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

PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS ITEM 5A. UPDATE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MANAGEMENT: FINANCIAL POSITION, MAJOR PROJECTS, OPERATIONAL ISSUES, UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST AND ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST. DEBBIE MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCILMEMBER BROWNIE SHERRILL WILL BE PRESENTING THOSE ITEMS.

>> THANK YOU. THERE STILL THREE MORE DAYS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS EVENTS. THE HUNT IS ON FOR ALL OF THE HOLIDAY LIGHTS IN ROWLETT AND WE NEED YOUR HELP.

NOMINATIONS FOR THE LIGHT UP ROWLETT AWARDS ARE NOW OPEN AND WE NEED ALL EYES ON THE STREET. LET US KNOW IF THERE IS A GRISWOLD -ESQUE HOME YOU HAVE ADMIRED AND THERE IS A REAL LIFE DECK THE HALLS COMPETITION IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

SUBMISSION DEADLINE IS DECEMBER 12TH AND THE WINNERS WILL BE ANNOUNCED ON DECEMBER 17TH. STOP A COP AGAIN. HELP THE ROWLETT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION TO GIVE A LESS FORTUNATE CHILD A MERRY CHRISTMAS THIS YEAR. WAVE DOWN ANY OFFICER ON PATROL IF THEY ARE NOT RESPONDING TO A CALL THEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT DONATIONS OF TOYS AND OTHER GIFTS APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN OF ALL AGES. NEW AND UNWRAPPED TOYS CAN BE DROPPED OFF 24 HOURS A DAY AT THE LOBBY OF THE POLICE STATION HERE IN ROWLETT OR AT ANY OF OUR FOUR FIRE STATIONS. ALL TOYS AND GIFTS DONATED WILL GO TO ROWLETT ORGANIZATIONS THAT TARGET FAMILIES OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE FALLEN ON HARD TIMES OR ARE LESS FORTUNATE THAN OTHERS.

[00:05:07]

THE RESIDENTIAL SAFE REBATE PROGRAM HELPS HOMEOWNERS WHO HELP MITIGATE RISK TO TORNADOES, STRAIGHT-LINE WINDS AND HAIL BY INSTALLING A RESIDENTIAL SAFE RING.

APPLICATIONS BEING ACCEPTED THROUGH APRIL FIRST IN 2022.

REBATES ARE CONSIDERED ON A FIRST-COME FIRST-SERVED SELECTION PROCESS. THIS PROGRAM IS NOT RETROACTIVE AND APPLIES TO QUALIFYING COSTS TO $3000 OR 50 PERCENT WHICH EVER IS LESS. NOTIFY ME IS AN EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION TO ALL THINGS CITY ROWLETT. THAT IS NOT NOTIFY ME IT'S JUST THE NAME OF THE PROGRAM. [LAUGHTER] JUST MAKING THAT CLEAR.

>> JUST MAIL HIM.[LAUGHTER] >> YOU CAN FIND OUT ABOUT MEETING AGENDAS, AND IT, NEWSLETTERS AND SPECIAL EVENTS PER YOU CAN SPECIFY WHICH NOTIFICATIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE OR SIGN-UP FOR ALL OF THEM. YOU CAN RECEIVE FRIDAY AT FIVE WHICH IS CHOCK FULL OF CITY INFORMATION. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THESE AND OTHER CITY RELATED EVENTS PLEASE VISIT ROWLETT.COM OR CALL THE ACTION CENTER AT 972 ? 412 ? 6100. DUE TO THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING HAS BEEN MOVED FROM DECEMBER 21ST TWO WEEKS, TUESDAY DECEMBER 14TH. THE MEETING AGENDA WILL BE POSTED THIS FRIDAY AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COUNSEL, ANYBODY ELSE? GO AHEAD. COUNCILWOMAN BELL?

>> ALREADY TOUCHED YOUR BUTTON. COUNCILMAN BROWN? >> I THINK I'M GOING TO PASS IT OVER TO COUNCILMEMBER PAMELA BELL BECAUSE SHE HAS THE PROP. WE HAD A WONDERFUL IME FOR A GREAT CAUSE THIS LAST FRIDAY Y NIGHT. SEVERAL OF OUR COUNCILMEMBERS AND BRAINS THAT WE BROUGHT WITH US WERE ABLE TO BRING HOME THE SMARTEST CITY AWARD AT THE GST TINSEL AND TRIVIA FUNDRAISING EVENTS. WE HAD A GREAT TIME. IT WAS A WONDERFUL CROWD.

THERE WERE CLOSE TO 40 TEAMS IN THOSE TEAMS CONSISTED OF 6 TO 8 PEOPLE EACH. WE CAME IN AND ACTUALLY FOURTH-PLACE OVERALL BUT WE CAME HOME WITH THE SMARTEST CITY AWARD AND THERE IT IS RIGHT THERE. I THINK THAT ONE GOES TO BRIAN AND WILL GET TO LIVE IN HIS OFFICE AND GIVE HIM RAGGING RIGHTS.

[LAUGHTER] >> YEARS AGO WE ONE THAT AND TWO YEARS AGO WE WERE AT THE BOTTOM, ONE YEAR AGO THE EVENT WASN'T HELD AND NOW WE ARE BACK AT THE TOP AGAIN SO GOOD JOB.

THANK YOU GUYS. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS WEEKEND AT THE BIG WALMART DOWN THE STREET COME BY WERE GOING TO BE RINGING THE BELL. SOME OF YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL RING THE BELL FOR SALVATION ARMY.

COME BY AND PLEASE MAKE A DONATION BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BE BEATING GARLANDS. WE'VE GOT TO BEAT THEM!

>> THE CITY OF ROWLETT IS COMPETING AGAINST THE CITIES OF

GARLAND AND SACHS CITY? >> YES I DIDN'T MENTION THEM

BUT THEM, TOO. >> WE WILL BE RINGING THE BELL AT THE BIG WALMART UNTIL 7 PM PLEASE COME DOWN TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE SALVATION ARMY. SUCH AN INCREDIBLE

ORGANIZATION. >> YES IT IS AND IT HELPS A LOT

OF PEOPLE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. RIGHT THAT'S IT

[6. CITIZENS’ INPUT]

FOR THAT. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO OUR CITIZEN INPUT SECTION THIS IS A TIME DURING THE MEETING IN WHICH COMMENTS CAN BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC FROM A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES. PLEASE KNOW THAT WE CANNOT TAKE ANY ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL DURING CITIZEN INPUT. I AM GOING TO START WITH OUR IN PERSON COMMENTS AND THEN I WILL MOVE TO OUR WRITTEN COMMENTS.

THE FIRST SPEAKER WILL BE DEB'S GENDER AND THE SECOND WILL BE LAURA KALIL AND THE THIRD WILL BE READ GINO MARTINEZ.

>> NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE 23 MINUTES.

>> DEBORAH SCHINDLER. INTENT WAS TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE NEXT BOND ISSUE YOU DISCUSSED AT THE NOVEMBER 16TH WORK SESSION BUT I'M GOING TO LEAVE THOSE WORDS OF WISDOM FOR THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE THERE

[00:10:04]

ARE INDICATIONS THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG NIGHT WITH SOME INTERESTING AND MAYBE CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER I CANNOT COMMENT ON ANY REQUEST THAT CAME BEFORE THAT BODY EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T HAVE A BOAT AT THE MEETING IN WHICH THEY WERE ADDRESSED BUT BASED ON MANY OF THE COMMENTS IN THE LOCAL FACEBOOK GROUPS I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE SPEAKING ON THEM WITH MANY DIFFERENT CONCERNS. SOME OF THEM I AGREE WITH AND SOME OF THEM I DON'T AND SOME ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THOSE ISSUES AND SOME MIGHT BE LESS THAN DIPLOMATIC IN THEIR PRESENTATIONS. I JUST ASKED THAT ALL THE COUNCILMEMBERS REMEMBER THAT PART OF YOUR JOB IS TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE YOU WERE ELECTED TO REPRESENT, THOSE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUES AND CONSIDER THEIR OPINIONS AND REQUEST IN LIGHT OF THE STATE LAWS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES, SEARCH HER OWN CONSCIOUS AND WHEN YOU VOTE ON THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR OUR CITY AND ITS CITIZENS WHO WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THOSE DECISIONS. PUT THEIR BEST INTEREST FIRST.

I KNOW YOU HAVE THE ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS TO DO THAT BECAUSE YOU DID IT IN REGARDS TO THE CONCERNS THAT WE LIKE OWNERS BROUGHT BEFORE YOU A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. I ALSO HOPE MY FELLOW CITIZENS OUT THERE WHO ARE THE HERE TO GIVE THEIR INPUT WILL RESPECT THE PROCESS AND THE RULES INCLUDING THE TIME LIMITS SO THAT EVERYONE GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR SAY. I KNOW THE RULES CAN BE FRUSTRATING AND SOME ISSUES ARE HARD TO ADDRESS IN JUST THREE MINUTES. SOME OF YOU MIGHT HAVE READ MY LOG POST ON THE SUBJECT I QUOTED A PSYCHOLOGY TODAY ARTICLE ON HOW BEING INTERRUPTED AND SHUT DOWN MAKES PEOPLE FEEL IT'S NOT A GOOD FEELING. I'VE HAD MY MIKE THOUGH DEAD ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AS I TEND TO BE RATHER LONG-WINDED EVEN THOUGH I HAD CAREFULLY TIMED MY SPEECH AT HOME. I UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THOSE LIMITS. ON JUNE 15TH WE HAVE 41 PEOPLE WHO SPOKE DURING CITIZEN INPUT. IF EACH OUTSPOKEN FOR 10 MINUTES THAT AGENDA ITEM WOULD'VE TAKEN SEVEN HOURS. THUS NOT FEASIBLE OR PRACTICAL. THERE MAY BE SOME POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS. SPEAKERS COULD BE ALLOWED TO PERHAPS DONATE THEIR TIME OR ONLY UP TO ONE MINUTE OF IT UP TO ANOTHER SPEAKER AND THE LIMIT COULD BE INCREASED IF THERE'S FEWER THAN FIVE PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR AT THE VERY LEAST PREP SPEAKERS COULD BE SIGNAED AT THE TIME WAS UP AND ALLOWED A FEW SECONDS TO FINISH THEIR SENTENCE AND WRAP IT UP FOR THE MIC IS TURNED OFF. THOSE WOULDN'T ADD VERY MUCH TIME TO THE MEETING BUT THEY WOULD GO A LONG WAY TOWARDS MAKING CITIZENS FEEL LESS LEFT DOWN AND ACTUALLY SAW THAT TONIGHT IN THE WORK SESSION AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS GREAT. PUBLIC SPEAKING IS ACCORDING TO A LOT OF SURVEYS THE NUMBER 1 FEAR FOR MANY PEOPLE. IT TAKES COURAGE FOR THEM TO COME UP HERE IN FRONT OF EVERYONE AND FACE A PANEL OF THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE CITIES LAWS AND POLICIES.

>> YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE TURNED OFF. [LAUGHTER] I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH TO WARN YOU. AN. LAURA KALIL?

>> THANK YOU FOR COMING TONIGHT NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN YOU HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES.

>> MY NAME IS LAURA KALIL AT.YOUR HELP. I'M HERE'M HERE TO PRESENT. I HAVE AGONY, FRUSTRATION FROM THE CONTRACTOR GE MARINA CONSTRUCTION, THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND THE STATE EARLY CITY OF DALLAS AND THE LOSS OF ALMOST $30,000. I CONTRACTED WITH THEM TO CONSTRUCT AN EROSION CONTROL SEAWALL TO MY TICKLING PROPERTY IN JULY OF 2020. I ALSO PULLED AN APPROVED PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT AND I HAVE APPROVED ENGINEERING PLANS FOR BOTH CITIES. THE WALL WAS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER AND THE CITY OF DALLAS EMPLOYEE AND THE CONTRACTOR. NOTE THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS EMPLOYEE CAME FOR THE INSPECTION WITHOUT A SURVEY DONE TO THE TAKE LINE WHICH IS AGAIN THE PERMIT RULE.

IN THE MIDDLE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL CITY OF DALLAS EMPLOYEE SHOWED UP AGAIN WITH A CONTRACTOR WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE AND DECIDED TO WEEKEND CHANGE THE SPECIFICATION OF THE SEAWALL WITHOUT ANY VERBAL OR WRITTEN NOTICE TO US AND THE REASON TO DO SO. WHEN WE NOTICE THE CONTRACTOR INSTRUCTED AND CHANGED THE WALL OF SPECIFICATION WE CALL THE CONTRACTOR TO CORRECT IT AND HE SAID NUMBER I'M NOT GOING TO CHANGE IT TO THE CITY OF DALLAS TOLD ME SO. WE IMMEDIATELY MADE THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE CITY OF ROWLETT AWARE OF WHAT HAPPENS. WE HAVE EXCHANGED MANY EMAILS AND A LOT OF PHONE CALLS PER THE CITY OF DALLAS AND ROWLETT WERE SUPPOSED TO INSPECT EACH PROJECT BEFORE THE CONTRACTOR COVERS THE SEAWALL WITH DIRT. THEY INFORMED US THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS IN GOOD STANDING WITH THE INSPECTION. I ASKED THE CONTRACT TO HER

[00:15:04]

DURING THE CONSTRUCTION WITH THE CITY AND ENGINEER WHEN THEY WILL COME TO INSPECT THE WALL BEFORE THEY ARE ALREADY DONE.

THEY SAID THEY WOULD ONLY SEND PHOTOS OF THE TOTALLY COMPLETED PROJECT TO THE CITY OF DALLAS EMPLOYEE AND THAT IS HOW TO OBTAIN THE FINAL INSPECTION APPROVAL. REALLY? I DON'T HAVE TO WONDER WHY THE CONTRACTOR IS GETTING AWAY WITH BREAKING THE RULES LEFT AND RIGHT AND DOES ALL THAT HE PLEASES WHILE HE IS MAKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. BOTH CITIES SAID IT'S BETWEEN YOU AND THE CONTRACTOR THAT YOU HIRED BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY ARE MAKING OUR RIGHTS AND OUR POSITION TO THE LEGAL CONTRACT BETWEEN US AND THE CONTRACTOR WEAKER. THEY ARE GIVING HIM THE BACK PHONE NOT TO FOLLOW ANY RULES OR ABIDE BY LEGAL CONTRACT. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE CITY OF ROWLETT OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IS WILLING TO APPROVE WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED RIGHT NOW ALTHOUGH WHAT WAS INSTRUCTED RIGHT NOW IS AGAIN THEIR OWN RULES AND THE APPROVED ENGINEERING PLAN WHICH MADE THE WALL UNSAFE, HAZARDOUS AND - OVER, I AM SO SORRY YOU ARE GOOD THAT I AM SO SORRY.

>> I AM FINISHED ALREADY BUT THEY ARE STILL THERE AND I NEED YOUR HELP. I AM MISSING $30,000 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT,

CAN YOU PLEASE HELP US? >> WE NEED TO WRAP THIS UP, OKAY, I CAN REFER YOU TO ANGE WHO IS OUR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION BUT I CANNOT DISCUSS IT AT THE PODIUM BECAUSE IT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GINO MARTINEZ FOLLOWED BY JOHN S GOLA.

>> I AM REGINA MARTINEZ AT.TO TALK ABOUT THE SEWER AND THE FLOODING AT DET J OF ROWLETT OVER THERE BY TROY ROAD AT VINCENT AND STILLWELL ROAD. WE DID MEET WITH I BELIEVE IT WAS THE O'BRIEN CONSULTANT COMPANY AND THEY DID TELL US THAT THEY HAD DONE ALL OF THE STUDIES IN THAT EVERYTHING WAS FINE AND THAT THEY DID NOT NEED ANY RETENTION PONDS TO AVOID ANY FLOODING AT THE BRIDGES, THE PROPERTY OR THE HOMES OF MYSELF OR SOME OF THE HOMEOWNERS.

THEY SOUND VERY CONVINCING BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE NO PROBLEM WITH THE BRIDGES AND THE POVERTY. IF IT DOES, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE? THE CITY OF ROWLETT? I KNOW YOU CAN'T RESPOND. THE CITY OF ROWLETT OR BRIAN CONSULTANT COMPANY OR THE DEVELOPER? THE CREEK IS COMPLETELY SATURATED WITH CONCRETE, TREE TRUNKS, A LOT OF DEBRIS AND WHEN SHE PUT THAT DEBRIS IN THE WATER IS GOING TO CAUSE SOME PROBLEM. IF NOT TOMORROW IN THE FUTURE. ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE AWARE BUT THERE IS AN OLD VETERANS CEMETERY THAT HOLDS SOME CIVIL WAR VETERANS NEAR THAT LOCATION. I BELIEVE OR I THINK THAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. I AM NOT AGAINST PROGRESS I AM A CONTRACTOR AND I FEEL FOR THE LADY. IT IS BETTER TO AVOID US PROBLEM, DISCUSS IT WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY AND THE ENGINEERS AND THE PROFESSIONALS AND HOMEOWNERS. SO IT DOESN'T COME TO SOMETHING THAT HAS

[00:20:03]

ALREADY BEEN DONE AND IT TOO LATE BECAUSE OF COST A LOT MORE MONEY TO FIX SOME DAN TO TRY TO PREVENT ANY DAMAGES. SO, THAT'S THE REASON I'M HERE. I WILL FOLLOW-UP WITH EMAILS AND PICTURES OF WHAT I'VE TOLD YOU TONIGHT. YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN NICE MOST OF THE TIMES I'VE BEEN OUT HERE, ALL OF THE TIMES, I SHOULD SAY AND CONTRACTORS TO MAKE STAKES.

NOBODY'S PERFECT. I BELIEVE THEY ARE TRYING TO PUSH THIS UNIT FOR PROJECT P REMEMBER THE BLUE LAGOON? IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN. YOU GUYS ARE SMART PEOPLE AND YOU CAN ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS AND DO THE RIGHT THING. OKAY?;-) FOR YOUR

TIME. >> THANK YOU. JOHN SCOLA

FOLLOWED BY TERRY MILKEN. >> GOOD EVENING.

>> NAME AND ADDRESS. >> JOHN SCOLA.TO SPEAK ABOUT A CONCERNING SITUATION CAME UP RECENTLY AT PNC. LET ME ASK YOU ALL A QUESTION, WHAT WOULD CONFIRMING A PREVIOUS REZONE MEAN TO YOU? THERE ARE, IN THIS PACKET IS SEEMS TO HAVE ADDRESSED AT D&C THE FIRST ITEM OF THE FOUR THAT WERE INCLUDED. AND I WONDER WHY THAT IS. AND I WANTED TO BRING AN EXCERPT FROM THE PNC MEETING TO LET YOU GUYS HEAR

IT. >> THIS IS REQUESTING A CHANGE TO THE FRONT FA?ADE OF THE HOMES AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE IT IS A PLANTS DEVELOPMENT.

>> I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I DID EDIT THIS FOR TIME. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO GO OUT HERE THIS WHOLE THING IN CASE I

GET ACCUSED OF CHERRY TAKING. >> THIS IS REQUESTING A CHANGE-

>> SIR, CAN YOU STOP MAC I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE PLAYING EXCERPTS FROM A MEETING THAT IS BEEN EDITED. THE BOOK CAN GO OUT AND WATCH THE MEETING. CAN YOU ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE? > I'M SORRY. GOOD THING I HAVE IT HERE IN TEXT. OKAY, HE SAYS THIS IS REQUESTING A CHANGE TO THE FRONT FA?ADE OF THE HOMES AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WE HAD TO CHANGE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT VERBIAGE FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT. GOES ON TO SAY THAT AS FAR AS A CONFERENCE A PLAN BEING CHANGED IN THE ZONING MAP BEING CHANGED THAT ALL DONE, CORRECT AND MR. BERMAN RESPONSE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS ALREADY BEEN CHANGED. THE AGENDA ITEM AS WELL AS THE DRAFT ORDINANCES WILL REVISE THE CONFERENCE A PLAN TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY OF THE PD REGULATIONS WILL BE INCONSISTENT. MR. CO TABLE WAS UNDERSTANDABLY CONFUSED BY THAT AND HE SAID PD REGULATIONS BEING INCONSISTENT AS FAR AS HOW IT'S ADDRESSED ON THE FRONT SIDE OF THE HOUSE? FOR THE GARAGE DOORS? MR. BERMAN RESPONSE WITH NUMBER THE LANGUAGE REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES IS MORE FOR HOUSEKEEPING THAN ANYTHING ELSE. WHILE WE HAVE THE HOOD UP, THIS IS MR. BERMAN, WHILE WE HAVE THE HOOD UP WERE GOING TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT'S RIGHT. THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND CHANGES ARE A HOUSEKEEPING ITEM. THE MONEY AND TIME WE SPEND CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GETS RELEGATED TO HOUSEKEEPING. BERMAN STATES THAT WHILE WE HAVE THE HOOD UP WERE GOING TO AMEND THE CONFERENCE A PLAN.

THAT'S A CITY ATTORNEY ADVOCATING CHANGES THROUGH THAT ORDINANCE THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH GARAGE DOORS. YOU KNOW, WHILE WE'VE GOT THE HOOD UP? WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE? THIS PARCEL IS UNDER LITIGATION FOR ALLEGEDLY BEING

REZONED. >> I'M SORRY SIR, YOUR TIME IS UP THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. SO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS TERRY MILLIKEN FOLLOWED BY

JOHN SHOEMAKER. >> I AM TERRY MILLIKEN.ADDRESS]. I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE LAST OF TRANSPARENCY AND THIS JUST STARTED BACK IN DECEMBER OR OCTOBER OF 2019 WHEN WE HAD THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH WAS PURPORTEDLY A MANDATE FROM

[00:25:01]

MILLER'S PD. IT WASN'T ON THE AGENDA FOR EITHER OF THE COUNCIL OR WAS IT ON THE AGENDA FOR PLANNING AND ZONING BUT SUPPOSEDLY THAT COMP PLAN WAS CHANGED. WHY IT WAS DONE WITHOUT THE PUBLIC KNOWING ABOUT IT, I DON'T KNOW. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO. I ENCOUNTERED SEVERAL OTHER INCIDENCES THAT I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO DETAIL ON BUT I HAD TROUBLE WITH GETTING STONEWALLED ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING I HAVE BROUGHT UP TO THE CITY AND THAT INCLUDES PAVEMENT REPAIR, DETOUR PLANS DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS, DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 50 YEARS. I HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT DRAINAGE IS ALL ABOUT. I THOUGHT THESE PROBLEMS AFTER BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COUNCIL HAD GONE AWAY. BUT THEY HAVEN'T. MARCH SECOND WE HAD A COUNCIL MEETING AND SEVERAL MEMBERS INCLUDING MYSELF ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL AND QUESTIONED WHAT THE LEGALITY OF WHAT THE CITY WAS DOING FOR GOING AND DEFILING THIS PLAT. THE RESPONSE WE GOT WAS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO WAS VERY UPSET AND BASICALLY ISSUED A VEILED THREAT TO SUE US. NOW, THAT KIND OF THING IS NOT WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE A TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE TRYING TO SUPPRESS ANYBODY FROM SAYING ANYTHING THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE CITY STAFF THINKS. THE NEXT ITEM, WE HAD, HAVE HAD AN EXECUTIVE MINISTER AT OUR CHURCH TRYING TO REQUEST A SET OF PLANS ON LAKESHORE VILLAGE. TO GET CONSTRUCTION PLANS. HE WAS CONCERNED AND HE WAS TELLING HIM WHAT I WAS DONE AND HE APPLIED FOR A SET OF PLANS FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND HE SAID THAT THEY REFUSED TO GIVE IT TO HIM. HE SAID HE MUST BE IN CAN CAHOOTS WITH ONE OF THE PLANES. HOW CAN WE BE TRANSPARENT WHEN ALL THAT IS GOING ON? THE SIGN IS SUPPOSED TO BE UP TO INDICATE THE VILLAS PD IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED. AND IT IS GONE IT HADN'T BEEN THERE IN WEEKS. SO, HOW CAN YOU BE TRANSPARENT WHEN.

>> THANK YOU MR. MILLIKEN. JOHN SHOEMAKER FOLLOWED BY

SUZANNE HERRERA. >> MY NAME IS JOHN SHOEMAKER I LIVE AT 3101 MEMES WAY IN ROWLETT, TEXAS. WHILE WE HAVE THE HOOD UP I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS AND ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS I GUESS THE HOOD IS STILL UP, I SUPPOSE. I MET WITH PEOPLE AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ABOUT ISSUES INVOLVED IN A ZONING CASE. I SUBMITTED SEVERAL QUESTIONS TO THEM, ONE I THINK WAS OF CONNOR ROBERTS AND THAT MAN IN THE CORNER I DON'T REMEMBER HIS NAME. I SUBMITTED THESE QUESTIONS AND ABOUT A WEEK LATER I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THAT GENTLEMAN WHATEVER HIS NAME IS AND HE LEFT ME A VOICEMAIL TELLING ME THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. IN MY OPINION THAT IS EITHER A LIE OR THEY ARE TOTALLY INCOMPETENT. I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED HE WAS TOLD NOT TO ENTER. LATER, THINK HIS NAME IS CONNOR ROBERTS IN THAT DEPARTMENT ANSWERED THE VERY SAME QUESTION WHEN ASKED BY ANOTHER PERSON IN AN EMAIL. SO, WERE UNABLE TO ANSWER FOR ME BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO ANSWER TO HIM. SINCE YOU ARE APPOINTED THE MAYOR OF PTHE PNC WOULD LIKE YOU TO AT LEAST LIKE THERE ILLEGALLY ACT LIKE THEY'RE PAYING ATTENTION AND LISTEN WHEN CITIZENS ARE TALKING IN HER COMMENTS ARE BEING READ. THIRD, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT I WOULD LIKE ITEM.[INDISCERNABLE] TO BE REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA I BELIEVE IT'S ILLEGAL TO HAVE THAT ON THE AGENDA IN THE SAME ITEM AND WHAT IS OR IS NOT IN THE CITY COUNCIL. THERE HAS BEEN NO SIGN ON THE PROPERTY. NEXT, HER WRITTEN BY DAVID

[00:30:01]

FURMAN ABOUT ZONING RECENTLY REMOVED FROM HIS LAW FIRMS WEBSITE? I WANT TO TELL YOU IT AIN'T GONE. YOU PUT IT ON THE WEBSITE IT AIN'T GONE IT WILL NEVER BE GONE WE GOT IT. I THINK THE REASON IS BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS SOME OF THE COUNCIL HE HAD BEEN GIVING YOU. THIRDLY, OR LASTLY THE CITY WEBSITE SAYS THAT THE FUNCTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IS " REPRESENTING ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS SO, IT IS REPRESENTING THE RESIDENTS. IT DOES NOT SAY IT IS REPRESENTING THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF THESE COMPANIES.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. MR. MARGOLIS YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT.

IF THE LAWSUIT GOES AGAINST THE CITY IT WON'T BE NICE. THANK

YOU. >> THANK YOU MR. SHOEMAKER.

SUSANNA HERRERA. DID I SAY IT RIGHT? YOU WILL CORRECT ME. I DIDN'T KNOW IF I PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME RIGHT.

>> YES. I AM PAVELKA HERRERA. >> YES, HERRERA IS MY MARRIED NAME. WE ARE DOING THE VILLAS AND NOT JUST CITIZENINPUT? OR

ARE WE DOING THE VILLAS? >> THIS IS CITIZENINPUT.

>> FOR CITIZEN INPUT I WANT TO HIT ON REALLY QUICK WHAT MR.

MILLIKEN TALKED ABOUT. >> NAME AND ADDRESS?

>>.MILLIKEN TALKED ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT HAD THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT IS SUPPOSED TO ALLOW ACT BEST TO GOVERNMENT RECORDS OR INFORMATION AND THAT'S ALL THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN COLLECTED, ASSEMBLED OR MAINTAINED AND IT IS THERE FOR PUBLIC USE. I THINK I ALREADY MENTIONED THAT I WAS DENIED, I PROBABLY HADN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT BUT I GOT DENIED THE PLAN I REQUESTED THE PLAN ON SEPTEMBER 16TH AND I THINK THE CITY WAS SERVED THE SUIT ON SEPTEMBER TENT BUT I'M NOT SURE ON THAT DATE. I REQUESTED PLANS ON THE 16TH. SEPTEMBER, TWICE ON THE 16TH I REQUESTED THEM AND ON THE 22ND I GUESS YOU RESPONDED TO ME ON THE 23RD YOU RESPONDED AGAIN. ON THE 23RD YOU RESPONDED TO MORE TIMES. AND THEN ONE MORE TIME YOU RESPONDED THAT YOU WANTED ME TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN BECAUSE YOU HAD SEVERAL TIMES ASKED ME ABOUT HIGHLIGHTED AREAS IF I AGREED WITH THAT OR NOT. MRS. HALLMARK WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I GUESS EVERYTHING WAS EXACTLY THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. THE THING IS THAT I AM ASKING FOR THE PLANS AND ANY CIVIL ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR WOULD KNOW WHAT THE PLANS WERE.

YOU DENIED THEM TO ME UNDER SECTION 383 OPEN RECORD OR GOVERNMENT CODE 5 FIVE POINT THREE INFORMATION ACT INFORMATION RELATED TO LITIGATION LITIGATION PENDING RESPONSE LETTER TO AG PAXTON. LET'S TALK ABOUT A COUPLE THINGS REALLY QUICK. THE TECHNICAL TERM NOT DEFINED BY A STATUTE G8 0608 UNDER EXPERT TESTIMONY HUSBAND IS A SENIOR SERVICE TECHNICIAN AND THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION PLANS IN THE LAWSUIT. SUING VER THOMA, COMP PLAN AND ZONING. NOTHING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION PLANS IN THE LAWSUIT. THE HUSBAND AS AN EXPERT WITNESS CAN MAINTAIN THAT CONSTRUCTION PLANS, COMP PLANS AND ZONING ARE ALL SEPARATE ITEMS. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

>> WHERE ARE YOU? STAND UP AND TELL THEM THERE'S A DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION PLANS. >> MISS?

>> THERE IS. ALSO, 1980 OPEN RECORDS 511 SECTION 1 OR TD PARTIES TO LITIGATION HAVE INSPECTED NINE PLANS ACTION 383 NO LONGER APPLIES BECAUSE WE SAW THE SURVEY 10 DAYS AGO SHOWS A NEW DEVELOPMENT ALLAYOU

>> MISS, YOUR TIME IS UP, I AM SORRY. MISS, YOUR TIME IS UP.

[00:35:13]

YOUR THREE MINUTES IS UP. MS. HERRERA, YOUR TIME IS UP, PLEASE. LAURA ARE THERE ANY MORE SPEAKERS IN PERSON? CITIZENINPUT? I HAVE TWO WRITTEN COMMENTS THE FIRST ONE IS FROM STEPHANIE HIGGINS AND FIRST OF ALL I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS I KNOW THIS IS A THANKLESS JOB. UNFORTUNATELY I WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT'S MEETING AND WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR AS A CITIZEN OF ROWLETT AM OPPOSED TO ANY MORE MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION IN OUR AREA THE SUM ISSUES WITH THE CITY'S CONTRACTING LARGE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS AND NOT BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO CONTAIN APPEARED WE HAVE RESIDENTS THAT ARE RUNNING SMELL OF SEWAGE, POTHOLES AND NIGHTMARE TRAFFIC. IS ROWLETT GOING TO LET US IN DEPTH LIKE CALIFORNIA AND HAVE FREQUENT BLACKOUTS IN THE CITY? LET'S FOCUS MRE ON IT EXTENDING THE STREETS AND ADDING SIDEWALKS. WE HAVE SO MANY SIDEWALKS IN THE CITY JUST ABRUPTLY COME TO A STOP AROUND NEIGHBORHOODS AND EVEN ON MAIN ROADS LIKE DALROCK AND 66 WISE IS A PROBLEM IN THE CITY? THE LAST ITEM IS MULTIPLE PAGES. I'M GOING TO LIMIT IT TO THREE MINUTES AND I'M GOING TO READ IT TO QUICKLY AND SEE HOW FAR I CAN GET. THIS IS FROM STANLEY AND VIRGINIA POLLARD. A CITIZEN GETS THREE MINUTES BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WHETHER IT BE FOR ONE OR MORE SUBJECTS DURING CITIZEN INPUT. WE MINISTRY A PUBLIC HEARING THREE MINUTES OF THE PNC LEVEL HOWEVER THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE COUNCIL GETS UNLIMITED TIME BEFORE PRESENTATION EVEN THOUGH BOTH BODIES HAVE THE APPLICATION AND WRITE UP WELL BEFORE THE MEETING TO STUDY AND THEY GET AN UNLIMITED TIME FOR REBUTTAL TO CITY STAFF PRESENTATION INTO THE COMMENTS. IT SEEMS LOPSIDED IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT. I REALIZE THAT NEITHER YOU OR PNC WANTS TO BE IN A MEETING SEVERAL HOURS DURING THE MEETING AND RUNNING INTO EARLY AM HOURS BUT YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH A FAIR SYSTEM EVEN IF THAT'S CUTTING THE APPLICANT DOWN TO FIVE OR 10 MINUTES AND ELEVATING THE CITIZEN TO FIVE MINUTES EACH. AFTER ALL, YOU'VE ALREADY HAVE HOURS TO STUDY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. YOU'VE ALLOWED THE PACKING OF THE CITY MORE ZONING ON THE GROUND SUCH AS THE TOWNHOMES IN NORTHEAST ROAD FROM SF 40 TESTIFY. SW. RADIO RD. FROM DELL ROCKDALROCK NORTHWEST MILLER ROAD AND DALROCK FROM APARTMENTS AND FOUR FROM FS NINE CANTERBURY WOODSIDE FROM CHIESA TO PEARSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO 7.5, 29 LOT AND SIX WILSON AND WOODSIDE FROM SF NINE TO SF FIVE WITH 3300 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. YOU WOULD NOT ASK THE DEVELOPERS APPLICANTS OF WILL OR ROAD, OR ROWLETT ROAD AT THE INTERSECTIONS. 2 LANES RADIO RD. AND DALROCK AND TULFOR ITS INTERSECTION. THERE ARE OTHER PLACES AROUND THE CITY NOT MENTIONED. INSTEAD ALL THE TAXPAYERS OF ROWLETT LOOKING TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE ROADWAY PROBLEMS AND IT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR WHEN THE DEVELOPERS APPLICANTS HAVE MONEY AND LEAVE THE CITY WITH PROBLEMS. ADAM EIGHT A AND EIGHT B THE COUNCIL PLAN OF MULTIFAMILY ZONING. I RECOLLECT MARY AND MAJORITY OF COUNCILMEMBERS AS STATED SEVERAL TIMES IN LAST YEAR'S THEY ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY APARTMENTS UNTIL WE SEE THE ABSORPTION RATE. 2019 PLAN REVISION STATES THAT ROWLETT CAN TAKE UP TO 520 FIVE FAMILY UNITS PER YEAR. FOR A COMBINED YEAR OF 2019 TO 2021 OPEN UNIT FOR THREE YEARS 1019 UNITS WILL EXCEED THE TOTAL IN THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN FOR THREE YEARS. 2022 OPENING ESTIMATED 6 A THIRD 3+. TOTAL MULTIFAMILY UNITS FROM 2014 TO 2021 EIGHT YEARS APPROVED AND OPEN 4796 UNITS. 1.5 VEHICLES PER UNIT CONSERVATIVE EQUAL 7194 ADDITIONAL VEHICLES ON THE ROAD. YET NOT 1 SINGLE ST.

SERVICIG THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS HAS BEEN WIDENED OR EXPECTED TO BE IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS. NOT HIGHWAY 66 NOT FOUR-LANE DELL ROCK - ALL RIGHT THAT CONCLUDES OUR CITIZENINPUT SECTION THERE WILL BE MORE COMMON FROM THE PUBLIC IN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS

[7. CONSENT AGENDA]

[00:40:04]

LATER IN THE MEETING. GOING TO MOVE TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA IS SERIES OF ITEMS THAT WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD AND CONSIDERED IN TOTALITY FOR THE COUNCIL HAS NOT ASKED FOR ANY OF THESE ITEMS TO BE REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION AND IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE I WOULD LIKE AN ITEM REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE, LAURA, WOULD YOU PLEASE

READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD? >> 7A. CONSIDER APPROVING THE MINUTES. 7B. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINANCING AND AUTHORIZE LEASING OF A FIRE LADDER TRUCK. 7C. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ABANDONING A RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION OF DALROCK ROAD.

7D. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO CAST A VOTE FOR REPRESENTATION.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RE 7E. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO CAST A

VOTE FOR REPRESENTATION. >> COUNCILMEMBER ROBERT BLAKE

MARGOLIS? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE ITEMS WRITTEN INTO THE RECORD?

>> COUNCILMEMBER MARTHA BROWN? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE CALL A VOTE. THOSE ITEMS PASSED 7-0 WERE GOING TO MOVE TO OUR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS AND WERE GOING TO START WITH ITEM EIGHT A AND 8B ARE YOU GOING TO BE PRESENTING ON BOTH OF THESE ITEMS AT THE SAME TIME?

[8A. Consider and take action on a resolution authorizing a bond issuance for financing by the Rowlett Housing Finance Corporation for the residential development known as Vista North Shore Apartments, the 13.94-acre tract of land is located north of the intersection of Merritt Road and Castle Drive, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

>> 8A. CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A BOND ISSUANCE FOR?FINANCING BY THE ROWLETT HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS VISTA NORTH SHORE APARTMENTS, THE 13.94-ACRE TRACT OF LAND IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF MERRITT ROAD AND CASTLE DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. MISS MELINDA THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. COUNSEL AND VIEWING AUDIENCE MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS TO ASSESS AND TAKE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ROWLETT HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION IN ORDER TO ISSUE A $35 MILLION BOND TO FINANCE A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT COMPLEX ON MERRITT ROAD AND CASTLE ROAD KNOWN AS VISTA NORTH SHORE. UNDER THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROAD AND ARTICLE OF INCORPORATION MAY NOT ISSUE ANY BOND OF WRITTEN CONSENT INTO THE CITY. SOME OF THE IRS REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ITEM IN ONE OF THE REASONS IT'S HERE IS THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WAS REQUIRED BY A NEW FINANCE CORPORATION UNDER THE TAX EQUITY AND PHYSICAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT KNOWN AS THE TOUGHER A ACRONYM ON THE 27TH OF THIS YEAR IN OCTOBER APPEARED REGARDING THE PROPOSAL TO ISSUE BONDS FOR A MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS THEY FOLLOW THE REQUISITE REQUIREMENTS CONDUCTED THE PROPER NOTICES NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED. THE COUNCIL FOR YOUR IDENTIFICATION WE WILL BE HERE TO FURTHER ELABORATE ON THIS ITEM AS WELL SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. IT'S A RATHER SHORT PRESENTATION BECAUSE THE ITEM IS FOR THE COUNCIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND ACCEPT YOUR RESOLUTION FOR THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS RESOLUTION AND THERE WILL BE NO RELIABILITY ON THE CITY AND SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF HOUSING AND FINANCE CORPORATION. I WILL TRY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> COUNSEL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MUNAL FOR WE BRING THE COUNCIL UP? NOT AT THIS TIME?

>> MY NAME IS MARK MALVEAUX. I SERVE AS COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND AGAIN I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AS A REQUIREMENT THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE CONDUCTED AND THAT WAS DONE ON THE 27TH THERE'S NO COMMENTS TO IT AND AS RESULT UNDER THE CODE WE HAVE REQUIRED YOU THE HIGHEST GOVERNING OFFICIAL OR GOVERNING BODY TO PROVIDE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECTS SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX PLAN. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION BE

HAPPY TO ANSWER. >> THINK YOU VERY MUCH I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

SO, IF THIS RESOLUTION IS NOT APPROVED, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT AS IT STANDS WITH THIS DEVELOPER?

>> THEY ARE EXPECTED TO CLOSE THE FUND ON THE 15TH AND THAT

WOULD NOT HAPPEN. >> OKAY THE BOND WOULD NOT BE ISSUED IN THE

PROJECT WOULD NOT BE FUNDED? >> THE BONDS WOULD NOT BE

ISSUED. >> WOULD NOT BE FUNDED WITH THOSE BONDS? THE BONDS IN QUESTION WITH THIS RESOLUTION? THAT WAS MY QUESTION. COUNSEL? THANK YOU SIR.

>> COUNCILMEMBER MATT GRUBISICH?

[00:45:01]

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF MUNAL REALLY QUICK FOR THE RECORD? CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH A LITTLE BIT THE HISTORY OF THE TIMELINE IN TERMS OF THE TURNOVER ON THIS PROPERTY AND ALSO THE DEVELOPER THAT THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION IS PROPOSING TO WORK WITH ON THIS PROJECT?

>> YES. IF IT IS APPROPRIATE CAN I SWITCH TO THE OTHER PRESENTATION BECAUSE THE DETAILS ARE MORE PARENT IN THAT ONE THE NEXT ITEM BUT THERE ARE COMMON DETAILS ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME. I DON'T KNOW THEM OFF THE TOP OF

MY HEAD. >> I THINK THAT INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS CONSIDERATION SO LET ME GO AHEAD AND READ THAT INTO THE RECORD AND LET'S DO THAT PRESENTATION AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS ITEM IF THAT'S OKAY FOR EVERYBODY. ALL RIGHT. 8B. CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILOT) AGREEMENT WITH TX VISTA NORTHSHORE, LP., FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS VISTA NORTH SHORE APARTMENTS, THE 13.94-ACRE TRACT OF LAND IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF MERRITT ROAD AND CASTLE DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS..

>> THINK YOU COUNSEL. TEXAS NORTH SHORE LP IS REQUESTING A PILOT AGREEMENT BASICALLY IN PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES ON MERRITT ROAD AND CASTLE DRIVE. THIS IS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ROWLETT FINANCE CORPORATION AS WELL TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON TEXAS NORTH SHORE LP AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN THEY ARE THE SAME DEVELOPER FOR WHAT WE SEEN IN THE CITY. I THINK IT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. THEY ARE DESIGNING THE PROJECT AND COMPLETING SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND WE ARE NOW AT THE NEXT STAGE WHERE THEY ARE AT THE NECK STAGE AND GETTING READY TO SECURE FINANCING AND GETTING READY TO GO VERTICAL WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. COUNSEL, IF YOU REMEMBER A YEAR AND HALF AGO A REGULATING PLAN WAS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION AT ONE POINT TO DEVELOP THIS SITE WITH TAX CREDITS AND THAT DID NOT COME TO FRUITION THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT REALIZED AND FAST-FORWARD SIX MONTHS LATER THE ROWLETT HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION CAME FORWARD WITH TEXAS LP THAT I JUST MENTIONED NORTH SHORE AND THEY ARE NOW PROCEEDING WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. ALL OF THE REQUISITE THE WORD I WOULD USE IS ENTITLEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE ZONING ASKED ACT SUCH AS A REQUIREMENT OF OVER REGULATING AND APPROVE DETAIL PLAN OR ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS HAVE BEEN CLOSED. THE APPLICATION THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU ON YOUR SCREEN IDENTIFIES THE SITE AND RELATED TO THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SHEDS LIGHT ON THE REGULATING PLAN IN A TOTAL OF 289 UNITS PROPOSED WITH A MIX OF STUDIOS, ONE'S, TWOS AND THREE-BEDROOM APARTMENTS.

TEXAS VISTA NORTH SHORE IS REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL TO ENTER INTO THIS PILOT AGREEMENT WHICH I JUST MENTIONED. THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION SERVES AS A PROJECT AND IS ADVERSE OF TEXASBIT THEY WOULD BE A CERTAIN AMI OR TAX MEDIAN AND THEY WOULD PAY TO THE CITY ANNUAL PAYMENTS 100 PERCENT OF THE DO TAXES. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE AGREEMENT THE ANNUAL PILOT AGREEMENT PAYMENT EQUAL TO THE APPRAISED VALUE AS OF JANUARY ONE OF THAT YEAR MULTIPLIED WITH THAT TAX RATE OF THAT TIME THE AGREEMENT WOULD BE IN EFFECT FOR AN INDEFINITE. IN THE TERMS OF THE PILOT AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER TO THE SUCCESSES AND THE SIGNS AS IT SHOULD BE SOLD. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED THE ESTIMATED STIMULUS VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE $20 MILLION. IF WE WERE TO EXTRAPOLATE THAT INFORMATION AND ASSESS IT TO THE CURRENT TAX RATE THE CITY WOULD BE LOOKING AT A PILOT YIELD OF PAPPROXIMATELY $149,000 ANNUALLY. IT IS THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED PILOT AGREEMENT WITH TEXAS NORTH SHORE AND WITH THAT I WILL TRY TO ANSWER I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO ANSWER.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERT BLAKE

MARGOLIS? >> FOR THE PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND HOW IS NOT ABLE TO BE APPLIED TO THIS PROPERTY? CAN YOU GO INTO THAT?

>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER MARGOLIS. RECENTLY THE COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN SEP A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY

[00:50:01]

DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FORM-BASED CODE. THIS ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED POST THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND A RECURRING DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY HAD ITS ZONING AND ESTABLISHED REGULATING PLAN AND DEVELOPING PLAN PRIOR TO THE CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE AND SO IT WAS ABLE TO PROCEED WITHOUT

AN SEP OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT. >> THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT IS ALLOWED AND WERE JUST HERE TO CONSIDER THE RESOLUTION FOR THE FINANCE ISSUANCE AND PILOT AGREEMENT?

>> CORRECT. >> YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

>> COUNCILMAN BROWN? >> YES. SO, WE HAVE ONE OTHER DEVELOPMENT IN OUR CITY THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER. CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY OF THAT AS FAR AS THE TIMELINESS OF DECONSTRUCTION OF THAT PROJECT AND ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP WITH THAT?

>> YES. I BELIEVETHE PROJECT WAS INITIATED BY A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT IN 2018. THEY WENT THROUGH THEIR REGULAR PROCESS OF SECURING THE ZONING PRIOR TO THAT IN 2016 FORGIVE ME, I AM TRYING TO CONNECT THE DOTS WITH THE DATE. THE ZONING WAS APPROVED ON THE PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ENTITLEMENT TRUE CONSTRUCTION I BELIEVE BEGAN TOWARDS THE END OF 2018 AND UNFORTUNATELY THEY DID EXPERIENCE SOME HICCUPS ALONG THE WAY AS IT RELATED TO TURNING OVER SOME CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS. HAD A FEW PLANTS THAT THEY LOOKED AT AND WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH FROM A LANDSCAPING STANDPOINT AND THEY HAD SOME ISSUES WITH THEIR TREE PERMIT REMOVAL SO IT WAS A BIT OF AN ABORTED STEP FOR THEM SO THEY HAD TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD THERE THEY DID MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN ALONG THE WAY SO THEY HAD SOME ITERATIONS TO THOSE AND THAT COST THEM A FEW MONTHS OF DELAY TO BE QUITE HONEST WITH YOU. AND THEN THEY DID COME BEFORE YOU WITH A PARKING VARIANCE TO SECURE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT AND THAT WAS ALMOST OVER A YEAR AGO IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY DID HAVE A BIT OF A MISHAP AND OPPOSED TO THAT THEY DID MOVE THROUGH THE CUISINE PERMITS AND PLANS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THEY HAD SOME INFO STRUCTURE THAT NEEDED TO BE REVISITED AS A RESULT OF SOME DELAY AND TIMING THAT THEY HAD EXPERIENCED.

THEY SEEM TO BE MOVING FORWARD NOW TO TURN THE PROPERTY AROUND

AND COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION. >> THIS IS A FOLLOW-UP TO THAT.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL DATE, PROJECTED DATE FOR THE OPENING OF THAT VERSUS WHERE WE ARE AT TODAY? I'M SORRY TO PUT

YOU ON THE SPOT. >> SPEAKING FROM MEMORY AGAIN I BELIEVE INITIALLY THEY WERE EXCITED TO HAVE AN OPENING IN 2019 IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. WITH THAT AS A STARTED MAKING SOME CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN WHICH THEY FELT WERE NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE THE DEVELOPMENT MET THE CRITERIA THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT, WE LOOKED AT THEN PUSHING IT OUT SIX MONTHS HE HAD WE DID SEE SOME INTEREST FROM SOME OF OUR COMMUNITY TO BE RESIDENCE THERE AND WE HAVE WORKED WITH THEM AND THE HFC AND THEY KEEP SAYING WERE GETTING TO THE FINISH LINE BUT

THEY'VE HAD SOME DELAYS. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COUNSEL? ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM 8A AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERT BLAKE MARGOLIS?

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.

>> TO HAVE A SECOND? COUNCILMEMBER MATT GRUBISICH?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY THE AUTHORIZING OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A BOND ISSUANCE. I WILL TAKE DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERT BLAKE

MARGOLIS ARE YOU WANTING TO MAKE COMMENTS? GO AHEAD. >> YES I WILL BE VOTING NO TO THIS ITEM FOR A FEW REASONS. OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS THERE'S BEEN AN OVERWHELMING AND UNSUSTAINABLE AMOUNT OF APARTMENTS BUILT, 35 TO 86 APARTMENT UNITS HAVE BEEN BUILT UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND 22 UNITS ARE PLANNED AND THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN APPROVED IN 2012 PROJECTED THAT ROWLETT WOULD HAVE 275 RESIDENTS AND POPULATION BY 2030. ACCORDING TO LATEST ESTIMATE THE COUNCIL GOVERNMENT SAID ROWLETT CURRENTLY HAS 73,000 POPULATION AND WE ARE IN 2021. CITY OPERATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

[00:55:01]

CONTINUE TO FEEL THE IMPACT OF THE DRASTIC POPULATION GROWTH AND LASTLY THIS DEVELOPER WHO HAS PROPOSED A BILL THIS PROJECT HAS PROVEN TO BE DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH AND HAS IN SEVERAL INSTANCES NOT OBTAINED REQUISITE PERMITS AND PHAS VIOLATED SEVERAL ORDINANCE AND FOR THIS REASON I WOULD

VOTE NO. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER MATT

GRUBISICH? >> YES I AGREE WITH WHAT SOME OF MY FELLOW COUNCILMEMBER SAID WHAT I AM UPSET WITH IS THIS IS A TOUGH SITE TO DEVELOP. NOT NECESSARILY THAT IT IS MULTIFAMILY BUT I THINK WHAT DEVELOPERS ARE DOING ISN'T USING OUR AGENCY WHICH WAS SET UP AS A REALLY GREAT PURPOSE AND NEED OF OUR CITY USING IT AS A FALLBACK WHEN THEY CAN'T GET FINANCING. I'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT I WOULD SUPPORT THE PROJECT IF IT WAS IN THE RIGHT SPOT AT THE RIGHT AREA TO SUPPORT THOSE THAT ARE WHAT WE CALL WORKFORCE HOUSING OR TEACHERS OR FIREMEN OR POLICE OFFICERS. THOSE FOLKS THAT WANT TO MOVE INTO OUR CITY AND LIVE HERE IT HAS TO BE IN THE RIGHT PLACE. I DON'T THINK IT IT'S THE SPIRIT OF WHAT OUR HFC WAS SET UP TO DO. ALSO OUR HFC IS TRYING TO FINISH ONE PROJECT AND I LIKE TO SEE A TRACK RECORD FOR THEM TO HAVE SOME COMPLETION AND SOME SUCCESSES BEFORE WE LEAP INTO ANOTHER REALLY BIG PROJECTS. THOSE ARE MY REASONS FOR DENYING THIS AND I'M STILL IN SUPPORT OF OUR HFC AND I'VE TOLD THEIR PRESIDENT WE WOULD BE CONTINUE TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THEM IN THE RIGHT PROJECT IN THE RIGHT LOCATION SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> ANY OTHER FROM COUNSEL? I'M CALLING THE VOTE IN THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO DENY. I WILL AT THIS TIME CALL A VOTE.

[8B. Consider and take action to adopt a resolution approving a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Agreement with TX Vista Northshore, LP., for the residential development known as Vista North Shore Apartments, the 13.94-acre tract of land is located north of the intersection of Merritt Road and Castle Drive, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

THAT WAS UPHELD 7-0. THERE IS NO REASON TO CONSIDER ITEM 8B I

BELIEVE, CORRECT? DAVID? >> YOU CAN CONSIDER IT OR TABLE IT OR DO NOTHING AT ALL. IT WON'T MATTER BECAUSE I THINK THAT AGREEMENT IS GOING TO BE IRRELEVANT I WOULD SUGGEST WE TABLE IT FOR TONIGHT'S PURPOSES AND THEN SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

>> OKAY, DOES THAT REQUIRE A VOTE: A MOTION AND A VOTE? I HAVE THAT POWER. I AM GOING TO TABLE 8B. SIR, WE HAVE CONCLUDED ON THIS. SIR, WE CANNOT TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR. SO, WE HAVE CONCLUDED 8A AND 8B AND NOW WE ARE MOVING

[8C. Conduct a public hearing and take action on a request by Adam Shiffer, Skorburg Company, on behalf of property owners Brookside Lot Venture, Ltd. and Windsor Homes Cumberland, LLC., to: 1) Amend the Planned Development to include a requirement that street-facing garage doors shall comprise no more than 70 percent of the total length of a dwelling’s façade; 2) Confirm the rezoning of the subject property to Planned Development (PD) District for Single-Family Residential (SF-5) Uses; 3) Amend the Comprehensive Plan to the extent of any inconsistency; and 4) Amend the zoning map of the City of Rowlett. The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Rowlett and Miller Roads, being the Villas at Long Branch Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

TO 8C. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY ADAM SHIFFER, SKORBURG COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS BROOKSIDE LOT VENTURE, LTD. AND WINDSOR HOMES CUMBERLAND, LLC TO 1) AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT THAT STREET-FACING GARAGE DOORS SHALL COMPRISE NO MORE THAN 70 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL LENGTH OF A DWELLING?S FA?ADE; 2) CONFIRM THE REZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF-5) USES; 3) AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INCONSISTENCY; AND 4) AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROWLETT AND MILLER ROADS, BEING THE VILLAS AT LONG BRANCH ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

GOOD EVENING ALEX. >> GOOD EVENING.

>> WERE STARTING WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND THEN APPLICANT IF WE NEED AND THEN WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ACCESS SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN. ALL RIGHT. AGAIN THIS IS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROWLETT AND MILLER ROAD.

THIS PROPERTY THE REQUEST IS TO MODIFY THE APPROVED PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR STREET FACING BROAD STORES TO COMPRISED OF 70 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL LENGTH OF THE DEVELOPMENTS INSIDE. AGAIN THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN SUBDIVIDED INTO 35 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND ALSO THE RIGHT OF WAYS AS WELL. A BIT MORE BACKGROUND ON THIS BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2019 THE CITY COUNCIL DID APPROVE THE ORDINANCE 2808 ? 19 WHICH REZONED THE PROPERTY FROM THE SF 40 DISTRICT THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE SUBDIVISION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WERE APPROVED AT THAT TIME HE HAD THEM IN A LOT WIDTHS AND DEPTH FOR THIS PROPERTY ARE 40 FEET WITH 115 FOOT OF DEPTH. AGAIN, SUBSEQUENT TO THAT THEY HAVE SECURED THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CIVIL ENGINEERING PLAN HAVE BEEN APPROVED, A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AS WELL AS THE FINAL PLAT WHICH WILL SUBDIVIDE THIS PROPERTY. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT ADOPTION OF THE FINAL PLAT THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A

[01:00:01]

BUILDING PERMIT TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOMES HERE DIE WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE PROPOSED GARAGE DOOR WITH EXCEEDS WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 70 7508 83 OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH IS WHY THE APPLICANT IS PURSUING THIS AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR THE MAXIMUM GARAGE DOOR WIDTHS OF 70 PERCENT OF THE FA?ADE. WOULD NOTE THAT THIS AMENDMENT APPLIES ONLY TO SINGLE TWO-CAR GARAGE DOORS. THERE ARE NO OTHER PARTS, I'VE GONE TOO FAR AHEAD LET ME GO BACKWARDS. THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER PART OF THE PD ORDINANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHICH WOULD BE AMENDED. THIS IS THE ONLY PORTION THE REQUESTED FOR MODIFICATION. THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 70 7508 IS TO ENCOURAGE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WHICH PROVIDES VISUAL INTEREST AND GOOD DESIGN OF HOMES PROMOTING NEIGHBORHOODS WITH THE STINK OF CHARACTER AS WELL AS PREVENTING GRUDGES FROM SECURING THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE HOMES OR BLOCKING VIEWS OF THE STREET.

AGAIN, THE SPECIFIC FIREMEN OF THE SUBSECTION D3 IS THAT FOR GARAGE DOOR WHICH FACE THE STREET WHICH WAS APPROVED WITH THE SUBDIVISION THAT THEY NOT EXCEED 35 PERCENT OF THE FA?ADE. AGAIN, THIS IS INTENDED TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT AND IMPROVE THE AESTHETIC OF THE INFLUENCE OF GARAGE DOORS ON THE FRONT OF THE FA?ADE. THE APPLICANT DID FAIL TO ADDRESS THIS IN THEIR CODE WHICH THEY PREPARED THE PD STANDARD AT THE TIME OF THAT REZONING BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2019 AND SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT WITH JUST A SINGLE GARAGE DOOR FOR TWO-CAR GARAGE WHICH WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 35 PERCENT OF FA?ADE. THE APPLICANT HAS INFORMED US THAT THEIR HOMEBUILDER PROVIDES A MINIMUM OF A 30 FOOT WILTING PAD ON THIS SITE WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION WITH TWO PRODUCTS A TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH A SINGLE DOOR AS WELL AS A PRODUCT THAT HAS A TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH EACH GARAGE BAY HAVING A TWO SEPARATE DOOR SO UTILIZING TWO SEPARATE GARAGE DOORS PAY THAT TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH A SINGLE DOOR WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FRONTAGE OF 35 PERCENT OF THE FA?ADE WHICH IN THIS CASE IS 10 AND A HALF FEET. THIS IS WHAT THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO. SO AGAIN TO STATE THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE DIAGRAM THAT THE PROPOSED 70 FOOT MAXIMUM WOULD ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM 21 FOOT WIDE GARAGE DOOR AND THE APPLICANT DID INITIALLY REQUESTED TO BE 67 PERCENT TO ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM OF 20.1 GARAGE DOOR BUT WE ROUNDED THIS UP IN CONSULTATION WITH THE APPLICANT TO ALLOW FOR A DESIGN VARIATION. SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT TYPICALLY THE GARAGE DOORS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING WITH THEIR PRODUCTS WOULD RANGE IN WIDTH BETWEEN 16 AND 18 RANGE IN WIDTH BEFORE THE SINGLE ONE GARAGE DOOR FOR THE SINGLE TWO BAY GARAGE. THE 70 PERCENT EACH WOULD ALLOW FOR 21 FEET IS A MAXIMUM THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED. BOTH OF THESE GARAGE DOOR CONFIGURATIONS WHICH YOU CAN SEE ARE ILLUSTRATED ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE. THESE DO NOT IMPACT ORBS SKEWER THE FRONT DOOR AS YOU CAN SEE. THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO BE PROVIDING A MIX OF CONFIGURATION WHICH AGAIN WOULD INCLUDE A SINGLE TWO-CAR GARAGE DOOR AS WELL AS A DOUBLE CAR GARAGE DOOR. ILLUSTRATED TO THE RIGHT. IF APPROVED THE APPLICANT HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEBUYER WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE WHICH CONFIGURATION THEY WOULD PREFER. IN REGARDS TO THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY THE NOTICES REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW WAS SENT OUT ON THE 22ND AND THERE WERE NINE NOTICES SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THERE WERE NO RESPONSES RECEIVED TO US EITHER IN OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR AND THERE WERE ALSO FIVE NOTICES SENT AS A COURTESY TO THE 500 FOOT RADIUS AND NO RESPONSES IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION. AT THE NOVEMBER NINE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING THEY DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM WITH A 5-TO VOTE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR APPROVAL OF THIS AMENDMENT FOR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AS IT BEGAN AND WOULD NOT CHANGE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LOT LAYOUT

[01:05:02]

AND THE DENSITY WOULD ONLY ALLOW FOR GARAGE DOOR DESIGN VARIATION IN THE 32 LOT SUBDIVISION. IT DOES NOT IMPACT ORBS SKEWER THE FRONT DOOR OF THE HOMESITE AS IS THE INTENTION OF THAT SUBSECTION THAT IS MADE BY THIS REQUEST.

WITH THAT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS NOTE ALSO NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO OSO ADDRESS QUESTIONS THAT

THEY MIGHT HAVE. >> COUNSEL, QUESTIONS FOR ALEX? I KNOW YOU SAID THIS A BELIEVE YOU SAID THIS AND GOING TO MAKE IT REALLY CRYSTAL-CLEAR AS FAR AS MY QUESTION, HOPEFULLY, IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED, WHAT HAPPENS?

>> IF IT'S NOT APPROVED THE HOMEBUILDER WOULD HAVE TO MODIFY PLANS WHICH WOULD CONFORM TO THE ORDINANCE.

QUI >> WHICH PRACTICALLY MEANS?

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAREN PROVIDE SEPARATE GARAGE DOORS

FOR EACH DAY. >> THIS IS WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THE PLAN PRIOR TO THIS COMING ON THE AGENDA? OKAY. SO, THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE DENSITY? IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU SIR. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION? OPERATIVE WORD, SHORT? NAME AND ADDRESS FOR

THE RECORD, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING MAYOR, COUNSEL, OUR ADDRESS IS WESTCHESTER DRIVE 7225. FOR WHATEVER REASON AND AGAIN THIS IS REALLY A TECHNICAL GLITCH AS FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND WITH THE VILLAGE PD AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN JUST SPECIFICALLY WE ARE REQUESTING AS WE JUST STATED WE ARE ADDING A REQUIREMENT IS SPECIAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE STREET FACING GARAGES SHALL NOT COMPRISE OF MORE THAN 70 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL LENGTH WHICH IS ALLOWED FOR A VARIATION OF FLEXIBILITY OF PRODUCT. HAVE ONE SLIDE TO SHOW THAT CAN BE PULLED UP. THIS IS THE SAME REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT REPRESENTED BY THE PNC COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10TH 2019 AND COUNSEL AND THESE WERE THE PRODUCTS THAT WERE REPRESENTED TO THIS IN THE SLIDESHOW THAT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNSEL AND PNC AND IT SHOWS THERE WASN'T ANY QUESTION IN ANYBODY'S MIND AT LEAST IN HOURS AND FOR THE COUNCIL THAT THE HOUSING PRODUCT WOULD ENTAIL THIS CONFIGURATION AS WE REQUESTED IN THIS I WILL CALL IT APD FIX BUT THE FURTHER EVIDENCE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY DID ISSUE NINE BUILDING PERMIT BEFORE THIS GLITCH WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION AND THOSE HOMES ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION BUT PUT ON HOLD UNTIL THIS IS CONSIDERED AN HOPEFULLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE I JUST WANTED TO RESTATE OUR TWO SHOW SOME OF THESE PICTURES THAT WE SHOWED TO COUNSEL BEFORE. NO DIFFERENT NOTHING LESS IT WAS JUST AN OVERSIGHT. WITH THAT IN HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND

CONSIDERATION. >> COUNSEL ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE ONE. HOW MANY HOMES ARE CURRENTLY

BEING BUILT? >> NINE.

>> WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE NINE HOMES IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED?

>> WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO BUILD HOUSES PEERED WE WOULD HAVE TO TEAR THEM DOWN AND START OVER.

>> TEAR WHAT DOWN? >> HOMES. WE WOULD HAVE TO KNOCK THEM DOWN, SCRAPE, STAGE DECONSTRUCTION THEY ARE IN AND START OVER PAY THE ONLY THING THIS WOULD DO TO CONFORM WITHOUT THE SPEEDY REQUIREMENT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A

DOUBLESTACK GARAGE. >> UNDERSTAND THAT I'M ASKING WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH THESE NINE HOMES IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED IN WHAT STAGE THESE NINE HOMES ARE IN.

>> THEY ARE IN VARIOUS STAGES. SOME ARE IN SLAB SOME ARE IN ROUGH PLUMBING AND SOME HAVE AN EARLY FRAME AND THAT'S IT.

>> THERE'S NOTHING TO TEAR DOWN?

>> WHATEVER STAGE THEY ARE IN DON'T HAVE AN EXACT -ÁCUSTOMÁ I NEED A CLEAR ANSWER BECAUSE I ASKED WHAT HAPPENS TO THESE NINE HOMES IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED AND YOU SAID IT WOULD BE TORN DOWN AND YOU SAY IS NOTHING TO TEAR DOWN.

>> I CAN'T. >> COUNCILMEMBER: YOU WITHOUT THE SPECIFICALLY YET I CAN TELL YOU THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN

BRAKED. >> CAN SOMEBODY ANSWER THAT

QUESTION? >> AS FAR AS WHAT THE MOST ADVANCED STAGE OF THE HOUSE WOULD BE? WE WERE ABRUPTLY

SHUT DOWN. >> THERE'S BEEN NO WORK.

THERE'S BEEN NO WORK AT THIS POINT. NO PLUMBING ROOFS HAVE BEEN INSPECTED, NO FOUNDATIONS HAVE BEEN INSPECTED TO OTHERS

[01:10:02]

IN BEEN NO WORK OTHER THAN SETTING FORM BOARDS.

>> WE ARE BACK TO WHAT MUNAL SAID EARLIER THE PLANS WOULD HAVE TO BE REVISED? NO TEAR DOWN, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. IF I CAN TRY TO CLARIFY, ON-SITE WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED SOME FOUNDATIONS HAVE BEEN POURED, SOME OF NOT.

NOTHING HAS TECHNICALLY GONE VERTICAL AND WHAT THEY WOULD OR MIGHT HAVE TO ADJUST ON THE PLANS TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIREMENTS SHOULD THIS REQUEST NOT BE APPROVED, THERE'S NO HOME TEAR DOWN AT THIS POINT. THEY STARTED THE WORK GETTING THE PAD SITES READY. EACH PAD SITE IS IN SOME FORM OF PREPAREDNESS TO GET TO THAT NEXT LEVEL BUT THE NEXT POINT THERE'S NO VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION AT THIS POINT.

>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER MARTHA BROWN WHO IS YOUR

QUESTION FOR? >> PROBABLY FOR WHOEVER CAN

ANSWER. >> I WASN'T SURE IF THE APPLICANT SHOULD STAND HE HERE.

>> WILL YOU MIGHT NEED TO HELP WITH THIS ONE. WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS SOMEONE SAID THAT JUST THE FORM BOARDS HAD BEEN PLACED BUT NO SLABS HAVE BEEN POURED BUT THEN HE MENTIONED SOME ABOUT SLABS BEING POURED? I'M TRYING TO

FIGURE OUT WHICH IT IS. >> I WILL CLARIFY. I PERHAPS SPOKE TOO QUICKLY. THERE ARE NINE LOTS THAT ARE BEING PREPARED ALREADY DEVELOPMENT AND EACH ONE OF THEM IS IN SOME STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT AND SOME MIGHT HAVE FORM BOARDS COUPLE MIGHT HAVE NOW NATIONS POURED BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY NOTHING BEYOND THAT HAS GONE VERTICAL. DID THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> SO THERE ARE SOME SLABS THAT HAVE BEEN POURED? THAT IS MY

QUESTION. >> I JUST VERIFIED THERE HAVE BEEN NO SLABS I TAKE THAT BACK, I APOLOGIZE.

>> NO PLUMBING THAT IS BEEN ROUGHED IN FOR WHAT I'VE

UNDERSTOOD? >> NO INSPECTIONS HAVE OCCURRED ON THAT BUILDING. ANY CHANGE, IF THERE WERE ANY MODIFICATIONS THEY WOULD HAVE TO MODIFY THEIR PLANS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE. > UNDERSTAND, THANK YOU.

>> IF I MAY, THESE ARE BILLED JOBS ALL BUT TWO OF THEM SO IT WOULD ALSO AFFECT HOMEOWNERS. SO, THERE'S A WATERFALL BUT IT'S COUNSEL'S PREROGATIVE AND I WOULD SAY THESE ARE THE PICTURES WE SHOW. NOT CHANGING ANYTHING FROM WHAT WE REPRESENTED BEFORE. I HOPE THAT IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. WERE NOT TRYING TO DO ANYTHING THAT IS A DATE AND SWITCH. THIS IS WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE PRESENTATION THAT

WE SHOWED YOU IN 2019. >> SOME OF US VOTED FOR IT.

SOME OF US DID NOT. >> THE COUNCIL AS A BODY.

>> I HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL REALIZE THIS IS AN OVERSIGHT, APD GLITCH WE SOLD SOME HOUSES TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE VERY EXCITED TO GET INTO THEIR NEW HOMES AND WE HOPE THAT WE WON'T HAVE TO LOOK THOSE PEOPLE IN THE EYE AND SAY WE HAVE A PROBLEM AND IT WOULD BE OUR PROBLEM, NOT YOURS BUT IN FACT, THAT IS WHY THE STAFF ISSUE THE PERMITS BECAUSE IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE WERE SHOWING ON THE SLIDE AND THAT'S

ALL. EXECUTIONER. >> COUNSEL ANY MORE QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? RIGHT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND IF SEVERAL REQUESTS TO SPEAK AND I HAVE A FEW EMAILS. I'M JUST GOING TO CALL THESE PEOPLE IN THE ORDER THAT WE RECEIVED THESE. DENNIS O RILEY FOLLOWED BY ADAM CUSICK BUT YOU JUST SPOKE. DENNIS O RILEY FOLLOWED BY TERR MILLIKEN AND IF YOU DID SPEAK EARLIER IN THE CITIZEN INPUT IF YOU COULD JUST MAKE SURE YOUR COMMENTS ARE ADDITIVE AND NOT REPETITIVE THAT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. DENNIS O RILEY? NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR.

>> MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND DENNIS O'REILLY LIVING AT.LOCATION FREQUENTLY NOTICE THIS PROPOSED REZONING SIGN. IT WAS THERE FOR MAYBE A WEEK AND I HAVEN'T SEEN A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY SINCE. IT IS NOT REQUIRED? AS YOU ARE AWARE THEY HAVE TAKEN OVER MANY PROJECTS IN ROWLETT. THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE TIME SPENT REQUESTING THE INITIAL ZONING PRESENTING THE DEVELOPMENT AND NEGOTIATING ZONING WAIVERS AND THIS IS DONE TO ME PROJECTS IN ROWLETT ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE

[01:15:03]

35 PERCENT FOR CRITERIA OF GRUDGES IS AN OVERSIGHT. THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD THE APPROPRIATE QUALITY CONTROL IN PLACE. I HOPE SOMEONE FROM THE CITY HAS HAD A FRANK DISCUSSION WITH THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT REGARDING THEIR PROCESS OF QUALITY CONTROL FOR PROJECT PROPOSAS. I GUESS THE CITY MANAGEMENT IS NOT THRILLED HAVING DISCUSSED THIS AGAIN. I SUGGEST THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT TEAM LOOK AT OTHER PROJECTS FOR ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE RECENTLY APPROVED. I'M NOT SURE WHO DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS ONE BUT BLAME CAN BE PLACED AT THE FEET OF THE DEVELOPER THE CITY PLANNING TEAM THAT SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THIS MUCH SOONER. HAVE YOU VISITED THE SITE AND LOOKED AT THE FOUNDATION FRAMES? IT SOUNDS LIKE NOT MANY PEOPLE HAVE. AS IT IS CURRENTLY LAID OUT THE VILLAGE OF LONGBRANCH WOULD BE GLORIFIED CONDOMINIUMS. THEY WOULD NOT BE SIMILAR TO THE MANORS ON MILLER ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WAS PROMOTED IN 2019. THESE WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THAT PEER THEY ARE NOT. MOVING ON TO OTHER PROPOSALS IN ITEM 8C NUMBER 2, THREE AND FOUR IT SEEMS ODD TO ME WHY DOES REZONING NEED TO BE RECONFIRMED? WHY WASN'T THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDED IN 2019 WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED? IS THERE SOMETHING THE CITY IS TRYING TO FIX TWO YEARS LATER? DOES THAT CREATE ANY LEGAL ISSUES? I SEE NO REASON TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING WORKING THE AESTHETIC IS THE COST OF NOT HAVING THE APPROPRIATE QUALITY CONTROLS IN PLACE. I ALSO SEE NO OTHER REASON TO CONFORM TO THE 2019 DECISION TO AMEND THE COMPETENCY PLAN AND ZONING MAP. IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TWO YEARS AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT. COUNSEL, IF NOT VOTING NO I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER TABLING THIS DISCUSSION FOR THE POTENTIAL ISSUES SURROUNDING THIS DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND DUE DILIGENCE IN THIS MATTER.

>> INCORPORATED MR. O'REILLY, TERRY MILLIKEN FOLLOWED BY JOHN

PS GOLA. >> WHILE MR. MILLIKEN IS COMING FORWARD TO LET YOU ALL KNOW WE DID HAVE A FAMILY EMERGENCY FOR COUNCILMEMBER ROBERT BLAKE MARGOLIS AND HE HAD TO LEAVE THE MEETING JUST WANTED TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHY HE HAD TO

LEAVE. >> TERRY MILLIKEN, ADDRESS] I HAVE TWO ISSUES THAT I WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION. WHAT HAPPENED TO BE A DRAINAGE FLOW THAT IS BEEN BUILT IN A SUBDIVISION THAT IS THREE PROBLEMS, FOR ONE, IT DOESN'T MEET THE CONDITIONS AROUND THE CITY'S ORDINANCES.

IT IS DANGEROUS, I CHECKED THE DESIGN AND THE DESIGN IS DEFECTIVE. IT HAS TWO HOUSES, ONE HOUSE MIGHT BE FLOODED IF SOMETHING DOESN'T HAPPEN. AND THE NEXT THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THIS PD. THIS PD IN MY OPINION AND I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY I HAVE CHECKED WITH FOUR OTHER ZONING ATTORNEYS AND THEY CONFIRM THAT THE CITY'S PROCEDURE THAT THEY USED TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS PD COMES UP THAT DOESN'T CONFORM IS ILLEGAL. FURTHER, I CHECKED WITH 26 CITIES AND IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA AND OF THOSE 26 CITIES TO DO IT LIKE ROWLETT DOES. ROWLETT AND LANCASTER.

EVERYBODY ELSE FOLLOWS STATE LAW. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. SO THE QUESTION I GOT FOR YOU IS WHY DOES A CITY NOT FOLLOW STATE LAW AS I SEE IT? THIS IS PART OF THIS LAWSUIT THAT IS BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. I REALLY WHOLEHEARTEDLY REQUEST THAT YOU GET A SECOND OR A THIRD LEGAL OPINION BEFORE YOU PROCEED FURTHER WITH ANYTHING ON THIS DEVELOPMENT. IT IS ILLEGAL. I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT OTHER ZONING ATTORNEYS WILL AGREE WITH ME. YOU NEED TO TAKE A DEEP REST, DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND SEE WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS LEGAL OR NOT. IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME. I'M ASKING YOU TO PLEASE EITHER DENY THIS OR TABLE IT AND DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND CHECK WITH THE ENGINEER. AND AN INDEPENDENT ENGINEER. CHECK

[01:20:05]

WITH OTHER QUALIFIED ATTORNEYS IF THE RESULT COMES BACK THAT THEY ALL SAY I'M WRONG AND THE CITY IS RIGHT I WILL GO BACK, CRAWL INTO MY HOLE AND YOU'LL NEVER SEE ME AGAIN. BUT, IF I AM RIGHT THE CITY HAS A BIG PROBLEM. NEED TO ADDRESS IT AND NEED TO THINK CAREFULLY AND YOU NEED TO DO THIS DELIBERATELY AND INVESTIGATE EVERY ASPECT OF THIS BEFORE YOU GO FORWARD. THIS COULD PLAY OUT VERY BADLY FOR THE CITY IF YOU DON'T DO THAT. I'M BEING AS HONEST AS I CAN BE WITH YOU.

I HAVE NO VESTED INTEREST IN THIS I JUST WANT THE CITY TO

COMPLY. >> THANK YOU MR. MILLIKEN.

JOHN SCOLA FOLLOWED BY SUSAN HERRERA.

>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN. JOHN SCOLA.THINK THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GIVE TOO MANY VARIANCES, TOO MANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO ONE DEVELOPER AND IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THEY FORGET WHAT THEY ARE GETTING AWAY WITH. I THINK THIS DEVELOPER GOT CAUGHT AND IF WE ALLOW THEM TO CHANGE THE PD AFTER THE FACT AND GIVE THEM EVEN MORE WAIVERS WHAT DOES THAT TELL THE REST OF THE DEVELOPERS? SHOULD THEY KEEP BREAKING THE LAW UNTIL THEY GET CAUGHT, TOO? THERE'S AN ORDINANCE ATTACHED TO THIS AGENDA ITEM THAT HAS A REAFFIRM ON THE OLD REZONE CURIOUSLY HOW CAN YOU CONFORM A REZONE WITHOUT AN EVALUATION? THE STAFF GIVE AN UP DATED EVALUATION ON THE REZONE? THE LAST TIME THEY LOOKED AT IT THEY SAID "IT APPEARS TO BE A STRUCTURED VARIANCE MECHANISM " I THINK THERE ARE 20 VARIANCES ON THIS IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. I PASSED OUT THE MISLEADING PACKET IMAGES THAT ARE IN THE PNC COUNSEL PACKET.

YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THEM BY THE DEVELOPERS PRESENTATION THE FIRST IMAGE SHOWS A 16 FOOT DOOR NOT THE 70 PERCENT ALLOWANCE AT THE FIGURE AIMS TO THE ACTUAL PROPOSE 70 PERCENT FOR HIS 21 FEET AND IT SHOWN ON THE FAR RIGHT. YOU ARE BEING MISLED. THAT SECOND IMAGE SHOWS 28 FEET DOORS THAT COMPRISE FAR MORE THAN 35 PERCENT OF THE FRONT FA?ADE.

THAT'S NOT ALLOWED BY THE RDC DESPITE WHAT THE MISLEADING TEXT SAYS IT IS COMPRISED OF FOUR CONSISTS OF OR BEING MADE UP OF IT IS NOT BEING MADE INDIVIDUALLY. ANYONE THAT TELLS YOU THAT IT IS INDIVIDUAL DOORS CAN BE 35 PERCENT IS MISLEADING YOU. PNC RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM BUT LET ME ASK HOW COULD PNC RECOMMENDATION CHANGE IF THEY KNEW THE PACKET TEXT AND MAJOR SECTIONS OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WAS CHANGED BEFORE TONIGHT? THE ORDINANCE YOU ARE LOOKING AT IS DIFFERENT THAN PNC REVIEWED. THEY DIDN'T RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES SO WHY WERE THERE MODIFICATIONS? SOMEBODY ALREADY TALKED ABOUT NOT HAVING THE SIGN, IT'S REQUIRED TO REMAIN UNTIL AFTER THIS COUNCIL MEETING AND THIS IS PROBABLY THE ONLY WAIVER FROM ROWLETT LOSS THAT ISN'T BEING REQUESTED. MAYBE THAT'S MORE OF A HOUSEKEEPING ITEM THOUGH. IF YOU ARE TELLING THE ROWLETT CITIZENS THIS IS ONLY ABOUT ONE DOOR VERSUS TWO DOORS THE REST OF THE ITEMS SNUCK INTO THIS AGENDA ITEM SHOULD BE REMOVED. WHILE THE HOOD IS UP.

THANKS. >> THANK YOU. SUSAN HERRERA

FOLLOWED BY JOHN SHOEMAKER. >> HELLO AGAIN. SUZANNE HERRERA.ORIGINALLY PASSED IN 2019 AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS EVEN PUT BACK ON THE AGENDA AGAIN. MY OTHER PROBLEM THE LAST TIME IS IT IS 10:30 AT NIGHT AND PNC MEMBER NIGHT IS FINALLY VOTING ON THE COMP PLAN THAT WAS PASSED IN 2019 THE ZONING AND THE GARAGE DOOR. SO, PNC ASKS THE CITY ATTORNEY

[01:25:06]

IF THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND HOW SHOULD THEY VOTE ON IT? THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID AFTER WE TOOK A FEW MINUTE BREAK AT 10:30 IT WAS LIKE 10:45 HOW SHOULD WE VOTE ON THIS, PNC WANTS TOKNOW THE CITY ATTORNEY LOOK AT THEM AND THEY NOD AND THEY TELL THE CITY ATTORNEY TO HOLD ONE VOTE FOR ALL THREE ITEMS. NOW I KNOW PNC KNOWS BETTER I KNOW YOU ALL KNOW BETTER THE COMP PLAN AND ZONING NEED A SEPARATE INITIATIVE IN THREE SEPARATE VOTES. THE ATTORNEY IS TELLING PNC TO VOTE ILLEGALLY. AND I KNOW PNC KNOWS BETTER AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THEY ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY BECAUSE IT IS ALL ON HIM NOW. HE TOLD THEM TO VOTE ILLEGALLY AND THEY DID.

SO, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE STATE OF TEXAS SAYS SF FIVE ZONING RESIDENTIAL AND SUBURBS IS ILLEGAL AND YOU CAN ADD APD AND THAT MAKES IT OKAY WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS? I DON'T GET THAT AT ALL. I AM WONDERING IF THAT'S EVEN QUESTIONABLE WITH THIS SF FIVE ZONING. ALSO, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY A TEXAS OPEN MEETING ACT? SHOULD HAVE A SIGN UP SOMEWHERE LET'S EVERYBODY KNOW ABOUT IT. 72 HOURS IS NOT ENOUGH TIME IN ADVANCE AND NOT EVERYBODY HAS TIME TO LOOK AT THE CITY WEBSITE EVERY DAY. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO INCLUDE THE CITY OF ROWLETT YOU NEED TO GET SOMETHING UP SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT. THESE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS THE WHOLE CITY SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE SOME. PUT UP A SIGN THAT FLASHES RED LETTERS ABOVE CITY HALL. I KNOW YOU ARE LAUGHING, BUT SERIOUSLY, YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO TRY TO GET PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. CAN'T BELIEVE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHEN TO TELL THEM THEY ARE LIKE OH. WELL, NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT NOW. I MEAN, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS CITY AND THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE CITY, FOR PEOPLE TO NOT KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

>> THANK YOU IS HERRERA. JOHN SHOEMAKER FOLLOWED BY JEFF

WINSLET. >> MY NAME IS JOHN SHOEMAKER AND I LIVE AT.WHAT JUST HAPPENED WITH YOU COUNSEL PEOPLE AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE TONIGHT. THE PROPONENT OF THIS GOD APPEAR IN TALKED ABOUT HAVING TO TEAR DOWN CONSTRUCTION. THEN THEY FINALLY ADMITTED THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION AND THEY ARE RIGHT THERE THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION. ALL THEIR IS OUR FORMS FOR SLABS AND THEN YOU GOT TOLD WELL THERE'S TWO SLABS OUT THERE AND THEN SHE SAID NO THERE'S NOT ANY SLABS OUT THERE. I THINK YOU ARE BEING PLAYED FOR FOOLS. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THEY DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THIS THEY BEEN MESSING WITH THIS FOR TWO YEARS AND NOW THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT CONSTRUCTION MEANS DON'T KNOW WHAT CONCRETE LOOKS LIKE GIVE ME A BREAK! SECONDLY AT THE P&G MEETING THERE WAS NEVER A MOTION TO DO ANY OF THIS. THE WAY YOU MAKE A MOTION SOME PEOPLE SAY MAKE A MOTION. MOST PEOPLE SAY I MOVE. I'M SURE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER I'M SURE SOME OF YOU ARE. I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND IS NOT A MOTION.

THERE WAS NEVER A MOTION SO WHAT THEY VOTE ON WAS NOT A MOTION AND I DON'T KNOW WHY MAYBE YOUR CITY ATTORNEY DOES NOT KNOW THE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER. HE WAS SITTING THERE.

HE WAS RUNNING THE SHOW AND HE WAS THE ONE THAT RAISED THE HOOD ON THE CAR SO WHEN THEY RAISE THE HOOD THEY COULD TAKE CARE OF ALL THIS BUT THEN THEY DIDN'T DO IT. I MEAN, THIS IS LIKE A COMEDY OF ERRORS. IT IS LIKE A CLOWN SHOW. I'M 81 YEARS OLD IN 11 DAYS. I'VE LIVED IN ROWLETT SINCE 1984. I WILL PROBABLY EITHER BE TAKEN OUT IN A BOX OR MOVE OUT OF ROWLETT IN TWO OR THREE YEARS. I HAVE NO FAMILY HERE, I HAVE NO REAL ESTATE HERE, NO BUSINESS INTEREST HERE, ONLY MY HOME. I DON'T CARE WHAT IS DONE DOWN THERE THAT AFFECTS THE VALUE OF MY HOME I'M SURE IT WILL MAKE IT GO UP BUT IF IT

[01:30:06]

GOES DOWN I DON'T CARE IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME FINANCIALLY IN THE LEAST. NONE. BUT DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS TOWN. DON'T JUST LET A DEVELOPER COME IN HERE AND LEAD YOU AROUND BY THE NOSE. TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO. THEY ASKED FOR AND THEY GOT A BUILDING PERMIT TO BUILD STUFF THAT'S NOT ALLOWED IN THE CITY GAVE THEM A BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN THEY SAID OU CAN'T DO THIS. I'I MEAN, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

>> THANK YOU MR. SHOEMAKER. JEFF WINSLET IS OUR LAST SPEAKER AND THEN I'LL READ SOME ITEMS THAT WE RECEIVED IN AN

EMAIL. >> GOOD EVENING HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS IS AN INTERESTING ISSUE. I WAS AT THE COUNCIL MEETING ON OCTOBER EIGHTH 2019 AND LO AND BEHOLD I WAS THE ONLY SPEAKER THAT EVENING. I SPOKE ABOUT TWO THINGS THAT CONCERNED ME ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ONE WAS ACCESSIBILITY BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT BEING ON A CORNER WITH TWO INTEREST IS THAT ONLY FACED MILLER ROAD AS WELL AS THE CONCERNS I HAD WITH THE CONFERENCE A PLAN AND AMENDING IT WILLY-NILLY AS WE NEED TO TO FIT THESE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS. WE HAD A GROUP OF INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS IN THIS COMMUNITY THE SPENT A LOT O TIME WORKING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PUTTING THAT TOGETHER. WE NEED TO STICK TO IT WHERE POSSIBLE.

THERE'S A REASON WE HAVE A CONFERENCE A PLAN AND AMENDMENT AFTER AMENDMENT BECOMES ABSURD, FRANKLY. I WON'T SPEAK TOO MUCH OF THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT POINT HAS BEEN COVERED THOROUGHLY THIS EVENING. WHAT'S UNFORTUNATE IS THAT NOW THAT ALL OF THIS HAS HAPPENED WE ARE BEYOND THE POINT OF RETURN. WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE HE IF YOU ALL APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT WE ESSENTIALLY END UP WITH A VARIETY OF HOME OPTIONS AND DIFFERENT FA?ADES ON THESE HOMES AND IF YOU REJECT THE PROPOSAL WE END UP WITH A BUNCH OF COOKIE-CUTTER HOMES THAT WILL PROBABLY LOOK THE SAME BECAUSE THEY'VE ALL GOT TWO-CAR GARAGE IS IN THE FRONT OF THE HOME. WHAT I FOUND IN RESEARCHING THIS AND I DISCUSSED IT WITH ANOTHER GENTLEMAN THAT'S HERE TONIGHT IS THAT WHILE IT'S ORDINANCE IS NOT PARTICULARLY CLEAR ON THIS ISSUE. THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN MADE REFERENCE TO THE PRESENTATION BUT I WILL READ THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE ORDINANCE AND ITS LEADING UP TO IT SAYING YES TO HAVE AN L OR J HOOK AND IF IT'S ADOPTED HERE'S WHAT IT SAYS. WHERE ALLOWED GARAGE DOORS A FACE A STREET SHALL COMPRISE NO MORE THAN 35 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL DWELLINGS FACADE DOES THAT MEAN WE CAN GET AROUND IT BY HAVING TWO SINGLE CAR GARAGE DOORS THAT OCCUPY A SET OR A COMPRISE 70 PERCENT OF THE HOMES FACADE BUT IT'S OKAY BECAUSE ARE EACH LESS THAN 35 PERCENT? I'M NOT CLEAR AND I THINK THE RESIDENTS HERE WOULD PARTICULARLY APPRECIATE CLARIFICATION FROM CITY ATTORNEY IN REGARDS TO THAT BECAUSE THAT SENTENCE HAS NOT BEEN UP ON ANY SCREEN AND IT'S NOT IN THE PACKET I'VE SEEN AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. WHAT'S MOST RIDICULOUS TO ME IS THAT IT GOT THIS FAR WITH AN EXPERIENCED DEVELOPER. IT'S LISTED TWO TIMES IN THE PACKET THAT IT WOULD HAVE FRONT FACING GARAGE DOORS PAID IS MADE INTO DIFFERENT POINTS WORTH HAD TWO DIFFERENT GARAGE DOORS AND HERE WE ARE WITH A LAP OF THIS BEING APPROVED ORIGINALLY. HAD SOME OTHER NOTES BUT I'M GOING TO LEAVE WITH ONE OR MORE BUT THERE IS AN ADAGE THAT SAYS YOU'VE MADE YOUR BED AND YOU HAVE TO LIE ON IT AND I THINK THAT'S HERE WHERE WE ARE AT WITH THIS ISSUE.

>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER MATT GRUBISICH IS GOING TO READ

THE EMAIL COMMENTS. >> TERRY ANDERSON. I'VE BEEN A CITIZEN OF ROWLETT SINCE 1993 AND THE CHANGES IN THE LAST YEAR SPECIFICALLY THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ARE CHANGING THE ENTIRE TONE OF THE CITY IN A NEGATIVE WAY WE DON'T HAVE THE ROADS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. I SUSPECT YOU DON'T HAVE A SCHOOL CAPACITY TO HANDLE MORE THESE DEVELOPMENTS. IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE CITY IS FILING STATE LAW WITH THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PAID THE BOAT ON THE SEVENTH NEEDS TO BE TABLED UNTIL THE LEGALITIES CAN BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED EVEN IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOLLOWING STATE LAWS. WE DO NOT NEED ANYMORE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT IS ATROCIOUS. HOUSES ARE CRAMMED INTO THE SPACE AND IT'S HORRENDOUS ENOUGH. SUSAN HENSCHEL. MY HUSBAND JOE HENSCHEL AND I HAVE RESIDED ON BIRCH COURT IN ROWLETT FOR 23 YEARS LIVING IN ROWLETT FOR 31 YEARS. WE OPPOSE THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENT AMENDING THE ORIGINAL PLANS DEVELOPMENT ZONING MAP OR COPY AND SUPPLANT TO MEET THE DESIRES OF A PROPERTY DEVELOPER. DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT HAVE ONE

[01:35:03]

GOAL IN MIND AND THAT TO MAKE MONEY. WILL THE POCKETS AND MOVE ON. THEY ALSO STAFF TO RESEARCH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS AND DUE DILIGENCE PRIOR TO CEMENTING ANY PLANS TO CITY OF ROWLETT. AT THE CORNER OF MILLER AND ROWLETT ROAD THE VILLAS OF LONGBRANCH NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY REQUIREMENTS NOT TO HAVE THE CITY BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO MAKE THE DEVELOPER HAPPY. WE NEED CITY COUNCILMEMBER TO LOOK OUT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CURRENT CITIZENS OF ROWLETT AND NOT COMPLIANCE OF ANY DEVELOPER THAT WANTS TO TALK THEIR WAY INTO ROWLETT. WE OPPOSE 4000 SQUARE-FOOT LOSS IN AREAS DESIGNED AND OPPOSE ANY CHANGE CHANGES TO THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN. THAT'S WHY THEY CREATED THE CUMBRIAN SUPPLANTED TWEEN 19. THESE BE HONEST AND TRANSPARENT A REALLY GOING TO ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO BULLY THE CITY OF ROWLETT? WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE VILLAS AT LONGBRANCH PER SE BUT WE OPPOSE THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING CHANGES TO MEET THE WISHES OF A DEVELOPER PLEASE, LET'S NOT LET ROWLETT BE DEGRADED ANYMORE THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE LAST RECENT YEARS.

>> MY NAME IS LAURA SCHOLAR. I'VE SEVERAL CONCERNS TO BRING FORWARD AND SPECIFICALLY AGENDA ITEM HC. I AM IN OPPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN ASSET CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE COMMUNITY WHEN PLANNING AND ZONING DID WHEN THE ITEM CAME TO THE AREA IN NOVEMBER APPEARED THERE WAS VERY LITTLE DEBATE ON THIS ITEM DESPITE NUMEROUS LETTERS AND OPPOSITIONS TO THESE CHANGES. WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS ASKING FOR IS A MORE INCLUSIVE PATH FORWARD IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ROWLETT AND ITS CITIZENS. THESE RECOGNIZE THE ITEM INCLUDED IN 8C DO NOT ALLOW FOR THROAT CONSIDERATION. I ASKED THAT PNC PERFORM THE PUBLICIZED CUMBRIAN SUPPLANTED UPDATE AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AS NEEDED AND DENY ALL PD REQUEST THE CONFLICT WITH THE CURRENT CUMBRIAN SUPPLANT. MY CONCERN IS THAT ALL CHANGES COMING TO THE COMMITTEE FOR APPROVAL ARE NOT COMPREHENSIVE IN NATURE AND IN FACT ARE DEVIATIONS AND WAIVERS PUSHED FORWARD BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DID I ASSESS CITY COUNCIL REQUIRE PLANNING AND ZONING A COMPLETE AMENDMENT TO THE CUMBRIAN SUPPLANT VIEWABLE TO THE PUBLIC. I ASK A HOLISTIC VIEW OF THE CITY BEING COOPERATED AND THEY RECOMMEND CHANGES TO REGULATORY MATTERS REGARDING ZONING CHANGES PER MY CONCERNS LIE WITHIN THE LOCALIZED CHANGES WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SURROUNDING AREA OR ENTIRETY OF ROWLETT. WHEN I LOOK AT THE PROPOSED DEVELOP A PLAN AND REQUEST ZONING WAIVERS AND DEVIATIONS DROVE ME TO QUESTION THE POINT OF HAVING ZONING LAWS AND A COPY AND SUPPLANT TO BEGIN WITH. THE CITY HAS ZONING LAWS AND REGULATIONS SHOULD THEY BE FOLLOWING RATHER THAN RETROACTIVELY PERFORMING CHANGES TO THE ZONING? ONE DEVELOP AN DEVIATION THAT EXISTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN INCLUDE A SAFETY CONCERN THAT IS A MINUTE DELAY MOTHER OF TWO YOUNG CHILDREN SERIOUSLY CAN DELAY SCARES ME. THE DRAINING IS ESTABLISH THE HEAVY RAIN FALLS WILL CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD. INSTANCE THIS SECTION THAT COVERS AND SAYS IN PART AN OPEN CHANNEL MAY BE PERMITTED TO ACCOMMODATE RUNOFF EXCEEDING THE DESIGN CAPACITY OF A 72 INCH PIPE AND THAT IS ROUGHLY 600 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND AND THE FLOW BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES IS 35 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. THERE ARE OTHER CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS USE OF OPEN CHANNELS AND NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN MET. I ASK ALL THE ITEMS INCLUDED BE DENIED BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPER IS HELD TO THE CODES OUT OF THE SAFETY AS WELL AS WHAT IS DESIGNED FOR ROWLETT.

>> NAT, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING THAT IS NOT SPOKE ALREADY PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WANT TO OPEN THIS BACKUP TO QUESTIONS.

I HAVE AT LEAST TWO AND I'M SURE COUNSEL HAS OTHERS. CAN YOU COME BACK UP? THE FIRST THING I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS AND I KNOW THE ANSWER BUT I WANT IT ADDRESS BY YOU IS WISE IT OKAY TO HAVE TWO 35 FOOT BUT NOT ONE 70 FOOT? WHY IS THAT WORDING IN OUR DOCUMENTS AND WHAT IS THAT

TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? >> THE LANGUAGE IN THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE WHEN INTERPRETED BY STAFF WHEN WE ASSESSED THAT LANGUAGE THERE ARE COUPLE OF SECTIONS WITHIN 70 7508 I'M JUST QUOTING THAT I DON'T KNOW IT VERBATIM BUT THE GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NUMBER, IT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE A VISUAL FROM THE DOOR. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A SINGLE FLAT SURFACE SUCH AS ONE SINGLE TWO-CAR GARAGE VERSUS THE OTHER OPTION WHERE YOU HAVE THE SEPARATION OF A TWO-CAR

[01:40:01]

GARAGE WHERE THE SINGLE TWO-CAR GARAGE IS IT BREAKS UP THAT ELEVATION. IT CREATES A RELIEF IN THE BUILDING ITSELF AND IT DOESN'T DEVIATE FROM THE PROMINENCE OF THE FRONT DOOR.

THAT IS PRIMARILY THE INTENT OF THIS STATEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND FROM INTERPRETATION PERSPECTIVE THAT IS HOW WE REVIEWED IT. WE REVIEWED THAT ENTIRE SECTION, PRINCIPALLY WE DIDN'T BREAK IT APART WITH EACH PARAGRAPH OR COMPONENT. THE PURPOSE IS TO HAVE A STREETSCAPE AND THE STREETSCAPE SHOULD HAVE RELEF TO IT WHERE YOU CAN INDIVIDUALLY REALIZE EACH LOT THERE YOU HAVE YOUR ENTRANCE PROMINENTLY LOCATED OR DESIGNED AND YOU CAN HAVE ARCHITECTURAL RELIEF IN YOUR TWO-CAR GARAGE WHERE ONE IS RECESSED IN, ONE PROTRUDES OUT IN A DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS THE PRIMARY INTENT AND A LOT OF COMMUNITIES HAVE A SIMILAR CODE AND THAT'S HOW THEY INTERPRET IT TO A PLANNING STANDPOINT FROM A LAND-USE

DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT. >> THANK YOU. THIS PRESENTATION THIS PICTURE THAT WAS GIVEN TO US DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE CALCULATIONS THERE? I THINK THE PURPOSE OF THE DIAGRAM AND FORGIVE ME I'M GOING TO SPEAK WITH WHAT WAS IN

THE PACKET AND THEN. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THIS BUT I THINK THE PURPOSE OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE COMPONENT IN THE STAFF REPORT WAS TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE TO SHOW HOW LONG THAT SINGLE CAR GARAGE DOOR WOULD BE. TO PREFACE AGAIN THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT HAD ASKED FOR A DEVIATION FROM THE ROWLETT VELTMAN CODE TO INCREASE THAT PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT FROM 35 FEET 67 PERCENT SO, WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN A GARAGE DOOR AT APPROXIMATELY 20.1 FEET THE REASON WHY WE ROUND IT UP AND I'M SAYING WE COLLECTIVELY FROM A PLANNING STAFF STANDPOINT BECAUSE WHEN THOSE DEVIATION FROM A BUILDIN FOOTPRINT OR BUILDING DESIGN WAS TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. SO, THIS DRAWING I DON'T DISAGREE WITH IT BUT IT IS ARTICULATING THE MIDDLE COMPONENT OF THE DRAWING THAT YOU RAISED UP WHICH WAS SHOWING THE TWO SINGLE CAR GARAGE IS AND THAT IS WHERE I THINK THE DISCREPANCY MIGHT COME UP OR THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE THERE IS THAT ASSOCIATED RELIEF. THE BOTTOM LINE IS IF THIS IS NOT PAST TONIGHT THEY'LL HAVE TO REVISE THE PLANS AND SHOW HOW THIS WORKS WITH TWO 35 FOOT GARAGE

IS? >> CORRECT THEY WOULD HAVE TO

COMPLY WITH THE CODE. >> 35 BOOK, I MET 35 PERCENT SORRY. MY LAST QUESTION I THINK IS THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT THE ORDINANCE WE ARE VOTING ON TONIGHT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT WAS SHOWN AT P&G JAVA COMMENT ON THAT?

>> I'M NOT SURE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE QUESTION WAS FROM THE AUDIENCE. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE DAVID COULD YOU HELP ME ANSWER THAT QUESTION, PLEASE? I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT ORDINANCE THEY HAD IN FRONT OF THEM THE ONE THAT YOU'VE GOT BEFORE YOU KNOW THAT WAS IN THE PACKET AND THAT MAY HAVE BEEN TWEAKED DURING MY AGENDA PREP LAST WEEK BUT ANY DIFFERENCES WOULD BE INCREDIBLY SLIGHT. NOTHING OF

SUBSTANCE AND CERTAINLY - >> ANY THE AUDIENCE TO STAY,

QUIET PLEASE. >> NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE BUT THE PNC MAKES RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL THEN NOT APPROVING ORDINANCES OR SIMPLY ASKING THAT YOU RECOMMEND, APPROVE OR

DENY A ZONING CHANGE. >> THANK YOU. COUNSEL, QUESTIONS?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GRUBISICH? >> MUNAL YOU KNOW WHAT CONCRETE LOOKS LIKE ANY A LOT GOING ON. YOU KNOW WHAT FORMS LOOK LIKE, RIGHT? YOU ARE A DEVELOPER, HE YOUR CODE COMPLIANCE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT PIPES COME OUT OF THE GROUND LOOK LIKE AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. LET'S GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY. SCORE BREAUX HAS PUT ON A LOT OF GREAT PROJECTS IN THIS TOWN HAVE YOU HAD ISSUES WITH THEM IN THE PAST?

>> I HAVE NOT, NUMBER. >> IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A MISTAKE WHEN THERE'S THAT MANY MOVING PIECES IN A DEVELOPMENT PROCESS COULD BE LOOKED OVER ESPECIALLY IF THEY'VE LOOKED OVER SEVERAL PROJECTS IN A CITY?

>> I'M SURE IT'S A POSSIBILITY, YES. >> I KNOW EVEN IF YOU'RE AN EXPERT IN YOUR FIELD AND YOU DON'T MAKE A MISTAKE FROM TIME TO TIME I WOULD LIKE YOU TO BE THE FIRST TO COME OUT AND TELL ME YOUR PERFECT. IS IT ALSO COMMON AS CITIES DEVELOP AS

[01:45:02]

MARKETS CHANGE AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE DEVELOPING IN SMALL HARD TO DEVELOP SITES LIKE THIS SITE IS THAT THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE CHANGES THAT HAPPEN?

>> DEVIATIONS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT?

>> DEVIATIONS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT. THOSE OCCURRENCES

DO HAPPEN. >> WHEN WE LOVE IT IF EVERY HOME IN THE CITY COULD HAVE J HOOKS AND GARAGES? YES, I THINK WE WOULD ALL LOVE THAT. DID ANYBODY ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANYBODY THAT CAME AND TALKED AND I OFFERED TO GO AND BUY THIS PROPERTY FROM THE HOMEOWNER SO THAT THEY COULD DO WITH IT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH IT? NUMBER I DIDN'T THINK SO. SO WHAT I WANT TO DO IS MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR POINT.

HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT ARE APPEAR TALKING TONIGHT AND YOU'VE ALL GOT A CHANCE TO SAY YOUR POINT ANALOGOUS SAY MY POINT. THIS IS ABOUT GARAGES. YOU MAKE THESE KINDS OF CHANGES ALL THE TIME. EVERMORE QUESTION. TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY. DAVID, HOW MANY ATTORNEYS DID YOU CONSULT WITH?

>> I'M SORRY KEEP TALKING. >> HOW MANY ATTORNEYS DID YOU CONSULT WITH IN TERMS OF HOW WE DEAL WITH OUR ZONING AND

ORDINANCE CHANGES? >> I DID SPEAK WITH PARTNERS OF MINE AS I HAVE INDICATED BEFORE MY FRIEND SPECIALIZES IN MUNICIPAL LAW. WORK WITH A COUPLE DOZEN CITIES WITHIN THE

REGION. >> IS SAFE TO SAY IT'S NOT JUST YOU WITH THIS OPINION? YOUR ENTIRE FIRM WHICH IS MADE UP OF I GUESS SEVERAL DOZEN ATTORNEYS AGREE WITH YOU?

>> I CAN'T DO TWO BUTTONS AT ONCE.

>> I APOLOGIZE. >> HE CAN, THE MAN BEHIND THE WALL. [LAUGHTER] PUSHED IT AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO, YOU KNOW IT'S EASY, PNC ARE A VOLUNTARY BOARD AND WE TRY TO PUT THE BEST PEOPLE ON THEIR WE POSSIBLY CAN. WHEN YOU GET PEOPLE WHO COME UP AND THROW THINGS AT THEM IT'S EASY FOR SOMEBODY TO GET FLUSTERED.

WITH A VOLUNTARY BOARD I WOULD ARGUE ANYBODY IN THIS AUDIENCE IF YOU'RE SUCH AN EXPERT, APPLIED TO BE ON PNC WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU AND I MEAN THAT IN ALL SINCERITY. IF YOU HAVE 50 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE DOING THIS PLEASE AND YOU'VE LIVED IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR 35 YEARS AND YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT THE BEST IS YOU WANT TO MAKE CHANGES, HOW YOU MAKE CHANGES AS YOU COME AND APPLY FOR BOARD AND YOU GET ON PNC AND YOU GET UP THERE AND WORK ON IT YOU DON'T COME UP HERE AND YELL AT US FOR 30 MINUTES AND COLLAR STAFF DUMB. THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S DONE AND THAT'S NOT A GET CHANGE DONE. AGAIN, I COME BACK, THIS IS A GARAGE DOOR YET TO THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT THEIR HOME AND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. THIS IS A COMEDY OF ERRORS. YOU'RE RIGHT THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

MAKE THESE KINDS OF CHANGES ON CIVIL MISTAKES QUITE OFTEN.

I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF LETTING THESE PEOPLE HAVE THEIR GARAGE DOORS. TO ME, I WOULDN'T WANT A GARAGE DOOR THAT SPLIT INTO

TWO. YOU CANNOT USE IT. >> WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO FOLLOW THAT? NO SIR. NO SIR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNSEL? MA'AM, WE ARE NOT TAKING COMMENTS FROM THE FIELD WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD A VOTE YET. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? COUNSEL? AT THIS TIME I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

COUNCILMEMBER MATT GRUBISICH? >> I MAKE A MOTIONMOTION TO

APPROVE ITEM 8C. >> DO YOU WANT HIM TO READ ALL

THE COMPONENTS? >> IF THE MOTION IS TO APROVE THE ITEM AS READ OR IF IT IS IN THE AGENDA PACKET SPINE.

>> HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE ITEM 8C.

COUNCILMEMBER BROWNIE SHERRILL?

>> I WILL SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY COMMENTS BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE? GOING TO MAKE A GENERAL COMMENT. I DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. ORIGINALLY BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF DENSITY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WOULD'VE DONE IN REGARDS TO THE REQUEST FOR CHANGING THE FRONT FA?ADE. THAT IS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE AT THIS TIME. WE HAVE A SPECIFIC ITEM BEFORE US THAT HAS TO GET RESOLVED AND

[01:50:08]

THAT IS WHAT I AM FOCUSING ON RIGHT NOW. I'M NOT FOCUSING ON THE OVERALL DENSITY OF THE PROJECT OR MY ORIGINAL BOAT IN REGARDS TO MY DENIAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AT THE TIME. I AM CONSIDERING THIS IN A VERY NARROW MANNER WHICH I THINK NEEDS TO BE DONE. THOSE ARE MY GENERAL COMMENTS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE THE VOTE? CALL THE VOTE PAY THE ITEM IS TO

APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> THAT ITEM PASSES 5-1. WE

[8D. Conduct a public hearing and take action on a request by Stefan Sansone regarding a Special Use Permit to allow a carport in excess of 500 square feet on property zoned Single-Family Residential (SF-10) District. The subject property is located at 8010 Garner Road, approximately 1,473 feet west of the intersection of Dalrock and Garner Roads, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

WILL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 8D WHICH IS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON REQUEST BY STEFAN SANSONE REGARDING CAR PORT IN EXCESS OF 500 OW A - SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTIES ZONED LOCATED AT 8010 GARNER ROAD, APPROXIMATELY,473 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DALROCK AND GARNER ROADS, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS ITEM IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST THAT ALLOWS FOR A CARPORT WHICH EXCEEDS THE 500 SQUARE-FOOT LIMIT IMPOSED BY THE ROWLETT VELTMAN CODE. I MAY SAY THIS COUPLE THREE TIMES THIS EVENING BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT STP IS A FORMAL ZONING ACTION WHICH ENCOURAGES THE PUBLIC IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES AND IS INTENDED TO ENSURE IT. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEGREGATING YOUR VOICE FROM THE VOICES IN THE HALLWAY, I'M SORRY. I NEED TO TAKE A COUPLE MINUTES BREAK SO LET'S ALL RIGHT. ALEX, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO START OVER BECAUSE I WAS HAVING TROUBLE CONCENTRATING.

>> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT STP TO ALLOW FOR A CARPORT THAT EXCEEDS THE 500 SQUARE-FOOT LIMIT IMPOSED BY THE ROWLETT VELTMAN CODE. THIS IS A FORMAL ZONING ACTION WHICH ENCOURAGE DELAY ENCOURAGES SITE REVIEW. THIS IS TO INTENDED THE USE WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON INFRASTRUCTURE, CORE DOORS OR COMMUNITY AT LARGE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A PLATTED LOT OF 1800 SQUARE FEET WITHIN A SF TIN DISTRICT WHICH REQUIRES A 10,000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT AND AMONG. ON THIS LOT THERE IS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENT HERE THERE'S ALSO AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND ALSO AND UNPERMITTED DETACH CARPORT WHICH IS ACCESS FROM THE REAR ALLIE. A BIT OF A BACKGROUND ON THIS BECAUSE THE VARIANT TO A SETBACK IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN AN SEP REQUEST AND THERE IS A SETBACK ISSUE WITH THE EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE, THERE WAS A VARIANCE THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT IN ORDER TO KEEP THE EXISTING CARPORT THAT WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT THE PERMIT THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BACK IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR AND APPROVED FOR THAT SETBACK FROM THREE FEET TO 1 AND A HALF FEET. AND THEN SUBJECT TO THAT BECAUSE THE SIZE OF THE CARPORT EXCEEDED THE ALLOWANCE OF THE CARPORT AND S&P WAS ALLOWED THIS IS WHY THEY ARE MAKING THAT REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION. PASTE UPON THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN GIVEN TO US BY THE APPLICANT THIS CARPORT IS A PRE-ENGINEERED METAL STRUCTURE 850 FEET WHICH IS UNDER THE ALLOWANCE OF HER ORDINANCE PAY THE CARPORT IS 15 FEET AND THE CARPORT IS ONE AND HALF FEET FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE WERE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES FRONT ON GARNER ROAD WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE PRETTY APPLICANT TOTAL LOT COVERAGE OF THE STRUCTURE AND PERVIOUS SURFACE ON THE SITE WHICH INCLUDES THE HOME WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, THE DRIVES AND THE CARPORT IS LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED 45 PERCENT UNDER THE SF TIN ZONING DISTRICT. I WOULD ALSO NOTE

[01:55:02]

THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL CARS WITHIN THE RADIUS OF THIS SUBJECT SITE THAT ALSO DO HAVE REAR CARPORTS. THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO INFORMED US IN HIS MATERIALS THAT THE CARPORT IS INTENDED FOR THE FOLLOWING. PROTECTION FROM INCLEMENT WEATHER, STORAGE OF A TRUCK AND RV AS WELL AS MOTORCYCLES.

SHOULD THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE SEP THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO INSTALL A ROLLING SECURITY GATE WHICH WOULD BE PARALLEL TO THE ALLEY TO THE SOMEWHAT ENCLOSED BUT IN A WAY OF CONSTRUCTING A WALL OR A GATE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SECURITY TO PROPERTY OR EQUIPMENT WHICH WOULD BE UNDER THE CARPORT BUT NOT STORED WITHIN THE ATTACHED GARAGE. I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT SHOULD DSTHE SEP AND CONCRETE THAT WAS POURED IN ADDITION TO THIS YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE SLIDE. THE CONSIDERATION IS SPECIFIC TO CARPORTS UNDER SECTION 70 7303 C7 OF THE RDC SETS OUT THREE REQUIREMENTS FOR CARPORTS. NO CARPORT CAN BE INSTALLED WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT. SECONDLY THE DIFFERENT STANDARDS APPLY UPON THE LOCATION AND VISIBILITY FROM A PUBLIC STREET AND THIRDLY THE CARPORTS ARE A SPECIFIC TYPE OF STRUCTURE AND THEREFORE REGULATIONS REGARDING IT ARE ALSO APPLICABLE. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THE FOLLOWING SLIDE. IN REGARDS TO THE BUILDING PERMIT THE APPLICANT HAS STATED HE REQUESTED FROM THE CONTRACTOR WHICH HE ENGAGED TO INSTALL THIS CARPORT AND HE REQUESTED FOR THIS CONTRACTOR AND EXPECTED THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY PERMITS.

THOSE PERMITS WERE NOT THE DET EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM AREA 500 FEET. AT THAT POINT IN TIME THIS IS WHERE THE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED THERE AT THAT POINT. WITH THAT I WOULD NOTE THAT ALSO SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVED DSUP IT WOULD NOT ABSOLVE THE APPLICANT OF ALL THE CITY ORDINANCES AS THEY RELATE TO CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, THE LIFE AND SAFETY OF THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. HE WOULD HAVE TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE CARPORT INCLUDING CONCRETE. IT WOULD ALSO SPECIFY THAT ENGINEER STAMPED DRAWINGS WILL BE REQUIRED TO VERIFY THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE CARPORT AND ALSO THAT THERE WOULD BE A DRAINAGE STUDY TO BE REQUIRED AND DONE BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL TO ENSURE THAT WATER IMPACT IS NOT IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES INCLUDING THE CITIES NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE CARPORT LOCATION AGAIN I NOTED THAT THERE ARE DISTINCT STANDARD FOR CARPORTS RACE UPON THE SPECIFIC YARD WHERE THE CARPORT IS LOCATED AND WHETHER OR NOT IT IS VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC STREETS. THE CARPORT WE WILL STIPULATE TECHNICAL VISIBLY LOOKING ON THE ALLEY FROM WAYNE LAY AND SOME LOCATIONS ON GARNER ROAD.

WHERE WE LIE ON THIS IS WE TAKE THE STANDARD OF IT IS LOCATED ON THE REAR YARD AND NOT VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC STREET BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST WIDELY VISIBLE FROM THE GARNER ROAD FRONTAGE. IF WE WERE TO APPLY THAT STANDARD FULLY ACROSS THE LINE YOU WOULD HAVE CARPORTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT ARE VISIBLE FROM OTHER STREETS VIA ALLEYS AND SUCH AND IF YOU'RE STANDING IN THE RIGHT SPOT WHEN THE TREES DON'T HAVE ANY TREE LEAVES ON THEM -DC RHYME GOING WITH THIS? MOST CARPORTS IN THE REAR YARD ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC STREET.

THEREFORE THE STANDARDS OF THE CARPORT OKAYED IN THE REAR YARD ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC STREET THEY WOULD HAVE THE MINIMUM THREE FOOT REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES NOT TO EXCEED FEET PARKING IN HEIGHT NO GREATER THAN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY THE REZONING DISTRICT IN ANY SUCH CARPORT NOT EATING THAT STANDARD MAY BE ALLOWED ONLY WITHIN THE SEP. WHERE THIS CARPORT DOES FALL SHORT IT CERTAINLY IS WITHIN THAT AREA IN EXCESS OF 500 SQUARE FEET.

ONE MORE TIME WITH US AGAIN TO REMIND EVERYONE THE SEP IS TO

[02:00:02]

ENCOURAGE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC REVIEW AND EVALUATION TO ENSURE THAT THIS PROPOSED USE WOULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON SURROUNDING USES, INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORTATION CORE DOORS AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. FOR THE FIRST TOUCH ON THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THIS PROPERTY, AGAIN, VISIBILITY IS MINIMAL FROM GARNER ROAD BUT DUE TO THE CLOSENESS OF THE STRUCTURE ON THE FENCE LINE OF HIS EASTERN NEIGHBOR AS WELL AS A PUBLIC ALLEY THERE IS A VERY NOTABLE VISUAL IMPACT.

ARGUABLY, THIS STRUCTURE IS NOT SUITABLE FOR ITS LOCATION WITHIN A SOMEWHAT TYPICAL SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD OF NOT PARTICULAR BUT DUE TO ITS PROXIMITY TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC ALLEY. ALSO WITH THE DRAINAGE BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE CONCRETE WHICH WERE POURED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE STRUCTURE, IT IS UNKNOWN WHETHER THERE ARE ADDITIONAL STORMWATER RUNOFFS OR CHANGES TO THE DRAINAGE PATTERN WHICH WERE IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THIS CARPORT AND THE ADDITIONAL CONCRETE. AGAIN, THIS IS THE REALLY MAJOR PURPOSE TO WHY WE HAVE PERMITTING TO MAKE SURE THESE STRUCTURES AND CONCRETE IN IMPROVEMENT ARE NOT GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL AS PROPERTY OWNERS THEMSELVES. IN REGARDS TO THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE SENT OUT REGARDING THIS THEY WERE SENT OUT OCTOBER 25TH 21 NOTICES WERE SENT IN THE 200 FOOT NOTICE RANGE AND THERE WAS ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION FIVE RECEIVED BACK IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND IN THE CRECY NOTICE RANGE OF 500 FOOT RADIUS THERE WERE NO OPPOSITIONS RESPONSES RECEIVED AND ONE IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST. AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING BACK ON NOVEMBER NINTH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENIED THE SEP WITHIN A 5-TO VOTE. THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL OF THIS SEP AND AGAIN DUE TO THE NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACT WHICH WE HAVE HAD FROM THE PUBLIC ALLEY AND ALSO TO THE UNKNOWN CHANGES AND IMPACTS OF THE INSTALLATION OF THIS CARPORT AND CONCRETE HAVE HAD ON THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN FOR BOTH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC ALLEY SHOULD THE COUNCIL CHOOSE TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST WE DO RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS PAID THE APPLICANT INSTALL AND OPAQUE SOLID GATE AND MITIGATE THE VISUAL IMPACT FROM THE ALLEY. ALSO, THAT THE APPLICANT APPLY FOR ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND PROVIDE ENGINEERED INSTRUCTIONAL DRAWINGS FOR THE CARPORT AND THIRDLY THAT ANY MODIFICATION NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE COMPLIANT BODY INSTALLED BY THE APPLICANT. WITH THAT I APOLOGIZE FOR GOING SO LONG AND PERHAPS BEING REPETITIVE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER THAT AND IT WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE AND HE HAS A PRESENTATION. QUICK THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF BEFORE WE GO TO THE APPLICANT? OKAY.

GO AHEAD APPLICANT, COME FORWARD IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT WE HAVE ALL LISTENED TO THE PNC MEETING AND IF YOU COULD LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO ITEMS THAT THE STAFF HAS NOT ALREADY COVERED, DO YOU THINK FIVE MINUTES OR LESS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR YOUR PRESENTATION? LEXA SHOULD BE ABLE TO SKIP THROUGH A LOT OF THESE IF YOU'VE ARTIE HEARD

THEM. >> YOU CAN ASSUME THAT WE'VE ALL LISTENED TO PNC BEAUSE WE ALL DO. THANK YOU. WE WILL PUT THE CLOCK ON FIVE MINUTES. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE

RECORDS ARE? GO AHEAD. >> STEFAN ANTHONY SANSONE ON.I MOVED HERE FROM CAMP PENDLETON IN CALIFORNIA WHEN I GOT OUT OF THE MARINE CORPS. I AM ON A VERY LIMITED INCOME AND I HAVE SAVED QUITE A WHILE FOR THIS TO BE PUT INTO IMPROVE MY PROPERTY. IT WENT AROUND CANVASSING THE NEIGHBORHOOD VERY QUICKLY AND GOT 29 SIGNATURES IN FAVOR WITH NO PROBLEM OF HAVING THE CARPORT THERE. THERE IS THE THE REASON FOR THE CARPORT IS MAINLY TO NOT PROTECT THE RV AND REDUCE

[02:05:03]

THE COST OF STORING IT SOMEWHERE, BUT TO ALLOW AN EXIT FROM OUR VEHICLE WHEN I AM LIKE I AM NOW. MY BACK WENT OUT ON ME AND I JUST GOT BACK EARLY THIS MORNING FROM THE VA HOSPITAL FOR SOME SHOTS ON MY BACK TO RELEASE IT. A LOT OF TIMES GETTING OUT IN INCLEMENT WEATHER CAN BE A PAIN WHEN YOU HAVE A CANE. THE MOST IMPORTANT PART HERE, I WAS MISLED BY SEEING THESE CARPORTS AND THEM TELLING ME I DIDN'T NEED THIS WHEN ANOTHER PERSON THAT I KNOW IN ROWLETT FELL VICTIM TO THESE CARPORTS. THERE WAS A WHOLE INITIAL TIME TO WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THOMAS TO TRY TO GET THEM TO WORK WITH ME AND IT WORKED FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND THEN WE WENT TO COURT IN MAY AND I DROPPED THE CASE AND LOST ALL LEVERAGE ON THAT. I WORKED WITH THE CITY WHENEVER IT WAS REQUESTED THROUGH THIS WHOLE 2 AND A HALF YEAR PROCESS MY DRIVEWAY HAS BEEN THE SITE OF A COUPLE OF GLORIES OVER THE PAST TWO AND HALF YEARS SINCE FEBRUARY OF 2019 AND I HAVE TURNED IN AN ITEMIZED LIST TO MY INSURANCE COMPANY MADE CLAIMS TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT TD WHO CAME OUT AND TOOK REPORTS. MY TRAILER WAS STOLEN THAT WAS LOADED, IT WAS A STORAGE TRAILER WITH TOOLS THAT COULDN'T FIT IN THE GARAGE AND IT WAS STOLEN OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY. AFTER THAT BOTH OF MY TRUCKS WERE BROKEN INTO AND HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO PUT A PSLIDING SECURITY GATE ON THERE AND IT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM TO FINISH OFF THAT PART OF MY DRIVEWAY AND IT WOULD INCREASE SECURITY AND THE CARPORT WOULD IMPROVE DRAINAGE WITH LESS WATER THAT IT HAD TO ABSORB A CHANNELING IN THE CARPORT ROOF AND CEMENT DARKLY INTO THE ALLEY. IT IS LEANING DOWN TOWARDS ALLEY FROM THE HOUSE AND ALL THE WATER RUNS INTO THIS VERTICAL WATERFALL IN THE ALLEY AND GOES STRAIGHT INTO THE ALLEYWAY. THE TOPIC OF INTEREST ON LOCAL STRUCTURES, I HAD EMAILED CARLOS THE LATE PERMIT FOR THE CONCRETE THAT GAVE TO MARK COSBY ON THE 29TH AND HE HAD TOLD ME THAT THE CONCRETE WASN'T REALLY A PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM WAS THE SIZE OF THE CARPORT WHICH IS OVER 500 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S A COPY OF WHAT I SENT TO CARLOS ON THE 29TH OF JULY 2019. IT IS NEVER HEARD BACK FROM HIM REGARDING THAT. I DIDN'T KNOW HE HAD LEFT LAST YEAR. NOT HEARING BACK I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS FINE WITH THE CONCRETE WE WERE JUST GOING FORWARD WITH THE BOARD VARIANCE FOR THE EASEMENT AND THAT WAS A SURPRISE TO ME. DALE CAME OUT AND MET WITH ME ON 11/19 A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND WE HAD HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT SPLITTING THE CARPORT IN HALF AND I AND INFORMED HIM THAT ICE IN THE EMAIL WITH THE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION IN 2019 TO GIVE TO THEM. THAT SHOWED THAT I HAD SOMETHING IN THE PERMIT. NOW WHAT MARK HAD INFORMED ME OF RETROACTIVELY AND I HADN'T ADDRESSED THIS IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING IS THAT SINCE I HAD NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING BACK FROM THEM I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS FINE. THE CONVERSATION WITH DALE AND JEFF THE ENGINEER MY PROPERTY A WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A DRAIN -

>> SEE IF YOU CAN WRAP IT UP IN ANOTHER MINUTE IF YOU CAN.

>> IS HARD TO THINK SOMETIMES ON THIS. WHEN THE HOUSE NEXT TO ME, 8014 WAS BUILT THEY ELEVATED IT AND IRONICALLY THE GUY THAT BUILT MY HOUSE AND THE HOUSE NEXT TO ME LIVED ON THE CORNER OF RANDY AND WAYNE. HE SAID, I TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THIS OVER THE PAST TWO AND HALF YEARS HE TOLD ME THAT THEY BROUGHT IN 35 TRUCKS FROM EACH LOT TO PUT EACH HOME AT AN

[02:10:02]

ELEVATED POSITION WHICH CREATED FLOODING INTO THAT GRASS AREA NEXT TO MY DRIVEWAY WHICH MADE IT USELESS UNLESS I PUT CONCRETE IN THEIR SPARK SOMETHING ON P THIS NO PARKING ON THE FRONT OF GARNER AND IT IS VERY LIMITED TO WHERE GUESTS CAN PARK AT MY HOUSE. IT'S ONLY IN THE DRIVEWAY. BUT TO SUMMARIZE THESE POINTS, AS EVIDENCE BEING EXISTED IN PHOTOS IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE IN THE FORTHCOMING SLIDES IS AGGRAVATED USE OF A PROBLEM THAT ALREADY EXISTED AND IS NOW MORE PRONOUNCED MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATION THE HOUSE IS RACED ON. IF THIS IS A REASON FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO CONTACT A HOMEBUILDER OR POOL INSTALLER TO HELP RECTIFY ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE IF NEEDED I ALSO MENTIONED WITH JEFF THE CAME OUT TO MY HOUSE THAT I'M WILLING TO CUT A LITTLE BIT OF THAT CONCRETE OUT TO ALLOW DRAINAGE AND FILL THAT SPOT TO THE ALLEY WITH LARGE GRAVEL AND SEE IF THAT CAN HELP MANY NEIGHBOR IN HER DRAINAGE ISSUE EVEN THOUGH SHE IS ELEVATED AT LEAST A FOOT ABOVE MY HOUSE AND ALL THAT WATER WAS ALWAYS SENT DOWN TO MY EASTERN PERIMETER. AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT IS WHERE THE CONCRETE, I HAVE 40 PICTURES OF EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING INSTALLED IS TIED INTO MY DRIVEWAY IS ACTUALLY THICKER THAN MY DRIVEWAY AND IS ON A SLOPE AND ANGLE TOWARDS MY DRIVEWAY. THERE IS NO RUNOFF FROM THAT CONCRETE OR THE CARPORT SIDE THAT GO INTO MY NEIGHBOR'S YARD. EVERYTHING IS ACTUALLY DRAINED ON A DEGREE OF ANGLE TOWARDS MY DRIVEWAY WHERE THE TRUCK IS SITTING ON THE RIGHT PICTURE. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO DRAINAGE I HAD THE FORETHOUGHT TO THINK ABOUT DRAINING IT TOWARDS MY DRIVEWAY AND NOT ANYWHERE ELSE. SO, IF THERE IS A DRAINAGE PORT TO STUDY I'M SURE THAT THEY WOULD FIND THAT WATERSHED TOWARDS THE WEST AND NORTHEAST. THE CONSTRUCTION IS GRADED SO ALL THE CONSTRUCTION DRAINS TO THE RIGHT TOWARDS THE RED TRUCK AND THE GUY SAID IT CREATES A WATERFAL AT THE END OF THE ALLEY OR BY THE ALLEY AND EVERYTHING HAS GONE INTO THE ALLEY. THE TIMESTAMP OF THE FLOODING, I'M JUST SHOWING THAT IT EXISTED AND I HAD TO MITIGATE IT TO MY DRIVEWAY USE THAT AREA OF GRASS FOR ANYTHING. JUST NORTH OF THAT THERE USED TO BE A GARDEN NEXT TO THAT BLUE CIRCLE THAT IS NOW A SWAMP. IT JUST SITS THERE BECAUSE THE WHOLE PROPERTY SITS UNDERNEATH THE LEVEL OF GARNER AND UNDERNEATH THE LEVEL OF THE ALLEY AT THE BACK. SO, IT NEVER REALLY MAKES ITS WAY OUT OF THE ALLEY. THE ISSUE ALREADY HEARD THIS PART FROM PLANNING AND ZONING BUT HERE ARE SOME ISSUES TO SHOW YOU JUST NORTH OF THE CONCRETE THAT I LAID ON THAT STRIP OF GRASS LOOK LIKE THAT. F TO ELEVATE EVERYTHING ON PALLETS TO STORE ANYTHING ON THAT SIDE YARD AND THIS IS WHAT MY YARD LOOK LIKE BY THE DRIVEWAY. THERE'S NO WAY I COULD HAVE GRAVEL THERE IT WAS JUST PUSHED DOWN IN THE MUD AND EVENTUALLY DISAPPEARED AFTER A YEARS WORTH OF RAIN.

UTILIZE THE AREA THAT HAD TO BE CONCRETE TO STOP THE WATER FROM THE ELEVATED HOUSE NEXT TO ME MAKING AN EFFECTS THAT WAS NEGATIVE. SO, ALL THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES TO THE WEST OF ME FELT PRIOR TO 8014 GARNER ARE EITHER AT OR BELOW ALLEY STREET LEVEL AND ALL OF US RETAIN WATER. IT'S SOMETHING THAT COMES WITH THIS TYPE OF SOIL WE HAVE HERE AND I NEVER EXPECTED IT. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS A CLAY THING THAT RAN NORTH AND SOUTH. BUT THE FRONT ALSO YOU CAN SEE MY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS COMPLETELY FLOODED AND 8014 IS ELEVATED AND THE WATERSHEDS ONTO MINE AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED NEXT TO MY DRIVEWAY AS WELL. THAT'S THE FLOODING YOU CAN SEE A REFLECTION OF. SHE'D MENTIONED TO ME THAT SHE HAD FIXED HER YARD AND AD HOC FILTERS TO HER FLOODING PROBLEMS AND YOU THE PHOTOGRAPHS I'VE TRANSFERRED IN MY YARD JUST LIKE MY NEIGHBOR HAS IN HIS YARD AND US HAVING

[02:15:30]

TO DEAL WITH THE FLOODING, BOTH OF OUR PROPERTIES THE SOIL WATERSHED CONDITIONS BEFORE AND THESE WERE THE EXACT SAME CONDITIONS NOW, THEY STILL EXIST AND THEY ALWAYS WILL BECAUSE OF THE COMPOSITION BETWEEN THE SOIL. I WANT TO GO QUICKLY TO THE STRUCTURES THERE ARE OTHER STRUCTURES THAT ARE AT OR LARGER THAN MINE IN PLAIN VIEW OF A MAIN STREET AND THIS ONE IS ON PRINCETON AS YOU DRIVE THAT TWO-LANE ROAD YOU CAN SEE IT RIGHT IN SOMEONE'S BACKYARD. MINE IS BARELY VISIBLE ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. IF YOU STAND ON 8014 AT THE CORNER SHOP LOOKING AT 2:00 YOU CAN SEE A PORTION OF THE CARPORT AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY IT IS A SIDE SHOT OR A BACK SHOT. ANOTHER ONE, THIS CARPORT IS ACROSS THE GRASSY PART OF SCRUGGS PARK ABOUT 10:00 FACING NORTH OF THE HOUSE AND IT HAS SEVEN SUPPORTS AND MINE HAS EIGHT AND IT'S JUST AS WIDE JUST NOT AS LONG AS MINE. THEY HAVE A SLIDING SUPPORTING GATE AS WELL AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IF I CAN KEEP THIS. THIS IS ON CORNELL AND THIS IS THE CONTRACTOR THAT BUILT MY HOUSE. IT ACTUALLY HAS A HUGE SHED NEXT TO HIS HOUSE WITH A CARPORT AWNING CONNECTED TO HIS HOUSE. HE'S THE GENTLEMAN THAT TOLD ME THEY HAD BROUGHT IN 35 PALLETS OF DIRT WHEN HE WASN'T ALLOWED. WEXLER, WE CANNOT ADDRESS THESE OTHER ALLEGATIONS WE GET A GENERAL IDEA BUT EACH ONE OF THESE SITUATIONS IS DIFFERENT AND WE CANNOT POSSIBLY ADDRESS

THEM RIGHT HERE. >> OKAY. THAT IS EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE PAID THESE ARE THE SLIDES THAT I SUBMITTED IN MY

POCKET. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF YOU WANT TO SIT IN THE FRONT ROW IN CASE WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SIT THERE I JUST THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE EASIER. COUNSEL, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK HAVE ONE CARD FROM JENNIFER DIXON AND I'M GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO FIVE MINUTES. COME UP WITH THE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND LAURA, IF YOU COULD SET THAT AT FIVE MINUTES? THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION IN THE

PACKET. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JENNIFER DIXON AND I'M AT THE EASTERN PROPERTY AT 8014 GARNER RD. TO THIS REQUEST. YOU'VE ALREADY LISTENED TO PNC AND OF HEARD QUITE A BIT. I BY NO MEANS TAKE ANY PLEASURE IN BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I DID BRING IT TO THE MAN FIRST AND ASKED HIM ABOUT GETTING A BUILDING PERMIT AND HE SAID IT WASN'T NECESSARY. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER THEM NOT AN EXPERT BUT I'VE OWNED A HOME FOR MANY YEARS AND I JUST FIGURED THAT IT MUST BE NECESSARY FOR STRUCTURE OF THAT SIZE. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IT HAS HAD ADVERSE IMPACT TO MY PROPERTY. IS NOT JUST BEING VISIBLY APPEALING OR WHETHER YOU DISAGREE OR YOU AGREE BUT THE BIGGEST POIT OF CONTENTION IS THE CONCRETE PAD. I WILL OFFER THAT LIKE MYSELF I DO FEEL BAD FOR BOTH MR. SANSONE AND MYSELF FOR THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. HIM AND I HAD THAT CONVERSATION AFTER THE NOVEMBER NINTH MEETING. THIS IS OVER 2 AND A HALF YEARS WE HAVE SPENT WITH THE CITY. WE HEARD MANY THINGS TODAY THAT HAVE NEVER ONCE BEEN BROUGHT UP BY THE STAFF. IN TERMS OF BRINGING IT FORWARD IN THESE PACKETS. TO THAT POINT I AGREE WITH MR. SANSONE IN LEARNING THAT THE CONCRETE IS A PROBLEM WHEN IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A PROBLEM. IT'S BEEN POURED ALL THE WAY PAST MY SIDELINE AND I BUT UP AGAINST BOTH OF THOSE TWO ALLEYWAYS AND

[02:20:02]

IT'S THE ONLY WAY FOR WATER TO DRAIN. IT IS CLAY. MY ISSUE IS WHEN IT RAINS, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT RUNOFF BECAUSE I'M NOT A DRAINAGE EXPERT I KNOW WHEN IT RAINS IT FILLS UP THE BACKYARD AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO GO. I HAVE PICTURES OF WHEN IT OCCURRED AND AFTER WAS BUILT IN MARCH OF 2019 WHEN WE ARE IN THE RAINY SEASON. JUST LIKE MR. SANSONE I HAVE ALSO HAD A LOT OF FINANCIAL TIME, RESOURCES, FRUSTRATION, HOURS UPON HOURS OF STAYING UP UNTIL 2:00 3:00 IN THE MORNING TO ADVOCATE FOR MYSELF AND READ THE CODE MYSELF BECAUSE I EXPECTED THE CITY TO HELP US BOTH AND TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CODE WAS AND IT WASN'T THE INTENTION BUT REALLY WHAT IT ASKS CITIZENS TO ABIDE BY SO WE CAN HELP EACH OTHER. I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH IT BUT I ALSO KNOW I'M A TAXPAYING CITIZEN AND I SPENT A LOT OF HONEY AND A LOT OF TIME TO TRY TO NEGATE THIS ISSUE. YOU KNOW? THAT IS THE BIGGEST THING. I DIDN'T ASK FOR IT TO BE BUILT. I THINK THIS IS A SIMPLE ISSUE OF NOT DOING THE RIGHT THING IN THE BEGINNING AND IF IT WAS, I THINK THAT IT COULD'VE ADDRESSED ANY PAIN FOR ANYONE IN THIS ISSUE MYSELF OR MR. SANSONE WE COULD'VE JUST MOVE FORWARD. THE OTHER BIGGEST ISSUE I HAD, THERE'S A COUPLE, QUITE A FEW. THIS ONLY MADE IT TO YOU TONIGHT BECAUSE IT WAS APPROVED FIRST AT THE VARIANCE MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THE VARIANCE CODE IS EXTREMELY CLEAR. IT IS FOR HARDSHIPS RELATED TO LAND.

LAND, YOUR PROPERTY LINE ON A SOMETHING THAT PRECLUDES YOU TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT LAND IN THE WAY YOU ARE INTENDED TO USE THE LAND YOU CAN LITERALLY NOT USE THE LAND AS DESIGNED AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE MINOR DEVIATIONS. ONE THING WAS PRESENTED, ONE AND HALF FEET FROM THE LINE. IT HAS NUMEROUS WAYS THAT IT DOES NOT MEET CODE WHETHER YOU LOOK AT IT AS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR NOT. IT'S ALSO VISIBLE FOR MY EASTERN ALLEYWAY ALL ACROSS MY BACKYARD THE DRIVEWAY ALL THE WAY TO THE ALLEY AND REGARDLESS IT MEETS MANY FACTORS IN TERMS OF NOT MEETING CODE. THAT NIGHT IF YOU LISTEN TO THE HEARING I CAN TELL THE INDIVIDUALS FELT SORRY FOR MR. SANSONE AND HOW MUCH FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IT WOULD INCUR AND ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT WHAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN FOR ITS NOT WHAT YOU USE THE VARIANCE FOR. IT'S THE ONLY REASON IT THEN MADE ITSELF TO THE SEP. THE SEP VOTED TO DENY IT. THERE'S SO MUCH WRONG WITH IT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAVE MONEY EITHER WAY EVEN IF YOU APPLY FOR A PERMIT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU MISS DIXON. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN THIS ITEM FOR A PUBLIC HEARING? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKED COUNSEL IF ANYONE HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. OR ENTERTAIN

A MOTION. COUNCILWOMAN BROWN? >> YES I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY

ITEM 8D. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO DENY DSUP DUE TO THE SECOND? COUNCILMEMBER PAMELA BELL?

>> I SECOND IT. >> OF EMOTION AND A SECOND FOR DENIAL ANY OTHER QUESTION COUNSEL? COUNCILMEMBER MATT

GRUBISICH? >> I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION WITH THIS DENIAL WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?

>> WITH AN ACTION TO DENY THE REQUEST THE APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO REVERT BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AND REMOVE THE CARPORT OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE APPEARED OBVIOUSLY HE WILL BE GIVEN 15 DAYS TO DO SO HE WILL BE PROVIDED WRITTEN NOTICE TO REMOVE THE STRUCTURE.

>> THE ALTERNATIVE? YOU SAID THERE WERE SOME ALTERNATIVES IF APPROVED? IS THERE A THIRD OPTION IS NOT APPROVED AND HE CAN DO SOME OF THE STUDIES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE

[02:25:05]

FIRST PLACE TO FIND OUT WHAT'S BEING DONE SO HE CAN RESOLVE

THE ISSUE? >> THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS IF I CAN START WITH MAKING A CLARIFICATION, REGARDLESS, THE AREA, THE CARPORT CANNOT EXCEED 500 SQUARE FEET WHICH IT DOES.

WE ALREADY ARE FROM A STOCK PERSPECTIVE ASSESSING SOME OF THOSE DRAINAGE ISSUES AND WITHOUT HAVING THE PROPER STUDIES OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T TELL WHAT'S GOING ON BUT WITH THE CARPORT ITSELF AND GIVEN THE AREA AND HEIGHT OF THOSE ELEMENTS IT WOULD WARRANT AN SEP.

>> WE ARE IN A LOSE LOSE SITUATION IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE

SAYING? >> IS A GOOD WAY TO SAY IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> GOING TO MAKE SOME GENERAL COMMENTS BEFORE WE CALL A VOTE. YOU KNOW, SITUATIONS HAPPEN WHERE PERMITS ARE NOT OBTAINED BECAUSE CONTRACTORS DON'T DO THE RIGHT THING. IT HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES AND SITUATIONS HAVE HAPPENED WHERE RESIDENTS DON'T REALIZE THEY NEED TO GET A PERMIT. I THINK BACK WHEN I FIRST BECAME A HOMEOWNER AND A MAYOR AND I THINK I DID THAT WITHOUT A PERMIT AND THAT WASN'T GOOD. WON'T TELL YOU THE EXACT TALES OF THAT BUT IT WASN'T IN THIS CITY, OF COURSE. ANYWAY, THOSE THINGS HAPPEN. PNC AND COUNSEL HAS BEEN OPEN TO THOSE RESOLUTIONS WHEN IT MAKES SENSE AND TO ALLOW THAT PERMITTING TO HAPPEN AFTER THE FACTS. SO, THERE ARE PROCESSES IN PLACE AND PRECEDENT ON RESOLVING ISSUES WHERE PERMITS WERE NOT OBTAINED PROPERLY OR TIMELY. THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS IS A DON'T THINK THIS WOULD BE PERMITTED IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT APPROVE, THERE'S TOO MANY ISSUES WITH THIS SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO NOT ALLOW DSUP.

THAT WAS THE MOTION, IS THAT CORRECT, IF I CAN REMEMBER CORRECTLY: ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE? ALL RIGHT, CALL THE VOTE AT THIS TIME AND THAT IS TO DENY DSUP.

DENIAL IS UPHELD WITH A BOAT OF 4 TO 2 AND WE WILL NOW MOVE ON

[8E. Conduct a public hearing and take action on a request by Louis Clark, KinoD LLC., on behalf of property owner Skyview at Rowlett, LLC., regarding a request for a Special Use Permit to allow for multi-family dwellings on properties zoned Form-Based Urban Village (FB-UV) District. The subject properties are located at the southwest corner of Main and Oliver Streets, being Lot 1, Block A of Wall Addition, and the northwest corner of Dennis and Oliver Streets, being Lot 6, Block A of Oliver’s Addition No. 1, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS ITEM 8E. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY LOUIS CLARK, KINOD LLC., ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER SKYVIEW AT ROWLETT, LLC., REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS ON PROPERTIES ZONED FORM-BASED URBAN VILLAGE (FB-UV) DISTRICT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MAIN AND OLIVER STREETS, BEING LOT 1, BLOCK A OF WALL ADDITION, AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DENNIS AND OLIVER STREETS, BEING LOT 6, BLOCK A OF OLIVER?S ADDITION NUMBER 1, IN THE CITY O ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

WELCOME BACK MR. KOENIG. >> THANK YOU. . AGAIN THIS IS ANOTHER SEP REQUEST AND THIS TIME FOR ALLOWING A MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH MULTIFAMILY UNITS ON PROPERTIES FOR THE VILLAGE PAID THIS PROPERTY CONTAINS TWO SEPARATE PARCELS SEPARATED BY AN ALLEY AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN TO THE MAIN FRONTAGE IS MAIN STREET AS WELL AS OLIVER ON THE EAST SIDE AND DENNIS STREET TO THE REAR. ONCE AGAIN, AND SEP IS A ZONAL ACTION WITH PUBLIC REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT FEATURES INTENDED TO PROPOSE USES WHICH WILL NOT HAVE A DIVERSE IMPACT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. A BACKGROUND THAT IS PERTINENT TO THIS CASE, NOVEMBER SIX 2012 THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED A FORM-BASED CODE WITH APPLYING TO THE STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHICH INCLUDES DOWNTOWN AND THE ADOPTION OF THIS FORM-BASED CODE DID REFORM THE URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT WHICH IS INTENDED FOR A MIX OF USES AND INTENSE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OR THE DOWN TOWN FRAMEWORK PLAN DESIGNATES THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITH DESIGN ELEMENTS INCLUDING FLEX SPACE AT GROUND FLOOR AND A TWO-STORY HEIGHT PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION ON

[02:30:01]

EXISTING STREETS. I WILL TALK MORE LATER ABOUT FLEX SPACE AT GROUND LEVEL AT GROUND FLOOR. ABOUT A YEAR AGO THE CITY COUNCIL DID APPROVE ORDINANCE 026 ? 20 WHICH AMENDED THE FORM-BASED CODE FOR NEW MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND PROJECTS.

THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS A MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH GROUND FLOOR RETAIL AND 28 CONDOMINIUM UNITS THAT WILL BE SOLD INDIVIDUALLY. THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWN FLEX THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS 28 CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED ON THE UPPER FLOORS THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING. A 3075 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE IS RESERVED COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE AND WE MEAN BY THAT IS IT IS DESIGNATED DAY ONE AFTER CONSTRUCTION SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED AND MAKE IT THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS THAT IT WILL BE BUILT FOR COMMERCIAL USE. IN REGARD TO FLEX SPACE WHICH IS SPACE THAT CAN FLEX AS MARKET CONDITIONS CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL USE TO COMMERCIAL USE. AGAIN THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT THIS GROUND-FLOOR USE WOULD BE A COMMERCIAL USE. IT WOULD NOT BE A FLEX SPACE USE. ALSO THERE ARE 51 PARKING SPACES PROPOSED. AS WELL AS STREETSCAPES THAT WOULD BE INSTALLED ALONG MAIN STREET, DENNIS AND OLIVER STREETS. THE SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN INCLUDES COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN CONVERTED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AS WELL AS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN PROXIMITY ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE SAME FORM -BASED URBAN DISTRICT VILLAGE. I WOULD NOTE THAT THE SINGLE-FAMILY USES THAT WERE IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE CURRENT ADOPTION ZONING ARE CONSIDERED TO BE LEGALLY NONCONFORMING AND SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS I'M SURE THE COUNCIL KNOWS THIS BUT IT MEANS THAT IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME IN TODAY TO BUILD OR REQUEST TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON THESE PROPERTIES IT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING. HOWEVER, ANY STRUCTURES AND USETHAT WORD IN EXISTENCE ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE WITH THAT. THE STREETSCAPES AT THE END WOULD BE ADDED AS YOU CAN SEE OUT TO DENNIS, MAIN AND OLIVER STREETS AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ALSO OF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 3 TO 70 FEET OF SIDEWALK ADDED AND APPROXIMATELY 18 CANOPY TREES THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO PROVIDE SHADE AS WELL AS TO THE SIDEWALK TO INCREASE THE URBAN TREE CANOPY. I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE CIRCLED AREA ON THE PARKING LOT PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SOUTH WOULD BE A CONTINUOUS HEDGEROW TO AGAIN SCREEN THAT PARKING LOT IN THE SOUTHERN LOT ON THE ADJACENT SINGLE-FAMILY USE TO THE WEST THIS IS NOT REQURED BY THE FORM-BASED CODE HOWEVER THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO THIS CONDITION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADDITIONAL SCREENING AND SEPARATION ACCOMMODATION FOR THAT EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE PARKING IS WHAT WE WILL DISCUSS NEXT THERE ARE 28 RESIDENTIAL UNITS INCLUDING THE GROUND-FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE. IT HAS THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. THERE WOULD BE 18 SINGLE UNITS ONE-BEDROOM UNITS REQUIRING 1 AND A HALF UNITS AS WELL AS THE SAME RATIO FOR THE 10 TWO-BEDROOM CONDOMINIUM UNITS. THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT HAS A REQUIREMENT FOR 42 PARKING SPACES AND THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL ARE NINE PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED THE RATIO FOR THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL USE AND CODE IS ONE SPACE PER HUNDRED FEET. THE COMBINATION FOR THOSE PARKING SPACES WOULD BE ALL SURFACE PARKING P IS SOME OF THAT WOULD BE COVERED PARKING TACT UNDER THE CANTILEVERED SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS AS WELL AS A LARGER PARKING LOT TO THE SOUTH AND ADDITIONAL SPACES ON MAIN STREET. THAT WOULD BE PARALLEL PARKING SPACES ON MAIN STREET.

THE DOWNTOWN FRAMEWORK PLAN THAT REQUIRES FLEX SPACE.

>> YES MA'AM? >> I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT PARKING SO I THOUGHT I BETTER DO IT NOW. FIRST, I GUESS I COULD'VE WAITED BUT IS THE APPLICANT GOING TO GIVE A

PRESENTATION? >> THE APPLICANT IS PREPARED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF NECESSARY. YES.

>> HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE? GAIT CONTROLS, THE PARKING LOT ACROSS THE ROAD IS THAT GOING TO BE CONTROLLED?

>> NUMBER IT IS NOT GOING TO BE CONTROLLED BECAUSE THAT WOULD

[02:35:04]

BE A SHARED PARKING BECAUSE OF THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL USE AS

WELL AS RESIDENTIAL USE. >> I LIKE THAT ANSWER I THINK IT'S A GREAT ANSWER HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DEAL WHEN YOU HAVE UPSET RESIDENCE THAT THINK HER PARKING SPOT AND IS FILLED UP? AS DOWNTOWN CONTINUES TO GROW THERE'S ALREADY PARKING ISSUES.

I CAN ASK HIM LATER. >> I WOULD SAY THAT YES, WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE BUSINESSES THAT ARE DRAWING PEOPLE DOWNTOWN BUT ALL THE PARKING DOWNTOWN IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE AND THAT IS ALSO ONE POF THE INTENTIONS OF THE FORM-BASED CODE TO HAVE SHARED PARKING AND EVENTUALLY I WOULD BELIEVE AT SOME POINT THERE WOULD BE SOME KIND OF PARKING SOLUTION THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED FOR THE DOWNTOWN

DISTRICT AS IT DEVELOPS. >> UNTIL THEN IT WOULD BE THE OPERATOR'S RESPONSIBILITY? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO, THE DOWNTOWN PLAN REQUIRES FLEX BASE LIKE I MENTIONED AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT REQUIREMENT BY CONSTRUCTING THESE GROUND-FLOOR COMMERCIAL USE. RATHER THAN FOR THE FLEX SPACE. I WOULD NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT THE ENTIRE GROUND FLOOR THERE ARE SOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR BEHIND BUT ALL OF THE PORTION THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE DEDICATED FOR A FLEX SPACE IS GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS COMMERCIAL SPACE. SO, THAT IS SOMETHING WE SEE AS AN ENHANCEMENT OVER AND ABOVE WHICH IS GENERALLY REQUIRED OF THE CODE. A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE FORM BASED URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT, THIS DISTRICT AS NOTED EARLIER IS INTENDED FOR MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL SERVED WITH ADDITIONAL SMALLER URBAN OPEN SPACES. WE HAVE SOME ILLUSTRATIVE IMAGES FROM OUR FORM-BASED CODE PROVIDED FOR YOU ON THE SCREEN HERE. THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE DISTRICT THE URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT IS INTENDED FOR AS IT DOES OFFER A BUILDING THAT MIXES THE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL USES. AGAIN, THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE INSTALLED EIGHT SIDEWALKS WHICH AGAIN CREATE THOSE URBAN OPEN SPACE TO SOME EXTENT TO THE CONNECTIVITY TO CREATE THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS ENVISIONED BY THE FORM-BASED CODE. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION ALSO SHOWS THIS PROPERTY AS A MIXED-USE DISTRICT AND AGAIN THOSE FOUR AREAS THAT ARE HAVING THOSE VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS VERTICAL MEETING THAN A SINGLE BUILDING AND THE HORIZONTAL WOULD BE SEPARATING THOSE USES BUT ON THE SAME SITE IN SEPARATE BUILDINGS. THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH ITS DESIGNATION BECAUSE THIS PROPOSED VERTICALLY MIXED-USE BUILDING HAS COMMERCIAL SPACE ON THE GROUND-FLOOR WITH CONDOMINIUM UNITS ABOVE. A FEW MORE ELEMENTS FROM OUR COMPANY AND SUPPLANT THESE ARE IMAGES TAKEN FROM THE ROWLETT 2020 CONFERENCE A PLAN AND ON THE LEFT ARE THE ILLUSTRATIVE MORE TRADITIONAL DOWNTOWNS THAT HAVE LARGER COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT HAVE TYPICALLY THOSE UPPER FLOORS AND RESIDENTIAL USES SOMETIMES OCCASIONALLY WITH THE OFFICE OR COMMERCIAL ON THE BOTTOM AS WELL AS THE HOUSING PROCESS ON THE RIGHT AND ANOTHER ONE FROM THE PLANNING SHOWING SOMEWHAT MORE MODERN INTERPRETATION TO THE REAR OF THAT PHOTO ON THE LEFT AS WELL.

NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT ON THE 22ND OF THIS YEAR THERE WERE 23 SENT OUT TO THE 200 FOOT RADIUS AND THERE WERE FIVE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION, THREE RECEIVED IN FAVOR WITHIN THE COURTESY RANGE OF 500 FEET THERE WAS ONE NOTICE RECEIVED BACK IN OPPOSITION AND TWO IN FAVOR. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER NINTH THE ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM WITH K-6-1 VOTE IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH FOR-SALE CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON THE PROPERTY WITH A FORM BASED URBAN DISTRICT PAY THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERENCE A PLAN DESIGNATION OF MIXED-USE AND THE REZONING DISTRICT IN THE URBAN VILLAGE AS WELL AS IT IS DESIGNED TO SERVE AS A CATALYST FOR THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND BEING COGNIZANT OF THE SURROUNDING WELDING DEVELOPMENT. I WILL ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

[02:40:03]

>> THANK YOU ALEX. ANY QUESTIONS OR COUCOUNSEL OR STAF

>> HAVE A QUESTION. >> COUNCILMEMBER PAMELA ELL?

>> I WAS LOOKING AT SOME OF THE COMMENTS ESPECIALLY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN FAVOR THEY SAID APARTMENTS. THESE ARE NOT APARTMENTS. COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONDOMINIUM AND AN APARTMENT?

>> I WILL CERTAINLY GIVE IT A SHOT. A CONDOMINIUM IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE HAVE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP. THEY OWN BETWEEN THE WALLS. THEY OWN THE SPACE. OF COURSE AN APARTMENT IS SOMETHING THAT IS OWNED BY A CORPORATION AND RENTED OUT TO INDIVIDUALS FOR THEIR OCCUPANT THE OVER A LEAST

TERM. >> CORRECT.

>> CAN I FOLLOW UP ON THAT QUESTION AND COME BACK TO YOU AFTERWARDS? MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT? I THOUGHT WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THAT IF IT WAS NOT DEEMED RESTRICTIVE SO I AM CONFUSED. DO YOU LIKE HOW HE JUST PASSED THAT BACK TO YOU MUNAL? OKAY DAVID WANTS TO ANSWER THAT.

>> SOMETIMES IT WORKS AND SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T.

>> I'M IN TOTAL CONTROL IF YOU LEARN THAT SOMEDAY.

>> LET'S SEE IF I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. OWNER OCCUPIED IS A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU CAN COMPEL SOMEBODY WHO OWNS A PIECE OF PROPERTY TO LIVE THERE. IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR HOMEOWNERS, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES TO PURCHASE A HOME, LIVE THERE AND MOVE OUT AND RENT THE REPARTEE TO SOMEONE ELSE ON A LONG-TERM BASIS. I THINK IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SUPPORT AND DIFFICULT IN CONCEPT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE A CONCEPT WHERE WE COMPELLED A MULTIFAMILY UNIT OWNER TO ONLY SELL BY DEED RESTRICTION OR BY ORDINANCE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE PROMISING TO LIVE THERE. I WILL SAY THIS, THE PROPOSAL FROM THE APPLICANT IS NOT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OR LEAST TWO TENANTS, IT IS A CONDOMINIUM SITUATION IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE ON OUR PACKET CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE SEP IS A CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX FOR 28 UNITS. NOT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. WE SEE THAT ANY SINGLE-FAMILY OWNER IN TOWN THEY COULD RENT IT OUT TO ANYONE ELSE BUT IT WON'T JUST BE ONE COMPANY OWNING ALL UNITS.

>> OWES VERY GOOD EXPO NATION AND WHAT PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS REMEMBER IN THIS TOWN IS WE'VE GOT ABOUT 1000 HOUSEHOLDS IN THE LAST TIME WE CHECKED 10 PERCENT OF THOSE WERE LEASED.

OWNERS LEASE THEIR HOMES ALL THE TIME. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A WAY TO ENFORCE THAT THIS IS A SALE OF INDIVIDUAL UNIT AND NOT LEASING OF INDIVIDUAL UNIT. HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT THAT HAPPENS? DAVID? HOW DO WE ENSURE THIS

HAPPENS? >> SOMETIMES IT WORKS. ASK DAVID, STOP. YOU HAVE TO GIVE ME A SECOND.

>> THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET INDICATES THE SEP IS A FACILITY WITH 28 CONDOMINIUMS AND IT DOES NOT SAY APARTMENTS. AND IT MEANS THE CONDOMINIUM SITUATION IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE OWNED BY INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANTS OR LANDLORD. HOWEVER

YOU WANT TO USE THAT. >> INCORPORATED YOU FOR LETTING ME ADD ON TO THAT. YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE COUNCILMEMBER PAMELA BELL? THAT WAS IT? COUNCILMEMBER BROWNIE SHERRILL?

>> I HOPE THIS ONE IS A LITTLE EASIER ON DAVID. SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE A RULING ON THIS. THE TERM CANTILEVERED IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FOR ME. I DID LOOK AT THE PICTURE VERY CLOSELY. I SEE THE UNITS THE LIVING UNITS ARE ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND THERE IS A GAP UNDERNEATH. IS THAT ALL THERE

IS TO CANTILEVERED? >> CANTILEVERED MEANS THAT THERE IS A VACANT SPACE UNDERNEATH AND THERE ARE SUPPORTS AT THE BOTTOM TO ALLOW FOR THE STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT

ABOVE THAT. >> IS THAT OKAY? OKAY.

>> THANK YOU. HAVE TO LOOK AT MY ARCHITECT AS WELL. DID I DO

ALL RIGHT? OKAY. >> OTHER QUESTIONS COUNSEL? SO, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M NOT THRILLED WITH ABOUT THIS IS

[02:45:04]

THAT FOUR OF THE PARKING SPACES ARE PARALLEL FOR STREET PARKING. COMMENTS ON IF WE DON'T ALLOW THAT IS THERE A SPACE IN THE DEVELOPMENT BUT THOSE FOUR PARKING SPACES ANYWHERE ELSE? STREET PARKING SHOULD BE STREET PARKING DOWNTOWN IN MY OPINION NOT DEDICATED TO PARKING

REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT. >> ALL RIGHT, THAT COULD ALSO ASKED THE QUESTION WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO THAT BEING FOR THE RETAIL OF THE COMMERCIAL USE ON THE GROUND FLOOR NOT FOR THE

RESIDENTIAL USE? >> YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO COME

BACK WITHOUT ONE. >> THAT IS TYPICALLY WHAT ON

STREET PARKING IS SO I GUESS - >> YOU ARE RIGHT. SO, HOW MAY PARKING SPOTS, GO BACK TO THAT PARKING PAGE IF YOU WOULD. WE JUST WENT THROUGH THIS WITH THE VILLAGE OF ROWLETT DOWNTOWN, SONY TIMES AND OKAY. SO, OKAY. THERE'S NINE RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACES AND FOUR OF THOSE WOULD BE PARALLEL STREET PARKING? ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK MY OTHER QUESTION. I FORGET WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL WAS, 3375 I'VE GOT THAT. THAT'S COMMERCIAL SPACE, RIGHT? WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE GROUND FLOOR IS THAT IN THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT?

>> WE WILL CALCULATE THAT REALLY QUICK.

>> NO PRESSURE. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS YOU DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION? OKAY. YOU WANT ME TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE AT LEAST ONE PERSON THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK SO WE WILL START WITH MISTY LAY PAID NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING.

>> HELLOO COUNSEL, I AM MISTY LEE AT.DIRECTLY IMPACTED AS A NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THE HEDGEROW IN THE LANDSCAPING. I LOVE THE IDEA OF ADDITIONAL PARKING COULD AS YOU ALL KNOW DOWNTOWN IS UNDER PARKED. OUR RECENT PARADE AND FESTIVAL DEMONSTRATED THE NEED FOR PARKING IN THIS AREA SO PLEASE, PUT A PARKING LOT THERE BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND YOU'RE GOING TO BE SHARING IT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUSINESSES, GREAT. WE COULD SURE USE NEW BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN AND I JST WANT TO POINT OUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF VACANT BUSINESSES ALREADY IN DOWNTOWN.

THE DELIBERATE TO WHO YOU GO MARKETING YOUR SPACE TO. FIND US SOME GREAT NEIGHBORS IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE A BIKE SHOP OR A JIMMY JOHN'S OR COOL THINGS LIKE THAT. THESE ARE MULTIFAMILY DESPITE HOW YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE IT AS OWNED OR LEASED, MR. MARGOLIS IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF MULTIFAMILY IN THE AREA I THINK WE HAVE A LOT ALREADY WITH THE NEW ROWLETT STATION NEXT TO THE TRAIN STATION TO THE VILLAGE AND NOW WE WANT TO ADD MORE MULTIFAMILY, THAT'S GREAT THAT I WANT TO POINT OUT THERE'S A MUCH BETTER LOCATION WITH MUCH BETTER AMENITIES DOWN BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE THERE IS A LAND AND A LOT THAT HAS A NEW PARK ADDITION THAT WOULD BE A FANTASTIC COMMUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT PLACES TO WALK THEIR DOGS AND PARKS TO WALK IN AND THINGS LIKE THAT. ON BEHALF OF ME AND THE OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO ARE TERRIFIED TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC LIKE ME, I WANT TO SAY WE ARE NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT PAID WE WOULD PROBABLY BE IN SUPPORT OF THE PARKING LOT IN THE BUSINESSES BUT WE FEEL THAT THE MULTI FAMILY LOOK REALLY BELONGS WITH THE REST OF THE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY NEWLY DEVELOPED IN THIS AREA. WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE RECOMMEND STRONGLY THAT YOU COULD POSTPONE THIS A LITTLE WHILE LONGER INTO A TRAFFIC STUDY BECAUSE THEIR SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ALREADY IN THE MORNINGS, AFTERNOONS AND WARY OF ALL THE PEOPLE COMING DOWN MAIN STREET TO BRING THEIR STUDENTS TO SCHOOL. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE DRIVEN DOWN MAIN STREET LATELY IT'S ONE WAY EACH WAY AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD MORE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC YOU CAN DO THAT DURING THE SUMMER BREAK ONLY. THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE

[02:50:02]

TRYING TO GET DOWN MAIN STREET TO GET THE KIDS TO SCHOOL, BUSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WHILE WERE TRYING TO GET TO AND FROM WORK AND ADDING IN ALL THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IS GOING TO CREATE A SMALL PROBLEM. I KNOW WAS ONLY A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME BUT THERE'S ALL THOSE EXTRA CARS IN THE AREA. BE MINDFUL. WE WILL BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AS LONG AS YOU'RE BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS TO US SO PLEASE BE DELIBERATE IN YOUR STUDIES OF THE TRAFFIC WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IF YOU DID HAVE FEARS THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING AND OVERCOMING THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DRUMROLL? >>.[INDISCERNABLE]

>> THE ANSWER WE HEARD IS THE COMMERCIAL SPACE WOULD OCCUPY 51 PERCENT OF THE FIRST FLOOR AND THE REST WOULD BE 49 PERCENT WOULD BE UNITS OF RESIDENTIAL UNIT PART OF THE 39, 38 OR 28 UNITS. OKAY, THANK YOU. A MOTION? MAYOR

PRO TEM GRUBISICH? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. >> COUNCILMEMBER WHITNEY

LANING? >> I WILL SECOND THAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE CALL THE VOTE? COUNCILMEMBER MATT

GRUBISICH? >> FIRST OF ALL TO THE WOMAN WHO CAME UP AND SPOKE I APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT IT WAS WELL-THOUGHT-OUT AND I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE YOU FIND SOME GOOD NEIGHBORS THAT WILL BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND PARKING IS SOMETHING LEFT IN FIGURE OUT DOWNTOWN AS IT EVENTUALLY CONTINUES TO GROW. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY ALL OF THE DECISIONS THAT GO BACK THAT PREDATE ME AND ANYONE ON HERE IN TERMS OF DART THAT WENT INTO BUILDING UP THE DOWNTOWN HERE TO SEE THIS CATALYST DEVELOPMENT TO START BUILDING DOWNTOWN WOULD BE THE TRUE MIXED-USE WHICH WHAT THIS IS IS A TRUE MIXED-USE. I KNOW IT IS HARD BUT WITH ROOFTOPS COMES MORE BUSINESS AND YOU'VE GOT TO GET PEOPLE THERE APPEARED THE BUSINESSES ARE THERE TO MAKE MONEY AND THEY NEED PEOPLE THERE TO SUPPORT THOSE BUSINESSES AND AS WE SEE THESE THINGS FILL UP WHICH THEY WILL BECAUSE OUR OCCUPANCY RATE AND IN OUR CONDOS ACROSS THE CITY IS VERY HIGH. YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THOSE BUSINESSES COME SO LET'S GET SOME GOOD BUSINESSES

DOWN THERE. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE A CALL THE VOTE? ALL RIGHT. CALL THE VOTE. THAT ITEM PASSES 6-0. THE NEXT ITEM IN THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS

[8F. Conduct a public hearing and take action on a request by Manhard Consulting, on behalf of property owners Sapphire Bay Land Holdings I, LLC, and Sapphire Bay Marina, LLC, regarding a request for a Major Warrant to allow for private streets on properties zoned Form-Based Bayside Special (FB-BS) District. The approximately 115-acre site is located South of the intersection of Dalrock Road and Interstate 30 situated in the H. McMillan Survey Abstract N. 853 and the William Crabtree Survey N.346, City of Rowlett, Dallas County, and the H. McMillan Survey Abstract No.143, City of Rowlett, Rockwall County, Texas.]

ITEM 8F. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY MANHARD CONSULTING, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS SAPPHIRE BAY LAND HOLDINGS I, LLC, AND SAPPHIRE BAY MARINA, LLC, REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A MAJOR WARRANT TO ALLOW FOR PRIVATE STREETS ON PROPERTIES ZONED FORM-BASED BAYSIDE SPECIAL (FB-BS) DISTRICT. THE APPROXIMATELY 115-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF DALROCK ROAD AND INTERSTATE 30 SITUATED IN THE H. MCMILLAN SURVEY ABSTRACT N. 853 AND THE WILLIAM CRABTREE SURVEY N.346, CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, AND THE H.

MCMILLAN SURVEY ABSTRACT NO.143, CITY OF ROWLETT, ROCKWALL COUNTY, TEXAS. MISS MULLAH DEAD?

>> GOOD EVENING COUNSEL PAIR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS REFERENCED ON THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU AND IT IS ENCOMPASSED ON A RED AREA ON THE MAP AND AGAIN IT IS BOUNDED BY LAKE RAY HUBBARD AND HAS FRONTAGE ALONG I 30 PAID THIS PROPERTY INCLUDES THE SAPPHIRE BAY DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO INCLUDES THE SAPPHIRE BAY MARINA. THE DISCUSSION TODAY IS TO ASSESS COUNSEL YOU TO ASSESS A MAJOR WARRANTS AND WE WILL PRESENT SOME FACTS TO YOU REGARDING CREATING THE STREET NETWORK OR CONVERTING THE STREET NETWORK INTO A PRIVATE STREET NETWORK OPPOSED TO A PUBLIC STREET NETWORK. I WILL TRY TO METHODICALLY GO THROUGH WHAT THOSE ELEMENTS ARE. WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS ENTIRE SITE IT ENCOMPASSES OVER 30 SITES, WE HAVE I 30 ALONG HERE THE FUTURE BRIDGE THE SAPPHIRE BAY BOULEVARD THAT WILL EXTEND ALONG HERE AND THROUGH THE

[02:55:02]

COURSE OF THE INSTALLATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO INSTALL THIS STREET EFFORT YOU SEE HERE.

THIS SITE IS BEING PREPARED FOR VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION AND THE UTILITIES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED ALONG THE STREET AS YOU SEE IN THE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU AND THEY ARE PREPARING FOR THE FINAL INSPECTION AS IT OCCURS AS THE WASTEWATER AND STORM SEWER SO THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND HAVE THOSE ACCEPTED BY THE CITY AND OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. A LOT IS HAPPENING BEFORE IT RELATES TO THE SITE NOT JUST INTERNALLY BUT WE SEEN SOME EXCITING IMPROVEMENTS TO I 30 AND THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW. IT'S NOT JUST THE EXPANSION OF I 30, THE I 30 PROGRAM ITSELF WILL HAVE THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE MAIN LANES AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE THE FUTURE MAIN LANES, DALLAS IS GOING TO BE REALIGNED AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE A FLYOVER AND WILL DO SOMETHING JUST LIKE THIS. RECONSTRUCTION AND ADDITION OF FRONTAGE ROADS THAT YOU SEE ALONG HERE, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT RIDGE ALONG HERE AND THEN SAPPHIRE BAY BOULEVARD BRIDGE THAT I WAS MENTIONING RIGHT HERE AND THAT WILL CONNECT INTO THE SITE RIGHT HERE INTO THE CONNECTIVITY OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS THE HIGHWAY. THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSION OF INFRASTRUCTURE FROM ROADWAYS TO UTILITIES TO OTHER ELEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THESE PRIVATE UTILITIES OR FRANCHISE UTILITIES THE APPLICANT CAME BEFORE US AND REQUESTED THAT WE AT LEAST ASSESS THE VIABILITY OF CONVERTING THE STREET TO A PRIVATE NETWORK. WHEN WE LOOK AT SOME LARGE DEVELOPMENTS TYPICALLY IF YOU LOOK AT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT 60+ ACRES MOST OF THE ACCESS THAT I'M REFERRING TO RIGHT NOW ARE REFERRED TO AS COMMON ACCESS VERSIONS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE MARKING BY LAND-USE NAME THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE STREET NAMES WOULD BE IN THE FORM OF AN ACCESS EASEMENT AND THAT'S WHY THEY WOULD BE PRIVATE STREETS.