Aug 24, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:04]

HERITAGE. >> GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF TUESDAY AUGUST 24, 2021.

IT'S 6:30 AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.01 THIS SESSION MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION.

THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE RECESS REALIGN THE SESSION OR CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION ORDER OF BUSY IN TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. TO PROVIDE COMMENT FOR THIS MEETING ANY ITEM ON THIS MEETING THERE IS NO PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MEETING SO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TONIGHT ON ANY ITEM, YOU NEED TO GO AHEAD AND GET A CARD OFF THAT TABLE IN THE BACK, FIGURE IT OUT AND PRESENT IT TO MISS NIX OVER HERE AND YOU HAVE TO SPEAK DURING THE CITIZENS INPUT AND NOT DURING THE ACTUAL AGENDA ITEM. YOU CAN ALSO SEND AN INPUT TO CITIZEN INPUT@ROWLETT.COM. 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 AND THERE'S A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS REGISTRATION FORMS ACE MENTIONED ARE IN THE BACK. INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE STEP COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AT THIS TIME WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. I'D LIKE TO ASK IF THERE'S ANY CITIZEN INPUT, ANY COMMENTS FOR ANY TOPIC THIS EVENING.

SUSAN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? OKAY.

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

IF THERE'S NO COMMENTS ABOUT THE MINUTES I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

MR. COTE. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE AUGUST 10TH MEETING AS SUBMITTED. DO I HAVE A SECOND? MR. SWIFT. WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. SWIFT.

AT THIS TIME, LET'S VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR.

AND THAT ITEM PASSES. WE HAD ONE ABSTENTION.

[4A. Consider and take action on a request by Omar Muhammad, on behalf of property owner All of Our Heritage House, LLC., regarding an Alternative Landscaping Plan to deviate from Section 77-504.D. of the Rowlett Development Code on property zoned General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District. The approximately 0.87-acre site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Rowlett Road and Main Street in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

YES, SIR MR. ROBERTS. >> THANK YOU MADAME CHAIR MR. COMMISSIONER ALWAYS A PLEASURE.

MADAME CHAIR IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SWITCHING OVER THAT SCREEN FOR ME. EXCELLENT THANK YOU MADAME CHAIR COMMISSIONERS ALWAYS A PLEASURE. EXCITED TO BRING THIS ONE TO YOU THIS EVENING. THIS IS A PRETTY CRITICAL CORNER IN OUR TOWN WITH OLD EXISTING BUILDING.

BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT EXTENSIVELY AND EXCITED TO BRING THIS ONE THIS EVENING. THIS REQUEST IS TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN SUBMITTAL.

IT DOES OFFER CERTAIN ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FROM THE LANDSCAPING SECTION OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT COPED SEXUALLY SECTION 77-504 THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED COMMERCIAL AND

[00:05:02]

ALP IS INTENDED TO PROMOTE THE CORPORATION AND EXISTING VEGETATION AS WELL AS INNOVATIVE USE OF PLANTS THAT WOULD IMPROVE UPON THE DESIGN CRITERIA OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY TO ACT ON THIS ITEM. WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE A STEP AND REAP INTERPRET THAT DEFINITION OF THE ALP AND IT DOES ACTUALLY REQUIRE YOU AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ACT ON THIS THIS EVENING. BACKGROUND BRIEFLY ON THE SITE AGAIN IT IS DEVELOPED WITH AN APPROXIMATELY HUNDRED-YEAR-OLD SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT LEAST INTENDED USE WHENEVER IT WAS BUILT. IT IS CURRENTLY UNDER RENOVATION TO HOUSE AN APPROXIMATELY 2570 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT.

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED FOR THIS PROPERTY AND PROJECT JULY THIS YEAR PENDING THE OUTCOME ONE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL WAS PENDING THE OUTCOME OF AN ALP TO BE APPROVED. AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS BEING EXPANDED OF AN EXTENT THAT EXCEEDS 10 PERCENT OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE BUILDING AND WE WILL GET INTO THIS LATER, THE SITE MUST BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE SO THAT'S REALLY WHY WE ARE HERE. SOME BRIEF SITE DATA FOR YOU IT DOES HAVE APPROXIMATELY 190 FEET OF FRONTAGE ROWLETT ROAD AND MAIN STREET. AREA SERVES PAVED AREA AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL POINT OF INGRESS TO SERVICE A VERY SIMILAR BUT YET SMALLER PAVEMENT THE SITE IS DEVELOPED IN ITS CURRENT STATE JUST SHY OF 2,000 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY STRUCTURE AS WELL AS ACCESSORY OR OUT BUILDING THAT AT THIS TIME WILL REMAIN VACANT.

CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING ON SITE, THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING INCLUDES TWO TREES THAT ARE 24 INCHES IN SIZE SO THOSE ARE REFLECTED IN GREEN FOR YOU.

THERE ARE HATE CREATE MYRTLES REFLECTED IN ORANGE FOR YOU.

THESE TREES WILL BE APPLIED TO THE OVERALL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION. I BELIEVE THE REPORTED THE WORD NOT STUCK IN THERE. THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

THESE TREES WILL BE APPLIED TO THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS IF APPLICABLE MEANING IF THEY FALL WITHIN BUFFERS AND WE WILL EXPAND ON THAT. JUXTAPOSE WHAT IS EXISTING, THIS IS WHAT REALLY THE COPED STANDARD IS FOR THE SITE YOU SEE ON SCREEN, SECTION 77-A 4 REQUIRES RIGHT OF WAY BUFFERS ON MAIN STREET IN ROWLETT ROAD REQUIRES ONE TREE PER 35 FEET, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE MAIN STREET ONE IS ABOUT FIVE FEET SHORT ABOUT 15 FEET WIDE IN TOTAL WITH THE ROWLETT ROAD REQUIRES A 20 FOOT BUFFER. LIKEWISE THE SOUTH AN WEST COMPATABILITY ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO BE SIX FEET IN WIDTH.

TREE PLANTING IS ONE PER 50 FEET BUT THE SHRUBS ARE CONSTANT 10 FOR 30 FEET SO YOU SEE THE GENERAL PLACEMENT OF THOSE TREES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT SPACING AS WELL AS THE SMALLER RED CIRCLES REPRESENTING THE SHRUBS AT APPROPRIATE SPACING.

THAT BRINGS US TO THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING CONDITIONS AS PART OF THE ALP. IT DOES INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FROM LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, THE RDC AND I'LL READ THROUGH THEM. THE ALP LOOKS TO ELIMINATE THE SHRUBS AND CANMY TREE RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER ON ROWLETT ROAD MAINE STREET REDUCE THE SHOULD BE PLANTING FREQUENCY AND INCREASE THE TREE PLANTING SPACING WITH THE EXAMS BUILT BUFFER ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE REDUCE THE PLANTING FREQUENCY AND REDUCE THE KPATABILITY ON THE DUMPSTER LINE SO I'LL GO THROUGH THOSE FOR US. IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF WAY BUFFERS BASED ON THE RATIO IN THE CODE WE WENT OVER, 12 CANOPY TREES AND 128 SHRUBS WOULD BE REQUIRED COMBINED BETWEEN THE MAIN AND ROWLETT ROAD LANDSCAPING BUFFERS.

THIS ALP DOES REFLECT SIX OREGON MEN TREES FOUR OF WHICH ARE EXISTING, AS WELL AS THREE CANOPY TREES AND NO SHRUBS IN THESE BUFFERS. KEEP IN MIND RIGHT AWAY BUFF

[00:10:01]

THE ALP DOES COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTH ON MAIN STREET OF 15 FEET. HOWEVER YOU SEE ON SCREEN THAT HIGHLIGHTED OVERLAPPED RED ON ROWLETT RED DOES SHOW YOU THERE IS EXISTING PAVEMENT THAT WOULD RESTRICT THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE 20 FOOT WIDTH AREA ON ROWLETT ROAD.

CAN YOU SEE THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF SCREEN THE PROVIDED TREE COUNTS LIKEWISE FOR SHRUBS FOR BOTH THESE RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER ELEMENTS. MOVING ON TO EXAMS BUILT BUFFERS ESSENTIALLY THE WESTERN KPAT BITS BUFFER BASED ON RATIOS IN CODE THESE TREES ARE NOT SLATED TO BE CANOPY OREGON MEN SO EITHER OR AND 67 SHRUBS ARE REQUIRED WITHIN THIS EXAMS BUILT BUFFER, THE ALP DOES REFLECT THREE TREES AND TEN SHRUBS WITHIN THIS BUFFER. THE REQUESTED TREES ARE SPACED 51 AND 55 FEET APART WHICH IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 50 FOOT APART SEPARATION BEG YOUR PARDON IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR TREES BASED ON THE CALCULATION. I BEG YOUR PARDON THAT FIRST SENTENCE. CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCES IN BETWEEN THE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED TREES AND SHRUBS.

MOVING TO THE SOUTHERN COMPATABILITY BUFFER BASED ON THE RATIOS IN THE CODE WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT FOUR TREES.

AGAIN THESE ARE EITHER CANOPY OR OREGON MEN AND 59 SHRUBS IN THIS COMPATABILITY THE ALP REFLECTS ONE CANOPY TREE NO SHRUBS IN THIS BUFFER THE ALP INCLUDES A 78 FOOT LONG SIX FOOT TAULTD WOODEN FENCE SOUTHWEST OF THE WHICH I DID MENTION IN THE REPORT. THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE COMPATABILITY BUFFER. HOWEVER IT DOES ONLY EXTEND 78 FEET OF THE APPROXIMATELY 200 FOOT OR SO LENGTH OF PROPERTY LINE. LASTLY, THE ALTERNATIVE STANDARD OF THE FOREGOING DUMPSTER SCREENING REQUIREMENTS SECTION 77-504-F OF THE RDC STATES A DUMPSTER SHALL BE ENCLOSED ON THREE SIDES WITH A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL, A FOURTH SIDE WITH A METAL GATE ONLY INTENDED TO BE OPENED WHEN SERVICED, THE ALP DOES NOT REFLECT ANY SCREEN MORE THE DUMPSTER AT THIS TIME.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING THE APPLICANT HAS JUSTIFIED THESE REQUESTS AS PART OF THE ALP STATE THEY WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND THE RESTAURANT USE AND THE FURTHER DEVELOP THE SITE IN THE FUTURE AND THAT THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND PLANTINGS WOULD INTERFERE WITH THOSE FUTURE PLANS TO IMPROVE UPON THE SITE I. SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ANY DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE OR ANY OTHER SITE IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE SET BACKS AND LANDSCAPING CRITERIA.

AS SO, LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ARE INTENDED TO BE DESIGNED AROUND THESE REQUIREMENTS AGAIN UNIFORMLY APPLIED TO ALL DEVELOPING AND REDEVELOPING SITES.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR YOU THE PURPOSE OF LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AS WELL AS LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN GENERAL IS TO ADD VISUAL A PLENTY TO DEVELOPING SITES AS WELL AS INCREASE PHYSICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND COMPATIBLE USE TYPES AND FREQUENT LIP TRAVELED THOROUGHFARES, ENHANCE ON THE URBAN CITY CANOPY COVERAGE THE ROWLETT ECOSYSTEM ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED THIS GENERAL AREA AS HAVING 25 PERCENT OR LESS IN THE MAJORITY SURROUNDING AREA OF ACTUAL TREE COVERAGE.

WITHIN LAND SKAIF BUFFERS THAT ARE NOT OCCUPIED BY ANY SORT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS PAVEMENT BE EMPLOYED WITH SECTION 77-504. PROVING ON TO THE APPROVAL CRITERIA SECTION 504-I DOES STIPULATE THE FOLLOWING APPROVAL CRITERIA. BEAR WITH ME AS I READ THEM.

THEY'RE A UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY SITE OR USE THAT WARRANT SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO MODIFY OR DEVIATE FROM THE CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE ALP MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE WHILE OF COURSE RECOGNIZING UNUSUAL SITE DESIGN OR RESTRAINTS. THE APPROVAL OF THE ALP WILL PROVIDE FOR BOTH INCREASED CONSISTENCY AND EXAMS BUILT WITH SURROUNDING PROJECTS AND PROPERTIES AND NO FURTHER MODIFICATIONS FROM THE ALLOWABLE MODIFICATIONS AN JUST TO BE CLEAR THOSE ARE EXPLICITLY LISTED IN THE CODE AS BUFFER

[00:15:02]

I'LL EXPAND ON THESE CRITERIA BRIEFLY HERE.

EXISTING PAVEMENT WITHIN ROWLETT ROAD OR THE RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER THAT 20 FOOT BUFFER ON ROWLETT ROAD AS WELL AS 7.5 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT SOUTHWEST OF THE PROPERTY DO HIM IT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED DISTANCES AND PLANTING FREQUENCIES IN RELATION TO THE EASEMENT OUR CODE DOES ALLOW FOR PLANTINGS TO BE DISPLACED IN THE SAME YARD SO IT'S THAT EXISTING PAIMENT ON ROWLETT ROAD THAT CAUSES A LARGE ISSUE WITH MEETING STANDARD. OTHER THAN THOSE ITEMS THERE ARE WARRANT SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AS THE EXISTING BLINKS ARE LOCATED MORE INTERNAL TO THE SITE AND DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THESE REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS. THE APPLICANT HAS JUSTIFIED AGAIN THAT FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE SITE WILL BE LIMITED DUE TO THE CURRENT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.

AGAIN I WANT TO REITERATE ANY FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE PLANNED WILL BE REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE AT THE TIME OF THEIR PROPOSAL AND THAT INCLUDES WITH LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AS WE HAVE DONE SO HERE WITH THIS PROPOSAL.

MOVING ON TO THE APPROVAL CRITERIA IN TERMS THE ALP NEEDS TO MEETS OR EXCEED THE MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECTION, REQUESTED IN ORDER TO REDUCE OR FOREGO THE PLANTING FREQUENCIES REQUIRED BY THE RDC. IT DOES NOT MEET OR EXCEED THESE STANDARDS. YOU SEE THE TOTAL SUMMATION OF THE BUFFER FREQUENCIES ON SCREEN THERE IN THAT CHART THE ORANGE COLUMNS BEING WHAT IS PROVIDED AS PART OF THIS ALP REQUEST.

AGAIN THE EXISTING PAVEMENT ADJACENT TO ROWLETT ROAD DOES LIMIT COMPLIANCE WITH AREA TO PLANT HOWEVER THE ALP DOES NOT REFLECT ADDITIONAL PLANTING ELSEWHERE TO PERHAPS MITIGATE AND DOES RESULT IN THAT DEFICIT OF APPROXIMATELY 7 TREES AND JUST WITH THE 204 SHRUBS. ANOTHER APPROVAL CRITERIA IS THAT THE ALP WILL PROVIDE FOR BOTH INCREASED CONSISTENCY AND EXAMS BUILT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THIS RESPECT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE DOES TRILT IN NATURE FURTHER WEST OF THIS PROPERTY DOWN MAIN STREET AND THEY'RE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE NORTH AN SOUTH ALONG ROWLETT ROAD TWLEMENT DEVELOPED UNDER STANDARDS THAT PREDATE OR CURRENT LANDSCAPING STANDARDS AND AS SO THEY LACK THE HAND ESCAPING REQUIREMENTS HOWEVER IT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE RDC TO BRING LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING USES OF BUILDINGS SUCH AS THIS ONE BIT IN COMPLIANCE ZONING HAS ESSENTIALLY CAUGHT UP TO LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING RDC IS DESIGNED TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CODE STANDARDS AS THEY REDEVELOP THIS SITE AND ANY OTHER ADJACENT SITE THAT EXPERIENCES SET PROOUCHLTS WOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD.

LIKEWISE REITERATED IN THAT LAST BULLET POINT.

ANY ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT REQUESTS REDEVELOPMENT ANY PROPERTY THAT BREAKS THAT THRESHOLD IS SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE COPED REQUIREMENTS THAT INCLUDES LANDSCAPING.

LASTLY, A CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF ALP IS NO FURTHER MODIFICATION ARE BEING REQUESTED TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE RDC. PER SECTION 77504-D LANDSCAPE ISLANDS MUST BE LOCATE AT THE TERMINAL OF ALL PARKING STALLS.

IT'S CLEAR CUT WHERE PARKING DOESN'T EXIST AND IT'S EASY TO SAY PLACE ONE HERE HERE HERE AND THE INSTANCE THIS PROJECT THE PARKING CONFIGURATION PRE-DETERMINED WE SIMPLY HAVE TO WORK WITH WHAT WE HAVE AND YOU CAN SEE ON SCREEN THAT ISLAND AND THAT TREE AT THE TERMINUS IS NOT BEING PROVIDED.

THIS REQUIREMENT WAS COMMENTED ON THE PLAN REVIEWS BOTH THROUGH THE STAEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW THAT PREDATED THIS SPECIFIC AL REVIEW. AS SO THE ALP DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT PROVIDING NOW TREES AT THE TERMINAL AND THIS IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO DEVIATED FROM THE ALP DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE DEVIATION. THAT BRINGS ME TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION DENIAL OF THE ALP, ALP IS ONLY INTENDED TO REQUEST ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS SHOULD THERE BE SIGNIFICANT SITE CHARACTERISTICS THAT LIMIT COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS OTHER THAN THE EXISTING PAVEMENT OTHER CONSTRAINTS THAT HIM IT

[00:20:05]

COMPLIANCE WITH LANDSCAPING DEVELOPMENTS OF THE RIO TINTO DC WOULD FURTHER INHAPPENS THE BUSINESS AND CORRECT ANY EXISTING NOT CONFORMING AS IS A GOAL OF THE RDC TO BRING PROPERTIES INTO CONFORMANCE AS THEY REDEVELOP AND THE ALP DOES NOT MEET THE APPROVAL SECTION 7 7 77-540 I.

WITH THAT I DO MY BEST TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. JOHN.

>> BACK UP ONE SLIDE, PLEASE. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO THE ALP DOES NOT MEET THE APPROVAL CRITERIA OF THE SECTION AS STATED AS THE RDC AS REQUESTED BEYOND THE LANDSCAPING BUFFER AND SCREENING AND THOSE ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS ARE THAT

ONE TREE? >> YES, SIR.

THAT IS THE SLIDE IS THE LOCATION RATHTER OMISSION PERHAPS IS A BETTER WAY TO PUT IT OF A REQUIRED PARKING AREA

LANDSCAPE TREE. >> GOOD.

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, SIR.

>> KIND OF JUMPING AHEAD WITH THOUGHT HERE, I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE PARKING LOT THERE NOT EVERYTHING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO PUT A BUFFER IN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT PARKING LOT? BECAUSE IT RESULTS IN LIMITED PARKING WITH WHAT WE THE CITY IS PROPOSING AND MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THIS DEVELOPER.

I'M WONDERING IF IN SOME PLANTS FOR THE FUTURE IF A LANDSCAPE BUFFER CAN BE PUT IN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT PARKING LOT TO TRY TO PUT IN THAT 241 SHRUBS IN THAT AREA.

AND THEN OF COURSE MORE TREES WOULD HAVE TO BE PUT INTO THAT LANDSCAPE LOT TOO, BUT JUST PRESENTING THAT AS AN IDEA.

>> YES, SIR AND WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RESPOND? OKAY. THERE IS, THAT IS SOD.

IT'S NOT PAVED AREA SO THERE IS REAL ESTATE SO TO SAY FOR THERE TO BE FURTHER PLANTINGS AND LIKE WE SAID IN THE RECOMMENDATION WE HAVEN'T QUITE SEEN THOSE ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS OR DISPLACED PLANTINGS IS A BETTER WAY TO PUT THEM ELSEWHERE ON THE

PLAN. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OUTCOME MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO YOUR POINT AS WELL.

>> MR. SEGARS. OKAY.

WITH NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME UPSTATE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD

AND MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION. >> MY NAME IS JESSICA JONES.

YOU WANT THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY? OR MY ADDRESS? IT'S 1802 INDIAN TRAIL IN ROWLETT. [INAUDIBLE]

>> OKAY. THERE.

I'M GOING TO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I HATE SPEAKING IN FRONT OF PEOPLE BUT DID I PUT TOGETHER A POWER POINT BECAUSE LAST NIGHT WHEN I LOOKED OVER THE AGENDA AND THE REPORT THAT THEY PUT TOGETHER, WHEN I READ OVER IT I THOUGHT MY GOSH IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HATE PLANTS AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE JUST WANT TO TAKE THIS FLAT PROPERTY AND JUST OPEN A BUILDING AND NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH IT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE AT ALL.

SO, WE ARE REQUESTING AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN.

DOES THIS CHANGE IT? IS SOMEONE ELSE CHANGING IT OR AM I CHANGING IT? SO, WE ARE QUESTIONING AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN DUE TO THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS PROPERTY. IT'S A 100-YEAR-OLD HOME BUILT BY ONE OF THE FOUNDING MEMBERS OF ROWLETT N. THE PLANNING AN ZONING REPORT IT SAYS THE INTENT OF LANDSCAPING BUFFER REQUIREMENT IS TO ADD A VISUAL A PLENTY TO DEVELOPMENT SITES.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE RENOVATION OF THIS HISTORIC HOME AND LANDSCAPING OF THE HOME WILL ADD VISUAL A PLENTY TO THE CITY SHOWING OFF THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOME ITSELF, ADD A UNIQUE

[00:25:02]

ALREADY ONE OF THE MLE VISUAL AMENITIES IN ROWLETT THAT I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD RECOGNIZE IS THE OLD YELLOW HOUSE ON MILLION CHEERS THE HOLD HER FIRTH HOUSE, THIS PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE HIDDEN BEHIND HAD A BUFFER BUT GIVEN SURROUNDING LANDSCAPING TO SHOW ITS BEAUTY SO I JUST WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION JUST SO YOU KNOW WHERE WE ARE COMING FROM.

SO, DURING OUR EARLY D.I.M. MEETINGS WITH THE P.N.Z. WHEN FUNDS WERE BEING RAISED AND WE WERE ALLOCATING SPENDING MONEY WE WERE TOLD WE WERE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO DO ANY LANDSCAPE BUFFING AND THEY ASKED SPECIFICALLY WHAT OUR LANDSCAPE PLANS WERE AND I TOLD THEM THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PLANT THE FLOWER BEDS AROUND THE HOUSE AN THAT IS ALL WE HAD FOR THE INITIAL PLAN FOR THE HOUSE AND THEY SAID THAT SHOULD BE FINE.

SO, NOT UNTIL WE STARTED THE UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS DID THEY BRING UP THE FACT THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO PLANT EXTENSIVELY AROUND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.

ALTHOUGH THIS IS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, WE DID NOT HAVE THE POCKETS OF A BIG BUSINESS TO THROW AT OUR LANDSCAPING.

WE ARE A SMALL BUSINESS ■WITH FUNDS RAISED BY SEVERAL LOCAL FAMILIES. WE REALIZE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF RULES SO MAYBE IF SOMEONE JUST DIDN'T KNOW ALL THE RULES BACK THEN AND YOU KNOW THAT'S FINE BUT WE ALSO FEEL LIKE THERE SHOULD BE SOME COMPROMISE WITH US BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR ALL THIS LANDSCAPING THAT WE ARE NOW HAVING TO DO.

SO, THE REGULATION THAT IS REFERENCED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE AGENDA THERE WAS THAT IF DO YOU A 10 PERCENT ADDITION, THAT THAT THROWS YOU INTO THE LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS HAVING TO COME UP TO CODE ON EVERYTHING. HOWEVER, WE HAD OUR PLANS LAID OUT EVERY TIME WE HAD A MEETING WITH THEM AND NOT ONCE WAS THAT EVER MENTIONED TO US THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE ANY OF THE LANDSCAPING. THEY ACTUALLY SAW THAT WHEN THEY TOLD US WE WEREN'T GOING TO HAVE TO DO THE BUFFER LANDSCAPING.

WE HAD THE ADDITION -- I ALREADY SAID THAT, SO WE ARE NOT AGAINST LANDSCAPING AS IT SOUNDS BUT WE WOULD -- WE THINK THIS PROPERTY DESERVES MORE OF A SPECIAL LANDSCAPING AROUND THE HOME ITSELF, NOT THE GENERIC SHOULD BE TO TREE RATIO, WE ALSO ARE REQUESTING TO GET ALL THE LANDSCAPING -- SORRY.

WE ARE ALSO REQUESTING TIME TO GET ALL THE LANDSCAPING UP TO REGULATION AND TIME TO PLAN IT BECAUSE THE MAIN FOCUS RIGHT NOW WE ALWAYS THOUGHT OF THIS PART AS TWO PARTS, ONE RENOVATING THE HOME AND GETTING IT UP AND RUNNING AND THEN AFTER IT WAS UP AN RUNNING WE WOULD GET THE BACK FINISHED OUT SO WE ALWAYS THOUGHT OF IT AS A TWO-PART SO WE ARE HOPING THAT Y'ALL CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS KIND OF ALONG THE SAME LINES THAT WE GET THIS PIECE DONE AND THEN WE MOVE TO THE NEXT PART.

LET'S SEE THERE. IS OTHER LANDSCAPING THAT WILL PART OF THE BUFFER WE WERE TOLD THAT IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE PNC COMMITTEE. SO IT WAS WE WERE TOLD IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN.

SO, THE FIRST THINGS I WANT TO ADDRESS IS THAT THE ROAD BUFFER ON ROWLETT ROAD AND MAIN STREET WE ARE NOT ASKING TO COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE SHRUB BUT REQUESTING OUR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES BE WORKED WITH THEY REQUIRE THE TREES BASED OPEN THE TOTAL NOT THE PLANABLE DIS DISTANCE. SO IF WE GO OFF THE AREA WE CAN PLANT IT'S ABOUT 180 WHICH GIVES US A REQUIREMENT OF 5.14 TREES AND 60 SHRUBS. ALONG THE BUFFER LINE WE HAVE THREE TRADITIONAL CANOPY TREES AND FOUR VERY LARGE ON MENTAL TREES FOR A TOTAL OF NINE TREES OR FIVE TREES IF YOU'RE COUNTING ORNAMENTAL. WE ARE ASKING THAT THE CHICAGO CUBS AND LANDSCAPING AROUND THE HOUSE COUNT TOWARD THE STUBHUB REQUIREMENT FOR THE BUFFER. ON THE ROWLETT ROAD SIDE, THE PATIO IS ACTUALLY INSIDE THE BUFFER AREA, SO ALL THIS LANDSCAPING WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE BUFFER.

[00:30:01]

I THINK IT'S 15 FEET ON THAT. I THINK THEY'RE PROBABLY 5-10 FEET FURTHER BACK FROM THAT BUT WE ARE REQUESTING IT COUNT TOWARD OUR STUBHUB REQUIREMENT. HE DIDN'T SAY THE SHRUBS COULD BE DISPERSED ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY SO THEY WOULD BE FURTHER BACK. SO I HAVE PICTURES ON THE NEXT SLIDE. WE ARE ATTEMPT TO GO COMPENSATE WITH THE AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING AROUND THE HOUSE.

THERE WOULD BE NO DEFICIT IF WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO COUNT THE LANDSCAPING AS PART OF THE BUFFER.

THESE TWO PICTURES ONE TO SHOW THE SIZE OF THE ORNAMENTAL TREES THERE RIGHT NOW WHICH ARE LARGE. YOU CAN SEE HOW CLOSE THE HOUSE IS TO THE ACTUAL STREET SO ALL THE WAY UP TO THE PORCH DOES FALL INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER SO IF WE DO LANDSCAPE AROUND THE HOME WHICH WE WERE TOLD WE COULD DO WITHOUT HAVING IT BE APPROVED THAT WOULD FALL INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER.

SO, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IT BORDERS THE AUTOMOTIVE SHOP AND THERE IS A DOWN THAT SIDE.

IN THE AGENDA IT STATED WE HAVE NO CURRENT PLANS IN THE REQUIRED BUFFER. HOWEVER THE BACK FENCE IS LINED WITH TRUMPET VINES. THEY'RE EVER GREENS WHEN THE WINTERS ARE MILD WHICH USUALLY THEY ARE IN TEXAS, OBVIOUSLY NOT LAST YEAR. THESE VINES GLOW UP THE FENCE AND BUFF BETTER THAN ANY STUBHUB WOULD.

THEY CREATE A PHYSICAL SEPARATION WHICH IS WHAT THE AGENDA STATES THE PURPOSE OF THE BUFFER IS.

ON THIS SIDE, WE ARE NOT REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE PLANTING FREQUENCY BUT TO ALLOW THE TRUMPET VINES TO COUNT TOWARD THE SHRUBS. WE HAVE ADDED FOUR TREES.

ONE IS ORNAMENTAL. THE OTHER THREE ARE CANOPY TREES AND NEW SHRUBS TO ADD VISUAL INTEREST TO THE BACK N. THE AGENDA IT SAYS WE ARE REQUIRED FOUR TREES AND 67 SHRUBS.

WE HAVE ADDED FOUR AND ADDED 10 SHRUBS AND IF ALLOWED TO COUNT THE CURRENT VINE BUFFER FOR OUR NEEDS THAT PUTS US OVER THE 67 AND THERE ARE NO DEFICIENCIES SO WE DID TELL THE STAFF THAT WHEN WE GO TO FURTHER DEVELOP THE BACK, THAT WE WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT MORE LANDSCAPING IN BUT WE DID WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THAT TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR PLANT CHOICES ARE CONSISTENT AND WITH THAT SAID I DO FEEL LIKE I SKIPPED A SLIDE EARLIER.

DID I QUANTITY TO CLARIFY BECAUSE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DEVELOPING THE BACK SECTION, I DON'T WANT TO SOUND LIKE IN THE FUTURE WE MIGHT EXPAND BECAUSE THE PLAN NOW IS AS SOON AS THE RESTAURANT IS UP AND RUNNING WE MOVE TO THE BACK AND WORK ON DEVELOPING IT. IT'S NOT LIKE FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WE MIGHT DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT LATER SO IT IS VERY IN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME WE WOULD BE MOVING ON TO HOPEFULLY ADD MORE INTO THIS BUFFER ROAD.

BUT LIKE I SAID WE ARE REQUESTING THAT RIGHT NOW THE VINES COUNT TOWARD THE PLANTS AND THE SHRUBS AND AS WE DEVELOP THE BACK WE WILL ADD IN BUT PART OF THAT WAS BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE FINITE PLANS FOR THE BACK YET, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE WE WANT EVERYTHING TO GO OR LOOK LIKE BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON THE HOUSE SO ONCE WE DO THAT WE WILL HAVE A BETTER IDEA WHAT PLANTS WE WANTS TO USE AND ADD THEM ON THE BUFFER ROAD TO MAKE SURE THAT IT FLOWS TOGETHER.

ON THIS SIDE YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE VINES ON THE SLIDE THE EXISTING VINES ON THE FENCE CREATE HAPPEN -- AN EXISTING BUFFER. DOWN HERE IS THE CHANGES WE ARE PROPOSING AT THIS TIME. SO, THE SOUTH SIDE TULSI PROBABLY ONE OF OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM AREAS.

WE ARE REQUESTING TO INSTALL PRIVACY FENCE DOWN THE BACK OF THE SOUTH SIDE, BUT THAT CORNER OF THIS SIDE BORDERS OUR NEIGHBOR STORAGE AREA THAT WE WOULD PREFER TO COMPLETELY COVER THERE. WOULD HELP US GET THE PRIVACY FEEL WE WANT IN THE BACKYARD AND FOR THEIR ITEMS. CONTAINMENT - WE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED THIS AREA WITH RAISED PLANTER BOXES ANSWER MANY PLANTS AND SHRUBS BUILT IN. I WANT TO TELL YOU WE DID TRY TO PUT A LOT OF PLANTING IN THIS BACK AREA.

I WANT THE BACK WHEN WE FURTHER DEVELOP IT TO HAVE LOTS OF PLANTS BUT ONCE WEIGH GOT ALL THAT PLANNED AND SUBMITTED IT THEY CAME BACK AND TOLD US WE HAD THE EASEMENT THAT'S 73 FEET

[00:35:03]

SO AT THIS TIME, WE HAVEN'T COME UP FOR A NEW SOLUTION FOR THAT YET. SO RIGHT NOW, WE DO HAVE THE PRIVACY FENCE AND IF YOU TAKE THE EASEMENT LINK OFF OF THAT SIDE WHERE WE CAN'T PLANT ANYTHING THAT LEAVES US AT 2.8 TREES. WE DO HAVE TWO CANMY TREES.

THE ONE HE SHOWED WE HAVE ONE BUT THERE WERE TWO CANOPY TREES PLANTED TOWARD THE PARKING LOT. AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER TREE THAT'S ANOTHER SLIDE AND IT OVERHANGS SO, IT JUST KEEPS US FROM BEING ABLE TO PLANT EXACTLY WHERE WE WOULD WANT IT.

I DID HAVE PLANS TO PLANT OTHER TREES OUT FURTHER INTO THE YARD BUT AGAIN THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT HAD TO BE APPROVED SO WE DIDN'T PUT IT ON. THE AGENDA SAID THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE ENTIRE EXAMS BUILT BUFFER ON THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE BUT PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RD BUT THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE DUE TO EASE MEANT.

OTHER SHRUBS WILL BE PLANTED IN THE YARD ONCE IT'S DEVELOPED.

THE PRIVACY FENCE YOU CAN SEE ON THIS ONE, OH GO BACK TO THE OTHER ONE, THE PRIVACY FENCE IS GOING TO COME BACK TO JUST PROBABLY ABOUT EIGHT FEET PAST THAT CHAIN LINK FENCE THERE.

THAT TREE YOU CAN'T TELL TOO MUCH FROM THAT PICTURE BUT THE TREE DOES OVERHANG THE YARD SO IT DOES KEEP US FROM PLANTSING A TREE THERE. THE PLAN WAS TO PUT ONE FURTHER INTO THE YARD. WE DON'T HAVE FURTHER SHRUBS PLANTED AT THIS TIME AFTER BEING TOLD THAT THE OTHER PLAN WAS NOT GOING TO WORK DUE TO THE EASEMENT WE HAVE NOT COME UP WITH IDEA FOR PLANTING ON THIS SIDE.

WE WANT TO FURTHER PLANT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BACK BUT ARE REQUESTING THE PRIVACY TREES BE SUFFICIENT AT THIS TIME.

NEXT SLIDE GIVES US PICTURES. THAT'S OUR NEIGHBOR'S YARD.

THEY'RE REALLY GREAT. WE LOVE WHAT THEY DO SO WE ARE REQUESTING A PRIVACY FENCE AND THEN WE HAD SOME THAT WAS OUR ORIGINAL PLAN WITH THE PLANTERS AND STUFF.

WE ARE HOPING TO AND MOVABLE ITEMS THAT WILL ADD TO THE LANDSCAPING OF THE AREA. SO THE NEXT ONE IS JUST THE DUMPSTER AND AGAIN, WE ARE JUST FOR NOW REQUESTING THAT THE DUMPSTER BE ABLE TO BE UNCOVERED BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE TO REVISIT THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPANDING THE PARKING LOTS BECAUSE THE PLANNING AND ZONING HAVE MADE IT KNOWN THAT THEY THINK WE ARE GOING TO NEED MORE PARKING AND OF COURSE WHEN WE OPEN AND DO MORE THINGS IN THE BACK WE WILL, SO WE DO WANT TO CREATE A SCREENING FOR THE DUMPSTER UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE WHOLE PROJECT. WE ARE JUST REQUESTING IT WAIT UNTIL WE TOTALLY FINISH. AFTER THIS IS NOT THE WAY -- THIS ISN'T THE WAY WE WANT TO LEAVE THE DUMPSTER LONG-TERM.

HOWEVER, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THERE, IT IS INDUSTRIAL.

NONE OF THE OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE ANY FENCING AROUND THEIR DUMPSTERS SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S GOING TO LOOK AT A PLACE UNTIL WE GET IT DONE. NEXT ONE I KNOW IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE TERMINUS TREAT SO WE WERE KWPG NOT TO HAVE A TREE THERE BUT WE WERE REQUESTING THIS TREE COUNT THIS TREE THAT IS PART OF THE BUFFER COUNT AS THE TERMINUS TREE BECAUSE WE ARE HOPING ONCE WE FIND OUT HOW MUCH MORE PARKING WE WILL NEED AND WHAT WE WILL DO WE ARE HOPING WE FURTHER OVER AND ADD A COUPLE MORE SPOTS TERRMINUS.

>> ALL THESE NUMBERS ARE GIVEN ARE NOT COUNTING INCAPABLE AREAS THAT WE PHYSICALLY CANNOT PLANT THINGS.

SO IF YOU TAKE THE LENGTH MINUS THE AREAS THAT WE PHYSICALLY DUE TO THE EASEMENT DUE TO THE CONCRETED AREAS THAT PUTS US AT 484 FEET WHICH PUTS US AT 13.8 TREES.

WE HAVE 13 TREES AROUND THE PERIMETER AND OTHERWISE WE HAVE 18 TREES ON THE PROPERTY SO THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT THERE IF WE

[00:40:02]

THERE WAS COMMENTS IN THERE ABOUT THE REDEVELOPMENT AT THE SCALE OF THIS PROJECT EXPECTED TO INTEGRATE THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS INTO THE OVERALL SITE DESIGN AND THIS IS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. WE WERE SPECIFICALLY TOLD WE WEREN'T GOING TO HAVE TO SO IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WE ACCOUNTED FOR WHEN WE WERE PLANNING ALL THIS AT THE BEGINNING. SO WE ARE TRYING TO GET CLOSE TO THE REQUIREMENTS WHILE STILL MAKING SURE THAT WE HIGHLIGHT THE PROPERTY IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE AND ABLE TO CREATE A CONSISTENT FINAL PRODUCT. WE DON'T WANT TO PLAN A BUNCH OF THINGS AND THEN PLAN DIFFERENT THINGS.

SO WE ARE HOPING THAT YOU CAN SEE THIS AS A STARTING POINT THAT'S A SUFFICIENT MINIMUM KNOWING THAT WE DO PLAN TO EXPAND UPON THE LANDSCAPING AS WE FURTHER DEVELOP THE BACK.

WHILE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL THE PROPERTIES JUST ACROSS THE STREET CONSIST OF OLD HOMES WHICH ALSO DO NOT HAVE EXTENSIVE BUFFING AND ONLY HAVE LANDSCAPE PLANTING AND THEN EVEN THE LANDSCAPING ON MAIN STREET IS NOT COVERED IN SHRUBS AS IS BEING RECOMMENDED OF OUR PROPERTY. THESE ARE PICTURES OF OLDER HOUSES THAT ARE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RIGHT NOW.

THEY HAVE NORMAL HOMELAND ESCAPING.

NONE OF THEM HAVE BUFFERS COVERING THE BUILDING.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS SOME OF DOWNTOWN.

LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE A LOT OF GRASSES WHICH IS FINE BUT NOT MANY SHRUBS. IN CONCLUSION IN THEY ARE JIND A THE CITY SAYS THERE'S NOT ANY CRITERIA THAT AFFECTS THE BUFFER LANDSCAPE BUT WE FEEL IT IS UNIQUE IN THAT IS A HUNDRED-YEAR-OLD PIECE OF ROWLETT HISTORY THAT SHOULD BE SHOWCASED NOT BUFFED. WE WANT THIS HISTORIC HOME TO BE THE FOCAL POINT. WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO HIDE BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPING AN ARCHITECTURE FROM BEHIND A BUFFER BUT THIS HOME AND LANDSCAPING SHOULD BE A BUFFER FOR SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. OUR JUSTIFICATION FOR DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF RDC IS NOT SOLELY BASED ON FUTURE EXPANSION BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR LANG ESCAPED IS CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT SO WE DO NOT WANT TO EXTENSIVELY LANDSCAPE THE BORDERS AT THIS TIME F. WHAT WE HAVE REQUESTED TONIGHT IS ACCEPTABLE WE WOULD LIKE TO HOLD OFF ON EXTENSIVELY PLANTING THERE. ARE MULTIPLE OTHER FACTORS INCLUDING THE STYLE OF THE BUILDING AND WOULD H WHAT WOULD BEST MAIN H MAKE IT A DISTINCT PLENTY THAT WOULD ADD CHARM TO NOT ONLY TO ROWLETT BUT MAYBE HAVE PEOPLE TAKE A SECOND LOOK AND BE DRAWN TO DOWNTOWN. THE EXIST PARKING LOT AN EYESMENTS ON THE BUFFER ADD DIFFICULTY WITH LANDSCAPING THOSE SPECIFIC AREAS BUT WE PLAN ON COMPENSATING FOR THIS WITH EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING IN THE BACK AND IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING THE HOUSE. THESE ARE NOT ON THE ALP BECAUSE AGAIN WE WERE TOLD THEY DID NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED AND BECAUSE THE PROJECT IN THE BACK IS NOT FULLY PLANNED OUT YET.

SO WE ARE REQUESTING THAT YOU TAKE SOME OF THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION AND THAT YOU WOULD ALLOW US TO DEVIATE FROM THE FORMULA AND LET US USE SOME CREATIVITY TO MAKE THIS SPACE BEAUTIFUL. THANK YOU.

>> DO YOU MIND? SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THAT'S FINE. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. ENGEN.

>> YES. MY QUESTION IS, I TALKED ABOUT THE PARKING LOT. WAS THERE SOMETHING YOU LOOKED TO EXPAND WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS?

>> SO, YES. >> THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.

>> YES, AND THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T WANT TO SPECIFICALLY PUT A TREE THERE BECAUSE WE DID -- WE THOUGHT IF WE PULL THIS PARKING LOT OVER WE CAN GET A FEW MORE TREES.

THE ISSUE IS WE HAVEN'T MOVED IN THAT SECOND PHASE AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MORE SPOTS WE NEED.

WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE GOING TO GET THEM THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE. WE DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL HAVE TO EXTEND ANYTHING BACK SO WE JUST DON'T KNOW ON ALL OF THAT YET.

SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE AS SOON AS THAT AS WELL. LIKE I MISSED - SO WE ARE A SMALL BUSINESS. WE HAVE A SMALL BUSINESS LOAN.

[00:45:02]

SO AS SOON AS THE BUILDING IS OPEN WE PLAN TO START PLANNING THE BACK AND GETTING IT DEVELOPED.

AND SO, WHEN WE HAD FIND OUT WHAT ALL WE ARE GOING TO NEED PARKING-WISE FOR THE BACK, THE PLAN IS TO POSSIBLY EXTEND THIS PARKING LOT OVER OR EVEN EXTEND THE OTHER PARKING LOT OVER WHICH IS WHY WE WANTED A DUMPSTER AS WELL AND IF WE DON'T DO THAT WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PLANTING A TREE CLOSER TO THE PARKING LOT.

>> GO AHEAD MR. SWIFT. >> THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION SO I WANT TO GO BACK. WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR THE DUMPSTER? I THINK YOU HAD A FEW SLIDES

BACK. >> RIGHT NOW THE DUMPSTER IS IN THE BACK CORNER. YOU CAN BARELY SEE IT ON THAT NEXT ONE. SO RIGHT NOW IT'S ON THE BACK CORNER OF THAT BACK PARKING LOT. IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE IN THIS

PICTURE. >> IS IT NEAR WHERE THE ARROW

IS? >> IT'S UP FROM IT.

>> OKAY. >> SO THERE'S A BARN IN THE BACK AND THERE'S A CONCRETE SLAB DIRECTLY BEHIND THAT BARN.

THEY WANTED TO US POUR A LITTLE EXTRA CONCRETE TO THE SIDE AND THE DUMPSTER WILL GO THERE. SO, THE REASON I WAS REQUESTING NOT TO PUT THE SCREENING AROUND THE DUMPSTER RIGHT NOW IS BECAUSE THERE IS THE POTENTIAL TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND THAT PARKING LOT TO THE SIDE. THING WE DO HAVE ENOUGH ROOM THERE TO CREATE TWO ROWS INSTEAD OF JUST ONE SO WE JUMPS WANTED THE NEXT BUILT TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT DUMPSTER UNTIL WE COMPLETELY HAVE EVERYTHING WHERE WE WANT IT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> DO YOU MIND IF THEY?

>> NO. COME ON UP.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> MY NAME IS CHRIS JONES. I ALSO LIVE AT 1802 INDIAN TRAIL IN ROWLETT, TEXAS AND I THINK JESSICA DID A REALLY GOOD JOB GOING THROUGH THE POWER POINT AND PUTTING TOGETHER SO I WON'T TAKE A LOT OF YOUR TIME. WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY IS NOT IN THE CODE BUT THE REALITY IS THIS PROJECT, RIGHT, I MEAN THE STORY BEHIND THIS PROJECT GOES BACK TO LAST JUNE.

RIGHT? SO I'VE BUILT A RELATIONSHIP, MY FAMILY HAS BUILT A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MORALES FAMILY OVER THE LAST 5-6 YEARS THAT HAD EL CENTRO AND DOWNTOWN ROWLETT WHICH ALSO WAS BIG STAR BURGER WHICH WAS MY FAMILY'S RESTAURANT THAT I WORKED UP WHILE I WAS GOING TO SMU.

BUILT THE RELATIONSHIP. THEY HAD A FIRE.

IT CLOSED DOWN. SO THEY WENT OPENED ANOTHER RESTAURANT, EL HEFFE BY WATER VIEW.

DURING THE PANDEMIC WORST OF THE LOCKDOWN I WAS GOING OUT THERE ONCE A WEEK TO ORDER FOOT H FOOD FROM THEM.

IT WAS A SMALL TOKEN BUT MY THOUGHT WAS IF EVERYBODY SUPPORTED THEM THAT WAY THEY WOULD SURVIVE.

WELL THE REALITY WAS EVERYBODY DID NOT SUPPORT THEM THAT WAY.

SO ONE NIGHT WHEN I CALLED TO GET MY FAJITAS AND THE PHONE, NOBODY PICKED UP. I TOLD MY WIFE, I SAID I'M GOING TO DRIVE OUT THERE. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE MORALES FAMILY AND I'M GOING TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON.

SO I DRIVE OUT, AND THEIR BUSINESS IS CLOSED.

SO THAT'S ABOUT A 15 MINUTE DRIVE FOR ME AND YOU KNOW, I'M KIND OF A SERIAL ENTREPENEUR MY BACKGROUND IS M & A MOSTLY IN ACQUISITION ON THE INSURANCE SIDE SO AS I'M DRIVING HOME I START THINKING THERE'S THIS REALLY COOL OLD HISTORIC HOME IN ROWLETT THAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE AN AMAZING RESTAURANT BUT I KNEW ENOUGH ABOUT RESTAURANTS I WASN'T GOING TO BE THE ONE RUNNING IT. THEN I START THINKING MAN, THEY HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL RESTAURANT THAT HAD PAENGSDED BEFORE THE FIRE 400 YARDS AWAY. SO NOW THERE'S A BOOK OF BUSINESS. SO I'M GOING THROUGH THIS ON MY RIDE HOME AND I GET TO THE HOUSE AND I WALK INSIDE AND I TOLD JESSICA I HAVE BAD NEWS, EL HEFFE IS CLOSED.

HOWEVER I HAVE AN IDEA. AND I OUT LINED THE IDEA AND WE FOLLOWED THAT TO THE POINT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

I REACHED OUT TO THE MORALES FAMILY.

WE MET UP. I SAT DOWN WITH THEM.

I SAID LOOK, THERE IS MY IDEA. I HAVE NO MONEY.

[00:50:02]

SO, IN THE MIDST OF A PANDEMIC THAT AFFECTED THE ENTIRE WORLD, WE MADE THE DECISION TO INVEST IN OUR COMMUNITY.

WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT OUR JOBS WERE GOING TO BE LIKE.

WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE WORLD WAS GOING TO BE LIKE BUT MY LIFE AND I HAVE LIVED HERE OUR WHOLE LIFE.

WE WENT TO ROWLETT HIGH. WE WENT OFF TO COLLEGE.

WE CAME BACK AND THIS COMMUNITY MEANS SOMETHING TO US.

WE HAD THAT FIRST D.I.M. MEETING LAST OCTOBER AND WE PUT TOGETHER QUESTIONS, WE PUT TOGETHER INFORMATION AND AGAIN PEOPLE MADE MISTAKES, I MISS UNDERSTAND, ALL SORTS OF THINGS HAPPEN AND COULD I SPEND FIVE HOURS TONIGHT ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S BEEN WASTED BY BAD ANSWERS THAT WE GOT ON THAT MEETING BUT BASED OPEN THOSE ANSWERS WE MADE THE DECISION TO RAISE FRUNDZ H FUNDS FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FRIEND AND FAMILY CAPITAL PAGE I PUT TOGETHER A 550 PAGE MEMORANDUM TO COMPLY WITH SEC STANDARD.

I WENT OUT IN THE MIDST OF A PANDEMIC GOT A MILLION DOLLAR BANK LOAN TO START A STARTUP RESTAURANT FROM A BANK.

ALL THIS HAPPENED AND THE MOST DIFFICULT THING THAT I'VE TODAY EXPERIENCE THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS REALLY MY ENTIRE CAREER IS GOING THROUGH THIS PNZ PROCESS.

IT HAS PUT US SO FAR BEHIND IT WAS WASTED SO MUCH MONEY AND ALL WE'VE TRIED TO DO IS DO SOMETHING FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND WE FEEL LIKE WE ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR IT.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS NOT IN THE COBUT THIS IS THE REALITY.

WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS AND THIS HAS BEEN THE MOST EMOTIONALLY DRAINING THING I'VE EVER DONE IN MY WHOLE LIFE AND I'VE GONE THROUGH A LOT IN MY LIFE AND I JUST ASK THAT YOU H Y'ALL WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION FOR WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO BECAUSE AGAIN THE REALITY IS WE ARE TRYING TO BRING SOMETHING UNIQUE AN AMAZEING INTO THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND REINVEST IN OUR COMMUNITY AND THIS PROCESS OF ALL THE PROCESSES WE HAVE GONE THROUGH HAS BEEN THE ONE THAT'S MOUNTAINOUS CLOSEST TO THE BRINK AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE SHOULD WANT AS A CITY.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> THANK YOU.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM?

>> I'M OMAR MUHAMMAD, 1114 MONTCLAIR DRIVE, GARLAND, TEXAS, I'M ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT. I'VE KNOWN THIS FAMILY SINCE WAYS IN SIXTH GRADE AND WE ALL GREW UP TOGETHER PRETTY MUCH.

AND JESSICA REALLY COVERED EVERYTHING THAT I WAS GOING TO COME UP HERE AND PRESENT FOR ARCHITECTURALLY BUT ONE OTHER THING I THINK I WOULD POINT OUT IS THAT TYPICALLY AS HAPPEN ARCHITECT WHEN I GO TO DESIGN A PLACE, I WILL, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THE SURROUNDINGS AND TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BUILDING THAT I DESIGNED DOES NOT CLASH WITH THE SURROUNDINGS IN THE AREA AND THAT WOULD BE A TYPICAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.

SO, BUT WITH ALL OF THE SHRUBS AND TREES THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO THIS AREA IF NO ONE NECESSARY THE AREA EVER REDESIGNS THAT AREA WE WOULD HAVE RIGHT THERE WOULD BE JUST COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE AREA.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY BEING TAKING IN MIND WHETHER WE ARE GOING THROUGH THERE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. FROM THE, LIKE I SAID, FROM THE BEGINNING WHEN THEY HAD THE CALL I WAS ON THAT CALL AND I DID RELAY THESE THINGS AS SINCE THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE A FINISH OUT AND WE ARE GOING TO BE ADDING, DID I ASK IF WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF PLANTING MORE SHRUBS.

I'VE DONE THIS BEFORE IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND IT WAS A COMPLETE HEADACHE SO THAT'SY TRIED TO BRING IT TO THE FRONT BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED SO WE GOT THE ANSWERS WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AND PRETTY MUCH THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP HERE TODAY BUT I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY. I COULD ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING OR ANYTHING ELSE Y'ALL

[00:55:01]

HAVE. >> COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS

FOR ANY OF THE THREE SPEAKERS? >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO ASK STAFF ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

>> YES. >> STAFF?

>> THIS IS, I KNOW YOU WENT AHEAD AND I WAS GONE AT THE LAST MEETING BEING ON VACATION AND YOU APPROVED MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS OLD HOUSE, WHICH IS A HUNDRED-YEAR-OLD HOME AND HAS A LOT OF HISTORY FOR THIS CITY AND ON THE CORNER AS AN EXTREME SA- EYESORE. AND I SEE THIS AS A BIG OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE I HAVE GONE INTO OTHER COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY HAVE HAD RESTAURANTS PLACED INSIDE OLD HOMES AND I REALLY LIKED THAT CHARM. BUT HERE WE ARE FACED WITH ANOTHER ISSUE TONIGHT WHERE THEY'RE LIMITED IN SOME FUNDING AND I WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE CONTINUE TO BRING MORE PEOPLE TO DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET WITH THE RESTAURANT AND THEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT SOME MAJOR PLANS GOING ON FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.

I'M JUST GOING ASK THE QUESTION. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT IF WE WERE TO MAKE A MOTION TONIGHT THAT WE GO AHEAD WITH SOME OF THEIR IDEAS BUT THEY HAVE TO COME BEFORE US IN TWO YEARS IF THEY HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING, THEN SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE TO BE PUT IN PLACE. WE'VE NEVER COME ACROSS THIS SITUATION. CAN SOMETHING LIKE THIS BE DONE? BECAUSE A, WE DO WANT THEM TO PROSPER AND IF THEY DO CONTINUE TO GROW, AND EXPAND THAT PARKING LOT AND THEY WANT TO MAKE AN AREA FOR PEOPLE TO GATHER, MAYBE THEY MAY TAKE THAT BACK BARN, TURN IT INTO AN OPEN BAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WHO KNOWS? ALL THAT HAS GOT TO COME BEFORE US, BUT THEY DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND THAT PROPERTY AND I DO NOT WANT TO LIMIT THEIR CAPABILITIES BUT I DO WANT TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF WHAT THE CITY HAS PUT FORWARD BUT I DO WANT TO LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS THAT WE'VE NEVER TALKED

ABOUT BEFORE. >> SURE, COMMISSIONER ENGEN I CAN EXPAND ON THAT WHEN WE REVIEW REQUESTS FOR ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLANS OUR CODE FOR BETTER OR WORSE THE APPROVED CODE BY CITY COUNCIL IS EXPLICIT AS TO THE REQUIREMENTS, THE CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ASK ALTERNATIVE STANDARD TO ET CETERA AND IT IS VERY EXPLICIT THAT ONE OF THOSE APPROVAL CRITERIA THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER DEVIATIONS.

THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT ARE TRIPPINGERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DIFFERENT FOR DIDN'T FOLKS HOWEVER IT IS EQUITABLE AS WE HAVE DONE BECAUSE THE CODE IS WRITTEN EXPLICITLY. AS FAR AS FUTURE PLANS THAT WAS A CONCEPT THAT STAFF HAS SPOKE WITHIN THE APPLICANT RATHER EXTENSIVELY THROUGHOUT THE FIVE OR SO REVIEWS OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS OF THE ALP. HESE THREE - WE HAVE NOT SEEN ON PLANS ANY EVEN CONCEPT AS TO WHAT THAT EXPANSION IS.

SO IT'S VERY HARD FOR US TO TAKE THAT FOR FACE VALUE AND SAY, AND I'M SPEAKING OF STAFF, THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS CAN BE WAIVED HERE OR THERE, IT'S NOT IN OUR JURISDICTION TO DO SO, LIKEWISE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION WE HAVE NOT SEEN AN APPLICATION FOR, WE DO OFTEN KNOW THAT EVEN PLATS, EVEN PROPOSALS THAT COME BEFORE YOU FOR PLAT APPROVAL SOMETIMES JUST DON'T HAPPEN AND THEY'VE GONE AS FAR AS TO COME TO YOU FOR AN ITEM.

SO IT PUTS US IN A TOUGH SITUATION AS STAFF TO ACT ON THE GUISE THAT THERE BEEN FUTURE COMPLIANCE.

LIKEWISE IN RELATION TO YOUR SORT OF BUFFER PERIOD, I DON'T KNOW HOW LOGISTICALLY THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH A MOTION.

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOUR MOTION IS VERY SPECIFIC IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO DO ANY CONDITION LIKE THAT I RECOMMEND YOU SPELL IT OUT FOR US HOWEVER KNOW ONCE THINGS ARE APPROVED AND MOVING ON SITE IT'S VERY HARD FOR STAFF TO RETROACTIVELY COME BACK IN TWO YEARS AND SAY, OH HEY, YOU KNOW, YOUR C.O. IS ON THE LINE OR WHAT HAVE YOU, SO IT PUTS YOU IN A TOUGH SPOT TO

[01:00:05]

THAT'S A VERY TOUGH THING FOR US TO DO.

>> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. >> SURE.

>> HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE THEY REQUIRED TO HAVE PER CODE.

>> SO THROUGHOUT THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW TYPICALLY OR NOT TYPICALLY, THE CODE REQUIREMENT IS ONE SPACE PER HUNDRED SQUARE FEET FOR RESTAURANT USE SO QUICK MATH 27-28. STAFF DID MAKE THE CONCESSION WE WOULD NOT COUNT KITCHEN SPACE BACK OF HOUSE SPACE IN THEIR PARKING CALCULATION IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THEM IN THEIR EXISTING CONDITION. I DO WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SAY THE AMOUNT OF IMPROVEMENT IN THIS PROPERTY PROBABLY COULD WARRANT A REDESIGN AND REPAVEMENT OF THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE. STAFF HAS ACCOMMODATED THEM IN THAT AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT IS QUITE THE UNDERTAKING AND SO CONSEQUENTLY AS I PRESENTED IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION THE OVERLAP OF HARDSCAPE TO LANDSCAPE AREA ALONG ROWLETT ROAD. WORTH NOTING ANY FUTURE EXPANSION SHOULD AND WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED LIKELY THROUGH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.

>> OKAY. >> AND PARKING WILL NEED TO BE

ASSESSED AT THAT TIME. >> AND TERRMINUS TREES WHEN YOU TREES HOW FAR DO THEY HAVE TO BE?

>> THE COPED STANDARD FOR LANDSCAPE ISLAND IS SPECIFIC IN ITS DIMENSIONS 8 BY 18 OR 9 BY 18 AND YOU SEE THOSE MOST OFTEN MID PARKING STALLS CAN YOU KIND OF PICTURE THEM AS YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE STALLS SO THAT WIDTH IS RELATIVELY SET BY THE COATED STANDARD AND IT'S VERY EXPLICIT THERE'S A TREE REQUIRD SO THAT IS SIMPLY NOT A STANDARD THAT IS ABLE TO BE DEVIATED FROM IN THIS PROCESS. AGAIN WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE IT OR SOME ALTERNATIVE HAD WE KNOWN, WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING ON PLAN TO REVIEW.

>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. IF THE PARK IS LOT WAS EXTENDED BY TWO STALLS SOUTH ON THE ROWLETT SIDE, PUTTING THAT PARKING SPACE ALMOST RIGHT UP NEXT TO THE EXISTING TREE, WOULD

THAT COUNT AS A TERRMINUS TREE? >> THE LANDSCAPING CODE, I'M GOING TO USE AN INFORMAL TERM, DOUBLE DIPPING.

>> WOULD IT BE CONSIDERED A TERRMINUS TREE?

>> I TWO NOT BE CONFIDENT SAYING OFF TOP OF MY HEAD WE ARE COMFORTABLE ASSESSING TWO REQUIRED TREES AS ONE IN THIS INSTANCE AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

>> UNDERSTAND. WHAT I'M ASKING IS WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT TO BE A TERRMINUS TREE.

>> UPON THE EXPANSION OF THAT. >> RIGHT.

>> YES, SIR IT WOULD PROBABLY BE IN THE PROXIMITY.

>> I WOULD ADD LIKE CONNOR WAS SAYING THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPENSATORY BUFFER TREE TO MAKE UP FOR THAT.

>> I UNDERSTAND. I'M JUST TALKING RIGHT NOW THE SINGLE ITEM THAT WE CAN'T DEVIATE FROM.

>> SURE, SURE. >> SO, IF WE SATISFY NOT DEVIATING FROM THAT ITEM, BY EXTENDING THE PARKING LOT, WHICH ALSO IMPROVES THE PARKING SITUATION FOR THIS, THEN NOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLANS ONLY.

>> SURE. I DO WANT TO PREFACE THE CHANGES TO SITE DESIGN PARKING BEING ONE OF THEM IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE REFLECTED ON EVERY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET SEPARATE FROM LANDSCAPING SO JUST AGAIN SOLUTIONS THAT COME UP TONIGHT COULD HAVE REPERCUSSIONS. I WANT THE APPLICANT AN PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND SITE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS SUCH AS EXTENDING PARKING WOULD CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES THAT TWO NEED TO BE REFLECTED ON OTHER PLAN SITES SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S VERY CLEAR AND PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED ME TO REWORD THAT

PERHAPS. >> YES, PLEASE.

>> SO THE ALP FOR THIS EVENING IS TO DISCUSS LANDSCAPING TREES AND SHRUBS. ANY CHANGE TO THE CONFIGURATION OF PAVEMENT IS NOT IN THE SCOPE OF ALP.

IT COULD TENTATIVELY BE A CONDITION UPON.

HOWEVER IF THAT IS WHAT'S DECIDED TONIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REHASH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEETS THAT EVERYBODY CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TO REFLECT THAT CONDITION. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT

[01:05:03]

THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. >> UNDERSTAND AND IF THAT BECOMES A CONDITION, OF US APPROVING IN ALP.

>> YES, SIR. >> THEN I WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO SEE WHERE WE WOULD DISAPPROVE THE CHANGES TO THE REST OF THE

PLAN TO INCORPORATE THAT. >> RIGHT.

I'M SAYING THAT ADDITION DOES HAVE DOWNSTREAM REPERCUSSIONS.

>> UNDERSTAND. GARBAGE.

>> YES, SIR. >> WELL, ACTUALLY I GUESS THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE -- ANOTHER QUESTION.

THE TRUMPET VINES, WHY ARE THEY NOT -- OH MY GOSH.

THAT'S A HUGE SCREEN. >> SURE.

AND SO, WHEN IT COMES TO REVIEWING A PLANT SET THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN REGARDS TO THAT.

THAT WAS NOT MADE VERY CLEAR TO US ON THE PLAN REVIEW SO IT'S TOUGH FOR ME TO FILL IN THE BLANKS.

I WAS THE ONE THAT REVIEWED THE PROCESS.

IT'S TOUGH TO FILL IN THE BLANKS FOR APPLICANTS IN GENERAL, SO IT WASN'T UNTIL I READ THAT AS PART OF THEIR STATEMENT OF INTENT WHICH CAME IN, YOU KNOW ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF OR SO AGO THAT I STOOD PRECISELY WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO DOCUMENT THE ONLY ITERATION OF TRUMPET VINES THAT I'VE SEEN BEFORE ON PLAN WAS GRAPHICALLY SHOWN OFF SITE. VERY SIMILAR SITUATION TO THE TREE ON THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY THAT IS NOT THIS APPLICANT'S TREE, THIS PROPERTY OWNER'S TREE.

IT COULD BE REASONABLY REMOVED BY THAT ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ANY TIME SO I CAN'T PERHAPS SPEAK TO IT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T REVIEWED IT ON PLAN IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> UNDERSTAND. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WOULD YOU NOT CONSIDER THE TRUMPET VINES HERE OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION AND SCREENING AND PROBABLY MAKE PUTTING OTHER SHRUBS THERE A

MUTE POINT? >> SO, THAT'S REALLY WHY WE ARE HERE I HATE TO THROW IT BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER COTE.

>> I'M GOOD WITH IT. >> IT'S UP TO YOU TO DETERMINE IF THE REQUEST MEETS THE APPROVAL CRITERIA AND IF YOU'RE

COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. >> RIGHT.

I HAVE ONE OTHER THING. IT'S GOING TO BE FOR JEFF.

THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND WHAT CAN

OR CANNOT BE PLANNED THERE. >> WELL, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS MADAME CHAIR. IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, I BELIEVE THAT'S A PIPE. RIGHT?

THAT'S NOT A DITCH. >> NO, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO, DURING THE PLATTING FACES FOR THIS WHICH SOMETIMES LATER SOMETIMES SOONER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PROJECT IT HAPPENED EARLY THERE WAS AN ADJACENT 7.5 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY THAT WE WANTED BUILT OUT AN COMPLETED IN CASE FUTURE EXTENSIONS NECESSARY THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THAT APPROVED AS PART OF THE PLAT.

CONSTANT CONSEQUENTLY IT WAS NOT AT THE TIME PUBLIC WORKS -- OKAY. SO, THERE IS A SEWER LINE IN THAT EASEMENT AND IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO APPROVE ANY CANOPY TREES ON TOP OF THAT EASEMENT BUT WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY ALLOWED ORNAMENTALS AND SHRUBBERY ON TOP OF SEWER LINES.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE SCREENING FENCE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO

INSTALL ALONG THAT FENCE LINE? >> DOES IT GO ON?

>> IT'S NOT GOING TO GROW ROOTS. >> RIGHT.

SO THE THING IS THIS COMMENT WAS MADE THAT THINGS CANNOT BE PLANTED. APPLICANT INITIALLY WANTED TO DO PLANTING BOXES WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD TO BE PERMANENT BOXES ALONG THAT EASEMENT AND SINCE THERE'S REAL ESTATE TO MOVE THE PLANTINGS OUTSIDE THAT EASEMENT AND THE CODE HAS A STIPULATION THAT WHEN THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN REQUIRED PLANTINGS AND EASEMENT AND THE EASEMENT OWNER DID YOU NOT WANT YOU TO PLANT SOMETHING IN THIS CASE THE CITY YOU ARE ALLOWED PER OUR CODE TOTHOSE PLANTINGS WHERE NECESSARY WITHIN THE SAME YARD OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS YES THAT 7.5 FEET CLEARLY EXCEEDS THE 6-FOOT EXAMS BUILT BUFFER WIDTH HOWEVER IN THIS INSTANCE BECAUSE THAT EASEMENT IS THERE THAT PLANT

[01:10:03]

PERHAPS THAT WASN'T FLESHED OUT IN THE REPORT BUT THERE IS A CLEAR ALP ALTERNATIVE TO PROVIDING THAT.

>> OKAY. BUT AS FAR AS PUTTING A FENCE THERE THEY CAN PUT A VISUAL FENCE LIKE THE ONE THEY WERE

SHOWING? >> NO, IT'S ACTUALLY ON.

>> IT'S ON THE PROPERTY LINE LOOKS LIKE.

SCREENING THE CHAIN LINK FENCE. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT -- I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE PUTTING A FENCE WITH POSTS ON TOP OF A SEWER LINE, BUT IN DISCUSSING IT WITH CONNOR HERE, I THINK WE ARE OKAY WITH IT BEING MOVED JUST LIKE THE PLANTINGS WOULD BE MOVED OUTSIDE THE EASEMENT.

>> LET'S LOOK AT THE CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH POSTS THAT ARE THERE

ALREADY. >> WELL, OKAY.

BUT THOSE ARE THERE NOW. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DOING

SOMETHING. >> IN ADDITION.

>> IN THE FUTURE AND ALLOWING A CONDITION I TWO NOT BE COMFORTABLE WITH, PUTTING POSTS IN A UTILITY EASEMENT IS NOT BEST PRACTICE. BUT WE ARE OKAY MOVING THAT

OUTSIDE OF THE EASEMENT. >> THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THAT IS, WHO MAINTAINS THE AREA BEHIND THAT FENCE TO THE CHAIN LINK FENCE? YOU KNOW.

>> CERTAINLY GOOD POINT COMMISSIONER COTE.

IT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO INSURE

THAT. >> THIS AGAIN IS A SEWER LINE?

>> THERE IS A -- >> I DON'T RECALL.

I MAN IT'S FAIRLY SHALLOW BECAUSE IT'S THE BEGINNING OF THE LINE. IT FLOWS TO THE WEST.

>> I CAN'T IMAGINE WHERE. THANK YOU.

>> ROBERT, ANYTHING? MR. SEGARS.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN JUST HAVE A DISCUSSION.

I'M ON THE SAME PAGE WITH BOTH OF YOU.

THIS IS A LOT OF INFORMATION TO TAKE IN AND IT'S JUST A UNIQUE PROPERTY, IT'S SO OLD AND IT'S NOT LIKE A CHILI'S THAT NEEDS ALL THESE BUFFERS. I GO TO ROCK WALLS AN DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT CRAZY. I THINK IT'S NITPICKING.

I DON'T THINK THE STANDARD THAT WE HAVE STANDARDS WE HAVE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RARENESS OF THIS PROPERTY SO I'M HAVING A HARD TIME ACCEPTING WHAT THE CITY HALF HAS PRESENTED TO US ON WHAT THEY WOULD WANT AND I TOTALLY GET IT.

I JUST DON'T SEE ANY HARM IN LETTING THIS GO THROUGH.

I REALLY DON'T. >> CAN I SAY SOMETHING?

>> THE MINUTE WE START GETTING INTO THIS, THIS SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF QUESTION MARKS ABOUT WHERE THE FENCING GOES AND YOU HAVE OFFERED TO DO SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVE THINGS THAT AREN'T QUITE UP TO CODE. YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE GET TO THE POINT TO MAKE CERTAIN WE HAVE HAD IT DONE IN THE FUTURE? BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS A SUCCESSFUL OPERATION.

DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED MORE OPEN DISCUSSION HOW DO WE GET TO

THAT. >> MR. ROBERTS? CAN YOU COME BACK UP FOR A MINUTE? I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE CITY REQUIRES RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER PLANTINGS.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT EXACTLY?

>> SO, AS I KIND OF ELABORATED IN MY PRESENTATION, LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ARE RELATIVELY COMMONPLACE FROM CITY TO CITY AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE THE STANDARD THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL

[01:15:01]

SHRUBS OFTENTIMES ASSIST WITH A MYRIAD OF LIGHT POLLUTION FROM CARS THAT SORT OF THING AS WELL AS JUST A PHYSICAL BARRIER FROM ONGOING TRAFFIC SO THAT'S KIND OF IN OUR REPORT AN PRESENTATION. OBVIOUSLY WE UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATIONS ON ROWLETT ROAD. IT'S STAFF'S A CERTIFICATION THERE IS NO PLANT INFORMATION ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ALP. I KNOW COMMISSIONER SEGARS MAY NOT SEE HIT THE WAY BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THE STAFF IS CHAMPIONING ON OUR OWN PER SE. THIS IS A REQUIREMENT PER THE CODE AND WE ENFORCE IN EVERY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW THAT I HAVE EVER DONE HERE. IT'S VERY EXPLICIT. THERE'S NOT

MUCH, YOU KNOW. >> SO, YOU KNOW, IT PUTS THE CITY IN A SOMEWHAT POSITION OF MAYBE NOT BEING COMPLETELY FAIR WHEN WE REQUIRE IT BASED ON OUR CODE FOR MOST EVERYBODY ELSE AND MAKE EXCEPTIONS AND THAT'S THE POINT OF WHY WE ARE HERE AND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING WE NEED TO DO.

HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I'M FEELING WITH THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

ONE, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A BIG COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER WHO HAS A LOT OF MONEY.

AND A LOT OF OTHER PROJECTS BRINGING IN MONEY WHILE THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THIS. I AGREE, I THINK IT'S A VERY COOL IDEA. I'M EXCITED ABOUT IT.

I LOVE MEXICAN FOOD. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF BECAUSE THERE IS A HISTORICAL SITE IF WE COULDN'T COMPROMISE IN SOME WAY TO HELP THESE PEOPLE GET ALONG WITH WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. I MEAN I LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF SHRUBS SAYING 251 SHRUBS AND I DRIVE BY THAT PROPERTY FIVE TIMES A DAY PROBABLY BUT I DON'T HAVE IT IN MY MIND HOW ACTUALLY LONG IT IS BY HOW WIDE IT IS AND I KNOW THAT IT'S ALL BASED ON THAT. I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE COULDN'T POSSIBLY THE COMMISSIONERS GO AHEAD.

HELP ME HERE. >> YEAH.

I AGREE WITH YOU MADAME CHAIRMAN.

THIS IS A HISTORIC HOME. I DRIVE BY IT.

I DO DRIVE BY IT. I DO KNOW HOW LONG IT IS.

I LOOK AT IT EVERY TIME I GO BY BECAUSE BEFORE THEY STARTED THIS, IT WAS LIKE WHAT A WASTED OPPORTUNITY.

WHAT A WASTED OPPORTUNITY. WHAT A WASTED OPPORTUNITY.

OH. LOOK.

SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. THIS IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING.

TURNS OUT IT IS BECAUSE WE ARE HERE.

BUT NO, I LOOK FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO DINE THERE AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE. I THINK HER ENGEN SAYS A SIT DOWN RESTAURANT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO SEE COME. I CAN UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CODE AND THE COMPLEXITY OF TRYING TO PUT THIS TOGETHER.

I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK THERE IS A VERY EASY WAY TO SOLVE THIS. AND NORMALLY, I'M A CODE KIND OF GUY. OKAY.

IF IT SAYS SIX FEET IT'S GOING TO BE SIX FEET.

IF IT SAYS THREE FEET IT'S GOING TO BE THREE FEET.

BUT AS WE SAY, THIS IS A HISTORICAL SITE SO I THINK THAT ALLOWS US THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE DEVIATE FROM WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES. I THINK PUTTING WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES WOULD ACTUALLY HIDE THE BEAUTY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO -- MR. SWIFT UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD.

I WON'T MAKE A MOTION. >> ONE MORE QUESTION.

I KEEP HEARING THE WORD HISTORIC.

THAT I'M AWARE OF WE DON'T HAVE A HISTORIC DESIGNATION ANYWHERE IN CITY OF ROWLETT SO OUR CODE NOT CURRENTLY EQUIPPED FOR THAT

[01:20:04]

>> THAT'S CORRECT AND I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THE WAY THE CODE IS READ. WHEN IT COMES TO SITE CONSIDERATIONS AND THIS BEING A UNIQUE SITE IT'S AT LEAST OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT'S REFERRING TO THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL DESIGN OF THE FACT AND THE FACT THERE IS REAL ESTATE AND SPACE TO PROVIDE PLANTINGS. THAT'S MERELY OUR

RECOMMENDATION. >> IF THIS IS A BLANK PIECE OF LAND SOMEBODY DEVELOPING SOMEBODY USED CHILI'S WHICH I THINK IS RIGHT YOU WOULD BE UNDER THE SAIMENTD REQUIREMENTS TO ASK THESE GUYS AS WOULD YOU ANY OTHER THING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE CITY AND WHAT THE CODE MAKES YOU DO, CORRECT.

>>. >> THAT IS PRECISELY CORRECT.

>> THERE'S NOTHING ILLS CAN YOU USE AS A HORRIBLEAL DESIGNATION.

>> AT THIS TIME OUR CODE IS NOT EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THAT.

>> I'M GOOD. >> I'M GOING TO JUMP IN AND ADD JUST A BIT THERE TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THE PARAMETERS OF THE APPROVAL THAT CONNOR COULD YOU PUT THAT ON ON YOUR PRESENTATION PLEASE SO THAT THERE ARE REQUIRED FINDINGS THAT YOU MUST MAKE. SO, TO BE SURE, I THINK YOU TOUCHED UPON THESE THINGS. I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT YOU CAN REFLECT THIS IN ANY MOTION THAT YOU MIGHT MAKE TO SO THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE ON THERE, SO THESE ARE THE APPROVAL CRITERIA ON THERE SO AGAIN IF YOU MAKE A MOTION PLEASE NOTE WHICH ONE OF THESE YOU WOULD BE BASING YOUR FINDINGS UPON THAT THERE ARE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS TO THE SITE DESIGN WARRANTING SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO MODIFY OR DEVIATE FROM THIS REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION OF THIS CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT SELF CREATED 2 THAT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECTION RECOGNIZING SITE DESIGNER USE OR RESTRAINT THIRD THAT IT WILL PROVIDE FOR INCR INCREASES THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS BEING REQUESTED UNDER THE ALP IS ALLOWED WITH THOSE EXCEPTIONS THAT CONNOR POINTED OUT EARLIER. SO PLEASE IF YOU DO DECIDE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS BE SURE TO NOTE ONE OR MORE OF THOSE

FINDINGS. >> I DO WANT TO ADD THAT I DO THINK THAT SCREENING THAT DUMPSTER IS IMPORTANT REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS AROUND IT. CAN THEY IN LIEU OF THE FACT THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO BE EXPANDING THE OPERATION AND POSSIBLY MOVE IT LATER, WHAT TYPE OF MATERIALS COULD THEY USE

TO DO THAT? >> THE CODE IS PRETTY EXPLICIT IN TERMS OF IT BEING MASONRY AND CONSTRUCTION STONE BRICK

ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT. >> HOW BASED ON THE CHANGES MADE BY THE STATE CAN WE DICTATE THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OF A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE IF NOT A HOUSE?

>> A VERY GOOD POINT. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE DONE SO FOR SIGNS AND SO, THAT IS MORE OF A CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL

QUESTION. >> FOR SIGNS?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU.

I'M NOT EQUIPPED FOR THAT. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION ON THAT AND SO, WE ARE NOT PARTICULARLY UP ON THAT.

WE WILL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK TO SEE WHETHER THAT QUALIFIES AS THE WAY THAT THE STATE STATUTE WAS WRITTEN UP.

I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT TERM WAS USED WHETHER IT'S BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES OR THOSE KINDS OF THINGS SO WHAT CONNOR WAS LEADING TOWARD IS I GUESS I WOULD PUT IT OUT THERE WE'VE NOT ASKED, NO ONE HAS ASKED US THAT QUESTION.

>> GOOD WAY TO PUT IT. >> SO WE'VE NOT HAD TO ANSWER

THAT YET. >> IT'S BEEN ASKED.

>> WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT SHRUBS.

YOU'RE SAYING ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY YOU'RE REQUIRING

HOW MANY SHRUBS, 64? >> YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE RIGHT

OF WAY BUFFER ON ROWLETT ROAD? >> YES.

>> THAT PROPERTY LINE IS SOMEWHERE IN THE 190 MARK.

I'VE COMBINED THEM FOR THESE TOTALS HERE.

I'M SORRY. IT'S RIGHT THERE ON SCREEN.

[01:25:04]

64. >> SO YOU WEREN'T IN YOUR MIND INCLUDING THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

WE DON'T WANT TO -- >> A LITTLEBIT, YOU MEAN IN REGARDS TO THE IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING LANDSCAPING? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCE SOMETHING.

>> ARE YOU COUNTING THE FROM THE PICTURE SHE SHOWED US THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, ARE ALL OF THOSE SHRUBS BEING CONSIDERED IN THIS.

>> NO, MA'AM AND I CAN TELL YOU WHY.

WE SIMPLY EXPRESS TO THE APPLICANT THAT THAT DID NOT NEED TO BE SHOWN ON PLAN FOR OUR REVIEW.

THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A MISCOMMUNICATION.

WE DID NOT REALIZE IN TURN THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE COUNTED.

HAD THEY WANTED TO BE COUNTED TOWARD THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS WE WOULD MUCH WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO SEE THEM ON THIS PLAN. WE WERE SIMPLY UNDER THE IMPRESSION WAITS ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING NOT UNLIKE FLOWER

BEDS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. >> BUT IF THEY'RE USED THERE THEY CAN BE USED AT PART OF WHAT YOU'RE REQUIRING?

>> I HAVE NOT REVIEWED THAT ON PLAN SO DO I NOT KNOW THE PROPOSED NUMBER OR SPECIES THAT'S A TOUGH ONE FOR ME TO SPEAK TO. I APOLOGIZE.

>> WE ARE TRYING TO GET THESE PEOPLE SO THEY CAN START MAKING SOME MONEY AND PAY THEIR BILLS. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF SHRUBS TO ME AND I KNOW THEY'RE PROBABLY TRYING TO KEEP THEIR COSTS DOWN AND I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP THEM OUT CONNOR IN SOME

WAY. >> AND MADAME CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS WE ARE HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

I JUST WANT TO REITERATE WE DO HAVE APPROVAL CRITERIA.

>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE THAT HE MENTIONED ABOUT THE THINGS WE WOULD NEED TO CONSIDER IN MAKING MOTION.

>> YES, MA'AM. GO FOR IT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. CONNOR WHEN I MAKE A MOTION, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE INCLUDE THE PLANTING IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE THAT WAS SHOWN BY THE APPLICANT AS PART OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS MOTION.

WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE BEST WAY TO SAY THAT?

>> I'M GOING TO ASK IF YOU COULD BRING THAT BACK UP ON THE SCREEN

SO WE COULD SEE THAT. >> I BELIEVE THAT WAS IN HER

POWER POINT. >> WAS THAT A PICTURE OR

SOMETHING ON A SITE PLAN? >> THAT WAS A VISUAL PICTURE.

>> I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BEING SOMETHING THAT WE COULD

EASILY DETERMINE FOR COMPLIANCE. >> COMMISSIONER, I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU PROVIDE A NUMBER. I RECOMMEND YOU PROVIDE ME A NUMBER. THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION AND IN PART I CAN REVIEW THAT AND ALTERED LANDSCAPE PLAN TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR MOTION. I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU GIVE ME A NUMBER THAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH, WITHIN THAT PLANTING AREA AND I KNOW THAT SEEMS TO BE THAT I'M PUTTING IT BACK ON YOU BUT

THAT'S REALLY WHAT I NEED. >> HOLD ON WHILE I COUNT.

>> WERE THERE SOME PLANTS IN THE BACK? IS THERE A PICTURE OF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE AT ALL?

>> THERE IS ANOTHER SMALL PLANTER.

>> OKAY. BECAUSE I THOUGHT I SAW IT ON HERE IN THAT CUTOUT BETWEEN THE PARKING AND THE --

>> I THINK THAT'S JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE HOW SHE PUT THAT THERE TWO MONTHS BEFORE BEING ON THE PROPERTY TO END UP BEAUTIFYING.

>> I WOULD ALSO MAKE A SUGGESTION IF THE COMMISSION WOULD PERHAPS PUT A CONDITION THAT THEY WOULD SUBMIT AN ACTUAL PLAN THAT WOULD SHOW WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE SO

[01:30:02]

DIFFERENT ISSUE. >> I UNDERSTAND BUT THE DELAY IN THAT IS GOING TO BE A MINIMUM OF TWO WEEKS.

NEXT TIME WE MEET. THE QUESTION IS, TO THE

APPLICANT, WILL THAT AFFECT YOU. >> THE TIMING TO THIS POINT, RIGHT, SO WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING BACK LAST OCTOBER.

WE HAD SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS WITH PNZ IN THE FOLLOWING MONTHS.

SORRY. >> THIS CITY.

HERE'S THE QUESTION. WILL US TABLING THIS AND DELAYING IT FOR TWO WEEKS AFFECT YOUR CONSTRUCTION, YOUR

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE? >> YES.

THE PLAN IS TO TRY TO HAVE EVERYTHING IN PLACE ALL THE CONSTRUCTION DONE BY THE HOPEFULLY OCTOBER 1ST AND IF

NOT -- >> WE ARE TALKING TWO WEEKS FROM

NOW. >> WHEN I SAY THAT I MEAN ALSO STARTING THE PLANTINGS UNLESS WE WERE GOING TO GET AN EXTENSION ON THAT BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO OPEN UP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

BECAUSE OUR TIMELINE HAS BEEN -- >> AND I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU DO THAT. BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS WE

DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO APPROVE. >> SO I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

SO ON THE FLOWER BED THAT WAS WHEN I SPOKE WITH, WITH I HAD HAD A MEETING WITH MINAL THE FLOWER BEDS I COULD PLANT WHAT I WANTED AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BE PROVIDENCE.

THAT WASN'T ON THE PLANS. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

SHE'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. HOWEVER, IF WE WANT TO USE THOSE FLOWER BEDS AS PART OF THE ALP THEN WE NEED TO SEE THEM.

WE NEED TO HAVE THEM LOOK AT THEM.

WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THEM COME TELL US WE ARE DEFICIENT BY 20 SHRUBS AND CAN I SAY I DON'T CARE.

OKAY? OR WHATEVER BUT IT HAS TO BE ON THE PLAN. SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS, IF WE TABLE THIS TONIGHT, ALLOW YOU TO GO AHEAD AND GET TOGETHER WITH THE CITY AGAIN TO GET AN UPDATED ALP TO US.

>> IT'S A LONG PROCESS. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT SHORT AS POSSIBLE WHICH IS TO ALLOW THEM TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT IT AN DETERMINE OR GIVE US FEEDBACK AS TO WHAT THEY THINK IS SUFFICIENT OR NOT AND FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SAY YEAH WE CAN LIVE THAT THAT DEFICIENCY.

>> ARE WE GOING TO DO THIS ALL OVER AGAIN? ARE THEY GOING TO BE CRITIQUING THE BACK AND SIDES WHO ARE IS IT

ONLY GOING TO BE -- >> IT COULD VERY WELL BE THE

ENTIRE CRITIQUE YES. >> BECAUSE ONE OF THE ISSUES AS WELL AS IS THAT WE ARE ALREADY HAVING ISSUES WITH THE FENCE WHICH I WAS TOLD THE FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE WAS FINE.

>> I UNDERSTAND AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE NIGHT TO GET EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THE SAME PLAN EVEN THOUGH WE MAY NOT ALL AGREE IT'S A GOOD PLAN OR PROPER PLAN BUT IT'S AT LEAST A PLAN WE CAN PRESENT SAY WE CAN SAY YEA OR NAY.

>> I WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT OPTIMAL BECAUSE WE ARE PAST OUR SCHEDULE BUT IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE SO AND WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF ON POSSIBLY GIVING US MORE TIME TO PLAN IT.

SO THAT WOULD PUT THE PLANTINGS IN BEFORE WE GET OUR C.O.

>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT. >> RIGHT.

SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHAT MY CONCERN WOULD BE IS IF WE TOOK ANOTHER TWO WEEKS AN COULDN'T START PLANTING FOR, WE COULDN'T GET A QUOTE ON IT UNTIL WE KNOW THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO.

THEN WE GET A CONTRACTOR SCHEDULED A CONTRACTOR THAT'S STARTING TO PUT US FURTHER OUT BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THEY HAVE TOLD US THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO EXTEND THAT PERIOD A LITTLE BIT FOR US AND IF THAT'S THE CASE TWO WEEKS

[01:35:06]

>> WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS HELP GUYS.

THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL BECAUSE THEY'RE BOUND BY THEIR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AN EVERYTHING THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO STAND BEHIND THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY. THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROPERTY.

IT'S A HISTORIC PROPERTY. WE WANT TO SEE MORE OF IT TOO BUT I'M AFRAID OUR MOTION WOULD BE -- WOULD NOT BE CONCISE ENOUGH THAT WE HAVE LIMITED INFORMATION AND THAT THE CITY HAS LIMITED INFORMATION AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP THEM AS WELL.

SO, I THINK MR. COTE HAS A GOOD IDEA AND.

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION THOUGH BECAUSE YOU WERE SAYING YOU NEED THE CITY TO EXTEND SOMETHING FOR YOU?

>> SO, IT TAKES TIME TO PLANT ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS.

IF WE GO THROUGH THE ROUNDS AND WHATEVER HAPPENS BEFORE WE CAN GET OUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WE HAVE OUR PLANTINGS SO WE WANTS TO START PLANTING AS SOON AS WE CAN BUT THE FURTHER THAT GETS OUT THAT ALSO DELAYS OUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY UNLESS THEY'RE WILLING TO GIVE AS YOU TEMPORARY WHILE WE ARE WORKING

THROUGH THAT. >> MR. CONNOR.

>> YES. SO CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD WITH THEM GIVING THEM A LITTLE BIT OF LATITUDE IN TERMS OF THE APPROVAL DATE SHOULD THAT BE THE CASE TO GET THE PLANTS ON SITE FOR MYSELF TO GO OUT TO INSPECT THEM AND ISSUE THE PLANNING APPROVAL OF THE C.O. SO WHAT WE OFF TORE THE APPLICANT IS WE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE PRIOR TO RECEIVING THAT FULL C.O. WITH SOME SOON TO BE DETERMINED TIMELINE.

I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT, THROUGH THE CAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW WE DID NOT ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS BECAUSE TYPICALLY THE BUILDING -- SO THERE IS WORKING TO DONE AND THIS IS JUST A

MATTER OF LANDSCAPING. >> RIGHT.

THEY HAVEN'T BACK FILLED THE FOOT AREA.

SO I'M THINKING TWO WEEK DELAY GETTING THIS PAPERWORK

STRAIGHTENED OUT. >> ALSO WORTH NOTICING THROUGH THE REVIEW WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION WE WERE GOING TO BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL. IT WASN'T UNTIL REALIZED THAT A TWO WEEK DELAY WOULD BE SOONER. WHICH WAS THE PLAN WE DISCUSSED.

>> SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND ASK THAT THE APPLICANT INCLUDE IN THEIR REVISION SCREENING OF THE DUMPSTER, INCREASING THE PARKING LOT ON THE ROWLETT ROAD SIDE BY TWO SPACES IN ORDER TO GET YOU OUT OF THE TERRMINUS FREE PROBLEM. MAKING SURE THAT'S ALL OKAY.

AND ADD THE PLANTINGS IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AS PART OF THE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN. AND PUT YOUR SCREENING WALLS 7.5 FEET INTO YOUR PROPERTY LINE SO CAN YOU GET RID OF THAT INUNSIGHTLY MESS OF YOUR NEIGHBOR NOT INTERFERE WITH JEFF'S SEWER LINE AND CALL THAT OKAY FOR THAT PORTION OF THE ALTERNATE PLANTING. OKAY.

>> COULD I ALSO ASK YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC WITH YOUR DIRECTION OR ON THE PLANTINGS NEAR THE HOUSE I BELIEVE IS HOW YOU PHRASE THAT, THE SHUBTS OR FLOWER BED IS THERE ANYTHING THEY WOULD BE PROPOSING? COULD YOU GIVE US CLARIFICATION

ON THAT? >> YEAH, INCLUDE ALL THE PLANTS AROUND THE HOUSE THEN. OKAY? SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE THE DETERMINANTS AS TO WHETHER OR

[01:40:02]

>> STATE THAT. >> DID YOU GET ALL THAT?

SO YOU WANT ME TO RESTATE THAT? >> DID WE GET AN AFFIRMATION FROM THE APPLICANTS THEY'RE AMENABLE TO THIS? THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE]

>> LET ME ASK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

DO YOU NEED TO KNOW A CERTAIN NUMBER OR DO YOU HAVE A GOOD FEEL FOR YOU WHAT THINK LOOKS GOOD RIGHT NOW?

>> AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW SOME OF THE DESIGNS YOU HAVE ON THERE, I THINK I COUNTED 27 BUSHES IN FRONT AND IT WOULD REALLY MAKE THAT HOUSE STAND OUT AND THEN ANY ADDITIONAL FLOWERS AROUND THE HOUSE AND THEN OF COURSE YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT

ADDITION TOO. >> IF YOU COULD BACK UP A SLIDE IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AGAIN. OKAY.

SO IF WE CAN HAVE ON THE PLAN MR. ARCHITECT THIS VISUALLY ON THE PLAN, THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.

YES, SIR. >> SO AGAIN, WE WANT TO ADD [INAUDIBLE] WE WERE TOLD IT WOULD RESTART THAT 30 TREE -- DAY PERIOD SO IF WE MAKE THAT ONE TREE A

TERRMINUS [INAUDIBLE] >> THERE WOULD BE EDITS NEED TO BE MADE TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

IT IS IN A CONDITIONALLY APPROVED STATE MEANING THAT WE CAN PROBABLY ADDRESS THOSE CHANGES OUTSIDE ANOTHER FORMAL SCENE. ALEX.

>> THAT IS THE NATURE OF A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL IS THAT YOU WOULD SUBMIT RESPONSE AND AMENDMENTS TO CORRECTIONS AMENDMENTS TO THAT PLAN AND THEN WE ARE ON A TWO WEEK TIME CLOCK.

15 DAYS. IT'S A 15 DAY CLOCK TO RESPOND TO THAT. SO, IT WOULD NOT BE A 30 OR A 60 DAY AUTOMATIC DELAY. IT WOULD JUST BE HOPEFULLY A SERIES OF 15 DAY RESPONSES END OF WHICH WE ARE NOT -- WE DRIVE TO NOT DRIVE IT RIGHT UP TO THAT 15 DAYS AS WELL.

SO SOMETHING LIKE THAT SHOULD BE A PRETTY EXPEDIENT REVIEW.

>> IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO US.

>> NO. >> SO THE ALP WOULD COME BACK TO YOU PERHAPS REFLECTING THAT CONDITION.

IF THAT ALP WERE APPROVED WOE WOULD ED DID IT THE REMAINING

DOCUMENTS AND RELEASE THE PLANS. >> AND I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

BECAUSE THE COMMENT ABOUT EXTENDING THE PARKING LOT TO THE I GUESS WEST, THE BACK PARKING LOT TO THE WEST IS, THAT POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT'S THERE?

>> THAT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT REVIEWING IT FOR THE CLIENTS.

WE HAVE NOT SPECULATED THE STAFF WHAT IS PLAUSIBLE OR NOT.

>> THANK YOU. >> SOME ONE DID SEND ME A MESSAGE TO REMIND ME THAT AUGUST IS ONE OF THROWS TWO SPECIAL MONTHS OF THE YEAR THAT HAS A THIRD OR A THIRD OR A FIFTH TUESDAY SO WE UNFORTUNATELY WHERE I GO IS IT'S THREE WEEKS UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

I HOPE IT GIVES YOU 7 DATES MORE TO PREPARE THE PLAN ON THERE BUT

[01:45:07]

IT DOES ADD ANOTHER WEEK. >> OKAY, SO WHERE ARE WE ON THE MOTION? [INAUDIBLE]

>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> OKAY.

SUSAN COULD YOU READ THAT AGAIN SO THAT ALL THE COMMISSIONERS CAN HEAR IT? IT WAS VERY LOW.

>> SO THE SCREENING WALL DUMPSTER, THE SCREENING WALL AROUND THE DUMPSTER, INCREASED PARKING LOT BY TWO SPACES, ADD THE PLANTINGS AROUND THE HOUSE AS PART OF THE ALP AND THE

SCREENING WALL 7 FEET. >> THAT'S THE SCREENING WALL ON

THE WE WILL CALL THAT THE SOUTH? >> SOUTH SIDE.

>> SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. MOVE IT 7 FEET IN SO THAT CAN YOU PUT IT THERE LIKE YOU'D LIKE TO IN YOUR PLAN.

>> THAT WOULD ALSO BE TO TABLE THE CONSIDERATION WITH THIS WITH A REVISED PLAN THAT WOULD BE TABLED UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING AN ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, CORRECT?

>> RIGHT. SO, IF I'M -- IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I LOOKED AT THAT SEWER LINE.

THAT SEWER LINE SITS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

WE WERE JUST TALKING NOW. WE SIMPLY ADDED 7 AND A HALF FEET TO HELP WIDEN THAT EASEMENT BUT IF THE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE IS PROBABLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THEY SET THEIR FENCE A FOOT OR SO AFTER THAT CHAIN LINK FENCE, THEY'RE NOT OVERTOP OF THAT OF THAT SEWER LINE SO I THINK THAT CAN

WORK JUST FINE. >> THANK YOU JEFF.

SCRATCH MOVING THAT. BUT HAVE IT IN THE ALP.

>> SO SHOW IT. >> STONE WALL IN THAT ALP.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY MR. COTE TO TABLE THIS ITEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A SECOND DR.

MR. ENGEN. ALL IN FAVOR.

HOLD ON JUST A MOMENT. LET SUSAN GET READY.

READY? ALL IN FAVOR FOR TABLING THIS MOTION PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT WAS UNANIMOUS.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.