[00:00:11] >> GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GERMAN. THE 7 PM AND WILL CALL THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER. IT IS TUESDAY, MARCH 8 2022. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THE MEETING MAY BE CONVENED. AND CLOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HERE IN. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS OR REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION WILL CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. TO PROVIDE COMMENT FOR THE MEETING, IF YOU'RE NOT ATTENDING IN PERSON, PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL BY 3:30 PM THE DAY OF THE MEETING. PLEASE SPECIFICALLY STATE WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS REGARDING SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM OR GENERAL COMMENT TO THE COMMISSION. YOUR COMMENT WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD DURING THE MEETING AND THERE IS A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT. FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE OF THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THERE ARE FORMS IN THE TABLE IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK AND AGENDA ITEM 2, PLEASE FILL OUT A FORM AND HAND IT TO MS. NIX OVER HERE.N MY LEFT. AND NOTE WHICH ITEM YOU ARE [2. CITIZENS’ INPUT] SPEAKING ON. WE CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER TWO, CITIZENS INPUT. AT THIS TIME, THREE-MINUTE COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. IF YOU CARE TO SPEAK ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM, THIS WOULD NOT, YOU PROBABLY WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THAT ITEM IS READ. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION DURING CITIZENS INPUT. I DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS CARDS. IS ANYONE HERE TO JUST, HAVE A COMMENT ON CITIZEN INPUT? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. YES, SIR. PLEASE, COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR. >>. THAT REQUIRES ZONING ORDINANCES MUST BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.IT CLEARLY INDICATES A CITY MAY APPROVE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE PLAN. IT FURTHER INDICATES THAT IF THEY DO THE CITY WILL LATER AMEND THE PLAN TO FIT THE NONCOMPLYING REZONING THEY JUST PASSED. THIS PROCEDURE CLEARLY RUNS COUNTER TO STATE LAW. WHEN THE CITY RE-ZONES PROPERTY TO NONCOMPLYING USES, THAT AMENDS THE COMP PLAN LATER TO FIT IT'S ACTUALLY NO REASON TO HAVE A COMP PLAN. THE CITY JUST CHANGES IT ON THE FLY. MIGHT AS WELL TAKE THE COMP PLAN AND THROAT IN THE TRASHCAN BECAUSE IT IS JUST BASICALLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE.WENT ALL THE WAY AROUND IT. THE CITY IN THE PAST HAS DELIBERATELY OR INTENTIONALLY DONE A GOOD JOB OF HIDING COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. IT IS TELLING THAT NONE OF THE REPORTED COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, SHOW UP ANYWHERE ON THE CITY WEBSITE. THE COMP PLAN IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT WAS ADOPTED AT 2019. NO AMENDMENTS, NO DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS, NOTHING IS MENTIONED WHATSOEVER. YOU'VE PASSED SOME ORDINANCES AND THEY CAN AMEND THE COMP PLAN BUT DON'T SAY HI. WE HAVE ALL OF THESE SUPPOSEDLY AMENDMENTS BUT NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THEY SAID. AND THEY ARE NOT ONLINE. THE CITIZEN CANNOT FIND OUT. THE CITY SHOULD BE A TRANSPARENT CITY. IT HASN'T BEEN IN IT COMES TO [00:05:03] ZONING FOR THE REASONS THAT I JUST DESCRIBED. YOU KNOW, IT'S REFUSED TO LET CITIZENS PRESENT TESTIMONY AT A PUBLIC HEARING. THAT'S AMAZING. THIS APPROACH TO ZONING ABSOLUTELY HAS TO CHANGE. WE JUST CANNOT KEEP DOING THIS. I PLEAD WITH YOU, AND THIS IS MORE COUNSEL. I PLEAD WITH YOU TO CHANGE THE ZONING METHODOLOGY THE CITY HAS USED IN THE PAST AND TO SUPPORT GETTING THE COUNCIL TO REVISE ITS PROCEDURES SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE REPEATS OF WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING. [3. CONSENT AGENDA] THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SIR. OKAY NOW WE GO TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION. A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR A CITIZEN MAY REQUEST ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT, CONSIDER APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 2022 REGULAR MEETING. HAVE ALL THE COMMISSIONERS HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? ANY EDITS, CHANGES, COMMENTS? OKAY. I AM READY FOR A MOTION. >> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FAIRBURY 22 MEETING. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR? PLEASE VOTE. WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION, PROBABLY FROM SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT HERE AT THAT MEETING AND REST ARE YES. THE ITEM PASSES. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AND WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. REGISTRATION FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. [4A. 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. (This item was tabled by the Commission on February 8, 2022.)] PLEASE FILL IN FORM AND HAND IT TO MRS. -- ITEM T.A. SKILES CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL ON REQUEST BY JEFF BETHKE, RLG CONSULTING ENGINEERS ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER, AMIN MAWANI, ROWLETT CONSOLIDATED LLC REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THROUGH ON A PORTION OF APPROXIMATELY 0.81 ACRE PROPERTY ZONE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH A BASED ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL, C-2 DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1050 FEET NORTHEAST OF INTERSECTION OF LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AND DALROCK ROAD, BING A PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK A OF THE 8900 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, ROCKWALL COUNTY, TEXAS. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED BY THE COMMISSIONER FEBRUARY 8, 2022. YES, SIR. >> CHAIRPERSON, COMMISSION, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AS JUST MENTIONED THE ITEM WAS HEARD AT LEAST THE PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THESE PLANS WERE HEARD ON FEBRUARY 8 AND IT WAS TABLED TO THIS DATE.ND SO, I WILL BE BRIEF IN MOST OF THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU. IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE, WELL THERE WILL OBVIOUSLY BE TIME AFTERWARDS TO ADDRESS THEM. BUT I WILL FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR TIME AND SINCE YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD, MOST OF THESE CONDITIONS, I WILL BE BRIEF. JUST TO KIND OF ESTABLISH A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, THIS IS A FORMAL ZONING ACTION THAT ENCOURAGES PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE USE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES, THEY ARE LOOKING TO PROPOSE OR ARE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A 1900 SQUARE-FOOT DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT. THROUGH THE REVIEW OF A SUP SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA CAN BE TO FURTHER PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. EYOND THE DESIGN CRITERIA. THIS PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY DOES HAVE A SOUTH ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.N SEPTEMBER 4, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH A BASIC DISTRICT OF GENERAL C-2. THIS INCLUDES FOUR LOTS ARE IDENTIFIED FOR THE USES. OF WHICH ARE LISTED THERE. [00:10:06] THE SUP OCCUPIES .67 ACRES OF LOT 3. WHICH TOTALS .81 ACRES. AND SO, THERE WILL BE SOME MINOR REALIGNMENT OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. IT IS FOR A RESTAURANT, DRIVE-THROUGH AS FAR AS SUP WITHIN THE C-2 DISTRICT AS ESTABLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 77301 , A LITTLE COMPARISON OF LOOKING AT WHAT WAS SHOWN TO YOU BACK ON FEBRUARY 8 VERSUS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED NOW. HE CONDITIONS OR RATHER, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HAS REMAINED THE SAME, IN THIS GRAPHIC, THE EXCEPTION WILL BE THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE. THAT DID MOVE FROM BEING DIRECTLY AS PART OF THE CORRIDOR OF THE DRIVE LANE, TO BE A LITTLE MORE OFFSET AS A STENOGRAPHIC TO THE RIGHT. SOME CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED AT THAT LAST MEETING, BOTH BY STAFF AND SUBSEQUENTLY, BY THE COMMISSION WAS THE DRIVE-THROUGH ORIENTATION, THE SPACES, ANTICIPATED TO CONFLICT OF PASS-THROUGH VEHICLE CIRCULATION PRETTY LOCATION OF MENU ORDER BOX IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WHERE THAT WAS BEING RECOMMENDED TO BE REORIENTED, THE SIGNAGE IF PERMITTED ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE, WHICH MAY HAVE CAUSED CLEAR ON THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTH. AND SITE LIGHTING PROPOSED TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WAS ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN SIMILAR GLARE ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. I WILL ADDRESS EACH ONE OF THOSE AND THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED NOW. ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU WILL SEE THE CONFLICT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU A MONTH AGO. WITH THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE COMING THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY. AND SO, OBVIOUSLY WAS AN AREA OF CONCERN. THE GRAPHIC TO THE RIGHT SHOWS IN A WAY, THOSE TWO WERE FLIPPED WITH THE PARKING NOW PROVIDED ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF THE DRIVE LANE. AND SO, THERE IS NO DIRECT CONFLICT NOW WITH THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE, THE DRIVE LANE TO THE REAR THAT IS ALSO THE ACCESS FOR THE PARKING LOTS. ALSO IN YELLOW, I SHOW THE MENU ORDER BOX. ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS THE LIGHTING AND THE LOUDSPEAKER FACING SOUTH TOWARDS THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.AS YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT, THAT HAS BEEN SHIFTED TO FACE AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. TO HELP ALLEVIATE THAT CONDITION. SIGNAGE CONSIDERATION, STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT THE WALL SIGN BE PROHIBITED ON THE SOUTHERN FAC'ADE. TO LIMIT VISUAL IMPACT OF THIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.HE APPLICANT HAS REACHED THE CONDITION AND THIS WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE LANGUAGE, WHICH WILL BE IN THE APPROVED ORDINANCE. AND SO, KEEP IN MIND THAT THE GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT IS SIMPLY REPRESENTATIVE, ELEVATION OF THE SITE OR OF THE DEVELOPMENT, NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL GIVE US FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDS TO WHAT THE ELEVATIONS WILL LOOK LIKE AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT IS MORE A BACK OF HOUSE FLAT STUCCO SURFACE. AND SO, THERE IS NO SIGNAGE BEING PROPOSED AT THIS MOMENT TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS JUST US GETTING AHEAD OF IT, MAKING SURE THAT THERE ISN'T ONE, AND IF IT IS, IT IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.LL PROPOSED SIGNS WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMIT FOLLOWING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND PRECAUTIONS INCLUDE A HEIGHT LIMITATION FELL FEET PER LIGHT SOURCE. MANDATORY SHIELDING TO ENCOURAGE DOWNWARD NOT OUTWARD LIGHTING TO ENT GLARE. IN AN EFFORT TO MITIGATE ANY FURTHER R LIGHT GLARE OFF-SITE, THE APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE LIGHTING PROPOSAL. FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL TO CONTAINED DEEPER LIKE SHIELDING AND BASED ON THE REVISED LIGHTING PLAN, PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, LEVELS PRODUCED BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE ARE. [INAUDIBLE] YOU'VE SEEN THESE BEFORE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS OR THINGS THAT AS A COMMISSION, YOU CAN LOOK TO AND POST ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS, THE RESULT OF THAT WAS THE CONVERSATION WE JUST HAD [00:15:01] REGARDING THE FOUR ITEMS. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS, YOU'RE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE HOURS OF OPERATION, PLACEMENT OF TRASH RECEPTACLES, THE COLLATION EXCRETING OF LOADING AREAS, LEADING LOCATIONS DESIGNED INTENSITY AND HOURS OF ILLUMINATION, HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS TO PRESERVE LIGHT AND PRIVACY AND USE AND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES FROM PUBLIC PROPERTY. ACTIVELY, CONTROLLED JUST BY THE INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING OR PAVING AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING SCREENING TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACT. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ADDITIONAL REPLIES FROM WHAT YOU HAD ALREADY SEEN AND SO WE HAD ONLY ONE OPPOSITION AND ONE IN FAVOR WITHIN THE 500 FOOT RADIUS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION HAS BASED ON REVISIONS, CHANGED TO APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH ON PROPERTIES OWNED PLANNED PDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL C-2 USE, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> YES? >> DID HAVE A PRESENTATION? UICKLY DO NOT BUT THEY ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> OKAY SUPER. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES SIR. SORRY. OUT OF PRACTICE. CAN YOU PLEASE READ PETE WHAT KIND OF SCREENING THE PRODUCT WILL HAVE BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE SOUTH? >> CERTAINLY THE GRAPHIC TO THE RIGHT YOU WILL SEE REQUIREMENTS FOR BUFFERING AND COMPEL THE BUFFER THAT REQUIRES TEMPLATE WITH. WILL BE 98 FEET IN LENGTH, THREE TREES WILL BE PROVIDING -- PROVIDER AND SHRUBS. THERE WILL ALSO BE EIGHT-FOOT TALL WALL, MASONRY WALL THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE PD. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING ELSE, ANYONE? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO THANK YOU, I THINK WE WILL GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR THE STAFF OR APPLICANT, WE WILL TAKE THEM AFTER. AT THIS TIME, WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU HAVE COME TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, 4A AND FILLED OUT A CARD, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SUSAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY CARDS? OKAY, NOT SEEING ANY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> I THINK IT LOOKS GOOD AND I THINK THEY CAME TO THE TABLE, WORKED WITH THE CITY. LOOKS LIKE A MORE TRADITIONAL DRIVE-THROUGH NOW. I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE. >> I AGREE. >> ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMENTS? OKAY. WELL, I GUESS I'M READY FOR A MOTION THEN. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SUP. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR APPROVAL AND A SECON . SORRY, I NEVER REMEMBER YOUR LAST NAME. EVERYBODY READY TO VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR? AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. [4B. 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. (This item was tabled by the Commission on February 8, 2022.)] WE MOVED TO ITEM 4B. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON REQUEST BY DANNY GIESBRECHT, 151 COFFEE, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER LAKEVIEW PARKWAY VENTURES LLC, REGARDING SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH ON A PORTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 5.52 ACRE PROPERTY ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL, C-2 DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY JUST 60 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AND ROWLETT ROAD. BEING A PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK ONE, OF THE A.S.P.I. ADDITION IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED BY THE COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2022. >> THANK YOU CHAIRPERSON AND COMMISSION. AGAIN, THIS IS A ANOTHER ITEM THAT WAS SEEN IN THE LAST OR RATHER INTO FEBRUARY 8 MEETING THAT WE HAD HERE FOR THE [00:20:09] PLANNING AND ZONING. WE ARE NOW REVISITING THAT BASED ON THE TABLE INTO THE DATE. AS A LITTLE CONTEXT, AS WELL FOR THIS PROJECT, THIS IS LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AND ROWLETT ROAD. AND THAT IS AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT 151 COFFEE RESTAURANT WITH THE DRIVE-THROUGH, COMMERCIAL C-2 DISTRICT. SUP ACTION REQUIRES PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENDED TO ENSURE THE PROPOSED USES WILL NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON SURROUNDING USES. THIS A LITTLE BACKGROUND HELPS IDENTIFY THE PARCEL ESSENTIALLY BEING IN THE PARKING LOT THERE WERE THE BIG LOTS AND RESTAURANT. BUT THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED IN THE MULTITENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN 1994 AND CURRENTLY OCCUPIED WITH GENERAL RETAIL RESTAURANT USES AND DETACHED DRYWALL ICE DISPENSER IN THE PARKING LOT. WHICH YOU WILL SEE IDENTIFIED IN THE GRAPHIC TO THE RIGHT. THE PROPOSED SUP REFLECTS THE FOLLOWING 29 -- WITHIN THE DRIVE-THROUGH SPACES. 87 FOOT FRONT SETBACK FROM LAKEVIEW PARKWAY IN A PROXIMALLY 40 FOOT BUILDING SEPARATION FROM THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND EXISTING ICE STRUCTURE I WILL MAKE ONE CORRECTION OF THE PARKING WHICH WE WILL ADDRESS THE SECOND. IT'S ACTUALLY 24 BASED ON REDUCTION THAT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWS. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, 29 FEET OR 25.67 FEET, SIX FOOT WIDE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER, DUMPSTER WITH NORTH FACING GATES AND HOURS OF OPERATION SHOWING BETWEEN 5:00 AM AND 10:00 PM. THE GRAPHIC TO THE RIGHT SHOWS THE NEW PROPOSED SITE PLAN. THERE ARE ONLY TWO CONCERNS EXPRESSED THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND THEY WERE TREATED ESSENTIALLY, THEY REFLECT IN THE SAME AREA. AND SO, VEHICLE CIRCULATION AND ONE OF THEM AND THEN THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT AND GLARE FROM PROPOSED ANGLED PARKING STALLS. YOU WILL SEE THAT THE BIGGEST AREA OF CHANGE OCCURS DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT OF THE DUMPSTER LOCATION AND DIRECTLY ABOVE THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHOWN IN BLUE. WHERE THE WHOLE PARKING AREA WHICH WAS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE, HAS BEEN, HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH LANDSCAPING. AND SO THAT HELPS TO PROTECT THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE CARS AS WELL AS ALLEVIATE ANY CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE GLARE WOULD BE DIRECTLY FACING OR BEING DIRECTED TOWARD THE DRIVERS IN THAT DIRECTION AS WELL. SOME CIRCULATION PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED IN -- THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED AND SEPARATED, THUS THE GRAPHIC ON THE TOP. THE APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE PLAN SAID TO ELIMINATE PARKING STALLS, TO INSTEAD PROPOSE AREAS FOR THE LANDSCAPING AND ADDITIONAL CURBING AS ILLUSTRATED. THAT IS THE BOTTOM ONE. THE ADJUSTMENT ADDRESSES CONCERNS BY STAFF AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS IT PROVIDES FOR ADDITIONAL SEPARATION OF THE VEHICLES IN THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE FROM VEHICLES UTILIZING THE DRIVE I'LL AND LANDSCAPING TO MITIGATE ANY HEADLIGHT GLARE. PARKING CONSIDERATIONS, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SAW LAST TIME. THERE IS A DEFICIT IN PARKING JUST BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU ARE TAKING YOU KNOW, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES TO PUT A DRIVE-THROUGH LANE IN 1800 SQUARE FEET RESTAURANT. THAT SAID, THE APPLICANT DID JUSTIFY THE REDUCTION THROUGH PARKING ANALYSIS WHICH ILLUSTRATES PEAK HOURS OF THE TRAFFIC GENERATION FOR THIS RESTAURANT RETAIL AND PROPOSED DRIVE-THROUGH DO NOT COINCIDE WITH EACH OTHER. THEREFORE MAKING THIS BASED ON THE STUDY, PROJECT THAT WORKS IN TERMS OF PARKING. SECTION 77, 561, ALLOWS FOR STAFF TO PROVE A SHARED PARKING CONDITION FOR DEVELOPMENT OR USE WITH DIFFERENT PEAK DISTANCE HOURS. JUST AS A RECAP, THESE ARE THE [00:25:02] PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FAC'ADES FO THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IT IS UNDER C-2 ZONING. AND THE USE IS WITHIN THE C-2 DISTRICT AND STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE DRIVE-THROUGH IS APPROPRIATE USE AT THIS LOCATION. THAT IS A FRONTAGE IN LAKEVIEW PARKWAY IT ALLOWS FOR ACCESS TO THE COMPANY HAS A PLAN SUPPORTS THE USE BEING COMMERCIAL. NOTICE WAS SENT OUT 200 AND 500 SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS CASE, NO NEW OTICES WERE RECEIVED AND SO WE ARE LEFT WITH THE ONE IN OPPOSITION AND ONE IN FAVOR WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS. STAFF ACCOMMODATION ALSO HAS CHANGED FROM THE PREVIOUS TWO APPROVAL THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH AND PROPERTY ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? YES SIR. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER BECAUSE IT ISN'T A LOT OVER THERE AND THERE WASN'T REALLY MUCH OF A LANDSCAPE DESIGN AROUND THE PROPERTY. ANOTHER WE TALKED BOUT SOME TREES THAT HAVE TO BE CUT DOWN AND WILL HAVE TO COME BEFORE US AGAIN. AND THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THAT REALLY SHOWS A WHOLE LOT OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE THAT PARKING LOT AND TO MAKE IT LOOK VERY NICE FOR PEOPLE DRIVING BY TO PULL INTO THE AREA. >> RIGHT AND SO, IN TERMS OF THE SUP SOFTWARE SIMPLY SHOWING THE AREAS OF LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, THIS INSTANCE IS REALLY JUST AN AREA OF SIX FEET THAT IS REQUIRED ALONG ADJOINING COMPATIBLE USES. AND SO, IT IS TYPICALLY, NOT TOO MUCH OR NOT A BIG LANDSCAPE COMPONENT ASSOCIATED WITH IT REALLY JUST INTENDED TO CREATE THE SEPARATION BETWEEN USES. THAT SAID, ANY TREE REMOVALS OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT WOULD OBVIOUSLY, IF IT IS MORE THAN THREE TREES, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES THE APPLICANT -- >> APPLICANT WANTS TO SPEAK. >> OKAY GREAT, COME ON UP! WE WILL POSTPONE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SORRY. >> I AM THE OWNER OF 151 COFFEE.ANDSCAPING WILL DO HERE LIKE IN EACH OF THE STORES, YOU HAVE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPING ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE STORE, THAT WILL BE A SIX FOOT BUFFER WHICH WE USUALLY DO BRUSH TYPE LANDSCAPING THERE. THAT WILL WRAP AROUND TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STORE WHICH FACES LAKESIDE, THAT IS A LONG STRIP ALSO SIX-FOOT LANDSCAPING. IF YOU TAKE THAT UP TO WHERE THE CARS ARE, WHERE IT MEETS IT, THAT WILL BE A COMBINATION OF BARK DUST AND BRUSH AND TYPICAL BRUSH THAT WE DO IS ABOUT 2 TO 3 FEET TALL WITH WE'VE DONE THE SAME THING IN EACH OF THE STORES AND THEN PAST THAT, WHERE IT TAKES THE TURN NORTH, RIGHT NOW THAT IS ALL PARKING LOT.LL OF THAT AREA WILL BE LANDSCAPE IS NOT SHOWN AS GREEN ON HERE, YOU SEE THE AREA THAT GOES DIAGONALLY NORTHEAST. ALL THAT IS LANDSCAPED. SO NO. YOU'VE A TEENY BUILDING WE TURNED IT INTO, THIS IS OUR BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE. WHAT WE WANT IS WHAT LOOKS LIKE A PET REPURCHASED AND THEN LANDSCAPE SO FROM THE STREET, YOU WILL SEE ALL AROUND THE BUILDING, EVERYWHERE YOU COMPLETE LANDSCAPING, THERE IS LANDSCAPING IN ALL OF THAT IS CURBED AND PEERED FROM THE MAIN ENTRANCE AND THE SHOPPING CENTERS THEN CURB AND WHERE THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE IS, THAT IS ALL CURB TOO. EVERYTHING THAT IS LANDSCAPE AND A COMBINATION OF SOD, BARK DUST AND TREES. >> THANK YOU. [00:30:05] >> THANK YOU. >> WE APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FORMALLY. IF YOU HAVE FILLED OUT A CARD, TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM, 4B, GIVE IT TO SUSAN. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. OKAY, WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS. SEEING NONE, I WILL FORMALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS? EVERYTHING LOOKS GOOD. ALL RIGHT. MR. -- GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR APPROVAL OF THIS SUP. >> I SECOND. >> I WILL LET MR. FRISBEE, I SAW HIM FIRST. WE HAVE A SECOND. AND ALL IN FAVOR? THAT ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. [4C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Mozharul Islam, Civil Urban Associates Inc., on behalf of property owner Star Line Group Texas LLC., to: 1) Rezone the subject property from Single-Family Residential (SF-40) to Planned Development (PD) District for Limited Commercial/Retail (C-1) Uses and Single-Family Residential (SF-5) Uses, and approval of a Concept Plan to construct 40 single-family homes and approximately 88,500 square feet of commercial/retail space; 2) Amend the Comprehensive Plan; and 3) Amend the Zoning Map of the City of Rowlett. The approximately 19.89-acre site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Miller and Rowlett Roads, situated in the T.A. Skiles Survey, Abstract Number 1409, and the William Crabtree Survey, Abstract Number 347, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.] OKAY MOVING TO ITEM 4C. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY MOZHARUL ISLAM CIVIL URBAN ASSOCIATES INC. ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER STARLIGHT GROUP TEXAS LLC, REZONING THE PPROPERTY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF-40 TO PLANNED DEVELOPER, PD DISTRICT FOR LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL, C-1 USES AN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SF-5 USES. APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 40 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND APPROXIMATELY 88,500 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE. AMEND THE COMMANDS OF PLAN AND AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT. THE APPROXIMATELY 19.89 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF MILLER AND ROWLETT RHODES, SITUATED IN THE T.A. SKILES SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 1409, AND THE WILLIAM CRABTREE SURVEY OBJECT NUMBER 347, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR PERSON FOR READING THE INTO THE RECORD. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO REZONE THE EXISTING PROPERTY FROM THE SF-40 DISTRICT WHICH IS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO A PLANNED DEVELOPER DISTRICT FOR LIMITED COMMERCIAL BASED IN A C-1 DISTRICT AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THAT WOULD BE IN THE SF-5 DISTRICT. SECONDLY, ALSO PROOF OF CONCEPT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 40 HOMES AND APPROXIMATELY 88,500 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE. BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE RECENT ZONING REQUESTS THAT HAVE BEEN ON THIS PROPERTY. THERE WAS A REQUEST MADE OCTOBER 9 2018 TO THIS BODY, TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROWLETT AND MILLER RHODES, TO THAT NEW NEIGHBOR DISTRICT. THIS WOULD HAVE ALLOWED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 175 LOT TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION, ALSO WITH MAJOR WARRANT TO ALLOW FOR FRONT ENTRY GARAGE IS. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY VOTE OF FOUR ÃTHREE. APPLICATION WAS THEN WITHDRAWN. IN JUNE 2020, A REQUEST WAS MADE TO THIS COMMISSION, TO REZONE JUST THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USE IS BASED IN THE SF-5 DISTRICT. ALSO AT THAT POINT IN TIME THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY THE BODY TO DENY THE REQUEST WHICH WAS UNANIMOUS. THE CITED REASON BY THE COMMISSION WERE THE DENSITY, THE SIZE OF THE LOTS AS WELL AS THE LACK OF ANY COMMERCIAL OFFICE OR RETAIL COMPONENT PER THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. WE'LL TALK A BIT MORE ABOUT THAT THROUGHOUT THIS PRESENTATION. THAT APPLICATION WAS ALSO WITHDRAWN. JANUARY OF LAST YEAR, THIS BODY CONSIDERED AN APPLICATION BY THE SAME FOLKS FOR THE APPROVAL OF ANOTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHICH WOULD HAVE A COMPONENT THAT WAS BASED IN THE SF-5 RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS A C-1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL. THIS WAS ALSO AGAIN, THE CONCEPT PLAN TO DEVELOP A PORTION OF THE SITE WITH 58 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND THEN THE PORTION TO THE WEST SIDE OF ROWLETT CREEK WAS SET ASIDE FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BUT NOT CONCEPT PLAN. [00:35:04] THIS BODY ALSO UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THAT REQUEST. TO REMIND THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS TO THE PUBLIC, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO INTEGRATE VARIOUS LAND USES, ACCOMMODATE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHICH WOULD RESULT IN HIGHER QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT WHICH COULD BE ACHIEVED BY USING THE STANDARD ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WELL AS TO PERMIT THE IMPOSITION OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO ANY DEVELOPMENT. BACKGROUND ON THIS SITE, IT IS TWO PARCELS WHICH TOTAL TOGETHER, 19.89 ACRES. IT IS DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, LIVESTOCK, STABLES, AGAIN, THERE'S EXCESS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLER AND ROWLETT RHODES. THERE IS ACCESS TO BOTH OF THOSE ROADS. APPROXIMATELY 947 FEET TO FRONTAGE ON MILLER ROAD. AND 988 FEET ON ROWLETT ROAD. YOU CAN SEE HOPEFULLY FAIRLY WELL ON THE DIAGRAM ON THE RIGHT, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE TREES. THAT IS THE AREA WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN OF LONGBRANCH CREEK BISECTS THE PROPERTY. THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 3.7 ACRES OF FLOODPLAIN. ON THIS SITE AND IN ADDITION TO THOSE TREES WHICH ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN, THERE ARE SOME SMALLER TREE STANDS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. THE SITE CONCEPT PLAN OF WHICH WE WILL TALK ABOUT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL PIECES, CONTAINS BOTH SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD BE PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PROPERTY. THERE WOULD BE THREE PHASES. THE INITIAL PHASE THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO DEVELOP, IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATE 11.76 ACRES WITH 40 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THE 11.76 ACRES DOES ALSO INCLUDE THE AREA THAT IS FLOODPLAIN IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND ALSO, IT INCLUDES AN AREA SET ASIDE FOR A DETENTION FACILITY, SHOULD THE FLOOD STUDIES DETERMINE THAT THE TENSION WOULD BE NECESSARY TO MITIGATE STORMWATER IMPACT. THE SECOND PHASE IS APPROXIMATELY 2.72 ACRES WHICH WOULD BE LOCATED ALONG THE FRONTAGE AND MILLER ROAD AND IT WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH A COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING. AND THE LAST PHASE WILL BE THE WEST SIDE OF THE LONGBRIDGE CREEK ABUTTING ROWLETT ROAD WHICH WILL BE A TWO BUILDING COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTER. WE WILL TALK FIRST ABOUT THE SINGLE-FAMILY. AGAIN, IT IS BASED IN THE SF-5 DISTRICT AS PROPOSED WITH MODIFICATIONS, WILL TOUCH ON THOSE IN A MINUTE. THERE WOULD BE ACCESS FROM MILLER ROAD THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL AND I WOULD SHOW YOU THE DIAGRAM THERE ON THE RIGHT. THE ORANGE IS A PUBLIC PROPOSED STREET WHICH YOU CAN SEE WOULD BE TOWARD THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE EASTERN SIDE OF THAT COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL ACCESS WILL BE THE FIRE LANES WHICH WOULD BE DENOTED IN BLUE. WE AS STAFF, BELIEVE THAT IT DOES NOT PROVIDE DISTINCT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE RETAIL AND THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. AGAIN, IT WOULD NOT THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HERE IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED FIRST BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT A GUESS, THE FINAL CONDITION AS IT WOULD EXIST IN THERE AND WE HAVE CONCERNS AGAIN THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE THAT DISTINCT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS IT WOULD LACK THE ENTRY FEATURES THAT ARE COMMON AS WELL AS MONUMENTATION WOULD BE COMMON FOR SINGLE-FAMILY. IT WOULD PROPOSE ALSO TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT MASON, I'M SORRY WOOD FENCE ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE WERE TO BE THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. AS WELL AS A SOUTHEAST PROPERTY LINE THERE. THEY'VE ALSO INDICATED AN OPTIONAL MASONARY WALL SHOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION /COUNSEL OR IF ABUTTING RESIDENCES IF THAT WOULD BE YOUR PREFERENCE. THIS PROPOSAL DOES INCLUDE REAR ALLEYS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LOTS ABUTTING THE CREEK. THERE ARE LOTS THAT ARE ABUTTING THE CREEK WOULD HAVE J OR L HOOK, GARAGE IS NO FRONT ENTRY PROPOSED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE DETAILS AND MODIFICATIONS OF WHICH THEY ARE REQUESTING. ON THIS TABLE HERE, WE HAVE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, MR. -- THAT? QUICK THERE'S AN ALLEY IN THE CENTER AND ALSO AN ALLEY PROPOSED FOR THE PROPERTIES ON THE EASTERN SIDE AS WELL. I CAN'T, IS THERE A POINT ON [00:40:04] THIS ONE? HICH ONE IS THE POINT ON THIS ONE? THE RED BUTTON. THANK YOU. I MISSED IT.GOT THE RONG BUTTON! I HAD FAT FINGERED THERE. THE WRONG WAY AGAIN. OVER HERE. THAT IS ALSO AN ALLEY. OKAY, WITH THE, THE VARIATIONS THEY ARE REQUESTING, WE HAVE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE SF-40 DISTRICT WHICH IS THE CURRENT ZONING. YOU HAVE THE SF-5 DISTRICT WHICH IS THE BASE ZONING THEY REQUESTING WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THEN THE PROPOSED SF-5 PLAN TO DEVELOP A DISTRICT THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE THAT THEIR PROPOSAL WOULD BE SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN THE 5000 SQUARE-FOOT MINIMUM IT WILL BE 5091 SQUARE FEET. THE LOT MINIMUM WOULD BE DEDUCED FROM 50 FEET TO 45 FEET MINIMUM. AND THE LOT DEPTH HOWEVER WOULD BE INCREASED TO 112 1/2 FEET. INSTEAD OF THE 100 FEET UNDER THE SF-5 IN FRONT SETBACK WOULD BE MINIMUM OF 15 FEET IN THE PROPOSED DISTRICT RATHER THAN 10 FEET. THE SIDE SETBACKS WOULD TYPICALLY BE FIVE FEET FOR INTERIOR AND THEN THE ADJACENT STREET THE EXTERIOR BE 10 FOOT, SIDE SETBACK FROM ANY STREET THERE. THEN ALSO, THE REAR SETBACK WOULD BE REDUCED FROM 25 FEET MINIMUM, 30 FEET MINIMUM IN THE SF-5 TO 10 FEET THE MINIMUM DWELLING AREA IN THIS DISTRICT AS PROPOSED WOULD REMAIN 1500 SQUARE FEET. MOVING ON TO THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICT THERE PROPOSING A C-1 FOR BOTH PROPOSED RETAIL AREAS. THEY WOULD REDUCE THE LIST OF USES WHICH WE CONCLUDED ON THIS SLIDE, FROM WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE C-1 AND ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE, MUNICIPAL USES, MUSEUM, ART GALLERY, MEDICAL OFFICE, OPEN SPACE, UTILITY FACILITY, AGRICULTURAL CULTIVATION AND GRAZING WHICH IS OF COURSE AS PREVIOUS YEARS BUT THAT WOULD, IF IT WERE TO BE RESTARTED WILL REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, KENNEL, VERDI OR NEHRING OFFICE WITH ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES TAKING PLACE INSIDE, DELICATESSEN, RETAIL SPECIALTY FOOD STORE, RESTAURANT WITHOUT A DRIVE-THROUGH, GROCERY STORE UNDER 20,000 SQUARE FEET, SINGLE TENANT OFFICE GENERAL PERSONAL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT, BAKERY AND ALSO GENERAL RETAIL LESS THAN 14,000 SQUARE FEET. THE FIRST COMPONENT THEY MENTIONED THAT WHAT THEY WOULD SEEK TO DEVELOP WOULD BE THE MILLER ROAD COMMERCIAL. THIS IS A PARCEL THAT'S APPROXIMATELY TWO AND THREE-QUARTER ACRES HAVING ABOUT 780 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG MILLER ROAD. DEATH OF 166 FEET. PROPOSED ON THIS PLAN A 32,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING SHOWING 110 PARKING SPACES THAT DOES COMPLY WITH THE STANDARD IN THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE OF ONE PARKING SPACE PER 300 SQUARE FEET OF GENERAL OFFICE COMMERCIAL RETAIL PERSONAL SERVICE USES. YOU CAN SEE HERE, IT IS SEPARATED BY THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL. CURRENTLY, THERE SHALL 15 FOOT BUFFER WITH CANOPY TREES. ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THIS IS JUST THE SITE PLAN. THAT WOULD BE INSTALLED ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY HERE. A MASONRY WALL AND SCREEN IS ALSO REQUIRED PER THE RDC AND STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WAS ALSO INCLUDED. THE OTHER PORTION OF RETAIL THE FINAL PHASE, OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF LONG BRANCH CREEK AND THAT WOULD ALSO BE COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES. THEY WOULD HAVE BUILDING, THE LARGER SOUTHERN BUILDING IS 44,850 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING B, THE NORTHERN ONE IS SMALLER AT -- NEIGHBORHOOD HERE TO THE SOUTH, THERE IS A 15 FOOT WIDE INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. IT DOES CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT DOES INCLUDE MASONARY WALL AND LIVING SCREEN AND ALSO HAS REQUIRED PLANTING MATERIALS OF ONE CANOPY TREE FOR EVERY 35 FEET. AND 10 EVERGREEN SHRUBS FOR EACH. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE STANDARD IS PRETENSION TO PARKING SPACES WHICH AGAIN, CONFORMS TO THE PARKING STANDARD FOR GENERAL OFFICE [00:45:02] COMMERCIAL RETAIL PERSONAL SERVICE USES. AGAIN, ALSO CONNECTS THE TWO SECTIONS OF COMMERCIAL VIA A PROPOSED CULVERT ACROSS LONG BRANCH CREEK. IT WOULD ALSO HAVE PROPOSED TWO CONNECTIONS TO ROWLETT ROAD, ONE WITH THE EXISTING MEDIAN BREAK, THE OTHER WOULD AGAIN, NOT HAVE A MEDIAN BREAK THERE. GOING BACK TO THE MILLER ROAD WOULD JUST HAVE THIS AGAIN, PROPOSING TO USE THE SHARED STREETS ON THE EASTERN SIDE AND THEN ALSO, WOULD HAVE THIS DRIVE ENTRY THAT WILL CONNECT TO THE EXISTING MEDIAN BREAK ACROSS MILLER ROAD. THESE ARE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL RETAIL ELEVATIONS, THE PROPOSED FAC'ADE MATERIALS WILL BE BRICK STONE, VENEERS AS WELL AS STUCCO, SHOULD THE REQUEST BE APPROVED, THERE WOULD BE A CONDITION INCLUDED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WOULD NOTE THAT THE EXPECTATION FOR THE BUILDINGS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN GENERAL PERFORMANCE, WITH THESE ELEVATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DOES DESIGNATE THIS PROPERTY FOR STATE RESIDENTIAL ON THE EASTERN PORTION OVER HERE. THESE SORT OF GREEN AREA. AND ALSO, THE RED WHICH IS COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, OFFICE. STATE RESIDENTIAL IS, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ON LOTS GREATER THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET. TYPICALLY.THEN ALSO RETAIL OFFICE COMMERCIAL TYPICALLY SITUATED ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND TO PROVIDE GOODS AND SERVICES TO THE NEARBY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. BETWEEN THE TWO, YOU HAVE THE GREEN AREA WHICH IS DESIGNATED FLOOD PLAN. THE APPLICANT AGAIN IS PROPOSING LOT SIZES THAT RANGE FROM 5091 SQUARE FEET TO 14,092 SQUARE FEET. WHICH WOULD PLACE THEM IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY WHICH WOULD BE LOTS UNDER 7000 SQUARE FEET. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS THE COMMERCIAL PROPOSED FOR THIS AREA ARE NOT IN ALIGNMENT AND NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HOWEVER, WOULD NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CREEK, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. A BIT MORE ABOUT COMPATIBILITY OF THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT IN THE LAND USE IN THE AREA. ACROSS MILLER ROAD, IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SF-5 USES THAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. TO THE EAST, PROPERTY ZONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SF-40. TO THE SOUTH IS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR R-2 USES AND THEN ACROSS IS ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT FOR R-1 USES. ALSO THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF ROWLETT ROAD AND THE INTERSECTION OF MILLER ROAD. YOU CAN ALSO SEE FROM THIS THAT THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS HAVE MINIMUM LOT AREAS AND MINIMUM BUILDING AREAS PARTICULARLY TO THE EAST THAT ARE LARGER THAN WHAT IS PROPOSED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 40,000 SQUARE FEET AND TO THE SOUTH MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 7800 SQUARE FEET. AGAIN, WE DID A LITTLE BIT MORE DELVING INTO THE, WHAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN THE AREA, AGAIN, WOULD NOTE THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES MINIMUMS, TYPICALLY THOSE, WHAT HAPPENS WITH ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT IS THINGS DO DEVIATE FROM THAT AND OF COURSE, AS THERE ARE MINIMUMS THEY GO UPWARD. AGAIN, LOSS PROPOSED 5091 SQUARE-FOOT AND 14,900 SQUARE FEET WITH THE AVERAGE BEING ABOUT 7500 SQUARE FEET. TO THE EAST, THE AREAS IN THE ORANGE BROWN, THE AVERAGE LOT AREA IS OVER 60,000 SQUARE FEET WITH THE AVERAGE BUILDING AREA BEING 2800 SQUARE FEET TO THE SOUTH, THE RED, THE AVERAGE LOT AREA IS 17,180 SQUARE FEET. AND THE MINIMUM OR AVERAGE HOME SIZE PURGING 1800 SQUARE FEET AND TO MILLER ROAD THE AVERAGE LOT AREA IS 5526 SQUARE FEET WHICH STILL EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM PROPOSED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE AVERAGE HOME SIZE ALSO IS 1737 SQUARE FEET. [00:50:08] >> ALEX, IF I CAN INTERJECT AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE A COMMENT ALEX IS USING HIS POINTER TO SHOW YOU WHERE THE ALLEY WAS IN A RELATIONSHIP THIS COMPATIBILITY STUDY I THINK IS THE BEST PLACE TO CLARIFY THE ALLEY ACTUALLY RUNS ON THE MIDDLE BUT POINTED OUT TO THE COMMISSION GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN AND REFLECT THAT, THAT IS THE ONLY LOCATION OF THE ALLEY. IT IS KIND OF HARD TO THE POINTER AND SHOW THAT. ALSO ACROSS THE STREET TO THE NORTH WILL ALSO HAVE A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS LESS THAN 5000 SQUARE FEET. THANK YOU.> THANK YOU. WRAPPING IT UP FOR PRESENTATION PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, WE DID SEND OUT THE REQUIRED NOTICES BACK ON FEBRUARY 18, THEY WERE 31 NOTICES SENT OUT TO PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET AND 54 SENT OUT TO PROPERTIES WITHIN 500 FEET. RESPONSE IS RECEIVED, RECEIVED TWO BACK WITHIN 200 FEET IN OPPOSITION AND TWO ALSO OPPOSITION FROM THE 500 SQUARE FEET WERE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES IN FAVOR FROM EITHER OF THE 200 OR THE 500. THAT IS A CHANGE FROM WHAT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE PACKET.HERE WERE TWO MORE THAT WERE RECEIVED IN THE INTERVENING DAYS. THOSE WERE PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING IN PRINTED FORM AT THE -- THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE THE INTENT OF WHAT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS SUPPOSED TO DO AS WELL AS IT DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL OF THE REQUEST TO REZONE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY 40 TOOK LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL BASED IN C-1 USES AN SINGLE-FAMILY SF-5 USES BECAUSE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPANY HAS A PLAN. AS WILL THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO US, DO NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO ACCOMMODATE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS WHICH WOULD RESULT IN HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENT WHICH COULD NOT BE ACHIEVED BY STANDARD ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. I WOULD ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS. ALSO ALSO NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISHES TO ADDRESS -- >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> HELLO EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS MOZHARUL ISLAM. I AM -- ALSO THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT. QUESTION YOU'LL HEAR HIM? I CAN HEAR HIM EITHER. CAN WE TURN IT UP A LITTLE BIT OR CAN YOU GET A LITTLE -- >> HELLO? >> YES. >> MINIMUS MOZHARUL ISLAM I'M THE APPLICANT AND THE CIVIL ENGINEER OF THE PROJECT. AND ALSO, AM THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS, THERE IS A LOT OF -- IN THE PRESENTATION. WE WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THIS PROJECT RIGHT NOW. PROPOSING TO TABLE THIS RIGHT NOW. SO THAT WE CAN WORK OUT WE HAVE A LITTLE TIME TO WORK OUT STUFF SO THAT WE CAN COMPLY WITH WHATEVER THE CITY NEEDED. >> OKAY. WE'VE GOT A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO TABLE THIS ITEM. WHICH WE WILL VOTE ON. I HAVE THE OPTION NOW OF EITHER OPENING OR PASSING ON HAVING THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS TONIGHT? IF IT IS TABLED, IT COULD CHANGE WHEN IT COMES BACK. BUT IF PEOPLE REALLY WANT TO COME UP AND SPEAK I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. OKAY, WE HAVE, THANK YOU, SIR. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IF YOU HAVE FILLED OUT A CARD, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP AND YOU HAVE A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT. PLEASE APPROACH, WITH TWO OF YOU COMING UP AT THE SAME TIME. ONE AT A TIME. >> BRIAN -- 2001 SUZANNE DRIVE, TRAMMELL, TEXAS. FIRST I WANTED TO CONGRATULATE [00:55:03] MR. ISLAM. THIS IS A CHALLENGING PIECE OF PROPERTY TO FIT A DEVELOPMENT INTO. I THINK IT IS A GOOD MOVE TO TABLE THIS. I STILL WANT TO JUST BE BECAUSE I WANTED TO GET MY CONCERNS INTO HIM SO THAT HE CAN TAKE THOSE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN DISCUSSING WITH STAFF. I THINK MY CONCERNS ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PROPERTY IN THE PAST, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HAS TOO MUCH DENSITY IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. YOU HAVE GOT SF-40 TO THE EAST AND TEND TO THE SOUTH AND SF-5, YES WE HAVE SF-5 TO THE NORTH BUT I THINK A FOUR-LANE DIVIDED IS A GOOD BARRIER THAT WE CAN SEPARATE THOSE, THE PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS ALSO VERY DIFFICULT. I MIGHT HAVE GONE A LITTLE LARGER ON THE DENSITY. CERTAINLY NOTHING LESS THAN SF-10, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING BIGGER IF THE NUMBERS BEAR OUT FOR THE DEVELOPERS UNDERSTAND IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT PIECE OF PROPERTY. THE OTHER THING I NOTICED IN THE PROPOSAL WAS ORDER OF DEVELOPMENT. ROWLETT HAS A HISTORY BEING BURNED IN DEVELOPMENTS WHERE COMMERCIAL AS PROMISED, RESIDENTIAL IS DELIVERED. SPECIFICALLY IN THE APPLICATION, PHASE 1 IS THE RESIDENTIAL AND PHASE 2, PHASE 3 COMMERCIAL. THEN HE THREW SOME KIND OF TIE-IN ON THAT THAT THERE ARE NO COS AND LEAVE SOME PORTION ARE INCLUDED FOR THIS TO BE PD. I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S POSSIBLE. THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNED ME, AND I CANNOT TELL FROM THE DRAWINGS I WAS TRYING TO SEE MY COMPUTER, WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING ON WITH THE FLOODPLAIN. SIMILAR CONCERNS FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH I WENT TO THE WORKSTATION WHEN THEY WERE DISCUSSING THAT. I KNOW THAT THERE IS VERTICAL VERSUS HORIZONTAL, MY SENSE IS IF YOU GO VERTICAL WITH THE REQUIRED FLOW YOU TEND TO GET HIGHER FLOW RATES AND THE CITIES ENGAGED IN A $3 MILLION PROJECT DOWNSTREAM TO FIX SOME DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT ARE FURTHER DOWN LONG BRANCH CREEK. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE WORK DONE AROUND THE EFFECT OF THE CHANGES IN THE SCULPTURE OF THE PROPERTY ON WHAT'S GOING TO GO ON DOWNSTREAM FROM THE, FROM THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. IN ANOTHER IS A PROCESS THROUGH THAT BUT I TAKE ISSUE WITH THE PROCESS YOU CAN'T FIX THE DRAINAGE AFTER YOU'VE ALREADY BUILT. THAT IS ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND SO, THAT WAS MR. GILLARDI? AND I BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED YOU WERE GOING TO SPEAK ON ITEM 4C SO YOU'VE ALREADY SPEAKING, SIR. [INAUDIBLE] I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT YOU SAID IN YOUR DELIVERANCE THAT YOU ARE SPEAKING ON ITEM 4C OR ON THE -- THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, SIR. THAT BUT YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. AND YOU DID SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. AND YOU DID SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. HOLD ON JUST A MOMENT. [INAUDIBLE] >> WHILE WE ARE ON THE SUBJECT, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND WE HAVE, THIS IS THE FIFTH TIME THAT WE HAVE SEEN WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE SPOT ZONING. PROPOSED FOR THIS TRACK. THE SPOT ZONING APPLICATIONS ARE LIKE RABBITS. THEY JUST KEEP MULTIPLYING. WE GET MORE OF THEM, THIS IS THE FIFTH ONE. ONE WAS UNFORTUNATELY APPROVED AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT SF-40 ZONING HAVE A LOT ONLY 800 FEET FROM THE VILLAS WHICH WAS PASSED IN A WE'VE GOT THE LITTLE TINY LOTS UP THERE, ABOUT 300 FEET FROM THIS THING. I DIDN'T COME TO RALLY UP FOR THIS. YOU KNOW, SPOT ZONING IS JUST A BIG PROBLEM. DAVID BERMAN IN THE PAPER I [01:00:01] GAVE YOU, EXPLAINS WHAT SPOT ZONING IS. AND WHEN YOU COME UP WITH A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ADJACENT USES, AND YOU DON'T HAVE A REASON FOR MAKING THE CHANGE, THEN THE SUPREME COURT SAYS IT'S ILLEGAL. SO, I WANT TO PLEAD WITH THE COUNCIL AND ITS COMMISSION. TO NOT EVEN CONSIDER ZONING APPLICATIONS THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE COMP PLAN. THAT IS WHAT THE LAW BASICALLY IS SAYING. FIRST YOU AMEND THE COMP PLAN AND THEN, YOU COME IN AND REZONE. MOST CITIES DO THAT. ROWLETT DOESN'T. I REALLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT IN CHANGING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES AND ROWLETT, TO PREVENT THINGS LIKE THIS. WE WASTE IN AN ORNAMENT AND NOT A TIME HEARING PRESENTATIONS ON SPOT ZONING, NONCOMPLIANCE, DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE COMP PLAN WHEN ALL OF THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO DO IS SAY WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER A DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH COMP PLAN. YOU SPEND HOURS DOING THIS. I SPEND HOURS. I SPENT A LOT OF MONEY TRYING TO GET TO THE CITY TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I WILL EVER SUCCEED. I MIGHT NOT LIVE LONG ENOUGH. BUT I'M SURE GOING TO TRY. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT ROWLETT NEEDS. WE NEED TO HAVE DELIBERATE PLANNING, WE NEED TO NOT JUST DO KNEE-JERK CHANGE TO THE COMP PLAN LIKE WHAT IS PROPOSED TO DO HERE. WE NEED TO DO IN AN ORDERLY FASHION. AND I JUST PLEAD WITH YOU TO DO THAT. MAKE THIS CITY THE WEIGHT IS CONTROLLED BY THE PUBLIC AND NOT BY DEVELOPERS. AND LAND SPECULATORS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SIR. WE HAVE A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TONIGHT, TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? YES, SIR? >> I HAD SEVERAL CONCERNS AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE COULD TABLE THIS AND GO ON. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR US AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PUBLIC, TO EXPRESS TO THE DEVELOPER, SOME CONCERNS YOU MIGHT HAVE BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO AND REDESIGN THIS, YOU MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO FACE AS YOU COME BACK BEFORE US. WILL SAVE ANYONE HAS AN IDEA OR CONCERN OR ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH THE DEVELOPER, NOW IS A PERFECT TIME TO DO ILLNESS YOU FEEL YOU JUST WANT TO SAVE THE TIME AND DISCUSS IT LATER. >> MR. -- >> OF THINGS A DIFFICULT PROPERTY FOR SURE. I DO LIKE THE IDEA, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN SOMEHOW MAKE IT COMMERCIAL FIRST. BECAUSE IF IT IS BUILT OUT HAS TIME TO BUILD THE HOMES YOU KNOW WHAT THE COMMERCIAL ASPECT BEING THE LAST THING. THE SAME TIME OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT. ALSO, I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THE ALLEY SO MUCH I THINK IT'S KIND OF A, I'D RATHER HAVE BIGGER PROPERTIES. JUST TO SAY LIKE A BIGGER LOT, BIGGER HOUSE. >> YES SIR? YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> KNOW HE'S JUST MAKING A COMMENT. >> I'M JUST KIND OF EXPRESSING, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TABLE IT AND THINK ABOUT IT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MAYBE THEY WILL SAY THEIR OPINION ON AFTER I SAY MINE. I WAS JUST SAYING THE ALLEYS ARE NICE WE ALL LOVE ALLEYS BUT RATHER HAVE BIGGER THIS IS A DIFFICULT PROPERTY AND I GET IT. I LIKE THE COMMERCIAL PART OF IT. IT IS WHAT IT IS AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I LIKE A PRETTY RESIDENTIAL PART, SF-5 IS JUST SO TINY IT HAS TO BE VERY SPECIAL FOR ME TO WANT TO PROVE SF-5 AND AM ALMOST AT THE POINT WHERE I'M CAPPED OUT AT IT. I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH DIVERSITY OF SF-5 PROPERTIES AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN EVEN GET TO SF-7 MIGHT BE ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S TINY AND THEY'RE CUTTING OUT QUITE A FEW HOUSES BUT MAYBE JUST MAKE IT SOMEWHAT EASIER TO SWALLOW, AND BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH THE APPLICANT? >> I WROTE DOWN SOME NOTES AND LIKE THE OTHER TWO HAVE SAID, IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE TO MOVE A LOT OF DIRT OVER THERE. WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF [01:05:02] PROPERTY LEFT IN THE AREA AND THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO FOLLOW THE ROWLETT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I'M VERY HESITANT AND I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANYTHING THAT IS SF-5 THERE WE DEAFLY HAVE TO GO TO A LARGER PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT COINCIDES WITH THE OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY AROUND THERE. AND I WOULD BE PROBABLY LOOKING AT AT LEAST SF-10. THERE ARE THINGS THAT THE STAFF BROUGHT UP WITH REGARDS TO LACK OF ENTRY. I'M NOT QUITE CERTAIN IF I LIKE ALL THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THE WAY IT IS SET UP WITH 300 SQUARE FEET ROOMS OR SQUARE FOOT BUSINESSES. A LOT IS CHANGING IN TODAY'S SOCIETY AND MORE PEOPLE ARE WORKING FROM HOME AND WITH THESE SMALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, NOT -- WE HAVE A LOT OF EMPTY PROPERTY THERE. I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A LITTLE MORE LOOK AT THE CREEK AND HOW CAN THAT BE MORE PBENEFICIAL IN HIS NATURAL BEAUTY. YOU KNOW, THIS HAS TO BE PART OF YOUR PLAN. AND OF COURSE, ALL CONCERNS WITH FLOODING AND HOW YOU WILL GET AROUND TO PROTECTING THE PEOPLE DOWNSTREAM THEIR. I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS SO THAT IF IT IS TABLED, YOU WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT AND IT WILL BE DIFFICULT WITH ALL OF US AGREEING ON WHAT YOU MAY COME FORWARD WITH IF YOU DON'T MAKE A LOT OF CHANGES. >> I THINK I NEGLECTED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE NOTE OF THAT. I THINK SOME GOOD THOUGHTS ARE COMING OUT TONIGHT. FOR THE APPLICANT AND I APPRECIATE THEM WANTING TO TABLE THIS ITEM TONIGHT AND MAYBE REVISIT SOME OF THE DESIGN FEATURES. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM ANYBODY? >> I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES AS FAR AS THE SIZE OF THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE. SF-8 WOULD BE THE MINIMUM BECAUSE THAT IS WAS TO THE SOUTH OF THAT. YOU HAVE TWO LARGE ROADS THAT SEPARATE YOU FROM SF-5 AND IN FACT, IF YOU GO WANDER ABOUT THE SF-5, YOU WILL SEE IT IS INCREDIBLY SMALL, IT IS CLUTTERED, IT IS JUST NOT THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT WE WOULD WANT. I'M NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED WITH HAVING HOMES REGARDLESS OF THEIR SIZE, BEHIND A STRIP MALL. WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CANNOT ACCESS IT EXCEPT BY GOING THROUGH THE STRIP MALL. I REALLY HONESTLY THINK THAT ALL THE RESIDENTIAL NEEDS TO BE RESIDENTIAL AND YOU NEED TO MAKE THOSE LOTS LARGER. AND I AM ADAMANTLY OPPOSED. I WOULD NOT EVEN, EVEN IF I AGREED WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF IT AND THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF IT, I WOULD BE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO IT IF IT WASN'T DEVELOPED SIMULTANEOUSLY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. I THINK AS IT WAS MENTIONED, WALKED INTO TOO MANY OF THESE, YEAH, YEAH THIS IS WHAT WE WILL DO AND WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF IT. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. >> THANK YOU. >> I AGREE ON THE SIMULTANEOUS DEVELOPMENT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SF-40, THE 40,000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH OF THOSE IN ROWLETT AND IT WOULD BE ADJACENT TO THE HOMES I GUESS TO THE EAST. YOU CAN MAKE THAT WORK. >> THANK YOU MS. WILLIAMS. MR. FRISBY, YES SIR? >> JOHN, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? >> YES, I WANT TO KNOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE ASIDE FROM TABLING? >> YES, WE DO. >> BECAUSE I WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THIS REQUEST. >> MR. FRISBY? >> SINCE IT KINDA STARTED ON THIS TRACK, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO, AND I'M NOT OPPOSED TO [01:10:01] MAKING A MOTION TO DENY IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES TO DO THAT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT SEVERAL ITEMS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LANDOWNER AND DEVELOPER. ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU ARE ALSO A DESIGNER BY TRADE. MY FIRST SUGGESTION AS A FELLOW PROFESSIONAL IS GET HELP FROM A GOOD LAND PLANNER, LAND DESIGNER, I WOULD SAY BRING SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE OUTSIDE THE BOX, A LITTLE MORE CREATIVE. AGREE WITH WHAT MARK SAID, REGARDING FOR EXAMPLE, THAT CREEK. SO MANY OF OUR DEVELOPERS COME TO THE TABLE HERE, AND TREAT CREEKS AS IF THEY WERE A LIABILITY TO THEIR PROPERTY. I THINK A CLEVER DESIGNER CAN COME TO THE TABLE WITH THE EXACT OPPOSITE APPROACH WHERE YOU CAN REALLY COME IN AND TURN ALL THE ORGANIC, THE GREEN SPACE THAT YOU HAVE THERE, AND REALLY TURN IT INTO AN ASSET FOR YOUR DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE YOU AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU, ENGINEERS ARE NOT NECESSARILY KNOWN FOR THEIR AESTHETIC DESIGNS. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSULT WITH A GOOD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR LANDSCAPE PLANNER TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY CREATIVE AND POSITIVE. WE LEFT FREE TO BRING IN A GOOD DEVELOPMENT TO THIS VERY IMPORTANT CORNER OF ROWLETT. MEANING ROWLETT ROAD AND MILLER ROAD. AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A VERY CHALLENGING DEVELOPED CORNER. I THINK YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK WITH A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE ROWLETT SIDE OF THE ROAD, ON THAT SIDE OF THE CREEK BUT I TOTALLY AGREE WITH MY COMMISSIONERS OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE STRIP DEVELOPMENT ON MILLER ROAD. I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THAT WILL FIT. I THINK WE ARE DOING A DISSERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY IF WE APPROVE KIND OF A DEVELOPMENT WHERE WE HAVE A STRIP SHOPPING CENTER WITH HIDDEN POCKET OF RESIDENTIAL BEHIND IT. I ALSO AGREE WITH THE PHASING, THE TIMING. YOU NEED TO COME READY TO GO WITH THE WHOLE THING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT MY PARTNERS UP HERE AT THE TABLE, BUT I WOULD NOT PULL A TRIGGER ON LETTING YOU START WITH THE RESIDENTIAL FIRST WITH THE PROMISE OF COMMERCIAL IN THE FUTURE. THAT IS NOT UNDER MY WATCH. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. LET ME FINISH MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. I ALSO AGREE THE SF-5 IS WAY TOO SMALL. I THINK YOU'VE GOT SOME VERY LARGE, VERY VALUABLE HOMES IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST WITH IN A SPITTING DISTANCE OF DEVELOPMENT AND THOSE FOLKS WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO SEE SOMETHING COME IN. WE'VE ALREADY HAD A LOT OF FRICTION FOR THE APPROVALS OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NORTH. AND BUT EVEN THEY TURNED THEIR CREEKSIDE DEVELOPMENT AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING POSITIVE WITH IT. LASTLY, AND VERY IMPORTANTLY, YOU WILL DO A GENDER STUDY OUT THERE. I'M SEEING A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT REPORTS COME IN, STATING THAT BECAUSE OF -- I'M TALKING TO AS AN ENGINEER, THAT UNDERSTANDS DRAINAGE. YOU MAY THINK THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE NON-COINCIDENT PEAKS, YOU'RE NOT CREATING A FLOODING ISSUE OR DRAINAGE ISSUE. LEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT DETENTION AND THEREFORE YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH REQUESTING NO DETENTION ON YOUR DEVELOPMENT. KEEP IN MIND THAT DETENTION IS NOT JUST THERE TO REGULATE THE FLOW OF WATER. IT ACTUALLY HELPS TO DETAIN POLLUTANTS AND UNDESIRABLE THINGS, SEDIMENT ETC. FROM GETTING INTO THE CREEK AND ESPECIALLY IN ROWLETT. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU ARE AGAIN, WITHIN A SPITTING DISTANCE OF -- AND IN A CROWD THAT COMES OFF OF EITHER SIDE OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT THAT GETS INTO THE CREEK IS GOING TO GET INTO THE LAKE AND WE OWE IT TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION FROM DEVELOPMENTS FROM GETTING INTO THE LAKE. [01:15:01] I'VE GIVEN YOU A HANDFUL OF POINT OUT THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER IT. YOU CAN GO BACK TO THIS IN THE FUTURE AND VISIT THE VIDEO ONLINE. AND REALLY THINK WHAT WE ARE ASKING BECAUSE IF YOU COME FORWARD, THESE FOLKS UP HERE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE HER NEXT TIME YOU COME. AND I THINK WE ARE SHARING SOME GOOD OBSERVATIONS WITH YOU. I HOPE YOU REALLY TAKE IT TO HEART AND WE REALLY WANT TO SEE YOU COME IN WITH A REALLY GREAT DEVELOPMENT IDEA, FOR WHAT I KNOW IS A REALLY IMPORTANT CORNER IN A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE CITY. I WOULD APPRECIAE YOUR HELP WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU MR. FRISBY. MR. -- >> YES MA'AM I LIKE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE THIS REQUEST.> WE HAVE MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DENY THIS ITEM TONIGHT. >> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. SWIFT. ALL IN FAVOR? AND THAT ITEM PASSES WITH MAJORITY. WE APPRECIATE EVERYBODY THIS EVENING. THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.