Mar 22, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:10]

>> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO ROWLETT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND ZONING MEETING ON MARCH 22, 2022. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071, THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN.

THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS, OR REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION OR CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. TO PROVIDE COMMENT FOR THE MEETING, IF YOU ARE NOT ATTENDING IN PERSON, PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO CITIZENINPUT@ROWLETT.COM BY 3:30 M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING.

PLEASE SPECIFY -- PLEASE SPECIFICALLY STATE WHETHER YOUR COMMENT IS REGARDING A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM ARE GENERAL, THE COMMISSION. YOUR COMMENT WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD DURING THE MEETING AND IT MUST BE WITHIN THE THREE LIMITED TIME LIMIT. FOR IN-PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY'S COUNCIL CHAMBERS. SO WE HAVE A QUORUM, SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM WOULD BE AT THIS TIME, THREE-MINUTE COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY COMMENT. [INDISCERNIBLE] ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT?

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

>> FEMALE SPEAKER: YES. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF I THINK TYPOS ON PAGE 2, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH SAYS COMMISSION FRISBEE INSTEAD OF COMMISSIONER. SAME THING IN 4B. THEN ON THE LAST PAGE, IT SAYS MAZEROLLE ISLAM, THE PROPERTY OWNER CAME FORWARD TO DISCUSS WHEN THE PROJECT WAS DELAYED. SHE ASKED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAYS BEFORE THE PROJECT IS -- PROPERTY IS REZONED. THAT WAS A MAIL, FIRST OF ALL. AND I THINK THE SENTENCE CAME OUT OF ONE OF THE PREVIOUS, ACTUALLY I THINK IT'S FROM THE FEBRUARY 22 MEETINGS, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS ITEM IS ABOUT, IT WAS NOT ABOUT THE DELAY IN THE 90 DAYS. THIS WAS FROM THE -- I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND THAT SENTENCE CAME FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

>> CHAIRPERSON: MS. NEXT, DO YOU HAVE THOSE CORRECTIONS? >> SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> FEMALE SPEAKER: ON THE LAST PAGE WHERE IT SAYS MAZEROLLE, ISLAM, THE PROPERTY OWNER, FROM THAT, FROM THAT WORD FOR WORD, THAT SENTENCE IS WORD FOR WORD FROM THE FEBRUARY 22 MEETING MINUTES. SO THIS IS NOT WHAT MR. ISLAM'S ITEM WAS ABOUT. IT WAS NOT ABOUT A DELAYED

PROJECT. THAT WAS A DIFFERENT PROJECT. >> CHAIRPERSON: MA'AM, YOU

SAID -- >> SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE] >> CHAIRPERSON: THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? HEARING NO MORE, WAITING FOR A MOTION. MR. EGAN.

>> MALE SPEAKER: I LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 8 MINUTES WITH THE CORRECTIONS

THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED TONIGHT. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: I SECOND.

> CHAIRPERSON: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR FOR APPROVAL OF MARCH 8 MINUTES WITH THE CORRECTIONS MADE BY MS. SCHINDLER, LET'S CALL A VOTE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ON INDIVIDUAL ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION, WE HAVE ITEM 4A,

[4A. Consider and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Fatih Yildirim, Metropark Builders, on behalf of property owner Melih Yildirim for approval of a Tree Removal Permit application on property zoned Single-Family Residential (SF-8) District. The approximately 3.88- acre site is situated in the Hanse Hamilton Survey, Abstract Number 548, approximately 130 feet northwest of the intersection of Armstrong Lane and Princeton Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

[00:05:30]

>> MALE SPEAKER: ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, IT IS THERE IN THE SHADING OF RED. THE RDC DOES REQUIRE THAT THE REMOVAL OF THREE OR MORE PROTECTED TREES REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

BACKGROUND ON THIS PROPERTY: THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN DECEMBER 2021 THAT SETS OUT 14 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS, PREVIOUSLY THIS MONTH THE SITE PLAN WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY FOR THAT SUBDIVISION, AND THEN THIS, SHOULD THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT BE GRANTED, THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM FOR THE GRADING OF THE SITE IN PREPARATION FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE RDC AGAIN LAYS OUT THE GOAL IS TO PRESERVE AS MANY AS WE CAN OVER THE LONG-ESTABLISHED TREES. SO THAT BECAUSE IT TAKES A LONG TIME FOR TREES TO GROW, THAT WE MAINTAIN WHAT WE HAVE AND ALSO FOR MITIGATION OF THOSE TREES. SO PROTECT THE TREE AS DEFINED BY THE RDC WOULD BE ANY TREE WITH A MINIMUM OF EIGHT CALIBER INCHES AT DBH, DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT, WHICH IS HE IS FOUR AND A HALF FEET ABOVE GRADE, FOR ANY TREE WITH AN EXEMPTION FOR HACKBERRY TREES, THAT IS 11 INCHES FOR HACKBERRY TREE AS WELL AS ANY TREES THAT AROUND -- THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON THE PROHIBITED PLANT LIST. ANY TREE ON THE PROHIBITED PLANT LIST IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A PROTECTED TREE. OF THE 15 PROTECTED TREES ON THIS SITE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE SIX OF THOSE. THOSE TREES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE HOME SITES, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND EASEMENTS. AGAIN, THE LOT CONFIGURATION BROUGHT FORWARD WITH THIS PERMIT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SITE PLAN IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE SECTION OF THIS DISH FISH OF THE RDC THAT TALKS ABOUT TREE PRESERVATION DOES GIVE A ONE INCH TO ONE INCH CREDIT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PROTECTED TREES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE 964 -- SORRY, GOT THAT NUMBER WRONG THERE. LET'S GET DOWN TO THE CHART IN THERE. THE CHART, 278 PROTECTED INCHES ON THE SITE, OF WHICH THEY WERE PROPOSED TO REMOVE 122, OF WHICH 156 WILL REMAIN WHICH MEANS THERE IS A CREDIT OF 34 INCHES OF PROTECTED CALIBER INCHES ON THE SITE, BUILDING THERE WOULD BE NO REQUIRED MITIGATION. WOULD ALSO NOTE THERE ARE ADDITIONAL 12 UNPROTECTED TREES ON THE PROPERTY. THOSE TREES MAY BE REMOVED PER THE RDC WITHOUT ANY MEDICATION. THOSE TREES TOTAL UP TO 204 INCHES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PRESERVE FOUR OF THOSE TREES, TOTALING 44 CALIBER INCHES. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS: THERE ARE TWO REQUIRED FRONT YARD TREES THAT WILL BE PLANTED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOMES. THOSE TREES DO HAVE A MINIMUM OF THREE CALIBER INCHES AND A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 12 FEET. I WILL SHOW THOSE OVER HERE, THOSE ARE THE ONES THERE AS WELL AS THOSE DOWN HERE.

ALSO, THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWING FOR HOMEBUYERS TO SELECT TWO ADDITIONAL CANOPY TREES FROM THIS SELECT LEAST OF TREE SPECIES WHICH WILL BE PLANTED IN THE REAR YARD IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOMES. THOSE TREES ARE LISTED TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF FOUR CALIBER INCHES.

THEY WOULD ALSO BE FURTHER ENHANCEMENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS THE STATE'S TREE CANOPY. THESE ARE BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RDC. AND THOSE TREES ARE THE ONES THAT YOU SEE BACK ALONG IN THERE AS WELL AS HERE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL THE APPROVAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF THOSE TWO CANOPY TREES OVER AT LEAST FOUR CALIBER INCHES TO BE PLANTED IN THE REAR YARDS AS REFLECTED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. WE BELIEVE THAT THE REQUESTED TREE REMOVALS ARE NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WITH THAT, ANY QUESTIONS AT

THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE? >> CHAIRPERSON: DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO MAKE A

[00:10:03]

PRESENTATION? >> MALE SPEAKER: THE APPLICANT I BELIEVE IS NOT HERE THIS

EVENING. >> CHAIRPERSON: OKAY. COMMISSIONERS? ANY QUESTIONS

FOR STAFF? ANY COMMENTS? MR. EGAN? >> MALE SPEAKER: YEAH. WE ARE DEFINITELY ADDING A LOT MORE TREES TO EACH OF THE PROPERTIES ON THIS PIECE OF LAND, AND IT

WILL BE BENEFICIAL I THINK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. >> MALE SPEAKER: YES. SORT OF ADDITIONAL NOTE WOULD BE MANY OF THE TREES THAT ARE ON THERE, THERE ARE VERY FEW THAT MAY BE INTENTIONAL TREES ON THAT SIDE. I AM SURE MOST OF YOU READ THROUGH, AND IF NOT ALL OF YOU READ THROUGH THE REPORT AND SAW THE TREE SPECIES THAT WERE THERE, THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE MOST DESIRABLE TREES BUT I THINK WE WILL DEFINITELY UPGRADE BOTH IN QUANTITY AND

QUALITY. >> CHAIRPERSON: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? HEARING NONE. I

WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. EGAN? >> MALE SPEAKER: I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE 24 CALIBER INCH CANOPY TREES BE PLANTED IN THE REAR YARD AS REFLECTED IN

THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. >> CHAIRPERSON: I HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DO I HAVE

A SECOND? >> FEMALE SPEAKER: SECOND. >> CHAIRPERSON: I'M HEARING A SECOND. SO LET'S CALL A VOTE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ON ITEM 4B 4B: CONSIDER MAKING

[4B. Consider and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Dayton Macatee, Macatee Engineering LLC, on behalf of property owner Willow Spring, LLC, for approval of a Tree Removal Permit application on property zoned Planned Development (PD) District. The approximately 2.58-acre site is situated in the Harrison Master Survey, Abstract Number 658 and the Harrison Blevins Survey, Abstract Number 94, directly east of the intersection of Liberty Grove Road and Dalrock Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas]

>> MALE SPEAKER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY AND THANK YOU FOR READING THROUGH ALL OF THAT. SAVED ME THE HASSLE OF DOING SO MYSELF. AND SO, THIS IS A VERY SIMILAR CASE TO WHAT YOU JUST HEARD. IT IS A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR A 12-HOUSE OR A 12 LOT SUBDIVISION. IT IS FOR A WATER SPRING TOWNHOME TUBS -- SUBDIVISION. SECTION 77 504 OF THE RDC STATES THE REMOVAL OF MORE THAN THREE PROTECTED TREES REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION. GO AHEAD AND CAN YOU BE GOOD GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT AS TO LOCATION. IT'S ROUGHLY LOCATED IN THE CORNER OF LIBERTY GROVE ROAD AND DALROCK ROAD. AS A ROUGHLY BECAUSE MOST OF THE SUBDIVISION ITSELF WILL BE FURTHER EAST INTO LIBERTY GROVE AS WELL AS ITS ACCESS. A BIT OF A BACKGROUND, IT CITY COUNCIL APPROVES PLAN DEVELOPMENT EVERY 16 OF 2016. MANY OTHER APPROVALS HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THEN. THE LATEST OF WHICH WAS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON AUGUST 24 OF LAST YEAR.

SO IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD NOW, INTEGRATING IN PREPARATION OF CONSTRUCTION, THE SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE STREET REMOVAL PERMIT.

THE RDC STATES THE PRESERVATION OF LONG-ESTABLISHED TREES IS ENCOURAGED AND SUNSET REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION OF PROTECTED TREES. THE RDC ALSO REQUIRES TREE REMOVAL PERMITS BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IF MORE THAN THREE PROTECTED TREES ARE BEING REMOVED. CREDIT DEFINITION, PROTECTED TREES ARE DEFINED BY ANY TREE WITH A MINIMUM EIGHT INCH CALIBER DBH, OR 11 INCHES DBH FOR HACKBERRY, BUT IS NOT LISTED UNDER PROHIBITED. LIST. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, DBH IS H IS WHERE DIAMETER BREAST HEIGHT IS MEASURED AT FOUR AND A HALF FEET OF UPGRADE. THAT IS WHAT THE SURVEYS TYPICALLY USED TO MEASURE THEIR EXISTING CALIBER R OF CALIPER MEASUREMENT OF EACH EXISTING TREE. F THE 106 PROTECTED TREES ON SITE, 51 ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL. THESE TREES ARE LOCATED WITHIN HOMESITES RIGHT AWAY AND EASEMENTS! THAT IS WHY THEY ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED. THE LOT

[00:15:04]

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE, YOU WILL SEE THAT MOST OF THE TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED ARE WITHIN THE ACTUAL PAD SITES AS WELL AS THE CIRCULATION, VEHICULAR CIRCULATION AREAS THAT ARE A DIRECT RESULT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. SECTION 77 504 OF THE RELATIVE CODE GIVES 1-1 CREDIT FOR PROTECTED TREES. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO PRESERVE 55 TREES TOTALING 667 CALIBER INCHES. AND SO, IT'S IN EXCESS OF THE 51 TREES WERE THE 659 CALIBER INCHES, THEY DREQUIRE ADDITIONA MEDICATION. ON YOUR SCREEN, SEE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWINGNOT ONLY THE NEWLY PLANTED TREES, WHICH ARE RE REFLECTED AS PART OF THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER TO THE SOUTH AS WELL AS THE TREES ON THE STREET AND THE ENTRYWAY FEATURE. THEY DO HAVE A COUPLE THAT ARE ALSO BEING PLANTED ALONG THE CORNER. BUT EVERYTHING ELSE THAT YOU SEE IS A CIRCLE WITHIN THE SITE, REFLECTS THE TREES THAT ARE BEING PRESERVED ON-SITE. AND SO, IT CREATES A PRETTY NIFTY OPEN SPACE.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, IS THE TREE REMOVAL IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE A DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLAN DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAN, INCLUDING ALL NECESSARY RIGHT OF WAYS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND BUILDING PADS AND NO ADDITIONAL MEDICATION IS REQUIRED. THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE, BUT I AM ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF THEM IF YOU

HAVE. >> CHAIRPERSON: DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO MAKE A

STATEMENT OR PRESENTATION OR JUST HERE TO ANSWER? >> MALE SPEAKER: I BELIEVE

JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> CHAIRPERSON: COMMISSIONERS?

ANY QUESTIONS? MS. WILLIAMS? >> FEMALE SPEAKER: I JUST HAVE A COMMENT ON THESE P COUNTRIES.

IT'S LIKE TREE NUMBER 151 154, 156 AND 157. THESE TREES ARE 40 FEET IN HEIGHT, 41 FEET IN HEIGHT, 30 FEET IN HEIGHT. THEY ARE ALL LISTED AS BEING IN GOOD CONDITIONS. ARE THOSE

GOING TO BE PRESERVED OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE REMOVED? >> MALE SPEAKER: I CAN GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. I CAN LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS, BUT I CAN -- YEAH, I CAN LOOK AT THE SURVEY, THE TREE SURVEY AND MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE -- I CAN GIVE YOU THAT

INFORMATION. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: OKAY. >> SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> MALE SPEAKER: SURE, I CAN DO THAT. IF YOU DON'T MIND REMINDING ME WHAT THOSE NUMBERS

ARE? >> FEMALE SPEAKER: 151, 154, 155, 66, 57, AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER 1, 132. IT IS IN GOOD CONDITION. IT IS 30 FEET TALL.

. >> MALE SPEAKER: WE ARE LOOKING IN THE 50S. THAT'S WHAT'S WAY, WE LIKE HER SO MUCH. 151, A PECAN, IT'S IN GOOD CONDITION. IT IS USED TO -- NEEDS TO BE MITIGATED, SO IS BEING REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED. 154, ALSO FOR MITIGATION. 155, FOR MITIGATION. 156, FOR MITIGATION. 157, FOR MITIGATION. AND THE LAST ONE

WAS 132? >> FEMALE SPEAKER: M-HM. >> MALE SPEAKER: ALSO TO BE MITIGATED. ALL THAT YOU MENTIONED ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.

[00:20:09]

>> FEMALE SPEAKER: COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU'D ALLOW ME PLEASE, CARLOS, FOR YOUR EDIFICATION OF THE COMMISSION INTO THOSE THAT ARE WATCHING AND PERHAPS THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE, ARE THOSE TREES IN THE WAY OFF ENCUMBERING LOTS OF UTILITY EASEMENTS? BECAUSE OUR ORDINANCE IS SOMEWHAT FORGIVING WHEN IT COMES TO THAT AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE BEING MITIGATED. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT FOR THE COMMISSION AND OUR AUDIENCE.

>> MALE SPEAKER: YES. SO I AM LOOKING AT THE PLANES HERE, AND I CAN ALSO BRING THESE PLANS, OBVIOUSLY IT'S A MUCH SMALLER SITE OR SMALLER PLANS, BUT MANY OF THOSE CONCENTRATIONS, YOU WILL SEE 154 HERE ALONG THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY, THAT IS ALSO DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE SIDEWALK AS WELL AS THE END OF THAT TURNAROUND. AND SO, THE ROOT SYSTEM WOULD BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE PLACEMENT OF THAT TREE. SAME WOULD BE FOR 155, 156, 157. THEY ARE ALL KIND OF ALONG THIS EDGE OVER HERE. 151, I AM LOOKING FOR, IT IS THE ONE DIRECTLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND SO, THESE ARE ALL TREES BUT DESPITE THEIR QUALITY ARE ESSENTIALLY A BYPRODUCT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. AND SO, THEY ARE NOT IN THE PLACE OR IN A

POSITION TO BE PRESERVED. >> FEMALE SPEAKER: OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRPERSON: MS. CHANDLER? >> FEMALE SPEAKER: YOU SAID THAT THE TREES ARE FOR MITIGATION, BUT BECAUSE OF THE 1:1 CREDIT, THERE WAS NO ACTUAL MEDICATION REQUIRED; IS THAT

CORRECT? >> MALE SPEAKER: THAT IS CORRECT.

>> FEMALE SPEAKER: THEY ARE OFFSET BY THE ONES BEING AT PRESERVED?

>> MALE SPEAKER: THE COURT IT OFFERS THE MITIGATION? >> FEMALE SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRPERSON: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING ON, AND WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR.

EGAN? >> MALE SPEAKER: YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF

THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. >> CHAIRPERSON: WE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.