO PROVIDE AN IMAGE, IT MIGHT NOT BE CLEAR, IT GIVES A PERSPECTIVE OF HOW MUCH GRADING WOULD HAVE TO OCCUR IN ORDER TO REALIZE THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AS A RESULT OF THAT, A LOT OF THESE TREES WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIFICALLY SECTION 77504 REQUIRES A ONE TO ONE CREDIT OR GIVES A ONE TO ONE CREDIT.

THE APPLICANT IS PRESERVING 117, THOSE ARE THE EIGHT TREES I MENTIONED OF PROTECTED TREES AND REMOVING 1628 INCHES OF PROTECTED TREES. THIS RESULTS IN THE TOTAL CALLPER INCHES AT 1458 MITIGATED INCHES.

OF COURSE, THESE NUMBERS WE HAVE PRESENTED ARE BASED ON THE TREE SURVEY WE RECEIVED, BASED -- NOT BASED ON THE APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN WE HAVE. BECAUSE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WE APPROVED, IT IS DIFFICULT TO -- OR PLANTED ON SITE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION A REDUCTION IN THE TREE CALCULATION.

BASED ON THE COMMENTARY, IT WAS THE STREET TREES REFLECTED IN THE PD OR SITE PLAN UNDUAL REQUIRED BY STAFF.

HOWEVER, THESE DETAILS WERE ALSO PROVIDED WITHIN THE APPROVED PLAN SITES BY THE APPLICANT. THE MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION IS ESTABLISHED BY THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AS ADOPTED BY CITY

[00:35:04]

COUNCIL, THE REPAYMENT RATE OF $121.67 FER REMOVED PROTECTED CALIPER INCH. SOMETIMES THERE ARE SO MANY TREES THAT HAVE TO BE REMOVED, THAT DID REQUIRE THE TREES REFLECTED IN THE PD TO COUNT TOWARDS THE MITIGATION TREES PROVIDED THEY ARE FOUR-INCH IN CALIPER AT PLANTING, THE MINIMUM TREES COULD BE PLACED DEPENDING ON WHAT REMAINED OR WAS LEFT OVER. THE CONSIDERATION FROM STAFF DECREASES THE REQUIRED PAYMENT INTO THE REFORSTATION FUND SO THIS WAS IN ORDER TO ASSIST THE APPLICANT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. AGAIN, THE RBC, THE CODE IS CLEAR THAT CITY COUNCIL MAY DENY TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IF IT IS DETERMINED THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE TREE PRESERVATION SUBCHAPTER SUSPECT BEING MET. THE SUBMITTED PLAN REFLECTS NON-CALPER TREES AS WELL AS LESS FREQUENT PLANTINGS IN THE BUFFERS AND OPEN SPACES THAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

SUPPLEMENT LANDSCAPE PLAN DOES HAVE DISCREPANCY AS IT RELATES TO FREQUENCY AND SPECIES AS I MENTIONED EARLIER.

THE DISCREPANCIES ARE NOT COMMISERATE WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DO NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE TREE PRESERVATION SUBCHAPTER. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA.

AGAIN, THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PROCESS DOES NOT -- IS NOT A TOOL OR AN AVENUE TO AMEND AN APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN OR A SITE PLAN. SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR REVIEW DEVIATES FROM THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS I MENTIONED EARLIER AND I WON'T GO INTO DETAILS HERE BECAUSE I ADDRESSED THEM. THESE DEVIATIONS MUST BE REVIEWED WITH TIMELINE AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE ITSELF MEETING THE INTENT OF THE PD ORDINANCE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THEIR MARCH 9 MEETING UNANIMOUSLY DENIED A REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT TO TABLE THIS ITEM.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED AND THAT WAS DENIED BY THE P&Z. AFTER DELIBERATION IT WAS RECOMMENDED TO DENY WITH A 7-0 VOTE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, LAURA. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND REQUESTING REDUCTION IN THE MITIGATION. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED PLAN NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.

THE REQUESTED REDUCTION IN THE CALCULATION IS BASED ON THE ASSERTION THAT TREES INCLUDED BY THE DEVELOPER IN PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS ARE NOW AN UNDUE BURDEN.

THE PLAN IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THEREFORE THE MITIGATION OF 1458 PROTECTED CALIPER INCHES CANNOT BE ACCURATELY CALCULATED AT THIS TIME. THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF MY PRESENTATION, COUNCIL. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION AS WELL. I'LL TRY TO ENTERTAIN ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU.

BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPL APPLICANT, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUES QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN SHERRILL, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MATT, WHAT IS A RED MAPLE? IS THAT LIKE A BRADFORD PEAR? IS THAT MORE LIKE A LIVE OAK

CATEGORY? >> IT IS NEITHER OF THOSE

CATEGORYS. >> IT IS BETWEEN?

>> IT IS IN THE MAPLE CATEGORY. I DON'T DISLIKE RED MAPLES.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME VARIETIES THAT DO GOOD IN OUR SOIL.

IT IS NOT A HORRIBLE TREE. >> A DOUBLE NEGATIVE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MATT OR MANAEL BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT WHO DO WE HAVE WITH US

TONIGHT? >> THIS IS SAM LAWRENCE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? >> CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? GO AHEAD.

>> SAM LAWRENCE, 5709 BEDROCK DRIVE IN OCANEE, TEXAS.

[00:40:01]

FIRST I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT THIS BEFORE YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND A LITTLE BIT TO OUR PREVIOUS ITEM THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE DIRECTOR. A COUPLE OF ITEMS I THINK YOU MENTIONED, THE MAPLE TREES, WE HAVE REQUESTED WE CHANGE THOSE TREES TO OAK. WE HAVE REQUESTED TO CHANGE TO LIVE OAKS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT STAFF REQUIRED.

WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE TREES AT A FIT WITHIN A FIVE-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AREA WOULD LIVE AND GROW AND PROSPER WHEREAS SOME OF THOSE TREES WILL NOT AND THEY WILL EVENTUALLY CAUSE ROOT DAMAGE TO THE ROADWAY, SIDEWALKS, BECAUSE OF THE AREA THEY ARE BEING PUT IN. I'LL JUST GO THROUGH MY SLIDE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STOP ME AT ANY TIME AND I'LL ANSWER ANYTHING.

COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO IN THIS PRESENTATION, WE'LL TALK ABOUT TREE REMOVAL EXHIBIT, LANDSCAPE PLAN EXHIBIT, PROGRESS TIMELINE AND FINALLY APPLICANT REQUEST. THE NEXT SLIDE.

IN OUR INITIAL PD SUBMITTAL, THE NUMBER FOR THE PD ARE NOT ACCURATE ON THE SITE CURRENTLY. ADDITIONAL TREES HAD TO BE REMOVED OR UPDATED DUE TO AN UPDATE IN DATA ONCE THE PROJECT MOVED FORWARD. WE DID MORE GROUND SURVEY WHICH FINALIZED SOME -- BOTH ON SITE AND IN TREE LOCATIONS.

THOSE WERE REEVALUATED ONCE THE UNDERBRUSH CLEARING WAS COMPLETE WHICH NOW IS A BEAUTIFUL SPOT. SO GO TO ITEM 2, THAT IS WOULD BE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. STAFF NOTICED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, STAFF REQUESTED MODIFICATION TO THE DOCUMENTS DURING REVIEW. OUR RAW DATA WAS SENT TO STAFF FOR REVIEW IN EXCEL SPREADSHEETS SO THEY COULD VERIFY WE HAD CALCULATED ACCURATE NUMBERS. THERE IS A QUESTION OF ACCURACY AND WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK WE ARE TRYING TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM FOR ACCURACY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS IS GOING TO SHOW YOU -- I PUT TOGETHER IN A COLOR CODEDED PRESENTATION OF THE PD ZONING. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT SAYS TREE REMOVAL EXISTING. WE HAVE ZONE ONE THROUGH ZONE F FIVE.

I'LL GO THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE WITH YOU.

ZONE ONE IS MAINLY EASTERN RED AND HARDWOOD LIKE HACKBERRIES WHICH ARE VERY PREVALENT TO INSECT INFESTATION AND STORM DAMAGE AND CEDAR TREES DON'T LET ANY HARD WOODS GROW.

THIS IS ALSO MOSTLY FIRST GENERATION GROWTH BECAUSE OF FARM LAND. ZONE TWO, A MAJORITY OF CEDAR AND HACKBERRY WITH MINIMAL TREES.

WE HAVE FIVE OR SIX HARDWOOD TREES IN THAT AREA.

IN ZONE FOUR, WE HAVE ONE GREEN HARD WOOD TREE.

IN ZIEN THREE, WE HAVE RED CEDARS, NONE IN ZONE FIVE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS A COMPARISON FROM THE PREVIOUS SLIDE TO THE CURRENT TREE REMOVAL YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, THIS IS SOME OF THE DISCREPANCY WE WENT THROUGH WITH STAFF. THERE WERE TREES CONSIDERED AS PART OF OUR MITIGATION THAT NEEDED TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE THEY WERE OUTSIDE THE FIELD OF THE SITE.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THESE MEASURES WERE TAKEN PROPERLY.

WE STILL SHOW THE SAME AMOUNT OF MITIGATED ITEMS IN THIS SLIDE IN COMPARISON TO THE SPECIES OF THE TREES.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS ZONE ONE SIDE BY SIDE, EXISTING TREE REMOVAL PLAN VERSUS THE NEW TREE REMOVAL PLAN. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

WE DID GO BACK, WE FOUND A COUPLE OF EXTRA TREES IN THERE WE DETERMINED TO BE HACKBERRY. WE DO HAVE ONE TREE IN THERE THAT IS A CHITHAM WOOD WHICH IS A HARD WOOD AND BOYS OF THE ARC WHICH ARE CONSIDERED APPLE TREES.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GREW UP THROWING THOSE.

THEY ARE FUN TO THROW BUT THEY ARE NOT GOOD TO HAVE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA BECAUSE THEY HAVE HUGE THORNS ON THEM.

THEY CAN BE DANGEROUS TO CHILDREN.

THEY DO MAKE GREAT FURNITURE WOOD.

THERE ARE A FEW HACKBERRIES, LIKE I SAID, MOST OF THE TREES

[00:45:01]

IN THIS ZONE ARE EITHER AN ALLERGEN OR ATTRACT INSECTS OR CAN BE STORM DAMAGE ISSUES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

IN ZONE TWO, THIS IS WHERE YOU'LL NOTICE THE LARGER DISCREPANCY IN THE AMOUNT OF TREES PROVIDED VERSUS THE EXISTING REMOVAL PLAN TO THE NEW REMOVAL PLAN.

WHEN WE WENT BACK IN THROUGH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WE REALIZED, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO REMOVE THESE TREES THAT ARE NOT ON THIS PROPERTY LINE BUT ARE PART OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE RAILROAD OR PART OF THE TAKE AREA.

THE MAJORITY OF THE TREES IN THIS AREA ARE EASTERN RED CEDAR AND HACKBERRY WHICH WERE ALREADY EXPLAINED.

EASTERN RED CEDAR BECOMES VERY INV INVASIVE, DOESN'T ALLOW GRASS TO GROW, IT BLOCKS THE LIGHT FROM OTHER HARD WOODS TO GROW. IT IS A BAD TREE TO HAVE AROUND IF YOU WANT TO GROW HARDWOOD IN THE AREA.

WE HAVE HARDWOOD TO HAVE REMOVED, ONE COTTONWOOD, AN ELM, A BLACK LOCUST WHICH IS A NON-PROTECTED TREE BUT IT IS VERY DANGEROUS, IT CAN HAVE SIX INCH THORNS AND WE HAVE ONE GREEN ASH AS WELL. GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

ZONE THREE, WE DON'T HAVE -- WE HAVE BARELY ANYTHING.

MOST OF OUR TREES ARE IN THE WESTERN PORTION IN THE GRADE THAT IS A 25-FOOT DROPOFF. ALL WE HAVE HERE ARE A COUPLE OF CEDAR TREES. NEXT ITEM, PLEASE.

AND YOU'LL SEE ZONE FOUR, ONE HACKBERRY TREE, MOVING EASTWARD ACROSS THE PROPERTY SO WE ARE NOT GETTING AS MANY TREES BECAUSE THIS IS GRASSLAND AND FARM OR USED TO BE FARM LAND.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. ZONE FIVE, NO TREES.

THIS IS ALONG THE CORNER OF CHIESA AND MILLER ROAD.

NO TREES PRESENT IN THIS AREA. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO DISCUSS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN EXHIBITS AND WHAT IS BEING CALLED INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE PLANS BECAUSE THAT WORD IS VERY -- HAS A LOT OF MEANING.

IT DOESN'T MEAN EXACT. IT DOES MEAN YOU ARE WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF. IT TAKES EFFORT TO MAKE THESE THINGS LOOK AND FEEL LIKE WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PRESENT TO THE CITY, WHICH I BELIEVE WE ARE DOING A GOOD JOB.

WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING ABOVE AS YOU WILL SEE WHAT IS REQUIRED BY CODE AND WHAT WAS REQUIRED IN OUR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN. IN THE ORIGINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN, TREES WERE RIDE, NOT REQUIRED BY CODE, THEY WERE REQUIRED BUT NOT REQUIRED. PLAN SHOWS TREES THAT WERE NOT EFFICIENT LIKE CREPE MYRTLE, A BEAUTIFUL TREE.

[INAUDIBLE] WE WERE GIVEN THE ORIGINAL INTENT THE PD WAS 50,000 FOOT LEVEL LOOK WHERE WE HAVE A MORE DEFINITIVE PLAN THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO MASSAGE AND MAKE THINGS CORRECT. OVERALL CONCEPT SPIRIT AND INTENT WERE UNDERSTOOD TO BE PRESERVED WHICH I THINK WE ARE DOING. THE ORIGINAL PD NOTED LANDSCAPE WOULD BE CURRENT AMENDED CODE. PER CURRENT AMENDED CODE DOES NOT CALL FOR RIGHT OF WAY TREES. STAFF HAS BEEN AS NICE AS THEY COULD AND SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE REALIZE THAT AND WE'LL GIVE YOU THOSE AS MITIGATION TO YOUR CURRENT MITIGATION COST AND LOWER THAT PRICE DOWN. CURRENTLY LANDSCAPE PLAN AS WE SUBMITTED ON 3/08/21, BEFORE P&Z, CURRENT CODE DOESN'T REQUIRE RESIDENTIAL TREES, WE HAVE GONE AFTER THAT.

STAFF AGREED TO KEEP RIGHT OF WAY TREES AND ALLOWED MITIGATION FOR 4-INCH PLANTINGS AT $121.60 PER INCH M, MODIFIED RIGHT OF WAY TREES, THIS IS THE PIECE YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT HOW WE HAD TREES NOT ON THE APPROVED LIST BUT WE REALIZED WE WERE TRYING TO CREATE MORE BEAUTIFICATION WITH THE RED MAPLE THAT IN THE WINTER TIME JUST HAS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL BLAZING RED LEAVES YOU WILL EVER SEE, WE WERE TRYING TO BRING SOME OF THAT COLOR INTO THE AREA.

WE SAID, THAT'S FINE WE'LL TAKE THOSE OUT AND WE'LL USE A CHINESE HASTASH TO REPLACE THE HOLLY PREVIOUSLY SHOWN.

[00:50:02]

WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. CREPE MYRTLE WERE REPLACED WITH CHEST TREES. THEY ARE VERY BEAUTIFUL.

THEY HAVE BIG CANOPIES AND THEY BLOOM TWICE A YEAR, WHITE AND PURPLE BEAUTIFUL FLOWERS. WE WERE TRYING TO BEAUTIFY AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS LANDSCAPE EXHIBIT A LITTLE DEEPER. THERE ARE INCONSISTENCY I'M SEEING HERE BUT I WANTED TO SEE ABOUT COUNTS, WHAT ACTUAL COUNTS MEAN, THAT IS PART OF CONSISTENCY.

IN ZONE ONE, WE ARE SHOWING 21 CANOPY TREES.

ZONE ONE ON THE NEW PLAN, NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN, WE ARE SHOWING 23 CANOPY TREES, WE ARE THREE DOWN RIGHT THERE.

THIS WAS ALSO THE CASE OF STAFF MAKING ARRANGEMENT WITH US TO KIND OF BE MORE LENIENT ON THE DISTANCE THOSE TREES HAD TO BE TOGETHER. WE WERE TRYING TO PUT THOSE TOGETHER WITH FUTURE PLANTINGS OF WHAT YOU WILL SEE THE BLUE TREES THAT WOULD BE FUTURE LOT PLANTINGS, WE WOULD HAVE A CLUSTER NATURAL LOOK WHEN THESE TREES WERE DEVELOPED.

THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A MINOR DISCREPANCY THERE.

CAN I SEE THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? ON THIS SLIDE, IT MAY BE HARDER TO READ BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY NUMBERS, ON THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLANKS WE HAVE 87 CANOPY TREES, 15 TREES, YOU HAVE A 3-1 TRADE OFF.

THAT GIVES FIVE CANOPY TREES TO ADD TO OUR 87, A TOTAL OF 92 TREES. ON OUR NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN, WE HAVE 93 CANOPY TREES, 15 UNDERSTORY TREES WITH THAT 3-1 TRADE-OFF WHICH GETS US FIVE MORE.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE MORE -- WE HAVE SIX MORE CANOPY TREES IN THIS AREA THAN WE DO ON THE PREVIOUS LANDSCAPE PLAN.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS BACK TO THE RESIDENTIAL RIGHT OF WAY AREA WHERE WE'LL SEE, AGAIN, A MINOR REDUCTION, THIS IS BASED UPON THE SPACING OF THE TREES AND OUR CONVERSATION WITH STAFF, SAYING, HEY, WE ARE TRYING TO GROUP THESE THINGS WITH FUTURE TREE LOTS THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED.

CAN YOU WORK WITH US SINCE THIS WASN'T REQUIRED? THEY WERE GENEROUS ENOUGH TO GIVE US MITIGATION NUMBERS.

WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE BY SPREADING THEM OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE. YOU'LL SEE HERE THAT INSTEAD OF 38 CANOPY TREES, WE HAVE 34. THAT'S ONLY FOUR TREES.

IF THERE IS A NEED FOR AN ADJUSTMENT THERE, WE CAN MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

ZONE FOUR IS OUR BIGGEST ZONE FOR TREES.

IN THE EXISTING PLAN, YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE 125 CANOPY TREES TOTAL.

THIS IS OUR HARD CORNER AREA AND PORTION OF OUR MIXED USE STORAG FACILITY. THERE ARE 119 TOTAL TREES, CANOPY TREES, PLUS SIX TRADE-OFF TREES, GIVING YOU 125 TOTAL TREES. NOW, ON THE NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHAT WE DID WAS, WE TOOK ALL OF THE OLD TREES WE HAD ON THERE.

WE SAID, YOU'LL WANT MORE TREES SO WE PUT IN EVERY TREE THEY SAID WE WERE MISSING. PLUS THE TREES WE HAD.

NOW WE HAVE 144 CANOPY TREES ON THAT.

NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE 144 CANOPY TREES, WE HAVE ONE MORE CANOPY TREE, YOU CAN SEE 119-120. WE HAVE TWICE AS MANY BLOOMING TREES, WHICH BEAUTIFIES THAT WHOLE RIGHT OF WAY, UP AND DOWN THE RIGHT OF WAY. PEOPLE DRIVING BY WILL SEE BEAUTIFUL COLOR. IF I COULD SEE THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE LANDSCAPE EXHIBIT CALCULATION FROM WHAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, ZONE ONE, WE HAD 26 ON 292, ZONE 338, ZONE 125 FOR A TOTAL OF 221 TOTAL TREES PLANTED. THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE PLAN WE HAD ON 3/08/21, ZONE 123SHGS ZONE 298, ZONE 4, 144.

WHICH BRINGS US TO 299 TOTAL TREES PLANTED.

THAT MEANS WE ARE IN A SURPLUS OF 18 CANOPY TREES IN THIS NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CONSISTENT AS FAR AS CONSISTENCY IS DEFINED. PLEASE, THE NEXT SLIDE.

MITIGATION FINANCIAL COMPARISON. THE ONLY CALCULATION THAT WAS USED FOR TREES TO BE REMOVED THAT WERE PROTECTED, PROTECTED TREES WERE NOT ACCURATE IN THEIR REVIEW BY THE CITY.

WE HAD TO GO BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK EVERYTHING.

[00:55:01]

THE CITY REQUESTED A MITIGATION TOTALLING $81,518.90 PAID TO THE RE REFORESTATION FUND.

WE KEPT THE RIGHT OF WAY TREES, WE AGREED TO REDUCE OUR MITIGATION COST. PROTECTED TREES ON SITE WERE UPDATED TO INCLUDE ONLY PROTECTED TREES AND REMOVE TREES THE CITY REQUESTED KEPT LIKE THE BLACK LOCUST.

WE WENT THROUGH THAT ONE LAST TIME.

WE SAID, HEY, WE SEE A HONEY LOCUST AND WE SEE A BLACK LOCUST. THOSE AREN'T THE SAME THING.

BACK LOCUST IS DANGEROUS, CAN WE REMOVE THESE OUT? WE WENT AHEAD AND DEDUCTED BASED ON THAT.

THE APPLICANT WILL PAY $109,116 TO THE TREE FUND, BASED ON A REDUCTION OF CALIPER NOT REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY BUT ARE BEING PLANTED IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF.

WE ARE ASKING TO PAY IS OVER $20,000 MORE THAN WHAT SHE ORIGINALLY WANTED US TO PAY AND WE ARE GIVING YOU MORE PLANTINGS AND WE ARE BEAUTIFYING THE SPACE MORE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I BROKE IT DOWN HERE SO WE COULD HAVE A PHYSICAL VIEW OF IT. THIS EXISTING MITIGATION PLAN CAME FROM THE STAFF REPORT. THEY WANT US TO PAY $81,180.90 FOR CALIPER INCHES. WE HAVE 896 TOTAL CALIPER INCHES. THAT IS A DIFFERENCE OF $27,597.42 TO PAY AFTER THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AMENDED.

WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE OUR TREE PERMIT APPROVED SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT IS A BEAUTIFUL ADDITION TO ROWLETT AND IT WILL BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THE CITY. IF WE HAVE TO PAY THE $81,000 TO GE STARTED, WE CAN FIGURE OUT THE REST OF THE $27,000, THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH US. WE WANT TO HELP ROWLETT BEAUTIFY. I KNOW THAT IS ALSO WHAT OUR CLIENT WOULD LIKE. THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS IS THE PROGRESS, THIS IS THE PROGRESS TIMELINE.

I WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROGRESS OF HOW WE HAVE GOTTEN TO WHERE WE ARE NOW. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

WE SUBMITTED THIS ORIGINALLY ON 12/21/2020.

OUR REVIEW AS I WAS TOLD BY STAFF WAS 2/1/21.

THAT'S WHEN THE SUBMITTAL WENT IN.

WE'VE HAD CALLS BACK AND FORTH, WE'VE HAD STAFF CONFIRMING THINGS. WE'VE HAD RESUBMITTALS FOR MITIGATION NUMBERS. WE HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF TO ACCOMMODATE LATER REQUESTED COMMENTS THAT WEREN'T ORIGINALLY REQUESTED. WE HAD TO GO BACK AND PUT THINGS IN. AS YOU SEE, WE ARE GETTING TO OUR REVIEW DATE AND WE ARE TO 2/18 AND I'M NOT TO THE END.

LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. ON SUBMITTAL 6, WE DEPARTMENT RECOGNIZE COMMENTS FROM A PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.

WE HAD TO PUT IN MORE COMMENTS. WE GOT A DENIAL LATER WITH NO REAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHY WE GOT THE DENIAL LETTER.

AS YOU CAN SEE, OUR PLAN IS CONSISTENT.

COMMENT WAS SENT AFTER DENIAL PROVIDING MORE COMMENTS.

WE GOT MORE COMMENTS AFTER ALREADY GETTING A DENIAL LETTER THEY WANTED CHANGES ON OUR PLAN SET WHICH LEADS US TO OUR UPDATED PLAN OF 3/08/21. E-MAIL STAFF, THEY WANT US TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DOING.

STAFF CALLED TO DISCUSSION AND REQUESTED ADDITIONAL ITEMS. AT STAFF REQUEST, WE SENT AN OVERLAY AND SHOWED CONSISTENCY WITH DATA FOR CONTINUED DISCUSSION.

STAFF RESPONDED TO US WHILE WE WERE REVIEWING OUR ITEMS. BUT THEN WE DIDN'T RECEIVE A RESPONSE.

WE HAD E-MAILS, WE HAD PHONE CALLS.

THEN ON THE 8TH WE DECIDED WE'LL TURN IN EVERYTHING YOU HAVE ASKED FOR. THAT'S WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

THAT'S THE PLAN THAT WAS JUST SEEN WAS EVERYTHING THE CITY HAS ASKED FOR, PLUS WHAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR BECAUSE WE ALSO WANT TO BE INCLUDED PARTICIPANT IN THIS PROCESS.

I THINK THAT'S BENEFICIARY FOR US AND FOR THE CITY.

OUR SUBMITTAL WAS 53 TOTAL DAYS AT THE END.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. CONCLUSION OF OUR SLIDE INFORMATION HERE. LANDSCAPING LAYOUT HAS 18 ADDITIONAL TREES AND MOSTLY ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ACQUIRE PLANTINGS. RESIDENTIAL RIGHT OF WAY TREES NOT REQUIRED AND BEING USED TOWARDS MITIGATION, THE ONLY AREA WHERE A SHORTAGE WAS FOUND OF SEVEN TOTAL TREES, THE APPLICATION -- THE APPLICANT HAS CHANGED RESIDENTIAL RIGHT OF WAY

[01:00:01]

PLANTINGS AS REQUESTED BY STAFF. THAT'S THE RED OAK AND HOLLY TO LIVE OAK AND CHINESE PISTASH. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED CLEAR MITIGATION COSTS IN THIS PRESENTATION AND OUR RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT. APPLICANT HAS SHOWN TO BE PROVIDING HIGHER MITIGATION PAYMENTS THAT AT THE TIME OF PD WHILE CONSULTING ON ALL ASPECTS OF DESIGN.

THE APPLICANT BELIEVES TO HAVE SHOWN NEW LANDSCAPE LAYOUT AS OF 3/08/21 TO BE IN CONSISTENT IN SPIRIT WITH PROPER INTENT AS THE VERSION REQUESTED IN THE PD AND IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PREVIOUSLY DISPLAYED TO YOU. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

OUR HUMBLE REQUEST IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I HAVE A TWO-PART THING HERE.

ONE, OF COURSE, WE WOULD LIKE TO GET APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS SHOWN AT THIS HEARING AND AMENDED BY THE MAYOR ALONG WITH THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, ALL IN ONE SHOT BECAUSE WE ARE CONSISTENT AND WE KNOW WE'LL MAKE THIS BEAUTIFUL, WE'LL DO EVERYTHING WE SAID SINCE THE BEGINNING.

WE SAID WE WOULD BRING OUR COMMERCIAL FIRST, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING, BUILD COMMERCIAL FIRST.

WE SAID EVERYTHING WOULD BE CORRELATED WITH THE CITY AS WE GO ALONG, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO.

OR THE SECOND THING IS ASKING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A TREE PERMIT THAT ALLOWS REMOVAL OF TREES TO BEGIN WHILE OUR ORIGINAL MITIGATION AMOUNT OF $81,890 WILL BE PAID ALONG WITH CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE REMAINING TREE PERMIT, ONCE WE GET THAT AMENDED. REMAINING MITIGATION AMOUNT TO BE PAID AFTER AMENDMENT TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS COMPLETED AND FINALIZED. AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE AS SHOWN ON SLIDE 18. I THINK THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESE PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING TIME TO LISTEN TO ME.

I THINK THAT MR. JONATHAN VINCENT HAS SOMETHING AS WELL.

>> OKAY. SO MR. VINCENT, WHO ARE YOU? ARE YOU PART OF THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION?

>> YES, MA'AM, MADAM, MAYOR. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES. >> CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> MY NAME IS JONATHAN VINCENT, 2020 ROSS AVENUE I'M WITH THE JACKSON LAW FIRM.

I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 25-PLUS YEARS.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT, YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES ON COUNCIL AS WELL AS STAFF.

AS YOU CAN TELL AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE, THERE IS AN EXTREMELY HIGH LEVEL OF DETAIL INVOLVED WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR A 25-ACRE PD.

EVERYBODY HAS PUT A LOT OF TIME AND A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS.

THE PD ITSELF, YOU APPROVED IT IN 2019.

IT IS 25 ACRES. IT IS MIXED USE, IT IS SINGLE FAMILY. SOME LARGE LOTS, SOME SMALLER LOTS, SOME CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT.

THE PD WAS APPROVED IN 2019. THERE ARE CERTAIN REGULATIONS ATTACHED TO IT. THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN JUNE OF 2020 WAS APPROVED. I THINK ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE PRESENTATION THAT STAFF PRESENTED IS THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REFINE THAT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON AFTER THAT TIME.

THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS PLAN BETTER.

THAT'S WHAT MR. LAWRENCE AND CONSULTING TEAM HAS DONE.

WE THINK THIS IS AN IMPROVED PLAN IN TERMS OF SPECIES.

YOU HAVE SEEN THE AMOUNT OF THOUGHT THAT HAS GONE INTO THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR OUR REGION, OUR CLIMATE.

THE SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENTS, THE WATER USAGE, THE SUITABILITY OF THE SPECIES. WE THINK THIS PLAN HAS EVOLVED THANKS TO MR. LAWRENCE AND HIS CONSULTANTS TO BE EVEN BETTER.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE BEAUTIFICATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THE BOTTOM LINE, WE THINK THIS PLAN MEETS THE LANGUAGE, THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE TREE PRESERVATION. WE THINK IT MEETS THE SPIRIT OF THE PD, WE THINK IT IS A SUPERIOR PRODUCT.

IT IS JUST UNFORTUNATE THAT BECAUSE IT WAS BEING WORKED ON UP TO THE LAST MINUTE THAT THE LATEST ITERATION WAS SENT IN ON

[01:05:01]

MARCH 8, PRIOR TO THE MARCH 9 MEETING.

I UNDERSTAND STAFF HAS LIMITED TIME, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO DO A FULL BLOWN ANALYSIS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

HENCE, WE ARE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.

I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, I THINK YOU GET THE PICTURE THROUGH MR. LAWRENCE'S EXCELLENT PRESE PRESENTATION, THERE IS A TREMENDOUS LEVEL OF DETAIL.

THIS IS NOT JUST A SITE PLAN LAYOUT WHERE WE TALK ABOUT ACCESS POINTS AND BUILDING LAYOUT.

WE ARE TALK ABOUT SPECIES, NUMBER OF TREES, CANOPY TREES, SHRUBS, LANDSCAPING, A WHOLE GAMUT OF THINGS THAT FRANKLY ARE BEYOND MY TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, BEYOND MANY PEOPLE'S TECHNICAL EXPERTISE. THAT'S WHY OUR ARBORIST AND STAFF ARBORISTS TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS AND I THINK THAT IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE. I THINK YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH THOUGHT MR. LAWRENCE HAS PUT INTO THIS PLAN.

IT IS A MIND NUMBING LEVEL DETAIL.

I WOULD POINT OUT THERE ARE MORE CANOPY TREES PROVIDED IN HIS PLAN 299 AS OPPOSED TO 281. THE SPECIES, I GREW UP IN NORTH TEXAS, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THOSE, THEY PROVIDE COLOR DURING THE SUMMER. THEY ARE BOTH GREAT.

THE VITEX, IT IS A GREAT LOOK, THE PURPLE AND WHITE.

IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE THOUGHT AND CONSIDERATION THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS. THE MITIGATION FEE, $27,000 MORE APPROXIMATELY IN MITIGATION FEES UNDER THIS PLAN.

THIS IS NOT A PLAN ON THE CHEAP. IT IS NOT A BARE BONES PLAN.

IT IS AN EXCELLENT AND WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN.

TO ME IT MEETS THE SPIRIT OF THE PD.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? THERE IS A HIGH LEVEL OF DETAIL.

I THINK STAFF WANTS TO AND APPROPRIATELY SHOULD HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS AND EVALUATE THESE AND SEE WHERE THE STAKE HOLDERS GET TOGETHER AND MEET IN THE MIDDLE OR WHEREVER IS APPROPRIATE AND COME UP WITH A WIN-WIN SOLUTION.

EVERYBODY ON THIS CALL WANTS THE BEST FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND THE BEST FOR THE PD AND WANTS AN EXCELLENT PRODUCT THAT WILL BE ATTRACTIVE THAT THE CITIZENS OF ROWLETT CAN DRIVE UP AND BE PROUD OF WHAT THEY SEE, WE ALL WANT THAT.

WHILE I BELIEVE THIS MEETS THE SPIRIT OF THE PD AND IMPROVES UPON IT AND AS MR. LAWRENCE SAID, OUR FIRST CHOICE WHEN WE COME BEFORE COUNCIL IS ALWAYS TO GAIN APPROVAL OF WHAT WE ARE PRESENTING TO YOU. STILL, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE OUR FIRST CHOICE, OUR PLAN A ASK.

IF YOU THINK THIS MERITS FURTHER DISCUSSION, I CAN SEE THAT POINT OF VIEW, BASED ON THE DETAIL INVOLVED, THEN ONE IDEA THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IS TO DO A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ON THE CONDITION THAT A REVISED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COME BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS, APPLICATION SUBMITTED, STAFF REVIEW, CONVERSATION BETWEEN STAFF AND APPLICANT AND GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE PROCESS TO GET THAT AMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED SO THAT EVERYTHING WOULD THEN BE CONSISTENT. THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT. I THINK THAT IS, YOU KNOW, FAILING APPROVAL TONIGHT, I THINK THAT IS THE NEXT BEST THING. I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST OUTCOME FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT. WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY, AS I OUTLINED IN MY LETTER, ASK THAT YOU IF NOT APPROVE, GIVE US A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. VINCENT. >> IS THAT THE CONCLUSION OF

YOUR APPLICANT PRESENTATION? >> I BELIEVE SO.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK TONIGHT.

>> THAT'S ALL I HAD. >> THANK YOU, SAM.

>> I'LL OPEN UP TO QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT. I'LL START WITH COUNCIL MARGOLIS

WHO HAD HIS HAND UP FIRST. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

BEFORE I GET TO THE QUESTIONS, I HAVE TO SAY THE WAY THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH STAFF THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT ADVERSE TO THE APPLICANT'S CAUSE. USING THIS VENUE TO ACTIVELY AMEND THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS NOT HOW THIS PROCESS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. WITH ALL THAT SAID, MY FIRST QUESTION IS, BECAUSE THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PROCESS IS NOT THE AVENUE TO AMEND APPROVED PLANS, WHY HASN'T THE APPLICANT

[01:10:04]

REQUESTED AN AMENDMENT OF THE SITE APPROVAL PLAN?

>> CAN I SPEAK ON THAT? >> YES, PLEASE.

>> DURING THE PROCESS OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.

IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION WE NEEDED TO DO SUCH THINGS BECAUSE, A, THE RIGHT OF WAY TREES THAT WE WERE BEING REQUIRED TO PLANT IN THE RESIDENTIAL RIGHT OF WAY WERE NOT REQUIRED BY CODE, WE WERE TOLD WE WERE AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT. WE SAID, WELL, WE CAN'T BE AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IF YOU GIVE US REVIEW ITEMS, YOU TELL US NO OR ELSE WE WON'T PASS THE REVIEW WHEN WE KNOW WHAT CODE SAYS IS CORRECT. BEING A PARTICIPANT IN SOMETHING LIKE THAT TIES YOUR HANDS AND DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE ABILITY TO DO THAT IN THE PROCESS. WE BROUGHT THESE THINGS TO THEIR ATTENTION AND WE WANTED TO TRY TO WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS APPROPRIATE. WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WAS A BASE OF HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.

I ALSO HAD ASKED STAFF TO BE SEEN BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BECAUSE THE BOARD MAKES THESE TYPES OF CONSIDERATION CONFLICTS AND THEY CAN BE DONE AT ANY TIME AND PULLED TOGETHER AT ANY TIME OR A FASTER ROUTE THAN HAVING TO GO THROUGH PLANNING OR ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL FOR SOMETHING THAT IS A MINOR DISCREPANCY IN THE OVERALL PROCESS OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO COMPLETE.

YES, I DID ASK FOR OTHER ROUTES ON HOW WE COULD TAKE CARE OF THIS. THE ONLY THING WAS I WAS TOLD I NEEDED TO AMEND MY PD. THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN FOREVER.

WHAT WE ARE ASKING TONIGHT IS, CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE US CONDITIONAL TREE REMOVAL PERMIT SO WE CAN AT LEAST IS THAT RIGHT PROCESS, PAY THE AMOUNT THAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE FROM THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT AND WE'LL RESUBMIT FOR OUR SITE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.

THE SITE PLAN WAS A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.

IT IS NOT A FINALIZED APPROVAL, IT IS AN ALWAYS EVOLVING APPROVAL. THE ONLY REAL THING WE HAVE LEFT IS THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN. WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN TONIGHT, I COULDN'T SAY THAT WE COULD MAKE IT ANY MORE BEAUTIFUL FOR THE

RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> MINAEL, CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT THE PROCESS IS? THANK YOU, SAM, FOR ANSWERING.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN MARGOLIS.

I DON'T DISAGREE THAT MR. LAWRENCE IS WANTING TO HAVE A PLAN THAT IS BEAUTIFUL WITH TREE CANOPY AND ELEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WITH PROCESS, COUNCIL IF YOU'LL RECALL, WE KNOW THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THAT WAS APPROVED, THE ORDINANCE ITSELF DID ADOPT WITH IT A SITE PLAN AND A LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THEY CLEARLY ARTICULATED THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DID STREET TREES, SLASH, CANOPY TREE WITHIN THE INTERNAL NETWORK.

THOSE ARE NOT THE RIGHT OF WAY TREES.

FAST FORWARD, UPON APPROVAL OF THE PD, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS WITH IT AN ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT SHOWED THE ELEMENTS PER THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND SHOWS ADDITIONAL OR ENHANCED LANDSCAPE. WE ALSO FOLLOWING THAT PROCESS THEN STARTED WITH THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.

UNFORTUNATELY, THERE HAVE BEEN DISCREPANCIES IN WHAT HAS BEEN REFLECTED WITH THE ITERATIONS AND DOCUMENTS PROVIDE D WITH TH TREE PERMIT AND THEY ARE NOT CONGRUENT TO THE PLAN.

THE ONLY COMMENTARY WAS MADE, IN ORDER TO DO WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING TO DO IN CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE, IT WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT PENDING ON THE NATURE OR EXTENT OF THE CHANGE BEING PROPOSED. IT COULD BE A PD AMENDMENT OR AMENDMENT TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

AS IT RELATES TO THE PLAN YOU HAVE SEEN TONIGHT THE APPLICANT HAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL, THE AVENUE WAS THROUGH A TREE REMOVAL APPROVAL. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE SHOP CLOCK. IF THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN OR THE SITE PLAN, THAT WOULD FOLLOW THE SHOP CLOCK. ALL WE ARE ASKING IS WE FOLLOW

[01:15:01]

THE APPROVAL PLAN OR SEEK APPROVAL PRIOR TO SEEKING THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT SO WE CAN ACCURATELY REVIEW THE MITIGATION PARAMETERS THAT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO THE SITE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER. I'LL LET THE OTHER COUNCIL ASK

QUESTIONS. >> COUNCILMAN SHERRILL?

>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MINAEL.

WE ARE SEEING TWO PLANS TONIGHT, AN EXISTING PLAN AND A NEW PLAN.

WHICH ONE DID P&Z VOTE ON? >> P&Z VOTED ON THE PLAN REFLECTED PER THE CAPTION FOR THE AGENDA ITEM ITSELF WHICH IS THE OLD PLAN. THE NEW PLAN FOLLOWED SUBSEQUENT TO THAT. THE SUPPLEMENT PLAN IS THE NEW PLAN WHICH PLANNING AND ZONING HAS NOT SEEN.

>> THEY VOTED ON THE TREE REMOVAL PLAN AND THEY DENIED IT.

THEY VOTED ON THAT. IT WASN'T APPROVED BY THEM.

>> CORRECT. >> BUT THEY APPROVED THE ORIGINAL PLAN BUT NOT THE REVISED.

RIGHT? >> CORRECT, COUNCIL.

THE REQUEST WAS BASED ON A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION, THAT WAS THE ITEM. BASED ON THE PARAMETERS REFLECTED IN THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT WERE NOT CONGRUENT TO THE

APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN. >> MAY I ASK A QUESTION?

>> NO. THE QUESTION WAS FOR STAFF.

STAFF ANSWERED ACCURATELY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, COUNCILMAN SHERRILL? QUESTIONS? JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS -- I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS.

I THINK I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT IS GOING ON.

I DON'T -- I'M VERY FRUSTRATED WITH THE COMMENT THAT IT IS UNFORTUNATE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WAS ISSUED THE DAY BEFORE THE P&Z MEETING. THERE IS NO WORLD IN THIS YOU'LL ISSUE A NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN THE DAY BEFORE A P&Z MEETING AND HAVE IT REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED BY P&Z.

THAT IS JUST NOT REASONABLE TO EVEN REQUEST.

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DON'T JUST GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. TRYING TO GO AROUND THIS PROCESS IS CAUSING MORE TIME. THIS IS A GREAT DEVELOPMENT.

I AM VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT.

I THINK I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT YOUR LANDSCAPE PLAN BUT THAT'S WAY TOO MUCH DETAIL FOR A CITY COUNCIL TO BE DETERMINING DECISION MAKING ON THAT. THAT'S FOR SUBMITTALS TO BE MADE TO STAFF, STAFF TO DO A COMPLETE REVISED REVIEW, GOING TO P&Z FOR CONSIDERATION FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.

TO COME TO COUNCIL TO ASK TO GO ARN IS CIRCUMVENTING EVERYTHING.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND TRYING TO DO THAT.

YOU ARE CAUSING MORE DELAY AND TIME THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

I'M REALLY CONFUSED BY THIS. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THEN. >> SORRY?

>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF YOU ARE ASKING FOR A MOTION.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> MAY I MAKE ONE ADDITIONAL

COMMENT? >> SURE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE THAT.

I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. I UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, I THINK I EVEN SAID MYSELF I UNDERSTAND STAFF DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE SUBMITTAL IN TIME FOR THE MARCH 9 P&Z.

THE LETTER I SENT TO YOU TODAY, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AS WELL. I UNDERSTAND -- I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PLAN. IT IS A GREAT PROJECT.

I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL ON THE CONDITION WE GO BACK AND WORK ON STAFF WITH A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WOULD DO WHAT YOU JUST ARTICULATED WHICH WOULD GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO SIT DOWN AND LET THE EXPERTS WORK OUT THE

DETAILS. >> BUT IT DOESN'T.

IT DOESN'T GO TO P&Z IN THAT MANNER.

>> YEAH, IT SAYS IN YOUR PHOTOCONDITIONAL APPROVAL ALLOWS YOU TO START REMOVING TREES IMMEDIATELY.

ONCE THE TREES ARE REMOVED, IT MAKES IT HARDER TO GO BACK AND DETERMINE WHAT YOUR BASELINE IS. IT IS VERY HARD -- THAT'S WHY THESE THINGS HAVE AN ORDER TO THEM.

SO YOU CAN HAVE APPROVED PLANS SO YOU CAN MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE NOT LOSING UNDUE RESOURCES BECAUSE THINGS HAVEN'T BEEN LOOKED AT. I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE PUT IN THERE YOU'LL PAY MORE INTO THE FUND, BUT THERE COULD BE A WAY WHERE YOU COULD PAY LESS MONEY INTO THE FUND, IF YOU GO THROUGH

[01:20:05]

THE PROCESS. IT BEHOOVES BOTH PARTIESER TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND DO THIS THROUGH THE RIGHT PROCESS.

>> IF THERE IS ONE THING THIS COUNCIL HAS DONE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS MADE SURE EVERYTHING HAS BEEN REVIEWED THOROUGHLY BY P&Z AND SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED RECOMMENDATIONS BY P&Z IN OUR DELIBERATIONS. THIS IS NOT A COUNCIL THAT HAS GONE AROUND P&Z IN THE PROCESS. IT IS JUST NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE

DONE. >> NOR STAFF.

>> GO AROUND STAFF. THOSE ARE COMMENTS.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN MARGOLIS, YOU HAVE A

MOTION? >> YES.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE ITEM AS READ, ITEM 8A.

>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY? >> I'LL SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION, DAVID AND MINAEL, I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK I WANT TO VOTE TO DENY BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER TO DENY THE TREE REMOVAL PLAN OR NOT.

WHAT I WOULD PREFER TO SEE IS THAT WE JUST REMAND THIS BACK TO P&Z. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT WORDS ARE. I'M WORRIED ABOUT DENYING THE PERMIT IF THAT -- TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IF THAT'S WHAT ULTIMATELY STAFF AND P&Z DECIDE IS A GOOD TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, DOES THAT

MAKE SENSE? >> MY ONLY COMMENT WOULD BE, THE ONLY REASON TO DENY IT BECAUSE THE SUBSEQUENT TREE REMOVAL PERMIT WOULD LOOK DIFFERENT. IT WOULD BE AN AMENDED ONE, BUT

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE -- >> CAN I GET SOME ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY? IS THAT OKAY?

>> I THINK WE ARE SUGGESTING IT IS A MOTION TO REMAND THE APPLICATION BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING.

>> IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO DENY.

>> BUT -- BUT WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

UNLESS THE SECOND IS WITHDRAWN AND THE MOTION IS WITHDRAWN,

THAT IS THE MOTION ON THE TABLE. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE TABLE. I HAVE QUESTIONS ON THAT MOTION AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES, IS THAT NOT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THAT

DISCUSSION? >> THAT IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE, IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO REMAND BACK TO P&Z AND STAFF CAN DEAL WITH THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS P&Z ON THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPE PLAN APPLICATION, TO AMEND THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THE OPTION WOULD BE TO TABLE THE ISSUE UNTIL WE CAN GET AN

APPROPRIATE LY -- >> WHAT IS DOWNSIDE TO DENY THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT? I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE MORE TROUBLE TO THE APPLICANT BY DENYING THIS IF IT CAUSES THEM TROUBLE DOWN THE ROAD POTENTIALLY, DOES THAT MAKE

SENSE? >> IF THE COUNCIL DENIES IT, THE APPLICANT CAN REAPPLY. IT WILL COST A COUPLE OF HUNDRED

BUCKS. >> IT IS NOT LIKE DENYING ZONING AND YOU CAN'T COME BACK A YEAR LATER --

>> YES. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND WE HAVE A SECOND SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY THE TREE APPLICATION PERMIT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION THAT INCLUDE THE REQUESTED REDUCTION IN THE TREE MITIGATION CALCULATION?

>> YES. I MADE THE MOTION FOR ITEM 8A.

YEAH, THAT SHOULD COVER THAT. >> I WANTED TO CLARIFICATION.

I'M SORRY, MAYOR. >> YOU ARE GOOD.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

AND THAT ITEM PASSES. ALL THOSE OPPOSED RAISE YOUR HAND, THAT WAS ME. THAT PASSES 6-1.

THE REASON I OPPOSED, I FELT LIKE WE SHOULD JUST TABLE IT OR REMAND IT BACK TO P&Z, NOT THAT I AGREE WITH THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. OKAY.

BUT THAT WAS THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.

THAT ITEM WE ARE CONCLUDED WITH. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA

[8B. Conduct a public hearing and take action on a request by Nathan Schemm to approve a Special Use Permit to allow an accessory structure exceeding 500 square feet on property zoned Planned Development (PD) District for Single-Family Uses. The approximate 0.41-acre tract is located at 3413 Summer Solstice Court, Lot 15, Block F, in the Magnolia Springs Phase 3A Addition, approximately 260 feet northwest of the intersection of Palisade Falls and Summer Solstice Court, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

IS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY NATHAN SCHEMM TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 500 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES.

THE APPROXIMATE .41 ACRE TRACT IS LOCATED AT 3413 SUMMER

[01:25:04]

SOLSTICE COURT, BLOCK F, IN THE MAGNOLIA SPRING PHASE 3A ADDITION, APPROXIMATELY 260 FEET NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF P PALSAID FALL AND SUMMER SOLSTICE COURT IN ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. COUNCIL, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN ORDER TO INSTALL AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THEIR RESIDENCE. THE CODE IS VERY SPECIFIC.

IT REQUIRES APPROVAL OF AN SUP FOR ANY INCLOSED STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 500 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT HAS INFORMED US THE STRUCTURE WILL BE MASONRY IN CONSTRUCTION, IT WILL BE USED TO STORE PERSONAL VEHICLES AND CREATE A SPACE FOR HOBBY WOODWORKING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION, THE ATTEMPT WITH THE SLIDE IS TO SHOW YOU WHAT IS EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AND WHAT IS PROPOSED IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE LOT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A DRIVEWAY APPROACH. THERE IS A RED STRUCTURE.

IT IS A SHED, THAT WILL BE REMOVED.

THE GREEN AREA, A RECTANGLE LOCATE ON THE SITE MAP WOULD BE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE ERECTED ON EXISTING SLAB WITH JUST AN ADDITIONAL PORTION OF SLAB TO BE ADDED ON TO THE BASE. A 3474 SQUARE FOOT HOME IS EXISTING ON THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IF THE PROPOSED SUP IS APPROVED, THE 80 SQUARE FOOT SHED WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, LAURA.

THE RDC, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE STATES PROPERTIES LESS THAN TWO ACRES ARE EXEMPT FROM THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.

THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CANOPY.