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

PTHE STATE OF THE CITY THIS YEAR. OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM FIVE THE WHICH IS UPDATE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MANAGEMENT: FINANCIAL POSITION, MAJOR PROJECTS, OPERATIONAL ISSUES, UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST AND ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST.

[00:05:01]

COUNCILMEMBER BROWNIE SHERRILL WILL BE READING THOSE ITEMS.

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

APPLICATIONS ARE BEING ACCEPTED THROUGH APRIL FIRST, 2022.

REBATES ARE CONSIDERED ON A FIRST-COME FIRST-SERVED COLLECTION PROCESS. THIS PROGRAM IS NOT RETROACTIVE AND APPLIES TO QUALIFYING COSTS UP TO $3000 OR 50 PERCENT WHATEVER IS LESS. ARE YOU INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS PROCESS? THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS FOR RESIDENTS WHO WISH TO SERVE ON THE AD HOC BOND COMMITTEE. THE DEADLINE IS JANUARY 28TH AND INTERVIEWS WILL BE CONDUCTED FEBRUARY THIRD AND OR FEBRUARY FIFTH DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS WE RECEIVE. PLAN SERVER MAINTENANCE BEGINNING AT 6 PM FRIDAY JANUARY 14TH WILL AFFECT WEEKEND OPERATIONS IN SEVERAL CITY FACILITIES.

NAMELY THE ROWLETT COMMUNITY CENTER, THE LIBRARY AND ANIMAL SHELTER. IS IT THE CITY'S WEBSITE FOR MORE DETAILS.

>>> HAVE YOU BEEN PONDERING WHAT IT'S LIKE ON THIS SIDE OF THE DESK? [LAUGHTER] THE UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL ELECTION IS MAY SEVENTH. POSITIONS ON THE BALLOT WILL BE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER PLACES TWO, FOUR AND SIX. YOU MAY REQUEST A CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE GUIDE FROM CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. THE FILING PERIOD BEGINS WEDNESDAY JANUARY 19TH. NOTIFY ME IS AN EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION TO ALL THINGS CITY OF ROWLETT. MEETING AGENDAS, MINUTES, NEWSLETTERS AND SPECIAL EVENTS. YOU CAN SPECIFY WHICH NOTIFICATIONS YOU WISH TO RECEIVE OR SIGN UP FOR ALL OF THEM. YOU COULD ENSURE YOU RECEIVE THE FRIDAY AT FIVE WHICH IS CHOCK-FULL OF CITY RELATED INFORMATION. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THESE AND OTHER CITY RELATED EVENTS, PLEASE VISIT ROWLETT.COM OR CALL THE ACTION CENTER AT 972 ? 412 ? 6100. ALL CITY FACILITIES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES WILL BE CLOSED MONDAY, JANUARY 17TH IN OBSERVANCE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY.

TRASH COLLECTION WILL FOLLOW THE REGULAR SCHEDULE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH COUNCILMEMBER BROWNIE SHERRILL.

I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS FUNNY ABOUT THE SIDE

OF THE DAIS. COUNCILMAN? >> KEEP ROWLETT BEAUTIFUL WILL BEGIN TO START COLLECTING STATISTICS THROUGHOUT THE CITY FROM DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS WHETHER IT BE CHURCHES, NONPROFIT, SCOUT, CLUBS, CIVIC GROUPS. FOR VOLUNTEER EFFORTS THAT HAPPEN IN OUR CITY. THESE WILL ALL BE COMPILED AND SENT TO THE STATE FOR THE GOVERNORS COMMUNITY ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.

ROWLETT HAS HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WINNING FIRST PLACE TWICE.

AND IT IS A HIGHLY COMPETITIVE PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH AND SO, I WANTED TO GIVE A HEADS UP TO ALL OF YOU THAT MAY BE IN THE AUDIENCE OR LISTENING ONLINE THAT WE WILL BE CALLING YOU AND IF YOU DON'T CALL YOU PLEASE CALL US AND GIVE US THAT INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN SHOW THE REST OF THE STATE OF TEXAS WHAT GREAT WORK OUR VOLUNTEERS DO HERE. THANK YOU.

>> THAT IS QUITE AN EFFORT YOU ALL DO ANNUALLY WITH GREAT

RESULTS SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> COUNCILMEMBER PAMELA BELL?

>> THANK YOU. SAY NO TO SCAMS. THIS IS GOING TO BE A THREE EVENT SPONSORED BY THE ROWLETT POLICE AND THE SPEAKERS WILL BE ROWLETT POLICE AND THE IT DEPARTMENT. I SAID, IT IS FREE JANUARY 11TH 1 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER. MAKE SURE YOU COME. IT IS JUST SOMETHING ELSE HOW MANY SCAMS WE HAVE GOING ON. THEY ARE TARGETING SENIORS. EVERY DAY. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. SO,

>> DO YOU HAVE TO BE A SENIOR TO ATTEND?

>> NO. ALSO, IF YOU DON'T KNOW AND YOU ARE A YOUNG PERSON YOU CAN EASILY BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. I KNOW A SENIOR WHO GAVE HIS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND HE WAS WIPED OUT. HIS WIFE WAS MAD! SHE WAS ANGRY! THEY DID THAT WITHIN 15 MINUTES. THEY GOT HIS MONEY. THEIR MONEY AND THAT'S WHY SHE WAS SO MAD. BUT

[00:10:06]

ANYWAY, PLEASE COME. IF YOU KNOW ANYONE, COME HERE BECAUSE, THEY ARE OUT THERE. THANK YOU.

[6. CITIZENS’ INPUT]

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS? OKAY. SEEING NONE WE WILL MOVE TO THE CITIZENS INPUT. THIS IS A TIME DURING THE MEETING WE CAN TAKE COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS ON ANY ITEM UP TO THREE MINUTES BUT NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY COUNSEL DURING CITIZEN INPUT. I'M SORRY, I HAVE SO MANY PILES.

I'M GOING TO START WITH MR. JOHN FOLLOWED BY MR. HALL.

NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE UP TO THREE

MINUTES, SIR. >> THANK YOU. JR SCOLA, COUNCIL MEETING WITH THE WAY THAT THE COUNCIL AND ESPECIALLY THE MAYOR HANDLED TWO OF THE THREE ISSUES THAT I HAD BROUGHT UP. MAYOR, LOOKED AT HER EXPERTS AND ASKED THEM THEIR OPINION AND ALTHOUGH I DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR ANSWERS SHE STOOD BY HER COUNSEL AND I COMMEND THAT. SPECIFICALLY, THE FIRST WAS WITH MISS MULLAH DAD WHO JUSTIFIED HER DECISION WITH STAFF ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE GARAGE DOOR ORDINANCE INTENT. I DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH HER INTERPRETATION BUT I AGREE WITH HER PROVIDING RATIONALE IN RESPONSE TO HER CONCERT AND I WANT TO THANK HER AS WELL. A SECOND WAS THAT OF DAVID FURMAN ON WHY HE WAS UNILATERALLY CHANGING ORDINANCES AFTER THY HAD BEEN REVIEWED BY P&Z.

DAVID BERMAN IN HIS DEFENSE SAID THE CHANGES HE DECIDED TO MAKE WERE CLARIFICATIONS. IT MAY HAVE BEEN TWEAKED, THE CHANGES WERE AS HE SAID INCREDIBLY SLIGHT AND "NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE. IF THESE WERE NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE WHY DIDN'T HE ADD THEM TO THE P&Z VERSION? IF THEY WERE NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE WHY DID HE FEEL THE NEED TO MAKE THE CHANGES AT ALL? COUNCIL MEMBERS, MAYOR, I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT IN FACT THE ENTIRE SECTION OF THAT ORDINANCE HAD BEEN REMOVED. IN TONIGHT'S AGENDA AND ENTIRE SECTION HAS BEEN ADDED AND I SENT AN EMAIL INDICATING THAT TO ALL OF YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT GIVES HIM THE RIGHT TO MAKE THESE CHANGES AFTER P&Z HAS ALREADY REVIEWED IT. AND LASTLY AT THE LAST P&Z A MEMBER WAS SILENCED. DAVID BERMAN INTERRUPTED THE TESTIMONY OF A CITIZEN DURING A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LIKE WHAT HE WAS SAYING. FIRSTLY, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A NONVOTING MEMBER IS NOT ALLOWED TO CALL A POINT OF ORDER AND EVEN IF A NONMEMBER CAN CALL A POINT OF ORDER HOW IS IT OKAY THAT DAVID BERMAN SILENCED A CITIZEN ON THE GROUNDS OF LAWYER BASHING? EVEN IF IT IS LAWYER BASHING, WHEN IS IT OKAY FOR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO SILENCE A CITIZEN DURING PUBLIC INPUT? JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THE CITIZEN IS SAYING. I HAVE SEEN SOME CRAZY CITIZENS INPUT IN MY DAY AS I AM SURE ANY OF YOU HAVE AS WELL AND NONE OF THEM WERE SILENCED BY LAWYERS.

THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY SCARY PRECEDENT THAT CANNOT CONTINUE.

THANK YOU. >> MR. HALL?

>> DAVE HALL, REMIND YOU OF THE RESTROOMS WHICH WERE PART OF THE 2015 BOND PACKAGE. THE RESTROOMS TO BE BUILT AT LAKESIDE PARK FOR USE BIPEDAL PART CUSTOMERS ALSO. IT IS NOW GOING ON SEVEN YEARS SINCE THE ENDS STILL NO RESTROOMS. I HAVE ASKED MANY TIMES VERBALLY AND IN PERSON BY EMAIL AND PHONE CALLS ABOUT THE STATUS AND NOTHING HAS PRODUCED THESE MUCH-NEEDED RESTROOMS. AT A RECENT PARK ADVISORY BOARD MEETING I TALKED WITH A COUNCIL MEMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS BOARD ABOUT THIS RESTROOM. HE WAS SURE THAT THIS RESTROOM PROJECT WAS PART OF THE 2018 BOND PACKAGE MAKING IT ONLY THREE YEARS BEHIND SCHEDULE. THREE YEARS, SIX YEARS, THESE RESTROOMS SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT. NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER BOND PACKAGE OF NEW MONEY FOR STAFF TO SPEND AND CONTROL. BY THE WAY, IT WAS THE 2015 BOND PACKAGE FROM THE CITY WEBSITE PAGE 29 2015

[00:15:06]

CID PROJECT STATUS OCTOBER 2016. YOU KNOW, HINDSIGHT IS 2020 WHAT IS A LITTLE SCARY IS WHAT IS LISTED ON HERE, THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT WAS MENTIONED HERE. NEW SIGNAGE AT BOTH PARKS, THE ADDRESS ON THE NEW SIGN AT CATTLE POINT PARK THERE'S NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE STREET NUMBERING SYSTEM IN ROWLETT MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR VISITORS TO FIND THE PARK. THE PARKING LOT AT PADDLE POINT PARK ONLY CONTAINS ABOUT HALF OF THE VEHICLES THE OLD NONAPPROVED PARKING LOT HAD. THE CROSSWALK ON MILLER, THIS HAS CREATED A CHOKE POINT. THERE ARE SEVERAL PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS WHO HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT IT AND SAID WE NEED TO MAKE SOME SOFTWARE REVISIONS WITH IT. THE RESTROOMS AT LAKESIDE PARK THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. THEY ARE NOT THERE. EROSION CONTROL AT LAKESIDE PARK ON THE TULE 21 BOND PROPOSAL I REMEMBER READING THE SAME COMMENT AGAIN, EROSION CONTROL AT LAKESIDE PARK. LAKESIDE PROGRAM I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT. THE CITY'S CAPITAL BUDGETING AND CAPITAL ASSET PROCESS IS NOT SEEING ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED AND MANAGED. ADD THE EXPERIENCE AND CREDIBILITY TO DELIVER THIS MESSAGE TO YOU.

DURING PAST MEETINGS WITH YOU I HAVE RECOMMENDED A MORATORIUM ON CAPITAL PROJECTS AND TONIGHT I MAKE THE SAME RECOMMENDATION TO YOU. A MORATORIUM ON CAPITAL PROJECTS UNTIL THE CITY'S CAPITAL BUDGETING, CAPITAL ASSET PROCESS RESULTS IN FIRST WELL-DESIGNED PROJECTS, SECOND, PROJECTS THAT WERE LOST IN OPPORTUNITY AND THIRD, PROJECTS THAT PRIMARILY BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU MR. HALL. THAT CONCLUDES OUR IN PERSON CITIZENS INPUT WE HAVE ONE WRITTEN COMMENT THAT MAYOR PRO TEM GRUBISICH WILL READ IN TO THE RECORD.

>> TERRY MILLIKEN, THE P&Z PUBLIC HEARING ON THE LAKESHORE VILLAGE PLAN DEVELOPMENT I PRESENTED MY TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS PD. I GOT ONE MINUTE 15 SECONDS INTO MY THREE-MINUTE TESTIMONY WHEN I WAS STOPPED. THE CITY ATTORNEY ALL FOR POINT OF ORDER BECAUSE I WAS LAWYER BASHING. FIRST, UNDER ROBERTS RULES ORDER ONLY A MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BODY IN THIS CASE A COMMISSIONER CAN RAISE A POINT OF ORDER. I DON'T THINK ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE CAN DO THAT INCLUDING A CITY ATTORNEY.

SECONDLY I WAS READING WORD FOR WORD FROM A PAPER THE CITY ATTORNEY WROTE IN 2006 ENTITLED, OVERVIEW OF ZONING IN TEXAS. I CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW READING FROM THAT ARTICLE COULD BE CONSIDERED FROM ANY PERSON TO BE LAWYER BASHING. OR LAWYER BASHING IT WOULD BE GROUNDS FOR CALLING A POINT OF ORDER AND THEREFORE STOPPING MY PPRESENTATION THE P&Z WAS VIOLATED. I HAVE NOT FOUND ANY BYLAWS FOR P&Z OR REQUIREMENT THAT P&Z PROCEEDINGS MUST COMPLY WITH THE RULE FOR THAT MATTER. ROWLETT SHOULD HAVE BOTH. I'VE NOT FOUND ANY P&Z PROHIBITION FOR LAWYER BASHING EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE. THE CHAIR UPHELD THE IMPROMPTU CALL FOR POINT OF ORDER AND SHE TOLD ME TO GO TO MY SEAT AND WAS NOT ALLOWED TO FINISH MY TESTIMONY.

AS A RESULT I THINK ROBERT'S RULES WERE BROKEN AND FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY I THINK TWO OTHER LAWS WERE BROKEN. FIRST, THE SESSION OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE SAYS A GOVERNMENTAL BODY SHALL ALLOW EACH MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO DESIRES TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC ON AN OPEN ISSUE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE BODY BEFORE ORGANS THE BODIES POSITION ON THE ITEMS YOU SECONDLY THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT THEREOF OR BRIDGE THIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR THE PRESS OR RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. IN MY OPINION BUT THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CHAIR OF PNC ARE CULPABLE OF THESE VIOLATIONS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. SINCE I GOT INVOLVED IN THE DRAINAGE DESIGN THE DANGEROUS DETOUR PLAN THAT WAS USED ON MILLER ROAD DURING THE RECENT PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT IN MY ATTEMPT TO REDO THE DRAINAGE PLANS AT THE VILLAGE, I HAVE BEEN STONEWALLED. EVEN THE MAYOR WAS STONEWALLED WHEN SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE VERSION OF THE VILLAS PD ORDINANCE SHE WAS LOOKING AT AND THE ONE THAT P&Z HAD RECEIVED TWO WEEKS EARLIER.

NEITHER THE CITY ATTORNEY OR DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WOULD ANSWER HER QUESTION. APPARENTLY NO ONE IS IMMUNE FROM CITY STONEWALLING. IN MY 50 YEARS OF ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS I'VE NEVER SEEN OR HEARD OF ANYTHING LIKE

[00:20:01]

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE LAST MEETING. I WOULD NEVER HAVE IMAGINED THAT I WOULD GET INVOLVED IN THE ROWLETT ZONING ISSUES. CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD STOOP AS LOW AS IT HAS. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH ANY COUNCILMEMBER OR GO OVER THE EVENTS OF THE PAST TWO YEARS IN DETAIL. THIS IS BEGINNING TO BE VERY SERIOUS. IT'S TIME TO STOP THIS BAD

[7. CONSENT AGENDA]

BEHAVIOR AND I SOLICIT YOUR HELP.

>> THAT CONCLUDES OUR CITIZEN INPUT SESSION AND WILL NEXT MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA A SERIES OF ITEMS WILL VOTE ON TOGETHER. COUNSEL HAS NOT ASKED TO HAVE ANYTHING REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION AND IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE ANYTHING REMOVED PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE, LAURA, PLEASE READ

THOSE ITEMS INTO RECORD. >> 7A. CONSIDER APPROVING THE MINUTES. 7B. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FOR NONPAYMENT OF FRANCHISE FEES.

7C. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING PAYMENT FOR WATER SERVICE FEES. 7D. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF WATER METERS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. 7E. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 7F. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS. AND 7G. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR NO REFUSAL WEEKENDS WITH ROCKWALL

COUNTY. >> COUNCILMEMBER MATT

GRUBISICH? >> I MAKE A MOTION.

>> COUNCILMEMBER MARTHA BROWN? >> I SECOND THAT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND CALL THE BOAT. THOSE ITEMS PASSED 7-0P REMOVED TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS I AM GOING TO TAKE ITEM 8C FIRST. WERE GOING TO START

[8C. Discuss and take action based on recommendation by Court Governance Committee for the appointment of Rosalind Jeffers as an Associate Judge of the Rowlett Municipal Court. (If item is approved, Oath of Office will follow.)]

WITH THAT DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION BASED ON RECOMMENDATION BY COURT GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ROSALIND JEFFERS AS AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE OF THE ROWLETT MUNICIPAL COURT.. JUDGE ARE YOU TAKING THIS ONE?

>> SPEAKING OFF MICROPHONE. >> YOU ARE RIGHT JUDGE. I WILL KICK US OFF AND LEAD US. THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE INCLUDE MYSELFF COUNCILWOMAN BROWN AND COUNCILMAN MARGOLIS. ONE OF THE DUTIES OF THE COURT GOVERNANCE ONE OF THE GREAT DUTIES OF THE COURTS GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE IS TO WORK WITH OUR JUDGE TO APPOINT ASSOCIATE JUDGES THAT FILL IN IF THE NEED ARISES. IT IS A VERY BUSY COURT THAT RUNS 24 HOURS A DAY AND YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT THINGS COME UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND ON WEEKENDS AND EVERY BUDDY IS ENTITLED TO A VACATION. WE NEED SEVERAL ASSOCIATE JUDGES TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE WORKLOAD AND ALL OF OUR ASSOCIATE JUDGES DO A FANTASTIC JOB OF RUNNING OUR COURTS. WE ARE PLEASED TO HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO BE ABLE TO, HAVE ROWLETT'S OWN BROUGHT FORWARD BY OUR CHIEF JUDGE JUDGE LISTON AS SOMEBODY THAT SHE HAD TALKED TO A LONG TIME AGO AN ACQUAINTANCE WITH AND THIS OPPORTUNITY CAME ABOUT AND WAS ABLE TO COME ABOUT THROUGH EMAILS TO FIND THIS PERSON. WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE THAT IT DIDN'T TAKE 30 SECONDS OF US ON THE PHONE WITH HER REALIZED SHE WAS GOING TO BE A PERFECT FIT IN OUR COURT SYSTEM. I DON'T KNOW IF MY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS WANT TO SAY ANYTHING BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ROSALYN JEFFERS AS A NEW JUDGE HERE IN ROWLETT. DO ANY OF YOU WANT TO

SAY ANYTHING? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT WE WERE SO IMPRESSED WITH THE CREDENTIALS OF ROSALIND JEFFERS A LONGTIME RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND IT IS WONDERFUL EVERY TIME WE TALK TO OUR CITIZENS ABOUT SERVING IN DIFFERENT POSITIONS IN OUR CITY JUST TO SEE THE QUALITY OF PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CITY. WE ARE DELIGHTED THAT WE ARE HERE AS A RESIDENT AND TO PUT YOUR NAME TOWARD AS AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE FOR OUR MUNICIPAL COURT. I WOULD SECOND THE MOTION IF YOU ARE MAKING ONE.

>> LET'S HOLD OFF JUST A SECOND. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A

[00:25:05]

MOTION MIGHT NOT BE MAKING A MOTION. I HAVE A QUESTION AND COMMENT. YOU KNOW THE ANSWER SO I GUESS IT'S A COMMENT.

HIRING ADDITIONAL ASSOCIATE JUDGES WHEN YOU COME TO MICROPHONE JUDGE BECAUSE I THINK YOU ARE THE BEST TO ANSWER THIS. DOES THIS INCREASE OUR COSTS AND WHAT IS THE IMPACT FINANCIALLY OF ANOTHER ASSOCIATE JUDGE AND HELP THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND HOW YOU USE THOSE ASSOCIATE JUDGES,

PLEASE. >>.SHE IS FILLING THE ROLE OF JUDGE HAYDEN. JUDGE HAYDEN HAS HAD SOME HEALTH CONCERNS PAIRED SHE'S DOING WELL RIGHT NOW BUT SHE IS STEPPING BACK FROM SOME OF HER DUTIES FOR POLITY OF LIFE CHOICES. IT IS AN HONOR THAT JUDGE JEFFERS HAS BEEN INTERESTED TO FILL THIS ROLE. WE DO STAFF LIKE MATT SAID WE STAFFED 24 HOURS A DAY SEVEN DAYS A WEEK AND WE COULD GET CALLS AT ANY TIME AND IT IS EVERY SINGLE DAY BECAUSE THERE ARE ARRESTS THAT HAPPEN EVERY SINGLE DAY. THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES ARE ON CALL DURING THE EVENING HOURS DURING THE WEEK TO HANDLE ANY TYPE OF TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE NEEDS LIKE BLOOD DRAWS AND DWI CHARGES AND THAT IS A TYPE OF SEARCH WARRANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. AND ON WEEKENDS HE ASSOCIATE JUDGES ARE SCHEDULED ON A ROTATION TO COME IN AND HANDLE THE MAGISTRATES AND DUTIES. SO WE ROTATE THAT OUT SO THAT EACH OF US HAVE ONE WEEKEND PER MONTH. AND IT DOES NOT ADD ANY COST.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH JUDGE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> JUST A COMMENT. I AGRE WITH COUNCILMEMBER MATT GRUBISICH AND COUNCILMEMBER MARTHA BROWN. ABOUT YOUR BACKGROUND OR YOU ARE A PROBATION OFFICER, ATTORNEY AND EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY AND NOW A DEAN OF LAW SCHOOL.

YOUR BACKGROUND IS EXCELLENT PAIRED WHEN WE INTERVIEWED YOU YOU ARE VERY PROFESSIONAL AND ETHICAL PERSON AND WE ARE BLESSED TO HAVE YOU ON OUR TEAM. THANK YOU. > I THINK HE IS VOTING YES. ANYTHING ELSE? ANYONE? COUNCILMEMBER MATT GRUBISICH WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> YES I WOULD THINK YOU JUDGE FOR COMING IN AND FILLING IN ALL THOSE PIECES AND. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPOINT MISS ROSALYN JEFFERS FOR A ASSOCIATE JUDGE FOR THE

CITY OF ROWLETT. >> COUNCILMEMBER MARTHA BROWN?

I WILL SECOND THAT. >> I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND DO I HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS? SEEING NONE WAS TAKE A VOTE.

THAT ITEM PASSES 7-0. WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE THAT WE WILL FOLLOW THIS VOTE UP WITH AN OATH OF OFFICE. YOU CAN

INTRODUCE YOUR FOLKS. >> I AM A BIT STARSTRUCK. FROM A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE THIS EVENING BECAUSE WE HAVE FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE CAROLYN RIGHT HERE THIS EVENING AND SHE WAS THE CHIEF JUSTICE AT THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS IN DALLAS. AND SO, I CAN NOW SAY JUDGE JEFFERS TEXTED ME EARLIER AND SAID MY FRIEND AND MENTOR CAROLYN RIGHT IS GOING TO BE THERE AND I SAID OH MY GOSH, LET ME STEP ASIDE AND HAVE HER ADMINISTER THIS OATH. THAT WOULD BE THE BEST. AND I SAID DON'T YOU WANT THAT? AND SO, CAROLYN RIGHT SAID I WANT TO BE HERE FOR SUPPORT FOR ROSALYN JEFFERS AS EVENING. SHE IS STANDING HERE AS FRIEND AND MENTOR AS I ADMINISTER THIS OATH. THIS IS A STARSTRUCK MOMENT FOR ME TO BE IN THIS. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT IT WAS A SITUATION WHERE I HAD REMEMBERED THE CALIBER OF JUDGE JEFFERS FROM 10 TO 11 YEARS AGO AND WHEN THIS POSITION CAME UP AS I WAS EXTENDING EARLIER WITH JUDGE HAYDEN VACATING THE POSITION I WAS SO SERIOUS ABOUT FINDING THE PERSON TO FILL THE ROLE. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW SHE STILL LIVED IN ROWLETT. I HOPE SHE STILL LIVED IN ROWLETT. I

[00:30:01]

COULDN'T REMEMBER HER NAME BUT I REMEMBER THE STREET SHE LIVED ON SO I WAS EVEN TEMPTED TO WALK UP AND DOWN THE STREET AND CALL OUT, DID ANYBODY APPLY FOR A POSITION IN ROWLETT CITY COURT BEFORE? BUT LUCKILY I FOUND THE FILE WHERE HER CREDENTIALS WERE INCLUDED AND I WAS ABLE TO CALL HER AND SHE CALLED ME BACK THE SAME DAY. IT WAS MAGIC AMAZING, FANTASTIC AND I SAID ARE YOU STILL INTERESTED IN THIS AND SHE SAID YES SHE WAS. AND THAT, MY FRIENDS, WE ARE LUCKY BECAUSE SHE IS REALLY GOING TO SERVICE WELL AND WE ARE SO ENCOURAGED.

OUR CONVERSATIONS, SHE IS ON TARGET WITH HER HEART FOR JUSTICE AND HER SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. IT CAN BE HAPPIER TO MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COUNCIL. I AM SO GRATEFUL

SO LET ME SWEAR YOU IN. >> ALL RIGHT. FIGURE OUT HOW WE WILL DO THIS BEST FOR PICTURES. LET'S STAND OVER THERE AND YOU STAND FACING ME. I THINK THIS IS WONDERFUL.

YES. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN PUT YOU UP ON THE MIC. REPEAT AFTER ME. I ROSALYN JEFFERS. > I ROSALYN JEFFERS.

>> DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR.

>> THAT I WILL FACE THE EXECUTE.

>> THAT I WILL DEFLATE EXECUTE. >> THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE.

>> THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE. >> IN THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE OF THE ROWLETT MUNICIPAL COURT COURT OF RECORD NUMBER 1 IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. AND WILL, TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE SO HELP ME GOD.

>> OH HELP ME GOD. >> CONGRATULATIONS. [APPLAUSE]

APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU.

>> JUDGE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ASSOCIATE JUDGES AND THE AUDIENCE YOU WOULD LIKE TO MENTION? WHAT'S OF COURSE.

ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRIS KILGORE IS HERE HE IS WAVING. I COULD

GO ON AND ON. >> JUST NAMES. [LAUGHTER]

>> LET ME SAY WE HAVE AN AMERICAN HERO IN OUR MIDST AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR HIS SERVICE. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]

>> JUDGE WILL YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE BACK TO THE OTHER SIDE? WHILE SHE'S DOING THAT, THEY VERY MUCH A SPECIAL MENTION TO CITY SECRETARY LAURA HALLMARK CAME IN ON A WEEKEND, ON A HOLIDAY TO AMEND THE AGENDA WITHIN THE 72 HOUR TIME LIMIT SO WE COULD DO THIS TONIGHT. THANK YOU, LAURA, YOU WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY AGAIN YOU ALWAYS DO.

SHE IS AN INCREDIBLE CITY SECRETARY. THANK YOU. WE WON'T SAY WHO MADE THAT MISTAKE.[LAUGHTER]? ALL RIGHT

[8A. Conduct a public hearing and consider approval of a request by Adam Shiffer, Skorburg Company, on behalf of property owner Lake Shore Village SF, Ltd., to: 1) Amend the Planned Development to include a requirement that street-facing garage doors shall comprise no more than 50 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; and 4) Amend the zoning map of the City of Rowlett. The approximately 21.74-acre site is located on the west of Dalrock Road, approximately 750 feet south of Schrade Road, situated in the William Crabtree Survey, Abstract Number 346, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

WE ARE MOVING TO ITEM 8A. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY ADAM SHIFFER, SKORBURG COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER LAKE SHORE VILLAGE SF, LTD., TO: 1) AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT THAT STREET-FACING GARAGE DOORS SHALL COMPRISE NO MORE THAN 50 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; AND 4) AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT. THE APPROXIMATELY 21.74-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE WEST OF DALROCK ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 750 FEET SOUTH OF SCHRADE ROAD, SITUATED IN THE WILLIAM CRABTREE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 346, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. ALEX? BEFORE YOU START WE HAVE A LOT OF CITIZEN INPUT YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE A SEAT.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> ALL RIGHT WERE GOING TO DO THOSE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU ARE RIGHT. GO!

>> THANK YOU. SO, THIS AGAIN IS A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A NEWER PERMIT ALLOWING FOR STREET RACING GARAGE DOORS TO COMPRISE UP TO 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL LENGTH OF THE DWELLING FA?ADE. THIS SITE WHICH IS ILLUSTRATED ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE IS APPROXIMATELY 21.74 ACRES AND WILL BE DEVELOPED AND PROPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT OF A 99 LOT

[00:35:02]

SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND MARCH SECOND LAST YEAR THE CITY COUNCIL DID APPROVE THE ORDINANCE TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY FROM THE SF 10 DISTRICT AS WELL AS THE EMITTED OFFICE DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SO IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH 99 RESIDENCES. THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PRIMARY LOT TYPES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION CALLED TYPE A AND TYPE B FOR THE TAIPEI LOTS ARE 6 TO 62 200 LOTS. THE PARAMETERS ARE THAT THEY ARE 50 FEET WIDE WITH 40 FOOT WIDE BUILDING PADS AND PROVIDE STRAIGHT INTO GARAGES.

THE TYPE B LOTS ARE SIFEET WIDE WITH 50 FOOT WIDE BUILDING PADS AND PROVIDE A TWO BY ONE J HOOK GARAGE CONDITION THAT WOULD BE SEPARATED INTO ONE GARAGE WITH TWO BAYS IN WOULD NOT HAVE A GARAGE DOOR FACING THE STREET. THERE IS THE J HOOK PART AND THEN ONE PART WOULD BE A SINGLE CAR GARAGE FOR THE THIRD GROUCH WHICH WOULD HAVE A SINGLE GARAGE DOOR FACING TOWARDS THE STREET. SECONDLY, THE REASON FOR THIS REQUEST IS SECTION 77 ? 508 POINT DEEP .3 OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPING CODE REGARDING GARAGE DOOR FACING THE STREET. THE APPLICANT PROPOSED PRODUCT TYPE AMONG THEM WOULD EXCEED THAT MAXIMUM AS WE REITERATE THE APPLICANT IS PURSUING THIS REQUEST TO AMEND THE PD THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM GARAGE DOOR WIDTH OF 50 PERCENT THE FACADE AND WHAT IS PARTICULARLY NOTED AND IS UNDERLINED WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE TYPE A LOT. AGAIN FOR A BIT MORE BACKGROUND WE HAVE THE APPROVED SITE PLAN ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE ILLUSTRATING THE TAIPEI LOTS ARE THE ONES IN YELLOW TYPE BE FOR THE PURPLE LOTS AND IN THERE YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT WITH 850 SQUARE FEET TYPE THE LOT WILL HAVE ARCHER HOMES AT A 2000 SQUARE-FOOT MINIMUM AND THEN ALSO WITH THE PARTICULAR NOTE GARAGE CONFIGURATION TYPE A LOT AS YOU CAN SEE ONLY HAVE STREET ENTRY BECAUSE OF THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOTS AS WELL AS NOT HAVING ALLEYS WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND YOU CAN SEE THE PURPLE LOTS ARE GENERALLY WIDER WHICH ALLOW FOR THE J HOOK CONFIGURATION TO ALLOW FOR THE TWO AND ONE WITH A SINGLE GARAGE DOOR SHOULD BE SELECTED BY THE HOMEOWNER TO BE FACING THE STREET.

>>> THE PURPOSE OF THAT SECTION ARE SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS REGARDING SINGLE FAMILY HOME DEVELOPMENT AND THE PURPOSE IS TO ENCOURAGE A FA?ADE THAT HAS VISUAL INTERESTS AND TO PROMOTE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER AS WELL AS KEEPING THE GARAGE DOOR FROM EXPLORING MAIN ENTRANCES OF THE STREET FROM HOME. AGAIN, THAT SPECIFIC SUBSECTION D .3 LIMITS GARAGE FACING STREET TO NOT BE MORE THAN 35 PERCENT OF THE FACADE WITH AND TO LIMIT THE AESTHETIC OF THE GARAGE DOOR ON THE FRONT FA?ADE OF HOMES AGAIN, WE WOULD NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT ADDRESS THIS IN THE TIME OF REZONING AND REALIZE THAT ONCE THEY WERE MOVING ON TOWARDS THE ADDITIONAL REVIEW PROCESSES AND GETTING READY TO MARKET THIS PROJECT THAT THE DESIRED FRONT GARAGE SURE CONFIGURATION WHICH WOULD HAVE A SINGLE GARAGE DOOR WOULD NOT SEE THAT GARAGE WITH.

THIS IS BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE A MINIMUM 40 FOOT PAD ON THE TYPE A LOT A TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH A SINGLE DOOR AND ALSO TO SINGLE CAR GARAGE IS. THAT TWO-CAR GARAGE DOOR WITH A SINGLE DOOR WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM OF 35 PERCENT OR 14 FEET. SO, THIS REQUEST AGAIN TO RAISE THE LIMIT TO 50 PERCENT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A 20 FOOT WIDE GARAGE DOOR ON A 40 FOOT WIDE PAD.

[00:40:05]

THIS IS THE MAXIMUM AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE THE ILLUSTRATIVE PRODUCTS THAT THE BUILDER WOULD BE LOOKING TO BUILD. THEY BOTH HAVE ONE HAS A SINGLE CROWDED DOOR AND THE OTHER ONE HAS A SEPARATE GARAGE DOOR BUT NEITHER OF THEM HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE FRONT DOOR NOTICE ABILITY OR DO NOT OBSCURE THE PROMINENCE OF THAT FRAME. AGAIN, THIS IS A PICTURE OF ANOTHER PRODUCT THAT THE BUILDER OFFERS. THEY ARE INTENDING TO OFFER A MIX OF THOSE GARAGE DOOR CONFIGURATIONS ON THOSE TAIPEI LOTS WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A SINGLE CAR GARAGE DOOR AND ONE SINGLE DOOR AS SHOWN IN THIS ILLUSTRATION. THIS IS TYPICALLY CHOSEN BY THE PARTICULAR BUYER OF THE VIRTUAL HOME AND THE DEVELOPER IS NOT TRYING TO PUSH ONE DESIGN OVER THE OTHER. IN REGARDS TO THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE SENT THERE WERE NOTICES SENT IN THE MAIL TO CONFORM WITH STATE CODE BACK ON NOVEMBER 26TH 2021 WITHIN THE REQUIRED 200 FOOT PUBLIC NOTICE AREA THERE WERE 66 NOTICES SENT OUT AND WE RECEIVED FIVE THE RETURN OF OPPOSITION IN THE 500 FOOT COURTESY NOTICE THERE WERE 97 NOTICES SENT OUT IN WHICH THERE WERE FOUR SENT IN OPPOSITION.

IN THIS CASE WE ALSO RECEIVED FOR ADDITIONAL NOTICES IN OPPOSITION BEYOND BOTH THE 200 FOOT OR 500 FOOT RADIUS. AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ON THE 14TH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A 5-1 VOTE. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL BE FOR APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE THE PREVIOUS APPROVED LOT LAYOUT OR THE DENSITY OF THE HOMES IN THE PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW FOR GARAGE DOOR VARIATION AND DESIGN VARIATION WITHIN THE 78 TAIPEI LOTS AND WE WOULD NOTE THAT THIS GARAGE DOOR CONFIGURATION DOES NOT IMPACT ORB SKEWER THE FRONT DOOR FUNCTIONALITY OF THE HOME AND WITH THAT I WOULD ENTERTAIN THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND ALSO HAVE ADDITIONAL SLIDES TO SHOW THE ILLUSTRATIVE HOMES THAT THEY HAVE ELSE AND WOULD ALSO BE PROPOSING TO BUILD IN THIS

NEIGHBORHOOD. >> COUNSEL ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COUNCILMEMBER ROBERT BLAKE MARGOLIS?

>> YES. IT STATES IN THE AGENDA ITEM THAT WE HAVE TO CONFIRM THE REZONING. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? WHY DO WE HAVE TO CONFIRM THE REZONING IF IT'S ALREADY REZONED?

>> I ADDED A PROVISION THAT RATIFIES THE ORDINANCE AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE HAD A BUNCH OF PEOPLE COMPLAINING IN THE PUBLIC, A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE COMPLAINING SAYING THAT WHEN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED IT DIDN'T CLEARLY INDICATE AMONG OTHER THINGS A POTENTIAL CHANGE IN THE COMP PLAN. THE WAY THIS ORDINANCE WAS TEED UP WAS VERY CLEAR IN ALL THE AGENDA ITEMS FOR P&Z AND FOR COUNSEL THAT THIS INVOLVED A CHANGE TO THE COMP PLAN. IN THEORY THAT WAS SATISFY THOSE PEOPLE BUT I DON'T THINK IT DID BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S A REAL CONCERN. WE ARE ALSO INVOLVED IN LITIGATION CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OF THAT SAME ORDINANCE SO IF THEY ARE RATIFYING IT THAT LAWSUIT IN CONNECTION WITH ALLEGATIONS WHICH I BELIEVE ARE GROUNDLESS WOULD NOT APPLY

ANYMORE. >> THIS IS FROM OF THIS ACTION, IT IS NOT A REZONING ACTION IS SIMPLY AN AMENDMENT OF THE

GARAGE DOOR CONFIGURATION? >> I WILL HIT DISCUSSION MODE

AND YOU CAN ALL TALK AWAY. >> FOR TONIGHT'S PURPOSES .

[00:45:07]

PURPOSE FOR THIS ORDINANCE IS SIMPLY TO ADJUST THE ORIGINAL PD TO ALLOW FOR THE TWO-CAR GARAGE DOOR AS OPPOSED TO THE ONE CAR. CENSUS HAD TO BE DONE ANYWAY THERE WASN'T A PROCESS IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE AND WE CAN HOPEFULLY RESOLVE THE LITIGATION ISSUE AND JUDGED BY THE PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN THE CHANGES.

>> MY LAST QUESTION IS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS WASN'T CONSIDERED A MINOR AMENDMENT AS OPPOSED TO AN AMENDMENT THAT WE

HAVE? CAN YOU CLAIM THAT? >> THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN IS NOT HERE TONIGHT SO, BE PATIENT WITH US.

>>.BRINGING THIS BACK WE THOUGHT THIS WAS A UN-MINOR ENOUGH MODIFICATION TO THE REQUEST OR TO THE ZONING TO BRING IT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC CONSIDERATION AND APPROVED BY

COUNCIL. >> IF I COULD ADD TO THAT, THE PD STANDARDS PROVIDED TO THE CITY BY THE DEVELOPER WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS OMITTED DID NOT INCLUDE A PROCESS FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS. BECAUSE OF THE LACKED OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS THERE WAS NO CHOICE HEARD TO BENEFIT SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS CHANGING IT FROM A ONE CAR GARAGE TO A TWO-CAR GARAGE PEERED WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT CAN BE DONE BY STAFF IT HAS TO BE DONE BY COUNSEL.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?

COUNCILMEMBER MARTHA BROWN? >> YES, IF YOU COULD THIS IS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THE CONCERNS REGARDING THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4 AND THE ADDITION TO SECTION 5? AFTER THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED BY P&Z AND IT WAS CONSIDERED BY THEM IN ITS PREVIOUS FORM?

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT AND P&Z UNDERSTAND THIS AND PERHAPS ABOUT OF CITY COUNCIL, THE P&Z DOES NOT RECOMMEND ORDINANCES.

I GET TO DO THAT. THAT IS MY JOB AS A CITY ATTORNEY. THE ADDITION TO THE ORDINANCES IN THE P AND Z PACKAGE IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY ASKED STAFF TO DO SO THE STAFF IS BEEN DOING THAT BUT THE P&Z WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHAT THE COUNCIL CAN SEE BUT THEY'RE NOT RECOMMENDING AN ORDINANCE THERE SIMPLY RECOMMENDING A ZONING CHANGE. I'M THE ONE THAT GETS TO RECOMMEND THIS. SECTION 4 AS I EXPLAINED BEFORE WAS ADDED BY ME BECAUSE, FOR THE REASONS THAT I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER THE PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OR HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE 008 ? 21 HAVE NO CAUSE COMPLAIN AND THAT IS WHAT SECTION 4 DOES.

SECTION 5 IS A CONFLICTS PROVISION AND THAT IS IN ALL OF OUR ORDINANCES. IF IT WASN'T IN THE ONE THAT THE P&Z IS LOOKING AT I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN BUT THIS IS STANDARD IN VIRTUALLY ALL OF OUR ORDINANCES THAT DO ANYTHING. ANYTHING THAT AMENDS OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES AND EVEN THOSE THAT DON'T. IT IS A STANDARD PROVISION.

>> I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION AND I THINK FOR COUNSEL AND THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE TRANSPARENCY THAT WE OPERATE UNDER AND SO, I THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>>. >> MATT HAS BEEN PUSHING MY BUTTONS SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE THIS ALL OUT. ALL RIGHT. YES, I HAVE BUTTONS APPEAR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL TAKE COMMENT FOR INDIVIDUALS VIA EMAIL OR IN PRESENT UP TO THREE MINUTES MAX. WE WILL START WITH THE IN PERSON WE HAVE TWO. ADAM AND JOHN. I APOLOGIZE FOR MISPRONOUNCING YOUR NAME IF I

DID. >> MY NAME IS ADAM YOU CHECK

[00:50:05]

WITH THE SCOREBOARD COMPANY, INTEREST OF EVERYONE'S TIME YES, I DO HAVE SOME SLIDES BUT THERE SIMPLY NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN THE EXACT SAME PHOTOS REPRESENTING THE PRODUCT THAT IS ATTACHED ALREADY AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE ORDINANCE AT THE COUNCIL APPROVED LAST MARCH.

NOTHING DIFFERENT IF YOU WANT ME TO PUT THEM UP THERE I CERTAINLY CAN. AGAIN, WE HAVE 18 PICTURES OF THIS PRODUCT THAT IS ALREADY IN CORPORATIVE IN THE APPROVED PD FOR COUNSEL LAST MARCH AND OF THOSE 18 PICTURES FIVE OF THOSE PICTURES ARE SPECIFICALLY THE SINGLE DOOR FOR TWO CARS PEERED WE ARE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING IN TERMS OF CONTEXT. WITH THE LAST PRODUCT WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION IN THE LAST PD THE VILLAGE ONE THAT HAD THE SMALL LOT AT 40 FOOT ASKED THE QUESTION OF STAFF, I THINK WE MADE THE SAME MISTAKE ON THIS ONE AND I DIDN'T WANT TO HIDE FROM IT I WANTED IT TO GET ON THE TABLE AND GET THE FIX NOW AND THAT'S WHY AM BACK BEFORE YOU HEAR 6 TO 8 WEEKS LATER BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THERE WAS AN OVERSIGHT A GLITCH AND WANTED TO FIX IT AND MAKE IT RIGHT. THESE ARE BIGGER LOTS SO THE VARIANCE IS LESS BECAUSE THESE ARE 50 AND 60 FOOT WIDE LOTS AND THAT'S ALL AND IT DES NOT AFFECT THE TYPE B LOT AS WE JUST STATED. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. JOHN SCOLA.

>> WHAT IS GOING ON? >> I'M WAITING FOR YOU TO PASS

THOSE DOWN. >> GO AHEAD PEERED STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> JR SCOLA,

>> AS I MENTIONED IN THE CITIZENS INPUT SOMEONE HAS BEEN MODIFYING THESE WERE P&Z AND PASSING THEM OFF AS IF THEY WERE APPROVED BY P&Z. SOMEONE HAS BEEN MAKING MATERIAL CHANGES TO THE PACKETS AND ORDINANCES THEMSELVES. PASSED OUT A CHANGE TRACK VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE HE CAN SEE WHAT I ASSUME HAS BEEN ADDED AND HOW MR. BERMAN PUT IN HIS AGENDA PREP IN THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING. IN THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA PREP SESSION THE ATTORNEY SEEMS TO HAVE ADDED AN ENTIRE SECTION TO THE ORDINANCE. I REALLY THINK THAT IS SOMETHING MORE THAN NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE. IN HIS AGENDA PREP HE ADDED AN ENTIRE CLAUSE THAT INCLUDES VERBIAGE FOR REAFFIRMING AND RATIFYING SERIAL THAT CLEARLY WAS NOT REVIEWED TONIGHT. I WILL ASK THIS AGAIN. IF THESE CHANGES ARE NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE WHY ARE THE GETTING ADDED? WERE THEY SIMPLE HE ADDED TO THE PNC VERSION IF THESE WERE NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE I MAKE THESE CHANGES AT ALL? AND LASTLY, WHAT GIVES HIM THE RIGHT TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU JUST HEARD FROM MR. BERMAN REZONED ORDINANCES ARE REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED BY P&Z NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN SIMPLY PROPOSE TO COUNSEL WITHOUT GOING THROUGH P&Z. SECONDLY, WE NEED TO STOP THESE SPOT ZONING WAIVERS. THE ONLY RATIONALE WE BEEN GIVEN AND WE SAW THIS BEFORE FROM THE STAFF TONIGHT IS THAT THE ONLY REASON THEY NEED THEM IS BECAUSE THIS IS THE PRODUCT WE WANT TO SELL. IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO DO THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN OUR LAWS WHY WOULD I BE GIVEN A WAIVER WHEN EVERYONE ELSE AND OTHER DEVELOPERS HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW? WHEN WE GIVE OUT THESE SPOT ZONE WAIVERS WE CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO THIS DEVELOPER IT IS TEXTBOOK SPOT ZONING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIS DEVELOPER AND I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE PRESENTATION THEY SHOW 16 FOOT DOORS NOT THE REQUESTED 20 FOOT WIDE DOORS THAT WE MENTIONED EARLIER AND I REITERATE THAT IN THIS REVIEW WHERE DID WE DESCRIBE OR DISCUSS ANY OF THE AGENDA ITEMS 8B, 8C OR HD? TO COUNCILMEMBER MARGOLIS'S POINT, WHY DO WE NEED ALL THOSE OTHER SECTIONS OF THIS AMENDMENT? I DEFINITELY THINK WE SHOULD REMOVE THOSE SECTIONS FROM THIS

[00:55:02]

AMENDMENT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ANOTHER VARIANCE GETS NOTICED: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE NEXT THING THAT SOMEONE DIDN'T CATCH GETS NOTICED ON THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT OR ANOTHER? DO WE JUST LET THE

DEVELOPERS KEEP COMING BACK? >> THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER IN PERSON COMMENTS, SO MATT, AND LAUREL WILL TAKE TURNS READING THE WRITTEN INCUMBENTS. GO AHEAD.

>> LAURA SCOLA. AS A RESULT OF THE LAST PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETINGS I REQUEST THAT CITY COUNCIL PERFORM AN INDEPENDENT VIEW ON THE ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR APPROVAL.

I BELIEVE IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS COUNSEL TO ENSURE PROPER ADHERENCE TO THE GOVERNMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY IS GOING UNHEARD AND THAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE NOT TAKING PROPER CARE AND THEIR OWN APPROVAL PROCEDURES FOR THESE REASONS AGENDA ITEM EIGHT A SHOULD BE REJECTED BY COUNSEL.

I AM IN OPPOSITION WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGS AND ASKED CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE MORE AND COMMUNITY VOICE THEN PLANNING AND ZONING DID WHEN THIS ITEM CAME TO THE BOARD. AS A CONCERNED MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY MYSELF AND OTHERS HAVE SENT NUMEROUS LETTERS FOR SPOT ZONING CHANGES THAT ARE COMING TO PNC FOR APPROVAL AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS ASKING FOR IS A MORE INCLUSIVE PATH FORWARD THAT IS THE BEST INTEREST FOR ROWLETT AND ITS CITIZENS. PLEASE NOTE THE ITEM INCLUDED IN AA FOLLOWS THIS TREND AND PLEASE HELP RECOGNIZE THIS TREND AND PUT A STOP TO THIS. I'M TRYING TO HAVE FAITH IN THE PROCESS BUT I ADMIT I'M STRUGGLING TO DO SO IN LIGHT OF HOW THE RECENT MEETINGS HAVE GONE.

>> DAYTON SHURMUR. PLEASE NOTE MY OBJECTION TO THE PLANNING OF THE LAKESHORE VILLAGE. MY PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN MY HOUSE SITS ON 1/4 ACRE LOT AND IS MOST COMMON FOR THE HOMES IN THIS AREA. THE PUBLISHED DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT SHOW IT IS PACKING ALMOST 100 HOUSES INTO THE SITE AND IS GOING FOR A MINI BALTIMORE HOUSE ROAD LOOK? IF THESE PLANS ARE MADE PUBLIC I WOULD HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS GOING FOR AND I HAVE YET TO FIND A COPY OF THE PLANS IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING WEBSITE PEERED WHY NOT PUBLISH THOSE WE CAN HAVE A WORTHWHILE DISCUSSION INSTEAD OF GUESSING. REGARDLESS, BUILDING A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT WILL DIMINISH THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES. WE HAVE TO HAVE MIDDLE GROUND THE HOUSE HAS A LOT SIZE THAT AGREES WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPER CAN BUILD ENOUGH HOUSES TO MAKE IT PROFIT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH THE DEVELOPER TO.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THIS FURTHER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. TO LAKESHORE WE JUST SAY NO TO EVERYTHING THAT COUNSEL BELIEVES IS FLOATING ON TONIGHT RELATED TO LAKESHORE. NOTED COMP PLANNING AND ZONING AND GARAGE DOOR CHANGE. DENISE O'REILLY I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING HERE IN PERSON AS I HAVE OTHER COMMITMENTS AS EVENING. I DROVE BY THE LAKESHORE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS PROJECT IS NOT VERY FAR ALONG.

DOING THE SITE IT APPEARS DIRT WORK AND INGROUND INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PROCESS. THERE APPEAR TO BE NO PAVED ROADS. I LIKE TO SEE THE CHANGE AND IT SHOWS THAT THE CITY STAFF HAS DONE THE RESEARCH OR THAT THEY DID SOME REVIEW ON THEIR OWN. I DISAGREED RALPH LEE AND I WAS DISAPPOINTED THAT SCOREBOARD REPRESENTATIVE AT LAST MONTH'S COUNCIL MEETING DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE WORK.

THE MAYOR HAD ASKED TWICE, MAYBE THREE TIMES REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE BEST ANSWER WAS FROM THE CITY STAFF AND NOT THE REPRESENTATIVE. THE GENTLEMAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH THE STATUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOCK OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE PROJECT DID NOT LOOK GOOD.

I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE AT THIS MEETING HAS A BETTER GRASP OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE REQUEST LAST MONTH IN THE VILLA AT LONGBRANCH BUT IT'S DIFFERENT. THE VILLAS AT LONGBRANCH WAS FOR THE GARAGE IS TO BE NO LONGER THAN 70 PERCENT AND THIS IS 50 PERCENT.

IT'S ODD THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT. I'M SURE THERE ARE REASON FOR SMALLER PERCENTAGES BUT I AM GLAD TO SEE IT'S ONLY 50 AND NOT 70 PERCENT QUESTED FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. I GUESS A CHANGE CAN BE LOOKED AT AS TAILORING THE DEVELOPMENT FOR OTHER VARIANCES GRANTED. BEING SKEPTICAL. COULD IT BE THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS RATHER THAN PERMISSION? I HAVE NO REASON TO REPLAN THIS AS THE SITE IS IN ITS CONSTRUCTION PHASE. COUNSEL, I ASK YOU VOTE NO TO THIS REQUEST. I SUGGEST THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT TEAM REVIEW THE PROJECT FOR ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE CONSISTENT SUCH AN OBSCURE ORDINANCE MAY BE THE SHOULD BE REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE. I WOULD HATE FOR A HOMEOWNER SELLING THEIR HOME IN SAY WILLOW WOULD ESTATE OR MILLER IN A RESOURCEFUL TITLE OFFICER COMES ACROSS VIOLATION ADDING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OR

[01:00:04]

WORSE UNABLE TO COMPLETE THE SALE UNTIL IT'S RESOLVED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND DUE DILIGENCE ON THIS

MANNER. >> I AM HERE TONIGHT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION ON WHAT IS SPOT ZONING AND HOW DO YOU DETERMINE IF A ZONING ORDINANCE CONSTITUTES A SPOT ZONING. I READ ONCE THAT IN ATTORNEY WROTE ON THIS ISSUE THE OFFERS A GOOD EXULTATION OF SPOT ZONING AND I AM QUOTING FROM HIS ARTICLE. " THIS IS THE SINGLING OUT OF THE SPECIFIC PLOT OF LAND FOR ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT IS DIFFERENT AND INCONSISTENT WITH THAT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INTO THE DETRIMENT AND RIGHTS OF OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS. SPOT ZONING HAS BEEN DEFINED AS CONNOTING AN UNACCEPTABLE ZONING ORDINANCE THE SINGLES OUT A SMALL TRACT WHICH DIFFERS FROM THAT RECORDED WITH SIMILAR SURROUNDING LANDS WITHOUT PROOF OR CONDITIONS. SPOT ZONING IS REGARDED AS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT WHICH DEFEATS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT IS PIECEMEAL ZONING. THE PLAN ZONING. WHAT TREATISE DID I QUOTE FROM? THESE ARE DIRECT QUOTES FROM ONE ENTITLED OVERVIEW ZONING IN TEXAS WRITTEN BY DAVID AND BURNING AND I AGREE WITH MR. BERMAN P LESS COMPARED TO WHAT HE SAID PABOUT SPOT ZONING TO THIS PDP HE MENTIONED FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF SPOT ZONING AND I WILL CALL THEM TESTS SPEAR TEST NUMBER 1 IS IT DIFFERENT AND INCONSISTENT WITH THAT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA? THE ANSWER IS YES. THERE ARE NO 6000 SQUARE-FOOT OR SMALLER LOTS WITH FRONT ENTRY GARAGE IS WITHOUT ALLIE'S ANYWHERE WITHIN A MILE AND HALF OF THIS TRACK PEERED TEST NUMBER 2 DOES IT BENEFIT THE DEVELOPER FOR THE DETRIMENT OF OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS? THE ANSWER IS YES.

WITHOUT QUESTION THE APPEARANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE LESSENED. DRIVEWAYS WILL HAVE MORE TRAFFIC, ETC. THIS PD ONLY BENEFITS THE DEVELOPER WHO IS INTENT ON PACKING AS MANY HOMES AS AVAILABLE ON THE LAND. TEST NUMBER 3 HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGE IN CONDITION TO JUSTFY THIS PRODUCT? THE ANSWER IS NO PEER TEST NUMBER 4 DOES IT DEFEAT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? THE ANSWER IS YES. AS YOU KNOW THE EXISTING ZONING FOR THIS TRACK IS SF 10 PEERED FURTHER DEVELOPMENT CODE SAID FRONT ENTRY GARAGE IS ARE NOT ALLOWED AND ALLIE'S REQUIRED. THE COMP PLAN SAYS LOT SIZES CAN VARY BETWEEN 7000 SQUARE FEET AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET AND THAT IMPLIES THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE SHOULD BE 13,000 SQUARE FEET NOT 6600 AS IS THE CASE WITH THIS PD. THEREFORE THE EXISTING COMP PLAN HAS BEEN DEFEATED. YOU MAY COUNTER THAT THE COMP PLAN WAS AMENDED IN MARCH TO ALLOW THIS USE BUT IF THE COMP PLAN INDEED WAS AMENDED WHY ARE YOU BEING ASKED TO AMEND IT AGAIN? IN THE AMENDMENT WHY WERE THERE NO TEXT CHANGES TO THE COMP PLAN WHY WERE NO FUTURE CHANGES MADE TO MAP? IF YOU HONESTLY ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS YOU WILL CONCLUDE THE COMP PLAN HAS NEVER BEEN AMENDED IN THE PROVISIONS ARE BEING DEFEATED BY THIS PD. TEST NUMBER 5. THE ANSWER IS YES. IT DOESN'T

COMPLY WITH THE COMP PLAN AND - >> TIMES UP. HIS AT THE END IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION UNLESS ANYONE HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. A MOTION?

COUNCILMEMBER MATT GRUBISICH? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

THE AMENDMENT TO THE PD. >> ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 8A? CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION, PLEASE.

>> I WAS A LOW PREMATURE. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM

8A. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 8A DO I HAVE A SECOND? COUNCILMEMBER BROWNIE SHERRILL?

> I WILL SECOND. >> DISCUSSION. COUNSEL? I'M NOT USED TO WEARING A MASK, SORRY YOU GUYS. I WILL MAKE A COMMENT. AGAIN, THIS IS A GARAGE DOOR VOTE. THIS IS NOT A ZONING BOAT IT IS NOT A DENSITY BOAT THIS IS MERELY MAKING A CHANGE TO ALLOW ONE ROD STORE VERSUS TWO. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH MY SUPPORT FOR THIS ITEM. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WILL CALL A VOTE. THAT ITEM PASSES 7-0. THANK YOU VERY

[8B. Conduct a public hearing and consider approval of an ordinance based on a request by property owner Mohammad Hussain, IRA Harwood LLC., granting a Special Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gas pumps on an approximately 1.25-acre property zoned Limited Commercial/Retail (C-1) District. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Miller and Chiesa Roads, being Lot 1, Block A of Milam Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

MUCH. WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 8B. 8B. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING

[01:05:14]

AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE BASED ON A REQUEST BY PROPERTY OWNER MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN, IRA HARWOOD LLC., GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 1.25-ACRE PROPERTY ZONED LIMITED COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (C-1) DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILLER AND CHIESA ROADS, BEING LOT 1, BLOCK A OF MILAM ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. . (IF ITEM GOOD EVENING MISS MULLAH DAD. THIS SHOWS ON BUT CAN YOU SEE

IF IT IS ON? >> GOOD EVENING COUNSEL.

[LAUGHTER] COUNSEL, THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR YOU TO TAKE ACTION ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ENABLE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH AN ASSOCIATED RETAIL AND GAS PUMP ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH IS OUTLINED ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU IN GREEN. THE PROPERTY IS BOUNDED BY MILLER ROAD AND THEN TRANSLATE TO TO THE WEST. THIS IS INDICATED IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNING REPORT AND IN THE PACKAGE IS A PLANNING ZONE AND IN A REVIEW FROM DSUP THAT THE DESIGN CRITERIA CAN BE ESTABLISHED IN TERMS OF ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE STANDING BUILD ENVIRONMENT. LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN 1985 THIS SUBJECT SITE ITSELF WAS PLATTED AND THE PLAT ALSO TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION. NO DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED AT THAT TIME HOWEVER, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TIMING AND CHRONOLOGY IT WAS AT THE SAME TIME. IT WAS A MUCH LARGERLARGER PIECE THAT WAS SUBDIVIDED TO ALLOCATE THE SUBDIVISION AND THE COMMERCIAL CORNER WHICH IS TYPICAL OF MOST PROPERTIES AT HARD INTERSECTIONS OR HARD CORNERS OF THOROUGHFARES SUCH AS THESE THAT ARE ALLOCATED WITH A ZONING THAT IS COMMERCIAL RETAIL IN NATURE. IN 1998 THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AN SEP FOR THE TYPE OF GAS STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE HOWEVER IT WAS REVOKED IN 2007 BECAUSE OF ELEMENT DID NOT TAKE PLACE AND ALSO BECAUSE AT THAT TIME IN 2006 THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY TOOK A MAJOR UNDERTAKING OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE AND A REWRITE OF THE CODE RESULTED IN SEVERAL CITY INITIATIVES AND AS A RESULT THE ZONING WAS THEN RETAINED BACK TO A COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATION. IN 2021 ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF FIVE FEET WAS TAKEN ALONG CHIESA ROAD IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PROGRAM FOR THE WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF MILLER AND CHIESA ROAD. THERE PROGRAMS TO BE IMPROVED IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE WITH THE CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. AGAIN, YOU WILL NOTICE THIS PRESENTATION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THE CONTENT AND HOW I DELIVERED THE SLIDES PER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION AT THE NOVEMBER 23RD RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM WITH A 5-TO VOTE BUT THERE WERE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FIRST WAS AT THE WALL AND COUNTER P SIGNAGE BE LIMITED TO CHIESA AND MILLER ROAD. AND SIGNAGE ALLOWED AT THE CHIESA FRONTAGE AND THAT THE SIX FOOT MASONARY WALL REQUIREMENT TO THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING DEVELOPMENT BE INCREASED TO 10 FEET IN HEIGHT AND THAT ON-SITE LIGHTING NOT SPILL OVER TO THE 15 FOOT WIDE BUFFER DEVELOPMENT ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE AND I WILL DIVE INTO THESE IN DETAIL AS WE PROGRESS WITH THE PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THEY AGREED TO THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND SHOULD CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REQUEST TONIGHT THEY WILL BE COMPLIANT WITH THESE. BASED ON THE CITY'S GIS DATA THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 240 FEET IN LENGTH ALONG MILLER AND CHIESA ROSE AS YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SCREEN.