[5A. Consider and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Shady Migally, ME Innovations, Inc., on behalf of property owner Sam Eizeldin, regarding an Alternative Landscaping Plan under Section 77-504.I of the Rowlett Development Code to modify entryway area landscaping requirements on property zoned Single-Family Residential (SF-8) District. The approximately 5.74-acre site is located approximately 450 feet northeast of the intersection of Dalrock Road and Pheasant Run Drive in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

BUT THAT ITEM DID PASS. MOVING ON.

ITEM 5, ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, ANY COMMENTS TO BE MADE YOU NEED TO FILL OUT A CARD AND THOSE COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. WE USUALLY PUT A TIMER ON THE BOARD SO YOU CAN WATCH. CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY SHADY MIGALLY, ME INNOVATIONS, INC., ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER SAM EIZELDIN, REGARDING AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN UNDER SECTION 77-504.1 OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MODIFY ENTRYWAY AREA LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF-8) DISTRICT. THE APPROXIMATELY 5.74-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DALROCK ROAD AND PHEASANT RUN DRIVE IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

I BELIEVE MR. ROBERTS. >> MADAM CHAIR COMMISSIONERS THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US. FIRST UP WE HAVE ITEMS FOR YOURSELVES TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN SPECIFICALLY TO MODIFY THE ENTRYWAY FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A 7 LOT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY WILL BE SUBDIVIDED AND DEVELOPED FROM UNDEVELOPED

[00:05:03]

PROPERTY ALL EXPECTATIONS AS RELATED TO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE MET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 5.74 ACRES ZONED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY GEM SPECIFICALLY SF-8 DISTRICT THAT REQUIRES MINIMUM 8,000 SQUARE FEET, SECTION OF THE CODE ENCOMPASSES THE ALTERNATIVE FOR LANDSCAPE PLAN. CONDITIONS EL SKWIBL FOR REQUESTED INCLUDE ENTRYWAY AREA FEATURE REQUIREMENTS.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING MODIFICATION FROM FRONT ENTRYWAY AREA PRIOR TO MOVING FORWARD AS IT DOES IMPACTS THE LOT CONFIGURATION. THE ACTUAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FEATURES ARE REFLECTED ON SCREEN FOR YOU, SECTION 77504 D-4 IT REQUIRES A TOTAL 9600 SQUARE FEET USUALLY SEPARATED THERE IS REQUIRED AREA I'VE I'VE SHOWN IN RED THERE WITH SOMEWHAT AMOROUS AREAS THAT GET TO THE TOTAL THAT REQUIRE TWO CANOPY TREES PER 500 SQUARE FEET OF ENTRY.

THERE'S A VARIABLE RIGHT OF WAY THE APPLICANT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. RED FOR YOU ON SCREEN.

THE SMALLEST OF THE 7 E-RESIDENTIAL LOTS TOTALS APPROXIMATELY 14,800 SQUARE FEET.

THAT'S IN SECTION OF THE MINIMUM.

THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL FLOOD PLANE MANAGEMENT EASEMENT SHOWN IN ORANGE OR YELLOW ON SCREEN. IT DOES SPAN THE REAR OF SEVERAL OF THE LOTS AND IS INTENDED TO BE DEDICATED TO PRESERVE THOSE TREES AND YES THERE ARE SIX OPEN SPACE LOTS THAT DO SERVE A VARIETY OF PURPOSES COMMUNITY [INDISTINCT] I'LL GO THROUGH SOME OF THOSE CRITERIA. THE REQUEST FOR YOU TO IS TO REDUCE THE TOTAL AREA TO 3200 SQUARE FEET.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED ENTRYWAY OPEN SPACE 3200 F FEET . . . THE REQUEST IS THERE ARE EXISTING CONSTRAINTS ON SITE AS IT RELATES TO THE APPROXIMATELY 35 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY BEING FLOOD PLAIN, PROVIDING THE REQUISITE 9600 CUELLAR FOOT AREA WOULD HIM AT THIS TIME APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE THOSE LOTS TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY FINANCIALLY.

SECTION 77-504-I OF THE CODE DOES PROVIDE APPROVAL FOR ALP'S FIRST BEING UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS FOR COMPLIANCE, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT PRESENCE OF EXISTING FLOOD PLAIN AND FLOOD WAY ON SITE THAT OCCUPIES APPROXIMATELY 35 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL SITE, 2.3 ACRES OF THE TOTAL ACRES.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PRESERVE THAT IN A FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT EARS EASEMENT INSURING IT IS PRESERVED AND MAINTAINED IN ITS CURRENT STATE AS IT IS CRITICAL TO DRAINAGE IN THE AREA. THE SECOND APPROVL CRITERIA BEING ALP BEATS OR EXCEEDS THE MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECTION COMINGNESS SANTA OF SITE DESIGN CRITERIA THE ALP IS SEEKING TO REDUCE THE OVERALL ENTRYWAY AREA BUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING LANDSCAPING SCREENING SINGLE-FAMILY LOT CANOPY TREES IS BEING PROVIDED THE INTENT OF PRIMARY ENTRYWAY FEET SURS TO PROVIDE FOR ONE A LARGER PHYSICAL SEPARATION FROM SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND EXTERNAL STREETS AS WELL AS CREATE A SENSE OF PLACE AND BELONGING FOR RESIDENTS AND SPEAKING TO THOSE TWO INTENT STATEMENTS ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE LOT THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN ENTRYWAY FEATURE PROPOSED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO INSTALLING THE J. HOOK CONDITION FURTHER AWAY FROM DALROCK ROAD THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO DIBLGT MONUMENTS THAT FLANK THIS INTERSECTION TO CREATE THAT SENSE OF PLACE.

[00:10:01]

LIKEWISE IN AN EFFORT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED AN OPEN SPACE LOT TO FUNCTION OA MAINTAINED POLLINATOR WITH THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 6721 LAST YEAR CITY COUNCIL ESSENTIALLY REGISTERED THE CITY AS A B CITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH B CITY USA ONE GOAL THE PLANNING STAFF HACK WORKING TO PROMOTE IS FOR THE EXPAND POLE NAILER FRIENDLY HABITATS ON OUR PUBLIC LAND AS WELL AS PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS. THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THAT OPEN SPACE LOT TO ENCOMPASS POLLINATOR FRIENDLY SHRUBS IN ORDER TO MEET THE INTENT OF THAT.

THE THEIR APPROVAL CRITERIA APPROVAL OF ALP WILL PROVIDE FOR CONSISTENT EXAMS BUILT WITH ADJACENT PROJECTS SURROUNDING PROJECTS IN THE AREA ARE RESIDENTIAL NATURE EITHER UNDEVELOPED OR DEVELOPING UNDER SF-8 ZONING CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICALLY THE PARCEL SOUTHWEST IS PREPARING FOR SOMEWHAT LINEAR SUBDIVISION THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR THAT PROPERTY AMONGST YOUR SEFRS LAST YEAR.

THIS DEVELOPMENT IS CURRENTLY IN THE CIVIL PLAN REVIEW AND PROVIDED THE AREA REQUISITE LANDSCAPING.

HOWEVER THIS SITE IS BURDENED BY A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FLOOD PLAIN ON SITE, HENCE THE REQUEST THIS EVENING.

LASTLY THE ALP CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECTION AND NO MODIFICATIONS ARE REQUESTED. THE ALP DOES REFLECT CLIENTS WITH RIMTS OF 77504 RIGHTS OF WAY SCREENING ON DALROCK ROAD INCLUDING MASONRY WALL FEATURE FMA ACCESS LIKEWISE TWO CANOPY TREES PER INDIVIDUAL LOTS THAT'S THE 7 RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT WILL BE REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE BUILDING PERMIT.

I WANT TO POINT OUT VERIFICATION OF REPORT REQUESTED 3200 FEET ENTRYWAY IS TWO CANOPY TREES PER 500 SQUARE FEET THAT DOES REQUIRE 13. THERE ARE CURRENTLY 7 PROPOSED ON SITE THAT ARE A COUPLE OPTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING. YOU CAN EITHER ACCEPT THOSE 7 AS SUFFICIENT. YOU CAN REQUEST THAT THOSE DEFICIT SIX TREES BE PLACED ELSE WHERE OR YOU CAN REQUEST THAT THE DEFICIT SIX TREES BE PLAYED IN THAT AREA AND BEEN COMPLIANT.

STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE APPLICANT WITH WHATEVER CONDITION YOU LOOK TO APPROVE. APPROVAL OF THE ALP. RECOMMEND- IT'S INTENDED DEFENSIVE UNITED NATIONS SHOULD SITE CHARACTERISTICS BE PRESENT AND WITH PRESENCE OF 35 PERCENT FLOOD PLAIN ON SITE STAFF FEELS THAT THRESHOLD HAS BEEN BROKEN.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THE REQUISITE OPEN SPACE AREAS AND PLANTING FREQUENCIES ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE AREA TO SERVE AS POLLINATOR GARDEN.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS MANY WE HAVE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THIS EVENING THE DESIGN TEAM WAS UNABLE TO MAKE IT BUT STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONERS? WOULD YOU LIKE -- DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER, THE OWNER? FOR STAFF?

GO AHEAD. >> JUST TO MAKE CLEAR THE PRESERVATION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN MEANS THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROTSZ, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, YES MA'AM. >> ANYBODY ELSE? MR. COTE? DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A

PRESENTATION? >> NO, MA'AM, NO PRESENTATION,

JUST AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. >> MY QUESTION WOULD BE FOR HIM THEN. THAT IS --

>> OKAY, JOHN. LET'S GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO COME UPSTATE HIS NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FOR HIM. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME?

>> SAM EIZELDIN. I LIVE 701

[NAME] LANE ROCK WALL, TEXAS. >> MY QUESTION FOR YOU WOULD BE HAS ANY CONSIDERATION BEEN GIVEN TO ALTERING YOUR PLAN FOR DRAWING UP TO PROVIDE TO US THE FOUR HOMES THAT ARE ON PLAN NORTH TO SHIFT TO THE WEST SO THAT YOU'D HAVE SOME AREA ON THE FRONT ENTRYWAY TO MAINTAIN THE PLANTING DESIGN OR THE ENTRYWAY

FEATURES REQUIRED BY THE RDC? >> FRANKLY OUR ENGINEER HAS BEEN WORKING TO MAKE THE BEST DESIGN BECAUSE THE FLOOD PLAIN IS

[00:15:03]

TAKING A BIG PORTION OF OUR LAND, SO THIS IS THE BEST

SCENARIO WE CAME UP WITH. >> MR. ROBERTS?

>> JUST FOR THE DEVELOPER. >> TAKE A SWING.

MR. EIZELDIN IS CORRECT I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE ENGINEERING STAFF THERE CAN CONSIDERATIONS ONE IS THE LOT REQUIREMENT 65 FEET FRONT DAMAGE ALONG HURRICANE TERRIBLE STREET LIKE WAYS THE J HOOK CONDITION IS ANOTHER REQUIREMENT OF OUR CODE AN SOMETIMES THAT REQUIRES A WIDER BERTH TO ACCOMPLISH THAT AS WELL SO THIS IS ULTIMATELY WHAT IT CAME DOWN TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERING THE RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER AS ENTRYWAY FEATURE WE DECIDED TO MOVE THAT TO JUST BE ENTRYWAY FEATURE SOUTH SIDE, RIGHT OF WAY DALROCK ROAD TO THE ENTIRE FRONT DAMAGE AND ULTIMATELY JUST ADJUST IT IN

THAT DIRECTION. >> THANK YOU MR. ROBERTS.

>> OKAY, HER ENGEN. GO AHEAD.

>> WITH THE CHANGES ON THE ENTRY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ADDITIONAL SIX TREES PLANTED SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THAT PROPERTY.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? >> SURE.

>> WE'LL NEED TO PUT THAT IN OUR MOTION, PROBABLY.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? TAMARA? DEB? GENTLEMEN? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> OKAY, ANY DISCUSSION?

MR. COTE. >> YES.

THANK YOU MADAM CHAIRMAN. I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT HESITANT ABOUT APPROVAL ON THIS BECAUSE THE FIRST THING THAT THIS REQUEST STARTS OFF WITH IS THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING THIS ALP TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS.

NOT NECESSARILY TO GET THE BEST LOOKING SITUATION OR TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS BUT RATH TORE MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF

SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS HE CAN BUILD. >> WELL, I BELIEVE THAT HE IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S WHAT YOU BUY A TRACT LIKE THIS AND YOU HAVE FLOOD PLAIN FLORIDA IS GOING TO CUT INTO YOUR LOT ANYWAY I THINK HITS INTENTION WAS TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF LOTS IN THE AREA AVAILABLE FOR LOTS OUTSIDE THE FLOOD PLAIN.

>> FLOOD PLANE WAS THERE WHEN HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY SO IT'S ONE

OF THOSE THINGS. >> I UNDERSTAND BUT I THINK

THAT'S WHAT HE MEANT. >> RIGHT.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT AT LEAST

HE'S NOT GOING SF-5. >> THIS IS TRUE.

>> YOU GOT TO GIVE HIM THAT AND I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER

ENGEN ON THE TREES. >> MARK? WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING? ANYTHING? LADIES? GO AHEAD, DEB.

>> YES, I WANT TO SAY THAT I LIKE THE EXISTING FLOOD PLAINS BEING PRESERVED AND AVOID ANY IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY. I LOVE THE GREEN SPACES AN THE POLLINATOR, I THINK THAT'S JUST A GREAT FEATURE.

I UNDERSTAND JOHN'S CONCERNS HERE BUT I CAN SEE HOW THE ODD SHAPE OF THIS THE LAND PREVENTS COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND IT SEEMS HE'S COMPLYING WITH ALMOST ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND THAT THE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL DOES AS STAFF SAID MAKE THE INTENT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE SO I'M GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THIS REQUEST.

>> THANK YOU DEB. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY, I THINK I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

MR. ENGEN. >> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN, BUT ALSO, TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL SIX TREES TO BE PLANTED ON OTHER LOCATIONS

WITHIN THIS PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR APPROVAL WITH THE ADDITION OF SIX ADDITIONAL TREES TO BE LOCATED SOMEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? IS THAT TAMARA? OKAY.

WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. WILLIAMS, AND WE ARE READY FOR A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR.

[5B. Consider and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Priya Acharya, Wier and Associates, Inc., on behalf of property owner Western Bank and Trust, regarding an Alternative Landscaping Plan under Section 77-504.I of the Rowlett Development Code to modify landscaping buffer requirements on property zoned Planned Development (PD) District for Neighborhood Shopping (C-1) uses. The approximately 2.42-acre site is located approximately 330 feet southwest of the intersection of Dalrock Road and Lakeview Parkway in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

[00:20:04]

AND THAT WAS UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE READY FOR ITEM 5-B.

5B. CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY PRIYA ACHARYA, WIER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER WESTERN BANK AND TRUST, REGARDING AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN UNDER SECTION 77-504.I OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MODIFY LANDSCAPING BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING (C-1) USES. THE APPROXIMATELY 2.42-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DALROCK ROAD AND LAKEVIEW PARKWAY IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

MR. ROB. >> MADAM CHAIR.

SECOND ITEM THIS SINK TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO MOD TYPE LANDSCAPING BUFFER REQUIREMENTS PB DINK THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REDEVELOP THIS PROPERTY COMPLETELY WITH APPROXIMATELY 5700 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AN BECAUSE THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL BE RAZED [INDISTINCT] REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING LANDSCAPING IS REQUIRED.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 2.42 ACRES IN DEVELOPED. IT IS DEVELOPED AND OPERATES AS THE [NAME] NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SINCE 1982. BECAUSE THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL BE REMOVED . . . JUST HISTORY FOR YOU JANUARY THIS YEAR, ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED FOR THIS PROPERTY PENDING THE ONLY CONDITION WAS THE APPROVAL OF AN ALP. IF THIS ALP IS DISAPPROVED OR ALTERED IN ANY WAY THE APPLICANT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO COMPLY WITH THOSE ALTERATIONS BEFORE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT LAND IS ULTIMATELY RELEASED AND THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD.

THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR YOU ARE OUTLINED IN SECTION 77-504 D . . . AS IT RELATES TO NORTHERN BUFFER . . . REQUIRES A 20 FEET DEEP . . . ALONG THE FRONT DAMAGE INCLUDING ONE CANOPY TREE ON THE EAST SOUTH AN WEST PROPERTY LINES THAT ARE EXAMS BUILT BUFFERS THAT REQUIRE SIX FEET IN WIDTH BUFFERS ONE TREE PER 50 FEET BOTH CANOPY OR ORNAMENTAL . . . THE ALP IS REQUESTED TO REDUCE SOME OF ETHOS . . . THE APPLICANT IS NOT MODIFYING THE EXIST . . . THESE CON CREASE IMPROVEMENTS DO ENCROACH ON THE [INDISTINCT] REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER TO . . .

AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIX FOOT WIDE COMPATABILITY BUFFER ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE THAT WOULD BE ON SCREEN THE LOWER LEFT TO A MINIMUM OF FOUR FEET IN CERTAIN AREAS AND RELOCATE 234 OF THE EVERGREEN SHRUBS AGAIN TO PRESERVE THAT EXISTING TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXIST CIRCUMSTANCE LOGS AND PARKING [INDISTINCT] ALP CONSIDERATIONS THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE 20 FOOT . . . 58 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED . . . THE SITE PLAN DOES REFLECT 79 TOTAL SPACES CLEARLY IN EXCESS OF 58. SECTION 77-506 DOES GRANT STAFF PREPARED GIVEN THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC EXPECTED HERE EXCESS PARKING . . . PER SECTION 77-504 D OF THE RDC ONE CANOPY TREE LIRD FOR 35 FEET . . . BASED ON THESE REQUIREMENTS ACCOUNTING FOR SOME OF THE HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS THE

[00:25:02]

APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 7 CANOPY TREES AND 86 EVERGREEN SHRUBS. AGAIN DUE TO THAT REDUCED BUFFER WIDTH . . . LAKEVIEW PARKWAY THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO RELOCATE THESE PLANTINGS. YOU'LL SEE THEM ON SCREEN.

MOST OF THEM HAVE RELOCATED TO THE SOUTHEAST IN AN ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE LOT AS WELL AS ONE ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE.

ALL EVERGREEN SHRUBS ARE BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IN THAT FIVE FEET.

THE SECOND REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIX FOOT WIDE EXAMS BUILT BUFFER ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE TO A MINIMUM FOUR FEET AND RELOCATE 20 OF THOSE SHRUBS ELSE WHERE ONE TREE AND THAT'S EITHER CANMY OR ORNAMENTAL . . . BASED ON THESE REQUIREMENTS ACCOUNTING FOR SOME OF THE HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED TO HAVE . . .

SHRUBS . . . THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO RECYCLE THAT WOULD CAUSE THE REMOVAL OF 23 EVERGREENS ON SITE . . .

ULTIMATELY AT THE MOUTH OF THE [INDISTINCT] LANES.

APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR ALP'S UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS ON PROPERTY, THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS HAVE SORT OF CAUGHT UP TO US . . . THE APPLICANT HAS INTIMATED THAT COULD IMPACT THE OVERALL SITE DESIGN. THEY'RE REQUESTING TO PRESERVE.

THE APPLICANT HAS EXCEEDED THE MINIMUM PLANTING REQUIREMENT BE REDUCE . . . ALL IN ALL IT RESULTS IN APPROXIMATELY 285 ADDITIONAL SHRUBS AND AS REQUIRED AS WELL AS . . . WHAT YOU SEE ON SCREEN IS AN AREA OF ADDITIONAL PLANTING WHERE SHRUBBERY AND THAT TYPE OF THING INCLUDING THOSE ORNAMENTAL TREES ARE NOT PER SE REQUIRED BY CODE BUT THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO THEM ON THEIR LANDSCAPE PLAN TO PROVIDE A MORE ATTRACTIVE PRODUCT. THE THIRD CONDITION BEING APPROVAL OF THE ALP WILL PROVIDE FOR INCREASED CONSISTENCY OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES . . . AS SUCH THE LACK OF LANDSCAPING IS NOTED HOWEVER IT IS THE INTENT OF THE RDC TO BRING THOSE PROPERTIES INTO COMPLIANCE TYPICALLY FOR REDEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS . . . AND THAT NO MODIFICATIONS ARE REQUESTED, THE REQUESTED ALP DOES REFLECT REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. THAT DOES INCLUDE A MINIMUM OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS PARKING ISLAND TREES ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA TREES AS WELL AS EVEN LOADING AREA SCREEN.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION ULTIMATELY IS APPROVAL OF THE ALP REQUEST.

THESE REQUESTED DEFENSIVE UNITED NATIONS ARE MET IN LARGE PART TO PRESERVE CONDITIONS ON SITE THAT HAVE BEEN ON SITE SINCE THE 80S AND DO KEEP WITH THE INTENT OF THE RDC TO BRING PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. WITH THAT I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THERE IS NO PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT HOWEVER THEY ARE AVAILABLE SHOULD YOU HAVE THEM.

>> THANK YOU MR. ROBERTS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, SIR.

GO AHEAD. >> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I PUSHED THE RIGHT BUTTON. DO WE HAVE A PER CENT OF LANDSCAPE REQUIRED AS COMPARED TO PROVIDED?

>> THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 15 PERCENT DOES INCLUDE LANDSCAPE

[00:30:03]

BUFFERS PARKING ISLANDS AND OTHER AREAS.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PULL THAT PLAN SET UP AND PROVIDE THAT NUMBER. THE APPLICANT MIGHT KNOW IT.

>> I JUST WONDER WHAT IS PROVIDED.

SEEMS TO ME WHAT WE ARE TYING TO DO IS BALANCE.

IT SEEMS LIKE -- I'M SORRY QUESTIONS.

I'LL COMMENT LATER. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MS. WILLIAMS.

>> MY TRAFFIC STUD SNIS. >> THERE WAS . . . WITH TXDOT AS IT RELATES TO A DEAD KAILTD TURN LANE.

ULTIMATELY TXDOT IS THE AUTHORITY AND THEY HAVE PROVIDED TO US WRITTEN COMMENT THAT THAT TURN LANE IS NOT PREFERRING FOR THEM AND THEREFORE WE CANNOT REQUIRE IT.

THIS APPLICATION WOULD WIDEN CERTAIN APPROACHES AS YOU TURN INTO THE PROPERTY TO ACCOMMODATE FIRE CODES 24 FEET IN WIDTH AND THAT KIND OF THING TURNING RADII THAT ARE NOT ON SITE SO THE APPLICANT IS COMING INTO COMPLIANCE IN THAT RESPECT BUT ULTIMATELY IT WOULD PRESERVE THE ACCESS POINTS TO LAKEVIEW PARKWAY WHICH WE HAVE BEEN TOLD AT THE STAFF LEVEL FROM TXDOT THAT IS THE PREFERENCE AN THEY'RE THE INDIVIDUAL THAT

WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. >> WHAT IMPACT IS IT GOING TO HAVE TO THE TRAFFIC ON LAKEVIEW PARKWAY WHICH IS ALREADY

HORRENDOUS? >> SURE, PERHAPS I CAN SHOW SOME CONSIDERATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO THAT SOME ON SITE CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF THE LAY OUT. THIS APPLICATION WOULD PRESERVE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS HERE AND HERE.

ULTIMATELY DRIVE-THRU WHICH WE SEE BACK UP ON TO LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AND OTHER LOCATIONS IN TOWN IS ACTUALLY FUNNELED DOWN WARDS INTO A DOUBLE DRIVE-THRU LANE CONDITION HERE.

I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT STACKING SPACE COUNT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD BUT KNOW IT EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR OUR CODE SO IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED THAT ANYBODY DRIVE-THRU TRAFFIC WOULD BE BACKING EITHER THIS OR THAT DIRECTION.

WE BELIEVE THERE'S SAMPLE SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.

>> SO THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO DRIVE-THRU LANES?

>> YES, MA'AM. THERE'S ONE CENTRAL ENTRANCE FOR BOTH OF THOSE LANES BUT THEY SPLIT INTO TWO DRIVE-THRU LANES.

I APOLOGIZE I COULD HAVE PROVIDED A BETTER PHOTO.

YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE OUT BOWS OF THOSE STACKING SPACES

HERE AND HERE AS THEY FEED OUT. >> THANK YOU.

>> TO BE A. IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS PROJECT, ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID THAT IN SEPTEMBER, THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PLAN TO END TWO LEFT TURN LANES IN ALL DIRECTIONS, PLUS A RIGHT TURN LANE AND A THIRD LANE WOULD BE EXTENDED GOING EASTBOUND ON LAKEVIEW PARKWAY THAT WOULD MERGE IN FRONT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WALMART, SO WILL THAT RELIEVE SOME OF THE LAKEVIEW PARKWAY TRAFFIC CONCERNS?

>> I'M GOING TO CALL ON JEFF COHEN OUR ASSISTANT ENGINEER TO ANSWER THAT. I'M SORRY.

COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION SO I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I'M ASKED

TO ANSWER? >> SURE.

I'M QUOTING WHAT ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS STATED IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS WITH THIS PROJECT AND HE SAID THAT IN SEPTEMBER THERE'S A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PLANNED TO ADD TWO LEFT TURN LANES IN ALL DIRECTIONS PLUS A RIGHT TURN LANE AND THIRD LANE WOULD BE EXTENDED GOING EASTBOUND ON LAKEVIEW PARKWAY THAT WILL MERGE IN FRONT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WALMART AND IMPLIED THAT THIS TWO ADDRESS OR HELP AT LEAST WITH THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

>> I CAN'T SEE HOW IT WOULD HURT.

I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY STUDY THAT LOOKED AT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WITH THOSE PARTICULAR MODIFICATIONS IN MIND.

UNLESS YOU GUYS HAVE DONE SO. BUT WHEN THEY STATED THEIR TIA THAT WAS NOT LONG AS FAR AS AS IT IS NOW.

YOU'VE HEARD TONIGHT THAT TXDOT DOES NOT PREFER A DEDICATED RIGHT, DEDICATED DECELERATION LANE FOR THIS SITE AND I DO KNOW

[00:35:03]

THAT THE RIGHT TURN LANE FOR LAKEVIEW PARKWAY ON ROWLETT ROAD IS GOING TO NOT QUITE COME AS FAR AS THIS PROPERTY.

AND THAT I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT THAT COULD HELP.

>> MR. ENGEN. >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, COMMISSIONER, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A TIME FRAME LET'S SAY FROM 4:00 TO 7:00, WHERE A LOT OF TIMES LAKEVIEW OR ROUTE 66 IS BACKED UP FOR A MILE AND CARS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH TRYING TO EXIT OUT MAY BE SITTING THERE, AND THEN CHICK-FIL-A WILL HAVE AN ISSUE OF ALL THESE CARS BEING BACKED UP.

THERE ARE SOME ISSUES. >> THAT COULD BE, YES.

WE ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT TXDOT IS IMPROVING THIS INTERSECTION. ONE OF THE REASONS IS FOR THAT VERY CONDITION THAT YOU CITED, AAND AS ODD AS IT MAY SEEM, AN ACCEPTABLE -- THE EFFICIENCY OF AN INTERSECTION IS MEASURED BY LEVEL OF SURFACE, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL LEVELS, AND YOU CAN GO FROM A, WHICH IS REALLY GOOD TO F, WHICH IS NOT SO GOOD.

IT'S FAILING AND ACCEPTABLE LEVEL IS D, WHICH MEANS THAT CARS STILL MAY HAVE TO WAIT AT THE INTERSECTION FOR SOME DURATION BEFORE THEY MOVE THROUGH THE INTERSECTION AND WHEN TRAFFIC ENGINEERS DO DESIGN INTERSECTIONS THAT IS THE LEVEL THAT THEY'RE AT LEAST TRYING TO G GET. C IS PREFERRED, BUT D IS ACCEPTABLE. OBVIOUSLY B AND A ARE MORE IDEAL BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RUSH HOUR IT'S HARD TO ACHIEVE

THAT. >> AND IF I CAN INTERJECT COMMISSIONERS, ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A TXDOT ROADWAY. IT IS A TXDOT RIGHT OF WAY.

AGAIN TXDOT IS AWARE OF THE PROJECT AND WE'VE PUSHED AND SAID DO, WE NEED A RIGHT TURN LANE, A SPECIFIC DEDICATED DEESCEL LANE, AND LASTLY WANT TO POINT OUT . . . WHICH COULD PUT TRAFFIC ON ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY, BUT AT THIS POINT, IN TIME, THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION THAT TXDOT WILL BE CONDUCTING SHOULD HELP NOT TO DEVIATE BUT SHOULD HELP THOSE CHOKE POINTS

THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED. >> THANK YOU JEFF.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DID YOU SAY HE WAS HERE? THEY'RE HERE. ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.

ANY DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY BEHIND THE PROPERTY TOO IS AN ACCESS POINT.

I USE IT ALL THE TIME. >> I HAD THE SAME THOUGHT.

MR. ENGEN. >> YEAH, I LIKE THE PROJECT WITH CHICK-FIL-A COMING IN THE IT'S AN AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE THERE WHERE I THINK IT NEEDS SOME IMPROVEMENT WITHIN OUR CITY AND WITH THE CHICK-FIL-A COMING IN PUTTING IN MORE TREES AN PLANTS AN SHRUBS SO I'M HAPPY TO SEE THEM COMING IN BUT SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE I'M CLOCKED OUT BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY FAST FOOD STORES, AND I LIKE CHICK-FIL-A BUT WE HAVE A LOT AND AT TIMES WE HAVE TOO MANY FAST FOOD BUT I LIKE THE PROJECT OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND IT DOES ADD MORE I DON'T WANT TO SAY BETTER VISIBILITY WITH THE TREES AN SHRUBS AND EVERYTHING THAT'S COMING IN AND WILL HELP TO IMPROVE THAT AREA.

>> I AM GLAD TO SEE ANOTHER ONE COMING IN TO RELIEVE ALL THE

[00:40:04]

BUSINESS DOWN THE STREET THAT'S ALWAYS BACKED UP TRAFFIC.

ANY COMMENT HERE? OKAY, I GUESS WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION. MR. COTE.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS

PRESENTED. >> I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND.

>> AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. WILLIAMS. ALL IN FAVOR? AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[5C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Jeff Bethke, RLG Consulting Engineers, on behalf of property owner Amin Mawani, Rowlett Consolidated, LLC., regarding a Special Use Permit to allow a restaurant with a drive-thru on a portion of an approximately 0.81-acre property zoned Planned Development (PD) District with a base zoning of General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District. The subject property is located approximately 1,050 feet northeast of the intersection of Lakeview Parkway and Dalrock Road, being a portion of Lot 3, Block A of the 8900 Lakeview Parkway Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Rockwall County, Texas.]

AND WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 5-C ON THE AGENDA.

5C. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY JEFF BETHKE, RLG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER AMIN MAWANI, ROWLETT CONSOLIDATED, LLC., REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU ON A PORTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 0.81-ACRE PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT WITH A BASE ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (C-2) DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,050 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AND DALROCK ROAD, BEING A PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK A OF THE 8900 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, ROCKWALL

COUNTY, TEXAS. >> MR. ROBERTS.

>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AN MAKE RECOMMENDATION ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR APPROXIMATELY 1900 FOOT DRIVE-THRU. SUP ENCOURAGES PUBLIC REVIEW AN IS INTENDED TO INSURE THAT THE PROPOSED USE WON'T HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING USES AN THROUGH REVIEW OF THAT SUP SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA CAN BE . . .

BACKGROUND INFORMATION IN SET OF 2018 THE COUNCIL APPROVED A B.D.

WITH A BASE DISTRICTS OF GENERAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICT THAT P.D. DID ESTABLISH A CONCEPTUAL PLAN . . . GENERAL USE SUCH AS RETAIL, DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT ON LOT 2, SPECIFIC LOT IN QUESTION BEING LOT 3 SHOWN FOR VEHICLE SERVES IN THAT P.D. THE REQUESTED . . . WHICH TOTALS 8.1 ACRES REPLOT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOLLOWING THIS APPROVAL IF IT'S GRANTED TO MOVE THOSE LOT LINES TO ACCOMMODATE THAT [INDISTINCT] BOUNDARY. . . . THE PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS SHOWN FOR YOU ON PLAN THERE ARE 24 PARKING STALLS; 19 ARE REQUIRED, . . . SHOWN IN RED FOR YOU, THERE'S AN APPROXIMATELY HUNDRED FOOT REAR YARD SET BACK FROM ADJACENT SINGLE-FAMILY . . . LANDSCAPE BUFFING ON OUR PROPERTIES A SCREENING WALL TO THE REAR AND DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS REVIEWED AND CONSULTED FOR ALL ZONING CASES TO INSURE THAT WE ARE IN ALIGNMENT. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . . .

RETAIL COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES . . . THE PROPOSED SUP IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS DESIGNATION HAS THE REQUEST WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU ADJACENT . . .

ALTHOUGH THE USE IS ALIGNED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION THERE ARE CERTAIN ON SITE DESIGN DECISIONS THAT WARRANT SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS. SPECIFICALLY THERE'S THE ORIENTATION OF THE DRIVE-THRU STACKING SPACES WHICH ARE ANTICIPATED TO CON FLICK WITH PASS THROUGH VEHICLE CIRCULATION . . . LIKEWISE WHENEVER THERE IS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WE REFER TO SECTION 77-509 . . . THAT COLD SECTION DOES DIRECT US TO FURTHER ASSESS SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS. THOSE MIGHT INCLUDE HOURS OF OPERATION, THE PLACEMENT LOCATION OF TRASH . . .

[00:45:02]

SCREENING LIGHTING . . . LIGHT RESTRICTION.

THERE SHOULD BE FURTHER CONSIDERATION WITH THIS SUP GIBB THE LOCATION OF LIGHTING THE MINI BOARD LOCATION AS IT'S KUFRNTLY DIRECTED AND WALL SIGNAGE AND OF COURSE I WILL GET INTO THESE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICALLY HERE QUICK UPDATE FROM THE REPORT LOOKS LIKE I TYPED A 2 ON THE REPORT THE ACTUAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THIS LIGHT POLE IS 57 FEET . . .

THEY ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS 77-512 OF RDC . . . HOWEVER IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ALTERNATIVE LIGHTING SOURCES SUCH AS DOWNWARD FACING MOUNTED WALL PACKS OR LOWER GROUND UNITS BE UTILIZED . . . GIVEN ITS PROXIMITY TO SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. LANDSCAPING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE P.D. THE ACTIVE ZONING . . . 10 FOOT WIDE LAND SKAIF BUFFER WITH 8 FOOT WALL MASONRY WALL IS REQUIRED 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE . . . IN ADDITION TO THAT INCOMPATABILITY BUFFER THERE ARE FURTHER EXAMS BUILT AND RIGHT OF WAY BUFFERS THAT ARE ALSO REQUIRED. YOU'LL SEE THOSE TOTALS REFLECTED IN THE TABLE BELOW AS WELL AS THE WIDTH IN THOSE BUF BUFFERS . . . AS ALREADY STATED RESULTS IN APPROXIMATELY 14 TREES APPROXIMATELY 184 SHRUBS BETWEEN THE BUFFER AREA. AGAIN TAKING A LOOK AT SPECIFICITY CONDITIONS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO SO DURING THE SUP THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A ONE WAY SOUTHBOUND INTERNAL DRIVE AISLE THAT CONNECTS TO EAST-WEST ACCESSES ONTO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES AS SORT OF A SPILL OVER STACKING SPACE.

YOU'LL SEE THE DRIVE-THRU CIRCULATION, THE SORT OF GRAPHICALLY THE 5 STACKING SPACES SHOWN HERE GRAPHICLY . . . YOU'LL SEE THE CIRCULATION OF DRIVE-THRU TRAFFIC FOLLOWS THAT RED LINE. HOWEVER THE PASS THROUGH TRAFFIC IS ANTICIPATED TO HAVE ONE WAY CONDITION ON THE BLUE LINE . . .

AS A POINT OF CONCERN FOR STAFF IT DOES CREATE A CON FLICK AS I DRIVE-THRU TO CROSS OVER INTO SOUTHBOUND INTERNAL CIRCULATION.

BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING ELEVATION AS CONCEPTUAL ELEVATION . . .

SUP IS A ZONING ACTION THAT DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC MAILINGS.

. . . TO DATE WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR OF THE 200 FOOT NOTICE AREA. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ULTIMATELY IS FOR DENAIL . . . FOR A RESTAURANT . . . FOR GENERAL RETAIL USES . . . ANTICIPATED TO CONFLICT WITH PASS THROUGH VEHICLE TRAFFIC, SIGNAGE NOT PERMITTED ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE SO NOT AS TO CAUSE GLARE OR LIGHT TO PASS ON TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTH AN LIKEWISE THE SITE PROPOSED REAR OF THE BUILDING . . . ALTHOUGH IT IS CLIENTS WITH THE CODE THE SUP DOES ALLOW US TO HAVE FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR THAT . . . EXAMS BIT. WITH THAT I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A BRIEF SLIDE TO SHOW AND SPEAK TO POINTS BROUGHT UP THIS EVENING

AN ALSO AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU MR. ROBERTS.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS MISS WILLIAMS?

>> I HAVE A COUPLE. HOW FAR IS THE ORDER BOX FROM

THE HOMES? >> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION.

I BELIEVE THAT INFORMATION IS IN MY REPORT.

I'M NOT CONFIDENT IT MADE IT INTO MY PRESENTATION.

IF YOU GIVE ME A MOMENT I CAN CHECK ON THE PLAN SET.

>> OKAY, AND THE POLE MOUNTED LIGHTS HOW FAR ARE THEY FROM THE

HOME NO. >> YES, THE POLE MOUNTED . . .

APPROXIMATELY 57 FOOT, THAT POLL IS 12 FEET IN HEIGHT WHICH IS CODE COMPLIANT, HOWEVER THERE ARE CONCERNS THE EXAMS BUILT WITH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT MIGHT SEE LIGHT POLLUTION GIVEN THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL OVER THAT EIGHT

[00:50:04]

FOOD TALL SCREENING WALL . . . >> IS THERE LIGHTING AVAILABLE THAT COULD REDUCE THE GLARE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> THERE ARE ADDITIONAL SHIELDING CONDITIONS THAT CAN BE INSTALLED ON THE SIDES OF THOSE LIGHTS TO INSURE THAT IT'S STRICTLY DOWNWARD LIGHTING. THAT IS A CODE REQUIREMENT.

HOWEVER THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDITIONAL SHIELDING. THERE'S NOT A WITDZ THAT'S REQUIRED. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE US A CUTOFF HANG WILL WE CAN REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE ON THAT LIGHT POLE SO INSURE THERE'S NO FOOT-CANDLE ILLUMINATION LEVELS A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM SFLAMS HOMES THINGS LIKE THAT THAT STARVE WOULD BE ABLE TO CASE.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME CONSIDERATION OF THAT IN YOUR

MOTION. >> AND THE TRAFFIC FLOW IS A BIG CONCERN. IS THE APPLICANT WILLING TO CHANGE THE TRAFFIC FLOW SO THAT IT'S NOT A CONCERN?

>> I WILL LET THE APPLICANT ANSWER THAT I KNOW THEY HAVE AN EXHIBIT SO SHOW ABOUT THE EXPECTED TRAFFIC SITUATIONS.

STAFF DID SEE A POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITNESS.

THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION.

THAT'S WHY IT'S MADE ITS WAY INTO OUR RECOMMENDATION.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.

THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION.

HIKE TO COME UP AND TALK. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU MR. ROBERTS.

>> MY NAME IS TIMOTHY ROSE MANY I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR THE CLIENT. MY ADDRESS IS 4840 NORTH SAM HOUSTON PARKWAY EAST IN HOUSTON. FIRST OF ALL I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT AND YOU GUYS SHOULD ALSO HAVE THE SLIDE BUT I BROUGHT HARD COPIES IN CASE. I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST OF ALL BEFORE I GET INTO MY PRESENTATION, WE HAVE CONSIDERED FIRST OF ALL THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT AND WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK TOM FOR HIS EFFORTS OVER THIS POINT.

WAY WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THE OPTION OF NOT VOTING ON THIS TO WORK OUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE ON TABLE THAT CONNOR HAS CONCERNS WITH BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK THEM OUT.

WHETHER YOU'RE WILLING OR NOT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION SO THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THE POINT OF VIEW THAT WE ARE COMING FROM ON EACH ONE OF THESE POINTS THAT WE HAVE.

>> OKAY. >> I WANT TO ANSWER ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ON THE MENU BOARD. WE ARE 95 FEET AWAY FROM THE MINI BOARD. THE MINI BOARD IS ONLY 7 FEET TALL BUT TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR WE HAVE RELOCATED OUR MENU BOARD PREDOMINANTLY EAST AN MOVED IT CLOSER TO THE BUILDING.

DOES THAT HELP? AS FAR AS THE LIGHTING MY EVENING NEAR IS WORKING WITH OUR PHOTO OH METRICS GROUP TO LOWER THE POLE. TO JUST THE LIGHT LEVELS AND EVEN THE POSSIBILITY OF LOWER LIGHT LEVELS AFTER HOURS SO WE SHOULD HAVE THAT BY THE ENOF THE WEEK.

SO WITH REGARD TO FIRST OF ALL ACO CORPORATE I WORKED FOR THEM A WHILE NOW FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED WITH TRAFFIC FLOW AND THEY'RE CONCERNED WITH SAFETY FOR OTHER CLIENTS. ONE OF THE THINGS THEY TRY TO DO IS TRAIN THE PUBLIC ON HOW TO USE THEIR LOT.

OKAY, WHEN THEY COME. IT'S PRETTY WELL KNOWN THAT AND THROUGH THEIR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE THAT IF YOU GO OUT THERE AND TRAIN THE PUBLIC EVENTUALLY THEY WILL KNOW HOW TO USE YOUR SPOT. AND ONE PERSON FROM OUT OF TOWN WHO DOESN'T KNOW THERE'S USUALLY ENOUGH TRAFFIC THERE THEY JUST FOLLOW WHAT'S HAPPENING. THAT HAPPENS ALMOST EVERYWHERE THAT HAVE DRIVE-THRUS. AURANTS - OUR BASIC ARGUMENT HERE WITH 90 DEGREE PARKING IT'S HARD TO GET INTO THE ANGLE PARKING SPACES SO RIGHT THERE IT'S EASIER ESPECIALLY FOR ELDERLY DRIVERS.

THE ISSUE IS THIS SPACE IS WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF WIDTH.

SO, WITH A 90 DEGREE WE LIKE TO HAVE MORE SPACE, AT LEAST 24 FEET FROM THERE. AS YOU KNOW WHEN YOU DRIVE INTO MY DRIVE-THRU FAST FOOD WHAT DO PEOPLE DO?

[00:55:03]

THEM ALIGN CLOSE TO THE PARKING SPOTS MAKING THE SPACES UNUSABLE. SO I DON'T KNOW.

MY EXPERIENCE IS WHEN I GO TO PLACES AN I SEE PEOPLE LINING UP NOBODY IS USING THOSE SPACES ANYMORE.

THEY'RE WASTED PARKING SPACES. YET THEY HAVE TO HAVE THEM.

SO WHAT WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO DO IS' WUS COLLAPSIBLE CONES AND WE PULL AWAY PARKING BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

EVERYBODY KNOWS IT'S GOING TO STACK UP DURING RUSH HOUR SO WE ARE TRYING TO PUSH THAT PARKING AWAY MAKING EASIER FOR WALK IN TRAFFIC TO GET IN AND OUT OF SPACES MANY GENERALLY THIS ONLY HAPPENS DUE HAPPY HOUR WHAT WE CALL HAPPY HOUR WITH THE TEA IS HALF PRICED, 2-4, TWO HOURS WHEN WE HAVE OUR WORST TRAFFIC.

OKAY, THAT BEING SAID I REALIZE THERE IS A CONFLICT AT THIS POINT HERE BUT THAT'S PART OF THE TRAINING THE CUSTOMERS ON HOW TO USE THE SPACE. OKAY, WE FEEL LIKE AT LEAST IN OUR OPINION THAT'S AN SENABLE ISSUE CONSIDERING ALL THE SAFETY FEATURES WE ARE ADDING HERE. TRAFFIC CAN STILL GO ALL THE WAY AROUND AND MOST OF OUR TRAFFIC COMES FROM THIS POINT HERE FROM THE EAST AND THE WEST TO THE SITE.

WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC COMING BACK THIS WAY AND MOST TRAFFIC AS THEY LEARN TO USE THESE LOTS AN CROSS ACCESS THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE PATH THAT GET ONTO THE EXITS THAT ARE EASIEST TOP AND WE FEEL LIKE ALL THIS COMBINED REALLY HELPS SUPPORT IN POINT OF VIEW. [INDISTINCT] IS ADAMANT ABOUT WANTING TO REACH THIS KIND OF PLAN HERE BUT END OF THE DAY IF THE CITY SAYS NO WE ARE GOING TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO MAKE IT WORK FOR THE CITY. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? SORRY. YES.

>> WHAT PER CENT OF YOUR BUSINESS IS DRIVE-THRU BUSINESS?

>> IT'S 42 PERCENT. >> AND YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ROAD THAT RUNS ALONG THE WALL IN THE BACK.

>> YEAH. YOU MAY GET A LOT OF TRAFFIC OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WALMART. SO AFTER PEOPLE HAVE GONE SHOPPING AN IT'S A HOT DAY THEY MAY JUST WANT TO SWING OVER YOUR WAY AND MAYBE THAT'S WHERE THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE A CONFLICT AND THEN YOU MAY HAVE VEHICLES BACKING UP ON THAT AREA AND THEN PEOPLE CAN'T GET OUT. I'M JUST BRINGING THIS TO YOUR

ATTENTION. >> DO NOT ENTER SIGN OR

SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> GENERALLY WHEN WE CREATE ONE WAY TRAFFIC LANES WE . . . TO KEEP THEM FROM GOING IN THAT

ELECTION. >> OTHERWISE THEY WILL HAVE TO CIRCLE ALL THE WAY AROUND. YEAH, MAYBE YOU'RE GOING TO SAY NO LEFT-HAND TURN THERE. OKAY.

>> AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE. >> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

HAVE YOU AT THIS POINT CONSIDERED ANY ALTERNATIVE

TRAFFIC FLOW? >> YES, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC FLOW WE HAVE IS TO GO BACK TO THE 90 DEGREE PARKING AN DO TWO WAY TRAFFIC HERE. YOU KNOW AGAIN MY BIGGEST ARGUMENT IS THAT WITH TWO-WAY TRAFFIC, AN IF YOU GO TO MCDONALD OR ANY PLACE WHERE THEY DON'T CONTROL THE TRAFFIC TOO MUCH, CAN YOU SEE THE TRAFFIC LINES UP SO TWO-WAY TRAFFIC LANE IT'S LINING UP IN THE COUNTER FLOW DIRECTION ANYWAY AND WE ARE TRYING TO ACCEPT SEPARATE THAT TO CREATE MINIMAL CONFUSION BECAUSE THEN YOU'VE GOT YOUR TRAFFIC GOING IN REVERTS TRYING TO GET AROUND EACH OTHER. IT'S SUCH A TIGHT AREA WE ARE JUST TRYING TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE IT FLOW BETTER.

>> IF 57 PERCENT OF YOUR GIS IS WALK IN TWHESHGS ARE THEY GOING

TO PARK? >> WE HAVE PARKING UP HERE, BACK HERE IN THE BACK AND THIS PARKING IN FRONT.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

YOU MENTIONED JUST A COUPLE MINUTES AGO THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER TABLING THIS PETITION BASED ON THIS THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT YOU'RE SEEING BECAUSE IT REALLY IS HARD FOR US AS A COMMITTEE TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN FOR A CONCEPT IF IT DOESN'T HAVE

[01:00:05]

SUPPORT BY STAFF. THAT'S SIGNIFICANT.

SO, IF YOU WERE TO TABLE, WHAT WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO CHANGE AND HOW LONG WOULD YOU NEED TIME WISE? TWO WEEKS? A MONTH?

>> WE FEEL LIKE BY THE NEXT P & Z MEETING WE WILL BE READY.

IN FACT WE WILL BE MORE THAN READY BY NEXT MONDAY OR TUESDAY.

NEXT TWO WEEKS WE FEEL LIKE WE WILL BE MORE THAN READY BY THEN.

MY JOB AND MY SEVERAL ENGINEER'S JOB IS GO BACK TO CORPORATE AN EXPRESS HOW CRUCIAL IT IS TO CONFORM.

. . . WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT.

CORPORATE DOESN'T EITHER. THE BIGGEST ISSUE CORPORATE HAS AN THE REASON WHY THEY FIGHT SO HARD ON THIS IS BECAUSE OF FRAFL ACCIDENTS THAT HAPPENS HAPPEN THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE IN THE WAY IT WORKS. OUR JOB . . . IS TO CONVINCE THEY THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO WITH WITH ALTERNATE PLAN THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED AND ONCE WE FEEL LIKE WE ARE ALMOST THERE.

A LOT OF TIMES TO GET THEM TO DO THAT IS TO GET A REJECTION BECAUSE WE TRY TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING AND SHOW HOW WE FEEL IT WORKS AND END OF THE DAY YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT THAT GIVES US THE LEG WE NEED TO CONVINCE THEM.

>> THIS IS A FOLLOWUP AND YOU MAY WANT TO CHIME IN WITH A COMMENT BUT I HAVE THIS AS A POINT OF PROCEDURE I THINK THERE'S TWO WAYS THAT THIS CAN BE TABLED.

CORRECT ME IS I'M WRONG. ONE WAY IS CAN UNILATERALLY BEFORE WE GO TO VOTE LET US KNOW YOU PREFER TO TABLE, THAT IS THE FIRST AND THE SECOND IS THAT WE MAKE A MOTION AND APPROVE IT TO TABLE SO I'M JUST GIVING YOU AN OPTION AHEAD OF TIME TO LET YOU KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT SOME ROOM HERE.

>> CAN I JUST SAY, OUR WHOLE OPTION FOR TABLING IS IF WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE GOT TO SUPPORT WE WANT TO TABLE OR WE WANT A MOTION FROM YOU TO TABLE IT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GET DENIED. WE DO WANT CITY SUPPORT BEHIND

US. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> WE DON'T WANT TO START A BAD RELATIONSHIP HERE.

>> MR. COTE. >> STAFF DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR PRESENT PLAN. DOES THAT GIVE YOU A HINT?

>> YES. WE WILL TAKE EITHER OPTION.

WHAT IS PREFERRED IN THIS SITUATION?

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THIS IS A RATHER TIGHT SITE FOR THEM. AGAIN IN YOUR PACKET IT DOES DISCUSS THAT THIS SITE OR THIS PARCEL WAS CARVED OUT AFTER LARGER TRACT WHICH IS LOT 3. WHEN WE LOOK AT CIRCULATION WE DON'T JUST INDIVIDUALLY LOOK AT JUST WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE BUT THIS IS A LARGER PROJECT THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH OTHER USERS AN ADJACENTSIAS MENTIONED SO TWO WEEK TABLED WOULD NOT GIVE STAFF AMPLE TIME TO REVIEW. WE WOULD NEED MORE TIME.

OUR SCHEDULE IS FOUR WEEKS MINIMUM.

YES. THANK YOU.

>> ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? >> WELL, WE HAVE TO BE.

>> WELL, IT'S A BREATH OF FRESH AIR TO ME TO HAVE SOMEONE BEING SO AMENABLE ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE GOING FOR YOU.

ALL RIGHT. I THINK BASED ON THAT INPUT, WE NEED TO, WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION FOR TABLING THIS IF

EVERYBODY IS IN AGREEMENT. >> WE WOULDN'T HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING IF WE WERE GOING TO TABLE, WOULD WE?

[INAUDIBLE] >> IS THIS TRAFFIC FLOW CONFIGURATION WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR OTHER STORES?

>> YES. >> AND DO YOU HAVE STATISTICS ON THE NUMBER OF BACKING UP COLLISIONS THAT THERE ARE?

[01:05:04]

>> I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH CORPORATE BUT I DO BELIEVE THEY KEEP SOME RECORD ON THAT I CAN PULL THAT INFORMATION TOGETHER

FOR. >> IS IT A BIG ISSUE?

>> IT IS A BIG ENOUGH ISSUE FOR THEM THEY'VE CHANGED THEIR DESIGN STANDARD TO TRY TO PUSH IN ON ALL LOCATIONS BECAUSE TRADITIONALLY WE HAVE DONE WHAT OTHER STORES HAVE IS . . .

TWO-WAY TRAFFIC AND DISCOVERED OVER TIME THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM FOR THEM AND THEY'RE TRYING TO FINE WAYS TO SOLVE IT AN THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS THEY'VE FOUND THAT HAS HELPED SOLVE PART OF

THE PROBLEM. >> RIGHT BECAUSE CAR BACKING UP INTO A TRAFFIC FLOW BRINGS MORE ACCIDENTS THAN PEOPLE RILE ICE.

>> RIGHT. >> I BELIEVE TWO SPEAKER'S CARDS TIMOTHY ROSE AND DYLAN [NAME] AND YOU'VE ALL PRESENTED.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY TOLLS SPEAK ON IT.

THICK WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A MOTION.

>> I HAVE ONE MORE THING. LIKE TIMOTHY WAS SAYING IT IS COMPLIMENTARY TO THE BUSINESS WE ARE IN.

OUR TIME THROUGH TRAFFIC PER CAR IS LESS THAN 40 SECOND SO WE GET PEOPLE IN AN OUT. HOW WE FLOW WITH THAT TRAFFIC WHERE THE CONES END BEFORE YOU COME AROUND WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL A SOMBRERO TO MAKE SURE THE TRAFFIC IS FLOWING QUICKLY SO THE DATA AN THINGS LIKE THAT THEY'VE DONE 42 LOCATIONS NOW. THEY'VE WORK REALLY HARD IMPROVING THE TRAFFIC FLOW SO WE GET PEOPLE IN AN OUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND STILL HAVE A GREAT EXPERIENCE SO I HOPE THAT MIGHT HELP UNDERSTANDING THAT ISN'T A CONCEPT HERE.

>> SURE, CAN I ADD ONE THING? DO YOU KNOW WHAT GO IS? I WANT TO ENLIGHTEN YOU GO IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

IT'S NOT A SFUKS. IT'S NOT A KFC.

EVEN THOUGH WE DEBT YOU PUT INTO THE RESTAURANT CATEGORY WE ARE RETAIL. IF A CITY WANTS TO DESIGNATE A RESTAURANT WE GO WITH THEM. ALL WE SELL IS TEA AND COFFEE.

THAT'S IT. WE SELL PRE-PACKAGED CHIPS, GUMMY WORMS. THERE IS NO KITCHEN NO COOKING DONE ON THE SITE. HALL WE DO IS BREW TEA.

CUSTOMERS WALK IN FILL THEIR CUP BUY THEIR PACKAGES GO CHECK OUT AND WALK OUT. THAT'S THE WALKING CUSTOMER.

DRIVING CUSTOMER COMES THROUGH TAKES IT THROUGH THE DRIVE-THRU.

THEY SELL BAGGED ICE AN GALLON JUST OF TEA OF DIFFERENCES SIZES AND THEY ALSO SELL THE BIG 10 GALLON JUST OF OUR OWN WATER SO IF A CUSTOMER COMES THROUGH DRIVE-THRU WANT ALL THAT THERE'S A SIDE DOOR THE CUSTOMER CAN LOAD UP THROUGH THE DRIVE-THRU.

THAT'S WHAT THE ISSUE IS 26 FLAVORS OF TEA WITH SEASONALS THAT CHANGE. THAT'S WHAT THEY SELL.

SO THAT'S THE CONCEPT. >> THAT'S MY ARCHITECT.

>> CAN I ASK ONE LAST QUESTION? I PROMISE THIS WILL BE LAST.

IF I'M HEARING YOU ALL CORRECTLY YOU'RE AGREEABLE TO WORK WITH STAFF TO MEET THE LIGHT POLLUTION CONCERNS.

YOU'RE AGREEABLE TO WORK WITH STAFF TO MEET THE NOISE CONSIDERATIONS, YOU KNOW. WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY THAT'S RIGHT THERE YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, OR YOU'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS? >> CORPORATE HAS SOME CONCERNS AND IT'S MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ISSUE.

THE OTHER ITEMS, THE ONLY CONCERN CORPORATE HAS IS WITH THE SITE PLAN. THEY WANT THIS AND STAFF WANTS SOMETHING ELSE. THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY ISSUE ON THE TABLE THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO SOLVE.

ALL THE OTHER ISSUES WE ARE SOLVING RIGHT NOW.

>> DO YOU SEE THAT AS A SOLVABLE ISSUE.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WITH THE HIGH INCIDENTS OF BACKING UP COLLISIONS, YOU KNOW, IT IS AN ISSUE. SO, THAT COULD BE MINIMIZED YOU KNOW AND WORK WITH THE STAFF. CAN WE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ON CONDITION THAT THE STAFF, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY MEET THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONSES WITH REGARDING LIGHTING NOISE AN TRAFFIC FLOW?

[01:10:03]

>> TAMARA I BELIEVE THEY SAID THEY'RE GOING TO NEED FOUR WEEKS TO HAVE THE TIME TO REVIEW IT ANYWHERE.

>> RIGHT. >> I THINK TABLEING THE ITEM IS

PROBABLY. >> IS BETTER.

>> IS THE BEST THING FOR TONIGHT.

IT'S WHAT THEY WANT. IT WOULD HELP CITY STAFF.

>> AND WE ARE ALSO IF THAT IS AN OPTION IT MEANS THAT WE DON'T GO TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, GIVES THEM MORE TIME GOING TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AFTER THAT TO GIVE STAFF TIME TO REVIEW. WE ARE OKAY WITH THAT AS WELL BUT AGAIN, WE WANT SUPPORT STAFF.

>> BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO COME BACK BEFORE US AND US BE HAPPY WITH IT BEFORE IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL.

THAT'S WHAT I AM GOING TO DO IF Y'ALL GIVE ME A MOTION TO TABLE.

YES, SIR. >> THE ONLY OTHER ADDITION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IS THAT YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE YOUR DESIGNER EITHER YOUR CIVIL ENGINEER OR YOUR ARCHITECT LOOK AT POTENTIAL CHANGES IN STRIPING TO DESIGNATE YOUR DRIVE-THRU MORE CLEARLY AN POTENTIALLY EVEN A CHANGE OF PAVEMENT TYPE, SOMETHING THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE STAFF TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN YOUR THROUGH LANE AND YOUR STACKING LANE, SOMETHING THAT JUST MAKES IT IS MORE INTUITIVE TO YOUR USERS THAT THEY'LL KNOW WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO GO. IF IT'S JUST ALL THE SAME COLOR CONCRETE WITH NO STRIPES AND NO DESTINATIONS YOU'RE MORE LIKELY

TO HAVE ISSUES WITH CIRCULATION. >> I AGREE, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT GENERALLY ON THE PLAN WE DO PAVE THROUGH WHERE THE DRIVE-THRU IS TO SHOW PEOPLE WHERE TO GO AN THE STACKABLE CONES . . . WOULD COME DOWN EVERY DAY. AS FAR AS DIFFERENT MATERIALS WE CAN WORK WITH THAT AND WORK WITH STAFF ON GETTING THAT APPROVED.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ARE WE READY FOR MOTION TO TABLE

THIS ITEM? >> WOULD IT BE BETTER TO ALLOW THEM TO JUST WITHDRAW THEIR REQUEST SO THEY CAN BRING IT BACK WHEN STAFF HAS HAD THE TIME TO ADEQUATELY REVIEW IT?

>> THAT IS DEFINITELY AN OPTION AND SHOULD THE COMMISSION CHOOSE TO DO THAT THEY. THEY WILL HAVE TO RESUBMIT AND YOUR FILING DEADLINE WOULD HAVE TO BE MET.

HOWEVER, GIVEN SOME OF THE ELEMENTS THAT STAFF POINTED OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT IT MIGHT BE CONDUCIVE TO DO THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE CIRCULATION ELEMENTS WE FIND CRITICAL SO THAT COULD BE AN OPTION OR YOU CAN TABLE IT AND THEY WOULD COME BACK WITH

REVISED SITE PLAN. >> BUT IF TABLED IT WOULD HAVE

TO SET A SPECIFIC DATE, CORRECT? >> TYPICALLY YOU CAN TABLE TO DATE CERTAIN OR YOU CAN POSTPONE TO A POINT WHEN THEY'RE READY TO COME BACK OR STAFF IS READY TO COME BACK BUT MOST PEOPLE LIKE A DATE CERTAIN ASSOCIATED WITH A TABLING.

>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS.

MR. FRISBEE. >> BEFORE WE TAKE A MOTION I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE YOU THE OPTION TO WITHDRAW YOUR POSITION IF YOU SO CHOOSE BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION THIS IS TIME TO

FISH OR CUT BAIT. >> YEAH, I THINK WE WOULD RATHER TABLE IF WE COULD, IF WE HAVE THAT OPTION.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

SO WE COULD TABLE FOR FOUR WEEKS, OR PROBABLY BE BEST.

WE DON'T WANT TO NAME A MEETING. >> WE CAN TABLE TO FOUR WEEKS UPON WHICH AFTER THE NEXT P & Z MEETING.

MARCH 8TH IS THE NEXT DATE. >> OKAY.

COMMISSIONERS. >> I DON'T MEAN TO BE DIFFICULT.

IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW YOUR PETITION AN COME BACK IN FOUR WEEKS, NOW IS THE TIME TO EXPRESS THAT.

OTHERWISE WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION HAPPEN SET IT A DIRECTION FOR YOU. I'M JUST GIVING YOU A COURTESY.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT, AN I THINK WE ARE OKAY WITH THE MOTION.

>> OKAY. >> I'LL MAKE TO MOTION TO TABLE

THE PETITION FOR FOUR WEEKS. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON TTHE

[01:15:08]

FLOOR BY MR. FRISBEE AN SECOND BY MS. WILLIAMS IF I GOT THE NAME RIGHT, NO, MISS SCHINDLER. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

>> WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THEY DO DEAL WITH A DRIVE-THRU SITUATION WITH THE STRIPING AND YOU KNOW, THE SPACING OF THE CARS, HOW THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO LINE UP, THE

SIGNAGE. >> MR. ENGEN WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR SO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT BEFORE WE GET INTO ANOTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR.

WE'VE GOT A SECOND. I'M SORRY.

BUT I'VE BEEN CORRECTED ON THAT IN THE PAST.

ALL RIGHT. THE TABLING HAS PASSED SO YOU'RE

TABLED FOR FOUR WEEKS. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> I'M SORRY.

THEY'LL BE BACK IN FRONT OF US. OKAY.

[5D. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Danny Giesbrecht, 151 Coffee, on behalf of property owner Lakeview Parkway Ventures, LLC., regarding a Special Use Permit to allow a restaurant with a drive-thru on a portion of an approximately 5.52-acre property zoned General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District. The subject property is located approximately 360 feet east of the intersection of Lakeview Parkway and Rowlett Road, being a portion of Lot 2, Block 1 of the A.S.P.I Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

WE ARE NOW READY FOR ITEM 5 D CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY DANNY GIESBRECHT, 151 COFFEE, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER LAKEVIEW PARKWAY VENTURES, LLC., REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU ON A PORTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 5.52-ACRE PROPERTY ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (C-2) DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 360 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AND ROWLETT ROAD, BEING A PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1 OF THE A.S.P.I ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. MR. ROBERTS.

>> PUBLIC HEARING RECOMMENDATION ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR APPROXIMATELY 1800 SQUARE FOOT COFFEE RESTAURANT DRIVE-THRU ON A PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED UNDER RDC.

THE PROPOSED SUP LOT IS SHOWN WITH THE RED OUTLINE.

>> THE PROPOSED SITE CONSIDERATIONS 29 SHARED PARKING STALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS BOWENARY.

IT'S WORD NOTING THIS SUP WON'T COME WITH A SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY. THIS BUILDING WILL COEXIST . . .

AND BE HIM TO IT THE SCOPE YOU SIGH IN THE BLACK LINE.

THERE WILL BE 13 DRIVE-THRU STACKING SPACES.

>> THERE'S A REQUIRED 234 COMBINED AND THERE'S A DEFICIT

[01:20:01]

OF SPACES, THE APPLICANT HAS JUSTIFIED THE DEFICIT IN THIS PARKING BASED ON A PARKING ANALYSIS THAT INVOLVED ON SITE OBSERVATION OF THE TRAFFIC AS WELL AS EVEN ACCOMMODATING PERHAPS THE SWINGING SEASON WE HAVE SEEN SEEING OR EVEN WITH THE PANDEMIC IN MIND, AGAIN IT DID OBSERVE A PEAK HOUR OF TRAFFIC GENERATION AND WHEN COMBINED WITH THE ANTICIPATED PEAK HOURS OF THE PROPOSED USE ULTIMATELY THE DECISION IS THEY DIDN'T COINCIDE WITH EACH OTHER AND . . . NOT . . . HAS IS IN THE CASE IN THIS SITUATION ALL ON ONE LOT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OR USE WITH DIFFERENT PEAK BUSINESSES HOURS AN WE HAVE REVIEWED THAT STUDY AND . . . THAT STUDY WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. CIRCULATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR YOU, WHAT YOU'LL SETON RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, I SEE THERE'S A QUESTION COMING MY WAY.

>> JUST QUICK ON THAT PARKING STUDY.

I NOTICE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY LINE GOES DIAGONAL THERE, OBVIOUSLY THE PARKING AREA IS SOUTH PLAN SOUTH OF I BELIEVE IT'S BIG LOTS. SO ALL THOSE PARKING SPACES WERE NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THIS, CORRECT?