Nov 22, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:08]

>> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22ND, 2022. IT'S 7:00 P.M. WE HAVE A QUORUM. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVISE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS OR REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION OR CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT, IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO APRIL TEND A MEETING IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITIZEN INPUT FORM ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING. ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OVER IN THAT

[2. CITIZENS’ INPUT]

>> STANLEY POLLARD, 3110 SYCAMORE STREET HERE IN ROWLETT.

I WANTED TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT ZONING IN GENERAL. LATER ON, YOU'LL HAVE A SPECIFIC ITEM THAT I'LL ADDRESS, ONE OF THE THINGS, COMMISSION, THAT BOTHER ME AS A CITIZEN, IS THAT SOMETIMES AN APPLICANT COMES TO US THAT IS THE CITY AND ASKS FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING. AND, UM, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A RESIDENTIAL AREA. AND SOMETIMES IT'S A REQUEST THAT, UM, WE'LL SAY THAT YOU HAVE AN SF-9 AND THEY WANT TO GO TO AN SF-5. SO, THEY'RE PUTTING MANY MORE LOTS AND VEHICLES IN THAT PLOT OF LAND VERSUS WHAT IT WAS ZONED FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF MANY TIMES IN THE RECENT PAST THAT THE COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL FOR THAT MATTER IS EVER REQUESTED THAT THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER PUT IN ADDITIONAL LANES FOR TRAFFIC TO SIMULATE THE TRAFFIC THROUGH A ROADWAY OR INTERSECTION. AND YOU CAN. THE BIG SECRET IS THAT YOU COULD ASK FOR THAT, CAN YOU DEMAND IT FROM THEM? NO, YOU CAN'T, BUT, NEITHER ARE YOU REQUIRED TO GIVE THEM THE ZONING. BUT, YOU COULD ASK FOR IT. AND IF THEY'RE GOOD CITIZEN LOOKING OUT FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY, I THINK THAT YOU'LL FIND THEY WILL BE AGREEABLE OR NEGOTIATE ON THAT END. AND THAT'S NOT GIVING UP ANYTHING FOR, UM, IMPACT FEES FOR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S JUST PLAIN PUTTING DOWN AN ADDITIONAL LANE OF TRAFFIC THAT'S NEEDED IN THE AREA. AND LATER ON, YOU'RE GOING TO PROBABLY SEE THE POTENTIAL OF THIS HAPPENING.

SO, KEEP THAT IN MIND THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS ASK FOR IT. THEY CAN DENY DOING IT, BUT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THEM THE ZONING

EITHER. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THAT'S THE ONLY SPEAKER CARD THAT I HAVE. DO YOU HAVE ANY

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

REQUESTS FOR CITIZEN INPUT? >> OKAY. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 3. THE CONSENT AGENDA. THERE'S ONLY ONE ITEM ON THAT AGENDA TONIGHT, CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 8TH, 2022, P & Z MEETING. COMMISSIONERS HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES, DO WE HAVE ANY EDITS, CHANGES, COMMENTS? NO. OKAY. WELL, I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 8TH,

2022, AS PRESENTED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 8TH MINUTES, DO I HAVE

[00:05:03]

A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A SECOND BY MR. ENGEN. THE FIRST WAS BY

[4A. Consider action to approve a request by Mario Collazo regarding a request to allow a street-facing garage in lieu of a "L" or "J" hook driveway for property located at 7722 Garner Road in the Charles Merrill Survey, Abstract No. 957, City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

COUNTY, TEXAS.. YES, SIR? >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR PAND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AN ZONING. I'M PRESENTS 7722 GARDENER ROAD. . FOR SOME BACKGROUND, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED SF 8 DISTRICT AND REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 8 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREA. THE LOT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS APPROXIMATELY 5400 SQUARE FEET AND IT'S CONSIDERED ILLEGAL AND NON-CONFORMING LOTS. SECTION 77905 OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE ALLOWS FOR NON-CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD TO BE DEVELOPED UNDER THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONE WITH THE LARGEST LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS WITHIN WHICH THE LO WOULD BE CONFORMING. IN THIS CASE, THE LOT WOULD FOLLOW THE SF-5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BECAUSE IT IS THE LARGEST LOT REQUIREMENTS IT WOULD FALL UNDER. THE REQUEST COMES FROM SECTION 77508 D 3 OF THE RDC WHICH STATES "UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GARAGES SHALL USE OUR" J "HOOK DRIVEWAYS AND DOORS SHALL NOT FACE THE PUBLIC STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A STREET-FACING GARAGE. SO, ON THIS STREET, ON GARNER ROAD, THERE'S 29 LOTS ON THOSE LOTS OUT OF THOSE THERE ARE ONLY TWO WITHOUT J HOOK GARAGES. AS APPROVED AS REQUIRED BY THE SECTION 308 RDC. STANDARDS DOOR FOR EACH BAY OR A DOUBLE BAY DOOR NO MORE THAN 18-FEET IN WIDTH. ADDITIONALLY, GARAGES MORE THAN 25% OF THE FACADE SHALL BE RECESSED A MINIMUM OF FOUR FEET BEHIND EITHER THE FRONT WALL PLAIN OF THE HOUSE OR THE FRONT WALL PLAIN OF THE PORCH THAT EXTENDS HORIZONTALLY ACROSS AT LEAST 25% OF THE HOUSE. SO, SF 8 DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS MINIMUMS, THE LOT MUST BE 110'IN DEPTH, 65'IN WIDTH AND THERE'S A 25-FOOT FRONT SETBACK. THE STANDARDS THIS WOULD FALL UNARE SF FIVE AND THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE 100-FOOT DEPTH, 50-FOOT IN WIDTH. AND 10 FOOT SETBACK. TO KEEP WITH THE NEIGHBORING CHARACTER, A 25-FOOT FRONT SETBACK IS BEING PROPOSED AS A CONDITION IF APPROVED. SO, RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A STREET-FACING GARAGE WITH AT FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE GARAGE SHALL BE LOCATED 25 FEET BEHIND THE PROPERTY LINE. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS,

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?" >> MR. COTE?

>> SO, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, HERE. THE SIDE SETBACKS FOR AN SF-5 LOT ARE WHAT? FIVE OR SEVEN FEET?

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS 10. >> SORRY.

>> NO, IT SHOWED WHAT THE DRAWINGS WERE.

>> I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SO, IT IS BETWEEN 5-10 FEET.

>> WHO OWNS LOT 7802? THAT'S THE ONE DIRECTLY BEHIND.

>> DIRECTLY BEHIND IT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST. IT'S THE SAME OWNER. SO, WHEN YOU HAVE, OWNERSHIP THEY WOULD HAVE

ACCESS TO IT. >> WELL, I WANT TO BE SURE BECAUSE IT'S LAND LOCKED IF IT IS.

>> OKAY. BUT, THAT PROPERTY IS OWNED BY HIM?

[00:10:03]

>> YES. >> OKAY. SO, YOU SAY THAT, UM, IF WE APPROVE THIS, THEN IT NEEDS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 77508-D-3 WHICH ACCORDING TO THE DRAWING THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US IN OUR PACKET THAT'S NOT GOING TO COME CLOSE

TO MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS. >> SO, FOR THAT ONE IT WAS CONCEPTIONUAL JUST TO GET AN IDEA OF IT.

>> AND THAT'S THE IDEA YOU GAVE ME, BUT, IT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF 77508.D-3. THE GARAGE IS 58% OF THE FACADE, YET, IT DOESN'T SIT FOUR FEET BEHIND THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING LINE OR THE WALL OF THE FRONT PORCH.

>> RIGHT, THEY WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS DESIGN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO DOA TO GET THAT APPROVED. SO, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE FRONT ENTRY

GARAGE. >> AND A WAIVER TO THE SECTION 77508D3, THEN? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR AS WELL?

>> SO, NO, THE ASK IS JUST SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE A FRONT

ENTRY GARAGE. >> MAY BE I'M, I'M NOT ASKING THE QUESTION CORRECTLY. I DON'T KNOW.

>> I THINK THE QUESTION IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE ATTACHED SITE PLAN WITH, RIGHT? AND I THINK THE ONLY THING CONCEPTIONUALLY THAT THE TEAM WAS TRYING TO POINT OUT, IS THAT IS SHOULD THIS LOT BE APPROVED TO ALLOW A FRONT-FACING GARAGE THAT IT NOT EXTEND BEYOND 25 FEET OR CLOSER TO THE ROAD MORE THAN 25 FEET AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS TO KEEP IN MIND WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. AS IT RELATES TO BUILDING SETBACKS AND AS IT RELATES TO THE SITE PLAN REPRESENTED ONE OF THE CONDITIONS SHOULD BE THAT IT NOT MIRROR THIS AND IT SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE? >> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO

BUILD? >> I MEAN, TO APPROVE A PLAN THAT HASN'T BEEN REVIEWED AND IS JUST BEING PROVIDED TO SHOW, CONCEPTUALLY, THAT IN NO WAY, WE CAN REQUEST THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS NOT TO TIE DOWN THIS SITE PLAN BUT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BUILDING ITSELF DOES NOT ENCROACH INTO THE 25-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK BUILDING LINE. I THINK THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION IS PURELY A FRONT-FACING GARAGE.

I DON'T THINK THAT SITE PLAN CAN BE USED IN THIS INSTANCE TO, UM, BE ATTACHED TO THE DRAWING. THIS WAS MERELY CONCEPTUAL?

>> THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND THE SITE PLANNER KNOW THAT IS IF THEY WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS DESIGN, IT WOULD NEED APPROVAL THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.

>> OKAY. >> YES.

>> SO, ONE OTHER THING, I DROVE DOWN THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OKAY, AND I NEED TO, UM, PUT A CAVEAT ON THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS, BECAUSE, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW DALLAS CAT IS DOWN BECAUSE OF A CYBER ATTACK, SO, I WAS UNABLE TO GET THE PROPER DATES ON HERE. BUT, THE NUMBER OF LOTS IN QUESTION IS 29, OF WHICH ONE LOT CONTAINS A CHURCH ONE LOT'S A FLAG POLE SO THERE'LL NEVER BE A HOUSE FRONTING THE LOAD. AND TWO LOTS ARE COVERED BY ONE HOME, SO, WE'RE REALLY DOWN TO ONLY 26 BUILDINGS OR LOTS THAT WOULD BE ON THIS ROAD. OF THOSE 26, 20 LOTS, NINE OF WHICH ARE PRE, I'M GOING TO SAY 1970, BUT THEY'RE PROBABLY A LITTLE OLDER THAN THAT, OKAY, OF THOSE, ONLY TWO HAVE GARAGES THAT ARE FRONT-LOADED. OKAY. EVERYTHING ELSE ON THAT STREET IS EITHER REAR-LOADED, FROM AN ALLEY, OR, SIDE-LOADED. AND, IN FACT, THE TWO ADJACENT TO THIS LOT ARE SIDE-LOADED GARAGES. NOW, THE REQUEST FOR THE FRONT LOAD WAS BECAUSE THEY WANTED MORE GREEN SPACE. AND THEY OWN 20 WHAT IS THAT, 7802 DIRECTLY BEHIND THEIR HOUSE WHICH IS ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE FOR THEM. SO, I'M NOT

[00:15:05]

SEEING WHERE -- >> THE CLARIFICATION FOR THAT ONE, THEY DON'T OWN IT, IT'S THE NEIGHBOR NEXT TO THEM.

>> 7718 OR 7804? >> IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE

LOT RIGHT BEHIND IT? >> RIGHT.

>> THE NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST OF IT IS THE ONES THAT OWN THAT

LOT. NOT THEM. >> I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT THAT YOU SAID THAT THEY DID. OKAY. IN ANY CASE, IT STILL STANDS THAT HE'S ASKING US TO VARY FROM WHAT IS CURRENTLY ON GARNER ROAD BY A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT. IN OTHER WORDS, MY CONCLUSION IS THAT A FRONT-ENTRY GARAGE WOULD BE OUT OF CHARACTER OF THE HOMES ON GARNER STREET, I WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THIS.

>> I WAS CONFUSED TOO, WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH THE INFORMATION OF HOW MANY LOTS HAD A FRONT ENTRY APPROACH, VERSUS A "J", OR "L", OR REAR ENTRY. SO, THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY, FULLY FRONT-FACING

GARAGE ON THE STREET? >> NO, THERE'S ADDITIONAL.

>> THERE'S TWO MORE? >>

(INDISCERNIBLE) >> AND HOW CLOSE ARE THEY TO

THIS HOUSE? >> THEY'RE ALL THE WAY AT THE

END OF THE STREET. >> OKAY.

>> CAN WE GO TO THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE OVERHEAD PICTURE?

>> IT'S SO LIGHT, IT'S HARD TO TELL.

>> IS IT THE ONES AND LOOKING FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW, IS IT THE TWO HOUSES THAT ARE BUILT TO THE LEFT? AND THOSE, ESSENTIALLY, TWO DOORS DOWN THOSE ARE BOTH FRONT-LOADING

GARAGES? >> YES. THE ONES THERE YES.

>> IS IT YOUR FEELING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT THEY'VE LAID OUT HERE ON THIS SITE PLAN?

>> I WOULD HAVE TO LET THE OWNER UM --

>> DO YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO WITH THIS DESIGN ON THIS LOT THAT YOU ARE SHOWING US IN THIS SITE PLAN, LIKE, THE BACK AND FRONT VARIANCES ON THE OTHER ITEMS.

>> THE OTHER VARIANCES WILL LIKELY HAVE TO BE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCES BECAUSE THEY'RE RELATED TO THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING CANNOT CONSIDER. THE ONLY THING THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CAN CONSIDER IS WHETHER THEY WOULD BE BE AMEANABLE TO OR APROOF A FRONT-LOADED GARAGE VERSUS A "J" OR A HOOK, OR AN "L" SIDE GARAGE. NOW, THAT'S WHY, I THINK STAFF WAS TRYING TO SIMPLIFY AND EXPLAIN THAT THE 25-FOOT BUILDING LINE WAS THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN, THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE AREA AND BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE LOTS WOULD BE ACCESSED OFF OF GARNER ROAD, BECAUSE IT IS AN AREA THAT IS DEVELOPED FROM AN AGE PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S A VERY DIVERSIFIED STOCK THERE. ALL OF THOSE HOMES WOULD BE ACCESSED OFFER OF GARNER ROAD THAT IS WHY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS FAVORABLE, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT IN ORDER TO KEEP IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT THERE, THE FEW THAT ARE, THAT THEY TRY AND STAY AS ALIGNED AS POSSIBLE FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF A VISUAL PERSPECTIVE.

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

STAFF? GENTLEMEN? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT, I MEAN, IF THERE'S OTHER FRONT-FACING GARAGES ON THE STREET, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR TO DENY THEM AS LONG AS THEY -- I MEAN, THIS IS JUST MY FEELING AND PERSPECTIVE, AS LONG AS THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY STAFF. UM, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? DID THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK, YOU DON'T

HAVE TO, BUT, JUST OFFERING? >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> MR. COTE A COMMENT? >> BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER HOMES ON THE STREET THAT HAVE FRONT-FACING GARAGES, AGAIN, I WOULD CAUTION THAT THOSE ARE EXTREMELY OLD HOMES THAT ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE THERE VERY LONG TO BEGIN WITH. AND IN

[00:20:03]

MS. WILLIAMS? >> NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. (INAUDIBLE). >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES,

SURE. >>> HI, MIME THE OTHER THAN AT

7722 GARNER ROAD. AND, SO, >> COULD YOU STATE YOUR CURRENT

ADDRESS SIR? >> 7029 LANAN DRIVE.

>> THANK YOU. >> OF COURSE. AND SO, I GUESS THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR MY REQUEST FOR THE STREET-FACING GARAGE, THE "L" SHAPE GARAGE TAKES UP UM, A LOT OF REAL ESTATE IN THE FRONT YARD AND BECAUSE OF MY LOT SPECIFICALLY, IT'S THAT SMALL, IT'S BASICALLY CHOPPED IN HALF. IF YOU LOOKED AT THE LOTS TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT, THEY GO BACK PRETTY FAR.

AND SO, IF I HAD A LOT THAT WENT BACK THAT FAR, IN DEPTH, I COULD DO AN "L" SHAPE ALL DAY AND STILL HAVE A BIG YARD IN THE BACK WITHOUT IT BEING AN ISSUE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IF I DO A STREET-FACING GARAGE, I COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE FINISHED MUCH FASTER IN ORDER TO GIVE ME A GOOD AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE IN THE BACKYARD. IT TAKES UP LESS REAL ESTATE ON THE FRONT YARD COMPARED TO THE "L" SHAPE. SO, THAT WAS ONE OF MY MAIN REASONS, I MEAN, IT'S REALLY KIND OF AFFECTING ONLY ME BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THE LOT WAS CHOPPED IN HALF A LONG TIME AGO.

THERE ARE A LOT OF EMPTY LOTS IN THERE AND BECAUSE THERE'S NO ALLEY AND WITH THE WAY THAT CONSTRUCTION IS GOING AND DESIGNS AND THE DIVERSITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I COULD SEE A VERY LIKELY THAT MORE PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE BUILDING HOMES, NEWER DESIGNS, YOU KNOW, MIGHT BE POTENTIALLY ASKING FOR THE SAME THING, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY WANTS TO BUILD. I MEAN, THE TWO HOUSES RIGHT NEXT TO ME, SURE, THEY'RE "L" SHAPED GARAGE, BUT, IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE SAME BUILDER OR SOMETHING, THEY LOOK THE SAME AND HAVE THE SAME BRICK MASONRY, I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY WANTS TO BUILD THE SAME LOOKING HOMES. BUT, THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, BUT IT REALLY ONLY AFFECTS ME, AND WITH A LOT OF EMPTY LOTS THERE AND WITH THE ALLEY, I COULD SEE THIS COMING UP IN THE FUTURE WITH HOME BUYERS OF SINGLE LOTS. THE GARAGE THAT I WOULD USE WOULD BE A I DON'T KNOW, A VERY NICE LOOKING GARAGE DOOR BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S A FOCAL POINT TO DRESSING UP THE GARAGE FACADE AREA. LIKE FROSTED GLASS, MAY BE, OR SOMETHING. SO, THAT WAS

MY NOTES. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT, COMMISSIONERS? >> OKAY. MR. COTE, I'M SORRY?

>> I'M HEARING YOUR CONCERNS AND I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WHY WOULD YOU NOT CONSIDER ROTATING THAT 21 X 24 GARAGE TO A 21 X 24 GARAGE AND ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO INCREASE YOUR FOOT PRINT BY 3 FEET OR YOUR BACKYARD BY THREE FEET? AND STILL BE IN CONFORMNESS WITH THE RDC AND YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> YOU'RE SAYING MY GARAGE? >> YES, THE DRAWING THAT WE HAVE IN THE PACKAGE IT'S 21 FEET WIDE AND 24 FEET DEEP. AND IF YOU ROTATE THAT GARAGE 90 DEGREES, LET'S SAY, CLOCKWISE,

[00:25:05]

TO BRING THE DRIVEWAY. >> SO THAT IT WOULD BE AN "L"

SHAPED GARAGE, RIGHT? >> RIGHT.

>> I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, IF I PUT THE GARAGE DOOR ON THE SIDE, THAT GARAGE HAS TO BECOME LONGER, CLOSER TO THE STREET, SO IT PUSHES BACK THE WHOLE ENTIRE HOUSE. WHERE THE GARAGE DOOR IS RIGHT NOW, FACING THE STREET, IF I PUT IT ON THE SIDE, IT ACTUALLY MAKES THAT GARAGE LONGER. THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION THAT I WANT IT TO GO. BECAUSE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CLEARANCE. IF I WERE TO PUT THE GARAGE ON THE SIDE, IT MAKES THE GARAGE, UM, LONGER, I GUESS, VERTICALLY LONGER LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, PUSHING BACK THE ENTIRE BACK WALL OF THE HOUSE, CLOSER TO THE RATHER FENCE LINE, GIVING ME

LESS GREEN SPACE. >> YES. WELL, I DISAGREE WITH

THAT. >> BECAUSE, I'VE LOOKED AT PLANS THAT HAVE THE "L" SHAPE. AND THE GARAGE IS, IT'S VERDICT TICKRY LONGER. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A CLEARANCE SPACE, LIKE, FROM WHERE THE DOOR IS, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME CERTAIN LIKE, YOU CAN'T PULL UP WITH YOUR CAR BEING THAT CLOSE TO THE FRONT DOOR, I MEAN, THOSE ARE THE PLANS THAT AYE SEEN.

BECAUSE, IF YOU JUST MOVE IT THE WAY THAT YOU ARE SAYING, YOUR CAR WILL BE LITERALLY RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE FRONT DOOR. SO, TO AVOID YOUR CAR BEING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE FRONT DOOR, THEY MAKE THOSE GARAGES EVEN LONGER. SO, AGAIN, IT WOULD PUSH THE VERY, VERY BACK WALL OF THE HOUSE CLOSER TO THE REAR FENCE

LINE. >> YEAH, SO, YOU END UP BEING

IN THE SAME SPOT. >> BECAUSE, I SAW THE PLANS AND IT MAKES THE GARAGE LONGER, VERTICALLY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO, I'LL JUMP IN A LITTLE BIT AS WE'RE TALKING AND YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T DRIVE BY BUT I DID USE GOOGLE MAPS AND I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THE REAR ENTRANCE AND THE J AND THE L, AND LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORS THAT DO, IN FACT, HAVE THE J GARAGE OUT THERE, IF WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT SEEING THE GARAGE DOOR ON THE STREET, IT'S CLEAR AS DAY WITH THE J ON THERE, I MEAN, THE GARAGE DOOR, IS COMPLETELY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. SO, IN MY MIND, I'M JUST LIKE, HOW DO WE MAKE IT ALL MATCH? WELL, THE NEIGHBORS, WE HAVE TWO NEIGHBORS WITH FRONT-FACING GARAGES, WHICH ARE EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR TODAY. AND WE HAVE TWO NEIGHBORS ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT HAVE AN L GARAGE AND THE CAR'S PARKED IN FRONT OF IT TOO AS WELL. I'M INCLINED TO BE IN FAIR OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BECAUSE, I DIDN'T REALIZE THE LOT BEHIND HIM WAS NOT HIS, THAT LIMITS THE BACKYARD AS WELL. THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS AND OBSERVATIONS. IF ANYONE WANTS TO LOOK AT MY STREAMING MAP, I'M

HAPPY TO SHARE. >> THIS IS THE STREET?

>> THAT'S THE NEIGHBOR'S L. YOU SEE THE GARAGE.

>> THANK YOU, ROBERT. ANYBODY ELSE?

>> GO AHEAD, MR. ENGEN. >> THIS IS A SMALLER LOT, AND IT'S ACTUALLY COMPARABLE TO THE SIZE HOUSE THAT I LIVE IN. OR SIZE LOT. AND IT IS DIFFICULT, I MEAN, 25 FEET IS NOT THAT FAR BACK. BUT, IT HAS TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT SO IT LINES UP WITH THE OTHER HOMES IN THAT AREA, BUT, UM, HAVING A FACE LIKE THAT, TOWARDS THE STREET, WHICH IS PROBABLY NOT A VERY BUSY STREET, I DON'T SEE IT AS AN ISSUE. BUT, IT'S, SIMILAR TO WHAT I HAVE RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU MR. ENGEN. PETER, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS? MS. WILLIAMS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? NO. OKAY. WELL, I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

ANYBODY? ROBERT? >> I'M ABOUT TO.

>> THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY ON THIS.

>> AND THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. TO BE SURE.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A STREET-FACING GARAGE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, THE GARAGE SHALL BE

[00:30:01]

THE SITE PLAN. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE ITEM WITH A REQUIREMENT OF 25-FEET SETBACK FRONT SETBACK ON THE GARAGE. MR. ENGEN?

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A SECOND BOY

MR. ENGEN. ALL IN FAVOR? >> ANYBODY OPPOSED? WE HAVE

[4B. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Mozharul Islam, 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-8) Uses, and approval of a Concept Plan to construct 39 single-family homes and up to 55,500 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.]

>> ITEM 4 B CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY MOZHARUL ISLAM TO 1 REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF 40 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AND APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 39 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND UP TO 55500 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL/RETAIL SPACE. AND TWO, AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THREE, 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 RHOS SITUATED IN THE TASKILES SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 1409 AND THE WILLIAM CRABTREE SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 347 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS.

>> GOOD EVENING, THIS IS A REZONING MAP TO A PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT WHICH HAS TWO DIFFERENT ZONING COMPONENTS TO IT. THE C-1 AND ALSO A PORTION WHICH WOULD BE SF 8, SINGLE-FAMILY EIGHT. THERE'S AN ASSOCIATED CONCEPT PLAN WITH IT THIS WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR 39 HOMES ON THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESIGNATED FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY 8 AND 55,500 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE ON THE PORTION OF THE IT PROPERTY THAT IS WOULD BE DESIGNATED FOR THE C-1 USES. UM, SO, LET ME, GO THROUGH HERE, WE'LL START WITH THE BIT OF BACKGROUND. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS BODY HAS RECENTLY CONSIDERED A ZONING CHANGE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. 2018, OCTOBER 9TH, THERE WAS A REQUEST MADE TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY TO THE FORM-BASED NEW NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 175 TOWN HOMES. ALSO, WITH A MAJOR WARRANT TO ALLOW FOR A FRONT-ENTRY LODGES. AND THAT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL WITH A VOTE OF 4-3. THAT APPLICATION WAS THEN WITHDRAWN, THEN ANOTHER APPLICANT CAME FORWARD IN JUNE OF 2020 THIS REQUEST WAS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO A SINGLE-FAMILY FIVE USES. THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION BY THIS BODY FOR DENIAL, SITING THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE ASSOCIATED LOT SIZES AS WELL AS THAT THERE WAS NOT A COMPANY COMMERCIAL/RETAIL OFFICE USE AS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN SUGGESTS. THIS APPLICATION WAS ALSO WITHDRAWN.

JANUARY 12, 2021, ANOTHER REQUEST CAME FORWARD TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY BY THE PREVIOUS APPLICANT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS WELL AS LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL C-1 USES THERE WAS ALSO A CONCEPT PLAN THAT WOULD ALLOW THE SITE TO DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THERE WAS NOT A PLAN FOR THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED FOR THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF LONG BRANCH CREEK FACING TOWARD ROWLETT ROAD, THAT REQUEST RECEIVED A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL AND DID NOT MOVE FORWARD. MARCH 8TH OF THIS YEAR, A REQUEST WAS MADE BY TO THIS BODY TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AGAIN TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SF 5 USES AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL IN THE C-1 DISTRICT THERE WAS ALSO A CONCEPT PLAN TO DEVELOP APPROXIMATELY 88,500 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE AS WELL AS 40 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT REQUEST IS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL BY A 6-1 VOTE AND THE APPLICATION INDICATION WAS WITHDRAWN BEFORE CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I WOULD NOTE THAT THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE REVISED POSTED SIGN ON THE SITE REQUIREMENTS WHICH IS WHY YOU DO NOT SEE THAT LARGER SIGN WHICH APPARENTLY IS AGAIN, DOING IT'S PURPOSE IN

[00:35:03]

I'LL DISCUSS THOSE TWO COMPONENTS IN MORE DETAIL HERE THROUGH THE PRESENTATION. WE'LL START WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT HERE, AGAIN, IT IS A SINGLE-FAMILY 8 BASE DISTRICT WITH MODIFICATIONS. THE ACCESS WOULD BE FROM MILLER ROAD VIA A LUKE STREET, SO, IT WOULD, AGAIN BE, TYPICALLY LIKE THAT. THERE WOULD BE NO ALLEYS PROPOSED WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION AND FRONT ENTRY GARAGES. 39 LOTS, UM ARE PROPOSED WITH THIS LAYOUT, THE LARGEST LOT COMES IN AT 11,624 SQUARE FEET, THE MINIMUM LOT IS 8,000 SQUARE FEET AND IT AVERAGES OUT AT 8,919 SQUARE FEET. AN 8-FOOT MASONRY WALL IS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE SHARED PROPERTY LINES WHICH WOULD BE OVER HERE ON THE EAST, SOUTH, SOUTHEAST, AND THEN, ALONG, UM, THE SOUTH THERE. THIS WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA, THIS IS, AGAIN, OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THE, UM, ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE THOSE ARE COMPATIBLE USES, THEY ARE COMPATIBLE SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THERE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING TO INSTALL. THERE WOULD BE A 20-FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUFFER ALONG MILLER ROAD, AS WELL AS THE ENTRY WAY LANDSCAPING FEATURES WHICH I'LL POINT OUT AS WELL, THERE, AND THERE. AS REQUIRED BY THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE, THOSE ARE THE COMPLY IN THE WAY OF AREA, AND SHOULD THIS PROPOSAL BE APPROVED, THROUGH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THEY WOULD BE MADE SURE TO CON FORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PARTICULAR PLANTING MATERIALS REQUIRED IN THE WAY OF TREES AND SHRUBS. ALSO, WITH THIS PROPOSAL, THERE IS AN 8-FOOT TRAIL THAT WOULD RUN FROM MILLER ROAD DOWN ON THE EAST SIDE OF LONG BRANCH CREEK AND CIRCLING THIS PROPOSED DRAINAGE, DETENTION AREA, AS WELL. AND IN ADDITION THERE IS A PROPOSED MID-BLOCK PATH TRAIL CONNECTION THAT WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO THAT TRAIL FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> I JUST WANT TO STOP YOU REAL QUICK WHILE WE TALK ABOUT WALLS AND FENCES AND ALL OF THIS GOOD STUFF, BECAUSE, THE DRAWINGS PROVIDED IN THE PACKET WERE VERY SKETCHY AND CONTRADICTED THEMSELVES A COUPLE OF TIMES. YOU SAID A MAY SONARY WALL? NOT A WOOD FENCE? BECAUSE THE WOOD FENCE IS NOTED ON SEVERAL

LOCATIONS. >> THAT WAS PROBABLY AN ERROR ON OUR SIDE, I WAS OUT THE DAY WE PREPARED THE PACKET I'LL PUT THAT ON MY SHOULDERS THAT THAT WASN'T DONE. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE APPLICANT THAT THAT WOULD BE A MASONRY WALL.

EARLY EARLY INDICATIONS INCLUDED A FENCE BUT IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT IS INTENDING THAT TO BE THE

8-FOOT MASONRY WALL. >> AND THAT 8 FOOT MASONRY

[00:40:01]

>> NO, IT DOES NOT. THERE WOULD NOT BE A SCREENING WALL AT THAT LOCATION AND I WOULD INSERT THE WORD SCREENING WALL IN THERE INTENTIONALLY. THERE MAY BE TRAINING WALLS NECESSARY AT THAT SPOT BUT IT WOULD NOT BE INTENDED TO BE A SCREENING WALL THAT WOULD SEPARATE THE CREEK FROM THE HOMES.

>> OKAY. BECAUSE, THE DRAWINGS SHOW AN 8-FOOT HIGH MASONRY SCREENING WALL AND IT SHOWS RETENTION WALLS THAT ARE ANYWHERE FROM 4-6.5 FEET TALL AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CREEKWAY AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT 8-FOOT MASONRY WALL WILL NOT BE THERE, THEN MY QUESTION IS WHAT WILL THEY PUT IN THE WALKWAY AND THE GREATER THAN 30-INCH DROP WHICH WOULD BE A FALL HAZARD THERE. BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING ON THE PLAN

THERE. >> UNDERSTOOD. SO, THAT, AGAIN, WOULD BE A QUESTION TO SPECIFICALLY ASK TO THE APPLICANT BUT, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IF THAT IS A MASONRY WALL THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO INSTALL THERE, THAT WOULD BE A NICE AMENITY TO HAVE. BUT, AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND, YES, THE NECESSARY SAFETY TO BE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD COMPROMISE EITHER THE USERS OF THE TRAIL OR THE SAFETY OF THE HOMEOWNERS TO HAVE THERE. SO, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD

CLARIFYING QUESTION. >> THANK YOU.

>> >> GO AHEAD.

>> I LIKE THE CONCEPT OF THE WALKING TRAIL TO HAVE THAT INCLUDED. BUT, IT SEEMS LIKE IN MOST OF THE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN THAT WE HAVE BEEN APPROVING LATELY HAVE OPEN SPACE AREAS. AM I MISSING THAT? YOU'VE GOT THE DETENTION AREA ON THE SOUTH END WITH A WALKING TRAIL THROUGH THE

MIDDLE, BUT, IT SEEMS LIKE... >> THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S INCLUDED IN THE STAFF'S REPORT BUT THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE LOT WHICH IS, THIS LAST...

>> IS IT THE FAR SOUTHEAST? >> IT IS THE FAR SOUTHEAST LOT.

>> IS IT THE HORIZONTAL LOOKING PIECE?

>> YES. >> OKAY. AND AS WELL AS, AGAIN, IT IS, IT IS A DETENTION, IT'S A PROPOSED AREA FOR A DETENTION POND, THAT, AGAIN, SHOULD THIS PROPOSAL BE APPROVED MOVING FORWARD THROUGH THE SITE DEVOLVEMENT PLAN AND PARTICULARLY, THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH DETENTION MIGHT BE NECESSARY, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THAT AREA THAT IS DENOTED FOR DETENTION COULD ALSO HAVE NOT NEED THAT ENTIRE AREA FOR DETENTION AND COULD ALSO SERVE

AS A MORE. >> WHAT IF IT NEEDS THAT WHOLE

AREA? >> IF IT DOES NEED THE WHOLE AREA THERE WOULD STILL BE THE TRAIL THAT GOES AROUND THAT WHOLE AREA THAT WE WOULD ALLOW TO BE USED AS AN AMENITY SPACE, AVAILABLE AND USEABLE BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> SO, THAT WOULD BE A PLAYGROUND AREA?

>> WE'RE FINDING THAT WE NEED THIS.

>> IT WOULD NOT BE PROPOSED TO BE A PLAYGROUND AREA, BUT, THE TRAIL SURROUNDING THAT AREA DOES COUNT TOWARD THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30% OF THE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED, HAVING AMENITIES

SUCH AS TRAILS AND GAZEBOS. >> TIMES ARE CHANGING AND I THINK THAT WE'RE FINDING THAT DEVELOPERS, IF THEY'RE SELLING THEIR PROPERTIES TO HAVE OPEN-LOT AREAS FOR THE KIDS TO GO TO. SO, MAY BE A DEVELOPER CAN TALK ABOUT THAT OR MAKE

CHANGES. >> OKAY. ALEX, DO YOU WANT TO GET THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION HERE?

>> SURE. OKAY. SO, THIS IS THE CHART, AGAIN, SHOWING THE CURRENT ZONING ON THE LEFT, THE SF 40 REQUIREMENTS ON THERE.

THE MIDDLE COLUMN, HAVING THE SINGLE-FAMILY 8 REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE THE BASE ZONE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PART AND THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS, WE WOULD JUST POINT OUT THE MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED WOULD BE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT DECK TO INCREASE FROM 110 FEET TO 120 FEET AND ALSO THEN TO STANDARDIZE THAT THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK WOULD BE A STANDARD 7.5 FEET AND THE MINIMUM LOT REAR SETBACK WOULD BE 20 FEET RATHER THAN 20 FEET OR 20% OF THE LOT DEPTH. AND THEN ALSO TO POINT OUT THE 3,000 PROPOSED DWELLING MINIMUM AREA WHICH IS TWELVE HUNDRED FEET LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED RANGE. I GUESS FROM THE

[00:45:08]

MOVING TO THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE CREEK. TO THE PORTION THAT WAS DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, SO, THIS WOULD BE THE C-1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL/RETAIL, DISTRICT WOULD BE THE BASE ZONE FOR THIS. PROPOSING TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES WOULD POINT THEM OUT HERE, THIS IS THE SMALLER STRUCTURE, AND THIS IS THE LARGER STRUCTURE, THE LARGER STRUCTURE, 44,850 SQUARE FEET AND THE SMALLER 10,650 FEET.

AGAIN, FROM A PROPOSAL AND LANDSCAPE LING REQUIREMENT, 15-FOOT INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTHERN LINE TO SEPARATE FROM THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL THAT'S THERE.

MASONRY WALL, AND LANDSCAPING REQUIRED ALONG WITH THAT. FOR PARKING, THERE ARE PROPOSING 216 PARKING SPACES WHICH CON FORMS TO THE ONE SPACE PER 300 FOR GENERAL OFFICE/COMMERCIAL RETAIL/PERSONAL SERVICES ON THERE. AND IF NECESSARY, WITH THAT, I'LL DO THE MATH TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH THEY ARE IN EXCESS, OF COURSE, BECAUSE, IF THERE'S A RESTAURANT USE IN THERE, THAT DOES REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING STICK STRICTLY TO A MORE RETAIL OFFICE/PERSONAL SERVICE TYPE USE, IT HAS MORE THAN THE MINIMUM PARKING. IT WOULD BE CONNECTED TO ROWLETT ROAD AND THERE WOULD BE FULL ACCESS AT THE SORT OF THE MIDDLE PART OF THE PROPERTY. THE MAIN ENTRANCE. WHICH WOULD ALIGN WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACROSS ROWLETT ROAD THAT WAS APPROVED NOT TOO LONG AGO FOR THE RETAIL AND THE SELF-STORAGE USE ACROSS THE WAY. AND THEN, A SECONDARY ACCESS TO THE SOUTH WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A MEDIAN BREAK SO IT WOULD JUST BE A RIGHT IN AND RIGHT OUT. ALSO, WITH THIS PROPOSAL, THERE WOULD BE A REDUCED LIST OF PERMITTED USES WITH THIS SITE, THIS IS THE USES HERE THAT WOULD BE REDUCED FROM WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE C-1 TO TAILOR TOWARD THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING AND ALSO THAT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THIS LOCATION ADJACENT TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE VICINITY AS WELL.

>> I'M SORRY, WHAT? >> YES, SIR, GO AHEAD.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT COMMENT WAS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEVELOPER HAS RESTRICTED HIS LIST OF C-1S THAT HE'S GOING TO ALLOW IN THERE TO WHAT IS LISTED

HERE? >> CORRECT. YES. YES.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. (INAUDIBLE)

>> YES, THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED THESE WOULD BE USES THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED ON THIS SITE. AGAIN, TO GO THROUGH THIS, JUST TO NOTE, THE PARTICULAR IF THERE WERE TO BE A RESTAURANT, A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. SO, IT WOULD NEED TO, AGAIN, IF THEY WERE TO DO THAT, IT WOULD NOT BE THE SUP, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, IT WOULD BE COME CAN BACK, AND FULLY AMENDING THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT SHOULD IT BE

APPROVED FOR THAT. SO, YEAH... >> THESE ARE THE ILLUSTRATIVE COMMERCIAL RETAIL ILLUSTRATIONS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. THEY ARE SUGGESTING THAT THEY WOULD BE COMPOSED OF BRICK, STONE, VENEERS AND STUCCO, WE WOULD NOTE THAT SHOULD THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED, THERE WOULD BE A CONDITION INCLUDED THAT WOULD NOTE THE EXPECTATION FOR THE BUILDINGS TO CON FORM WITH THESE ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATIONS WHICH ARE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO A PERHAPS MORE TECHNICAL, BUT HOPEFULLY EASY TO UNDERSTAND DISCUSSION AOUT DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS WITH THIS PROPERTY AND LET JEFF COHEN OUR INTERIM ENGINEERING DIRECTOR TAKE OVER THAT.

[00:50:06]

>> GOOD EVENING, PLANNING AND ZONING, GOOD EVENING. UM, SO, ALEX, AS ALEX MENTIONED BEFORE, THIS PROPERTY HAS COME BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEVERAL TIMES. AND DRAINAGE IS ALWAYS A TOPIC OF IMPORTANCE AND IT IS NO DIFFERENT NOW THAN IT HAS BEEN. SO, WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE ON THE DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. UM, AN OVERVIEW, FIRST OF ALL, OF LONG BRANCH CREEK ITSELF, IT IS 2.6 MILES LONG AND COMPRISES ABOUT 2.1 SQUARE MILES IN AREA. THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE, IS, ABOUT 20 ACRES WHICH IS LESS THAN 1.5% OF THE WATER SHED. DURING THE 100-YEAR STORM AT MILLER, I WONDER WHY I DON'T HAVE A CURSER, BUT, RIGHT AT MILLER AND, ROWLETT ROAD, THE FLOW IS 4800 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, AND DURING THE 100-YEAR STORM, THAT PROPERTY IN IT'S CURRENT CONDITION NOW, DISCHARGES ABOUT 65 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND WHICH IS ALSO LESS THAN 1.5% OF THE FLOW IN LONG BRANCH CREEK. THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MITIGATE ANY IMPACTS BY LIMITING THE DISCHARGE RATE OF THE RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING LEVELS OR OTHERWISE SHOW NO IMPACT TO LONG BRANCH CREEK, AND DOWNSTREAM USERS.

>> SO, WE COULD CONCLUDE THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS UNLIKELY TO HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT AFFECT, IMPACTS TO THE DOWNSTREAM USERS OF LONG BRANCH, BECAUSE, THE DISCHARGE RATE WOULD BE LIMITED TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY DISCHARGING NOW. WE KNOW, TOO, THAT QUESTIONS HAVE COME UP ABOUT THE FLOODING CONDITIONS ALONG LONG BRANCH, AND SPECIFICALLY AT MILLER AND ROWLETT ROADS. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE CREEK ITSELF IS PART OF A FLOOD PLAIN EASEMENT AND THOSE FLOOD PLAIN EASEMENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS OR THE HOAS, THOUGH, THE CITY DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO IN AND MAINTAIN THE CREEK IF SUCH MAINTENANCE IS NEGLECTED BY THE HOA AND THAT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WE WILL ENSURE THAT A FLOOD PLAIN EASEMENT IS DEDICATED AND THOSE RIGHTS ARE CONVEYED. ITEM, AS FAR AS THE FLOODING CONDITIONS AT MILLER AND ROWLETT ROADS GO, THERE IS A LARGE 10 X 10 BOX CULVERT, SEVERAL CONDUITS AND DESPITE THOSE LARGE CONDUITS, THE FLOWS IN THE 100-YEAR, DO NOT REALLY COMPLETELY PASS THROUGH THOSE CULVERTS BUT IT BACKS UP BEHIND MILLER ROAD AND TO SOME EXTENT EVEN ROWLETT ROAD, AND THEN FLOWS ACROSS MILLER ROAD. THOSE CULVERTS WERE BUILT IN '89. THE WATER SHED HAS DEVELOPED SINCE THEN, AND, ADMITTEDLY IN SOME CASES WITHOUT DETENTION. AND, IN TERMS OF CORRECTING THAT CONDITION, UM, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING, WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR PROJECTS TO DO THE CIP PROJECTS SELECTION PROCESS IS SUBJECT TO A PROCESS, AND, THE, COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM TTASK FORCE, IS THE BOD WHICH LOOKS AT THAT PROCESS AND MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL AND THEN COUNCIL ADOPTS THE CIP PLAN. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THAT MILLER ROAD OVERTOPPING OCCURS UP STREAM OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. SO, THE PROJECT WILL NOT BE IMPACTED BY THAT OVERTOPPING NOR WILL THIS PROJECT IMPACT THE OVERTOPPING CONDITION AT MILLER ROAD. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT, VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PROJECT WILL NEED TO BE DESIGNED SO THAT DOWNSTREAM USERS ARE NOT ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY THIS

[00:55:03]

FURTHER. >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT ALONG LONG BRANCH CREEK AND WE DO NOT WANT TO AGGRAVATE THAT CONDITION ANY FURTHER BY ALLOWING A PROJECT TO ADVERSELY IMPACT -- (INAUDIBLE)

>> AND, THAT CONCLUDES OUR DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS AND I'LL

TURN IT BACK OVER TO ALEX. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OF HIM AT THIS POINT, OR YOU DO YOU WANT TO BRING HIM BACK LATER?

>> KEEP GOING, ALEX. >> ALL RIGHT. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR STATE RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST AND I'LL AGAIN, HIGHLIGHT THAT HERE, AND THEN, ALSO THE RED PORTION ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CREEK AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE LIGHT GREEN WHICH WE DID NOT NECESSARILY NOTE, BUT, THAT IS THE FLOOD PLAIN THERE AS WELL. SO, ESTATE RESIDENTIAL IS DEFINED AS YOU COULD SEE HERE AND NOTED AS LOTS BEING IN EXCESS OF 20,000 SQUIRE FEET AND THE RETAIL/OFFICE DEVELOPMENTS ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED ALONG MAJOR THOROUGH FAIRS ALONG MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS. ROWLETT ROAD IS, OF COURSE, A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. AND ONCE AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING LOT SIZES THAT RANGE BETWEEN 8,011,624-SQUARE FEET.

AND GOING BACK OVER THEIR TO THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS THAT FALLS UNDER THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH YOU COULD SEE IS JUST BELOW THE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL. THESE LOTS ARE BETWEEN 7,000, AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THAT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY DESIGNATION. THE HE IS STATE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION WOULD BE REFLECTIVE OF THE PREVIOUS AGRICULTURAL USE. AND THERE I WOULD NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE IT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGNATION FOR THAT COMMERCIAL USE WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. UNTIL REGARD TO THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, ON THERE, I WOULD NOTE THAT, UM, THE PROPERTY NORTH ACROSS MILLER ROAD WHICH IS BEING CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS THE VILLAS A LONG BRANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY FIVE USES MINIMUM BUILDING 1500 LOT SIZES, 5,000 SQUARE FEET. TO THE EAST YOU HAVE THE SINGLE-FAMILY 40, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 40-THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE OF 2,400-SQUARE FEET. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF 7,800, AND MINIMUM HOMES OF 1500 SQUARE FEET PER THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS. ACROSS ROWLETT ROAD, THE PROPERTY WHICH IS ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES HAVE MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET AND MINIMUM BUILDING AREA OF TWELVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, AND AGAIN, THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HAS MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF 8,000 SQUARE FEET AND MINIMUM HOME SIZES OF 3,000 SQUARE FEET. IN REGARDS TO THE NOTIFICATIONS WHICH WERE SENT OUT YET, AGAIN, FOR THIS, UM, THIS WAS INITIALLY SLATED TO BE HEARD BACK TWO WEEKS AGO, THAT WAS POSTPONED IN ORDER TO TRY TO GET OUR PLANS IN BETTER SHAPE. WE SOMEWHAT SUCCEEDED, SOMEWHAT DIDN'T. THERE WERE 54 NOTICES SENT OUT TO THE 500 FOOT RADIUS AND 300 SENT OUT. WE RECEIVED TWO NOTICES IN OPPOSITION AND 3 IN FAVOR. AND WITHIN THE COURTESY AREA, WE RECEIVED FIVE BACK IN OPPOSITION. TWO BACK IN OPPOSITION OF THE 500 FEET AND 0 IN FAVOR AS WELL AS THOSE WHICH WERE INCLUDED RECEIVED THROUGH THE CITIZEN INPUT PORTAL.

WRAPPING THIS UP WITH THE RECOMMENDATION ACTION, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHICH WOULD HAVE THE SINGLE-FAMILY 8 USES AS WELL AS THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL

[01:00:01]

QUESTIONS. >> DO THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION?

>> THEY DID NOT PREPARE A PRESENTATION THAT WAS SHARED WITH US. SO, NO, WOULD BE THE ANSWER TO THAT.

>> OKAY. >> YES, SIR? (INAUDIBLE)

>> ONE QUESTION I HAVE, IS THERE A SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT RELATIVELY CLOSE COMMUNITY LIKE THIS? OR IS THIS THE FIRST ONE THAT THEY'RE DOING THAT'S GOING TO BE LIKE THIS?

>> THAT WOULD BE A BETTER FOR THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS IF THEY

HAVE SIMILAR EXPERIENCES. >> I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THERE'S SIMILAR UM, DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS, IN COMMUNITIES IN NORTH TEXAS WHICH ARE OUT THERE OR SOMEWHERE ELSE.

>> MR. ENGEN, GO AHEAD. >> SO, JUST, THE CITY, DO THEY FORESEE ANY TRAFFIC ISSUES AT THIS CORNER OR ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS TO DO TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE

GET THE RIGHT-HAND TURNS? >> JEFF COULD SPEAK MORE ABOUT THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE IN THERE, WHAT I DID NOT NOTE IN THE PRESENTATION AS WELL IS THAT THERE WOULD BE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION ALONG MILLER ROAD THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED, I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT'S A I BELIEVE IT'S A VARIABLE AMOUNT, AGAIN, TO BE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FULL RIGHT-OF-WAY, UM, THAT IS DEDICATED FROM THIS HALF OF THE

ROAD ON THERE. SO. (INAUDIBLE) >> THE ROADWAY WOULD NOT BE

TAKEN. >> ALEX, PUBLIC HEARING HASN'T

OPENED. >> PLEASE WAIT UNTIL WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR YOUR COMMENTS, THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MISS WILLIAMS?

>> I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, ALEX, THE RETAINING WALLS WILL THEY BE SUPPORTED BY PIERS OR SPREAD

(INDISCERNIBLE). >> THAT IS A QUESTION OUTSIDE OF MY DEPTH, BUT, WHATEVER WOULD NEED TO BE PUT IN THERE, WOULD, OF COURSE, BE REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AS NECESSARY BY OUR BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION TO BE IN CON FORMANCE WITH CODE.

>> IS THERE SUFFICIENT SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THIS

DEVELOPMENT? >> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, YES, THE DEVELOPER TO THE NORTH ACROSS MILLER ROAD SET A MANHOLE THAT I BELIEVE WAS DESIGNED TO, BECAUSE, THEY WERE LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY YEARS AGO AND THEY SET A MANHOLE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THIS PROPERTY. THERE'S ALSO SEWER ON ROIWLETT ROAD, SO, I THINK THAT THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CAN GO OUT TO ROWLETT ROAD.

>> NO, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. >> ON THE DRAWING, IT LOOKS LIKE LOTS 28-39 AND THE PROPOSED DETENTION POND APPEAR TO ENCROACH INTO THE FLOODWAY. AND MAY BE I'M LOOKING AT THIS

IMPROPERLY. >> IF THEY DO, AND I DON'T

[01:05:04]

WATER SURFACES. >> OKAY. WILL FEMA WOULD

THAT... >> FEMA WOULD BE THE BODY THAT

WOULD LOOK AT THAT, YES. >> OKAY. NOW, ARE THE GARAGES FRONT ENTRY OR IS THERE AN ALLEY?

>> FRONT. >> THE PROVIDE POSAL IS NO ALLEYS AND THE GARAGES WOULD BE FRONT ENTRY.

>> BUT, THE PROPERTY ENTRY WOULDN'T COMPLY WITH SECTION

77508, WOULD THEY? >> THEY WOULD NEED TO, AGAIN, MAKE SURE THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THAT REQUIREMENT. SO, THAT, AGAIN, WHEN SOMEONE PROPOSES THIS TYPE OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, THE UNDERSTANDING IS UNLESS THEY REQUEST THAT,

THEY WILL COMPLY. >> OKAY. SO, WE HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT SHOWS THIS TO BE AN ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH LOTS 20,000-SQUARE FEET. SO, THIS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH OUR OWN FUTURE LAND USE MAP. NOW, THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PORTION APPEARS TO BE CONSISTENT. SO,

HOW DO YOU RECTIFY THAT? >> I THINK THAT MANAHUL WOULD

LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT. >> THAT'S A FANTASTIC QUESTION.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS A TOOL AND THE ASSOCIATED FUTURE LAPPED USE PLAN IS A TOOL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS ANTICIPATED IN THE FORM OF FORECASTING. IT'S REALLY A FORECASTING TOOL. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, IN THIS INSTANCE, THIS SPECIFIC AREA, OFTENTIMES WHEN YOU HAVE PROPERTY THAT IS RURAL IN NATURE OR ESTATE IN NATURE, THE ZONING CATEGORY IS ATTACHED TO THAT AND THE TRENDS OF THE MARKET DICTATE, THEN, THE FUTURE OF THAT PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS I MENTIONED IS A GUIDING TOOL. ANY ZONING CHANGE OR REQUEST FOR ENTITLEMENTS WHICH ARE DIFFERENT FROM THAT, WE DO ASSESS AND REVIEW THE VIABILITY OF A CHANGE TO THE COMP PLAN WHICH YOU'VE SEEN IN SEVERAL OCCASIONS WHERE STAFF HAS NOT RECOMMENDED FAVORABLY WITH CHANGES BECAUSE THEY'RE INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN. IN THIS CASE, THE ANALYSIS REVEALED, THE DENSITY PROPOSED IS LOW DENSITY FOR DEVELOPMENT, IT IS NOT MEDIUM OR HIGH, BUT IT IS LOW-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S NOT ESTATE-STYLE WHERE YOU HAVE THE MINIMUM 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, BUT IT IS LOW DENSITY, SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE THE STAFF CAN AMEND

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE

TO COME UP. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES, SIR. >> AND, LET US KNOW IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY FIRST BEFORE WE ASK QUESTIONS OR WHETHER YOU JUST WANT TO OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS.

>> OKAY. MY NAME IS MOZHARUL ISLAM, I'M THE APPLICANT, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL ANSWER THOSE.

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ONE, SEVERAL TIMES, WE'VE BEEN HERE, I THINK THAT WE CAME WITH A VERY GOOD CONDITION TO COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING. WE WORKED AT THIS VERY HARD.

>> WELL, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IN SFA, I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST FOR ME. AND I LOVE LOW-DENSITY, PEOPLE USUALLY ON COMMISSION DOES. WE DON'T SEE IT VERY OFTEN, BUT, IT LOOKS LIKES A CLASS DEAL TO ME. UM, QUESTIONS FOR OUR APPLICANT,

COMMISSIONERS. >> MR. ENGEN? .

>> CAN YOU TALK MORE ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE? I MEAN, IS IT JUST A TRAIL, ARE YOU PUTTING IN NATIVE FLOWERS, WILL THERE BE A

PLAYGROUND FOR KIDS? >> I THINK THAT WE HAD AN IDEA

-- >> IF THAT ALL ENDS UP BEING A DETENTION POND ON THE SOUTHERN END.

>> THE DETENTION POND IDEA IS OPEN. IT WILL BE LIKE WE'LL TRY TO GRADE IT NATURALLY IF POSSIBLE AND TREES AROUND AND THE WALKWAY, AND THEN, ALSO, THIS TRAIL WILL BE ON THE LOW AND THEN ON THE HILL WE'LL PUT TWO STEPS, I THINK, IF

[01:10:03]

ENJOY THAT AREA. >> THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? PETER, GO AHEAD.

>> THE QUESTION I ASKED BEFORE, IS THIS YOUR FIRST DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS, OR IS THERE A SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING ROWLETT AT ALL?

>> (INAUDIBLE). >> YES, SIR, COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES.

>> I'M (INDISCERNIBLE) AND I LIVE IN 2207 STRAIT AWAY IN MESQUITE. AND WE DID A COUPLE OF PROJECTS ALREADY, OUR MINIMUM HOME SIZE IS 3,240,500 SQUARE FEET AND WE DID A COUPLE OF PROJECTS IN IRVING, AND ONE IN COPELL, TEXAS. AND WE DID ALL THE COMPLIANCE. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS, YOU CAN ASK ME. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY BUILDERS IN

MIND FOR THIS? >> YEAH, WE ARE THE BUILDIERS.

>> YOU SAID COPPELL, CORRECT? >> YES.

>> THE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED. >> YOU SAID COPPELL, AND I HEARD IRVING ARE THESE PROJECTS DONE?

>> IT WAS DONE A YEAR AGO. >> SIMILAR SIZED HOMES?

>> YES, AND BIGGER HOMES. >> WHAT ARE THE PRICE RANGES OF

THE HOMES OR DO YOU KNOW YET? >> LAST MONTH OR THIS MONTH?

>> YEAH. >> (INDISTINCT CHATTER)

>> THE PRICE RANGE IS $700,000 TO $1.1 MILLION.

>> OH, WOW. OKAY. >> WELL, THAT'S ABOUT THE

GOODING RATE THESE DAYS. >> WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO DO WITH THE UTILITIES AND THE OTHER WORK, THE PRICES MINIMUM

WILL BE $700,000. >> OKAY. MR. COTE?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE HOA, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE FEES MAY BE FOR THIS HOA? I ONLY ASK THIS BECAUSE ON YOUR DRAWINGS, YOU HAVE THE HOA RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RETAINING

WALLS IN THAT CREEK. >> YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. AS WELL AS EVERYTHING ELSE. SO, I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, COULD END UP BECOMING A DEVELOP SIZEABLE COST

TO THEM. >> YES, SIR.

>> JUST, LET YOU KNOW, THE COMMERCIAL AREA IS NOT FOR OTHER PEOPLE LIKE, IF WE'RE BUILDING AND WE'RE MAINTAINING FOR FUTURE USE FOR THE COMMERCIAL LIKE ALL THE PROPERTIES FOR THE COMMERCIAL, AND, THE HOA, WE'RE GOING TO SET OUR OWN HOA, WHATEVER WILL BE RELIABLE FEES FOR ALL OF THE WHAT DO YOU CALL, THE CUSTOMERS WHO'LL BE BUYING THE HOME FROM THERE AND WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN THE COMMERCIAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL AREA AT THE SAME TIME. SO, IT'S GOING TO BE COST EFFICIENT.

>> HAVE YOU DONE THAT ANYWHERE ELSE?

>> NO, THIS IS THE FIRST COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, BUT, FOR THE RESIDENTIAL WE'VE DONE IT ALREADY.

>> SO, ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO OWN THAT COMMERCIAL. WILL THERE

BE ONE OWNER FOR THE COMMERCIAL? >> YES, SIR. I PICTURED FIVE BUSINESSES AND FIVE HOAS, THAT MAKES MORE SENSE.

>> ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS?

>> THANK YOU, SO MUCH, THANK YOU BOTH. AT THIS TIME, THIS I A PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I HAVE A STACK OF SPEAKER CARDS, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON ITEM 4B AND YOU'VE NOT NET FILLED OUT OR CARD THEY'RE ON THE BACK CORNER TABLE, FILL IT OUT AND TAKE IT TO SUSAN, SHELL BRING IT TO ME.

AND AT THIS TIME I'LL START WITH THE TOP OF THE PACK, SUZANNE HERRARA. PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR

[01:15:01]

>> MY NAME IS SUZANNE HERRARA AND I LIVE AT 8205 IN MARTHA LANE IN ROWLETT. I GUESS, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE SF 40S, AND THEY'RE PLATTED REASONABLE DEVELOPER WOULD THINK ABOUT AN SF 20 BEFORE TAKING IT ALL THE WAY TO AN SF EIGHT. ALSO, HE'S SAYING "OH, LOOK AT THE VILLAS, THEY'RE A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. ". THE VILLAS IS A FREAKING NIGHTMARE, SO, HE'S MAKING ME VERY NERVOUS IS IF HE THINKS THE VILLAS ARE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW IT SHOULD LOOK OUT THERE BETWEEN THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACTUAL ACREAGE. I MEAN, YOU'RE STUFFING THESE TINY LITTLE NEIGHBORHOODS INTO THESE AREAS THAT ARE ALREADY PLATTED FOR PEOPLE OF FIVE, 10, 2, WHATEVER AMOUNT OF ACREAGE. YOU KNOW, VARYING SIZE OF HOUSES.

UM, ALSO, TOO, I DON'T THINK HIS COMBINATION OF THE SHARING OF THE COMMERCIAL AND THE HOA WILL WORK AND HE DOESN'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO GET WHAT ASK HE TALK ABOUT SOME BOND ISSUE THAT HE WANTS TO GET MONEY FROM, DIDN'T HE MENTION THAT TO HELP PAY FOR THE ROCK WALL AND THE FENCE AND THE DAMMED UP WATER THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, THAT, WHATEVER THAT WATER AREA'S CALLED. HAS ANYBODY THOUGHT ABOUT MOSQUITOS WITH THAT WATER THERE BY THE SWAMP THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ENCLOSE, SOMEHOW, THE FLOOD AREA? I MEAN, HE'S GOING TO LEAVE WATER WHICH IS JUST GOING TO BE OPEN THERE, RIGHT? YES? NO? ANYBODY.

>> YOU HAVE A MINUTE 20 LEFT TO SPEAK.

>> ALL RIGHT, WELL, I'M JUST SAYING, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE OPEN WATER THERE, ALSO, TOO, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE COMP PLAN AND THE LAND USE MAP LIKE IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS JUST "OH, IT'S JUST THERE, IT'S JUST AS -- WE COULD JUST USE IT KIND OF AS A GUIDE. ". WELL, WHEN WE MOVED HERE, WE USED THAT TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN BEHIND US, AND WHEN PEOPLE ARE BUYING PROPERTY HERE, HOW ARE THEY EVER GOING TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WHEN THAT'S JUST, YOU TELL THEM, OKAY, THIS IS THE WAY IT IS. THE CITIZENS VOTED ON IT, AND NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT'S JUST A TOOL TO LOOK AT AND MAYBE USE OR NOT USE, AND THEN SOMEONE MADE THE POINT THAT THIS IS STILL LOW-DENSITY, BUT IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE COMP PLAN BASICALLY, OR, WHAT IT SHOULD BE FOLLOWING, THE DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T, UM, AND, UM, THE ROCK WALL THEY'RE GOING TO RAISE, ARE THEY PUTTING STEEL BEAMS IN THERE TO SUPPORT IT? BECAUSE, OTHERWISE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE VERY SAFE. LET'S SEE, ARE THEY PUTTING IN FLUMES FOR THE DRAINAGE, THE DRAINAGE IDEA DOESN'T LOOK GOOD TO ME AT ALL, I DON'T LIKE HOW THEY'RE DOING THEIR DRAINAGE, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD FOR THE RESIDENTS AROUND THEM.

>> THANK YOU. MY NEXT SPEAKER CARD IS FROM TERRI MILLICAN.

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR.

THANK YOU. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS

FOR THE RECORD. >> I'M A LITTLE BIT HARD OF HEARING, SO YOU HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME.

>> MY NAME IS TERR WHY, MILLICAN AND I'VE BEEN BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, UNFORTUNATELY, THE LAST TIME I WAS BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, WHEN I GOT HALFWAY THROUGH MY PRESENTATION, I WAS TOLD TO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I'M A RETIRED ENGINEER, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 50 YEARS AND I'VE WORKED FOR 40 YEARS AS A DISTRICT, OR A CITY ENGINEER, I'VE REVIEWED NUMEROUS SETS OF PLANS, IN THE PROCESS OF THAT. AND I HAVE PRESENTED, I THINK SOME OF YOU HAVE A REVIEW IDEA, THERE'S 14 VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY'S ORDINANCES, TWO VIOLATIONS OF STATE LAW. THERE IS NO REASON THIS THING SHOULD BE APPROVED. WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, IS, THAT, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS A LITTLE BIT STRONGER THAN JUST A GUIDELINE. STATE LAW, SECTION 211004 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT ALL ZONING BE DONE IN

[01:20:02]

IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. SO, WHY ARE WE HERE? AND THEN WHY ARE WE EVEN RE-ZONING THIS PROPERTY TO A PD WHEN AN -- IF YOU WANT TO ABANDON THE COMP PLAN ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS RE-SON THIS SF 8 AND IT'S ALL OVER. THE PURPOSE OF A PD ORDINANCE IS TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. THROUGHOUT YOUR ORDINANCES, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING TO DO HERE IS RUN A PD THROUGH THAT BASICALLY OVERRULES AND RATIFIES ALL OF THESE 14 VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. PLEASE HOLD YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY, OH, YES, WE DO. STANLEY POLLARD.

>> STANLE POLLARD, 3110, SYCAMORE STREET IN ROWLETT.

>> IT'S ON. >> OKAY. AS I MENTIONED MY REMARKS HERE IN CITIZEN'S INPUT, (INAUDIBLE) YOU HEARD FROM CITY STAFF THERE ARE SEVERAL HURDLES OF THE PROPERTY AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAYS OF THE FLOOD LANE. WHAT HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED IS I'VE ALLUDED TO, FOR INSTANCE, ON MILLER ROAD, YOU HAVE TWO EXITS AND ENTRANCES OUT OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE GIVING YOU RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT THEY'RE NOT ADDING ANYTHING TO MILLER ROAD WHICH IS ONLY TWO LINES EAST AND

WEST. (INAUDIBLE). >> .

(MIC NOT ON) >> NOT ADDING THE LANES IN

THERE. >> (INAUDIBLE).

>> YOU GOT TO LET THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY HELP PAY FOR THAT

WHEN IT COMES AROUND. >> (INAUDIBLE).

>> ROWLETT ROAD, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MILLER ROAD, THERE'S ONLY TWO LANES, KNOT AND SOUTH. ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MILLER ROAD. AND THOSE THREE LANES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MILLER ROAD.

BUT, YOU GOT A COMMERCIAL THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE AND THE TRAFFIC'S ALREADY BAD NORTH BOUND ROWLETT ROAD AND. (MIC IS OFF)

>> AND THERE IS, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD. I MENTIONED THIS BEFORE (INAUDIBLE) I WOULD HAVE TO GIVE THE (INAUDIBLE) TO GIVE THEM.

>> (MIC NOT ON)

>> THE REQUEST FOR THE PV, BUT, WHAT YOU CAN DO IS ASK, YOU CAN ASK THEM FOR THE ADDITIONAL LANE FROM THE LENGTH OF THEIR PROPERTY ON ROWLETT ROAD. PLUS, THE RIGHT-HAND TURN ON THE (INAUDIBLE). (MIC NOT ON)

>> HELPING OUT THE TRAFFIC FLOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GO DEVELOP THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IN ON (INAUDIBLE) ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. WE'LL SEE IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT, WE'LL SEE IF THEY'RE REALLY GOOD STEWARDS AND WANT TO BE FOR THE CITY OR IF THEY'RE HERE TO GET AS MUCH AS THEY CAN FROM THE PROPERTY AND LOADING IT FROM THE CURRENTLY ZONED AND

[01:25:04]

(MIC IS NOT ON) >> OR MILLER ROAD AS YOU GO FOR

THE FIRE STATION (INAUDIBLE) >> FROM ALL OF THESE CARS, ADDITIONAL CARS UP TO 78-ACRES OR SO IN LIEU OF 124 CURRENTLY.

(INAUDIBLE) >> SO, KEEP THAT IN MIND, IN TERMS OF WHAT THE APPLICANT CAN DO (INAUDIBLE)

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> I HAVE ONE FINAL CARD HERE

FROM BOB LUCK. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS. >> I'M SORRY, I INTERRUPTED

YOU. GO AHEAD. >> BOB LUCK 3005 JONES CIRCLE.

MY NUMBER ONE ISSUE ABOUT THIS IS THE TRAFFIC. ROWLETT ROAD AND MILLER ROAD IS ONE OF THE WORST INTERSECTIONS IN THE CITY AND SEVERAL POLICE OFFICERS TELL ME THAT. YOU DRIVE DOWN THERE ANY DAY ANYTIME THERE ARE ACCIDENTS.

(MIC IS NOT ON) >> THIS PLAN HAS NOTHING TO RECTIFY THAT WHATSOEVER. (INAUDIBLE)

>> IN ISSUES OF DRAINAGE, THAT INTERSECTION FLOODS ALMOST EVERY TIME WE GET THREE OR FOUR DAYS OF RAIN, AND THE SEWER DOES BACK UP ON A REGULAR BASIS BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THE SEWER PUMP TRUCK OUT THERE CLEANING IT OUT. SO, YOU START ADDING ALL OF THESE HOUSES TO IT, IT'S JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO GET WORSE AND WE'RE GOING TO END UP SPENDING MORE MONEY TO GET THAT FIXED. GO DONE THE STREET AND THERE ARE CLOTS OF (INAUDIBLE) ON, (INAUDIBLE) (MIC IS NOT ON)

>> (INAUDIBLE) >> I DON'T AGREE WITH THE FRONT ENTRY GARAGE. UM, SORRY, I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY UNTIL ABOUT 4:30 AND THE ONLY REASON I KNEW ABOUT IT IS BECAUSE THE GUY AT THE SHELL STATION TOLD ME ABOUT IT BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT. THERE'S NO SIGNS. WHEN I LOOKED THIS AFTERNOON, THERE'S NO SIGN ON THE PROPERTY TALKING ABOUT IT.

(INAUDIBLE) (MIC IS NOT ON)

>> (INAUDIBLE) >> I THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA, I DON'T THINK IT WAS PLANNED AND NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT THIS. I MADE OH A FEW PHONE CALLS AND SEVERAL PEOPLE, ASKED WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. AND SAID I CAN'T GET THERE. I THINK THAT YOU NEED TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION TO A LOT MORE PEOPLE OUT THERE, BECAUSE, GOING BY THE MAP THAT HE JUST SHOWED HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE SENT NOTICES IT MAY HAVE BEEN WHAT? 25 AND MAY BE HIS

LITTLE CIRCLE WAS IN THERE. >> WELL, THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO DO SO MANY FEET OUT FROM THE APPLICANT PROPERTY.

>> STILL, I THINK, SOMETHING AS BIG AS THIS, SHOULD BE ANNOUNCED TO MORE PEOPLE OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PUT IT. BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE AGAINST IT OR THEY WANT TO SEE IT AMENDED. AND, SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT WOULD HAVE ABA TRAFFIC STUDY DONE. WHY DON'T WE DO THE TRAFFIC STUDY BEFORE THIS IS APPROVED? IS THEN WE CAN SEE, AND SAY, HEY, IF YOU WANT TO BUILD THIS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD

THIS, THIS, THIS, AND THIS. >> YOU'RE OUT OF TIME, SIR, I'M

SORRY TO HAVE TO STOP YOU. >> THAT'S OKAY. THAT YOU CAN.

>> (INAUDIBLE) >> THAT WAS MY LAST SPEAKER CARD, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT HAS NOT TURNED IN A CARD THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ANYTHING FROM SUSAN, AT THIS TIME, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND COMMISSIONERS, WOULD YOU LIKE STAFF TO COME UP, ANYMORE

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR JUST ONE? >> I HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT MILLER ROAD AND ROWLETT ROAD, I DRIVE THERE EVERYDAY, AND, MANY, THEN DAYS THERE IS A TERRIBLE STENCH OF SEWAGE IN FACT, I'VE CALLED THE CITY ON IT. SO, THIS SPEAKER WHO MENTIONED, YOU KNOW,

[01:30:02]

CURRENTLY, THERE'S SOME ISSUE. >> IT'S BEEN BAD THE LAST TWO OR THREE DAYS, I'VE NOTICED, REALLY BAD, WORST THAN NORMAL.

>> IS IT THE SEWER OR THE CREEK?

>> IT SMELLS LIKE THE SEWER. >> THE SEWER?

>> >> DO WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR

STAFF, ALEX ORIGIN NEARING? >> MR. COHEN.

>> COME ON UP, JEFF. >> I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON MR. POLLARD'S COMMENT. AND, I'M, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS COME BEFORE US FOR TWO YEARS AND, IT'S IT SEEMS LIKE WE ALWAYS HAVE TO WAIT IF WE APPROVE IT TO GET A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, IT SEEMS LIKE IF WE KNOW THIS IS GOING TO KEEP COMING BACK TO US FOR TWO YEARS THAT MAY BE YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN AHEAD SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPER SO LAY OUT THE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THE LOCATION OF THE HOMES. AND, THERE'S SOME CONCERNS, I THINK WITH THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TOO. BUT, IF YOU COME BACK AND SAY, YES, WE DO NEED TO HAVE A THIRD LANE OR A RIGHT TURN LANE INTO THE SUBDIVISION, YOU DO GO TO THE DEVELOPER AND HE HAS TO PAY FOR IT. CORRECT? IT'S NOT

THE CITY EXPENSE? >> IF THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DOES SHOW THAT A (INAUDIBLE) IS WARRANTIED AND JUSTIFIED, THEN, YES, THAT WOULD BE THE ENTRANCE AND ACCESS POINT ON MILLER ROAD AND IF THAT'S NEEDED, THEN THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT.

(INAUDIBLE) >> AND I THINK, EVEN WITH THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF RIGHT-HAND TURN LANES OUT TRYING TO GET OUT OF THAT. AND EVEN ON THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, I THINK THERE'S ONLY ONE ON THE SOUTH END, MAY BE, WHERE THEY CUT OUT TO GO SOUTHBOUND?

>> THERE'S FULL ACCESS TO THE DRIVEWAY THAT IS LEFT AND RIGHT.

>> I MEAN, IT COULD BECOME A TRAFFIC PROBLEM TRYING TO GET

OUT OF THERE. >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY REAL MITIGATION THAT CAN BE DONE. THAT'S THE NATURE OF IS (MIC IS NOT

>> (INAUDIBLE) ( (INDISCERNIBLE) (

>> (MIC IS NOT ON) >> REPEAT YOUR LAST COMMENT,

JEFF? >> YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SIGNALIZE THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE IT'S TOO CLOSE TO ANOTHER ROAD.

>> RIGHT. >> PUBLIC COMMENT MIC IS NOT

ON. >> THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR JEFF. ON THE PROPOSED, I GUESS, RETENTION POND, IS THERE A FENCE AROUND THAT? I MEAN, HOW DO YOU

KEEP PEOPLE FROM FALLING IN? >> WE DON'T HAVE (INAUDIBLE)

>> IT'S NOT VERY >> IT'S NEVER BEEN VERY LOUD,

JEFF. >>

(MIC IS NOT ON) >> THERE WE GO.

>> WE DO NOT HAVE A CODE THAT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THAT, WE DO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPER TO PUT ONE IN OF THAT NATURE FOR THAT REASON. BUT, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CODE LOCAL OR STATE THAT REQUIRES THAT OTHER THAN FOR LIABILITY REASONS. AND, THAT'S REALLY A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER AS TO WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A FENCE THERE OR NOT. I THINK THE PLANS SHOW

ONE, THOUGH. >> AND CAN I ASK YOU WHAT IS, GOING ON AT ROWLETT ROAD AND MILLER ROAD THAT IT SMELLS LIKE

SEWAGE ON A REGULAR BASIS. >> WELL, THERE IS A LIFT STATION THERE. OTHER THAN THAT, IT HAS, THAT LIFT STATION HAS ALWAYS CREATED ODOR PROBLEMS, ALTHOUGH, I DO KNOW THAT PUBLIC WORKS HAS BEEN TREATING THE SEWER TO MITIGATE THOSE PROBLEMS. UM, SOMETIMES, MAY BE, ON OTHER SOME DAYS IT MAY BE WORSE THAN OTHERS AND THOSE MEASURES MAY NOT BE AS AFFECTIVE

AS THEIR ON OTHER DAYS. >> SO, IF THERE'S MORE SEWAGE GOING THROUGH THAT LIFT STATION, IS IT GOING TO INCREASE THE

[01:35:02]

SMELL? >> NO. YOU'RE TALKING 39 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN EITHER ODOR OR FLOW.

>> OKAY. SO, THE LIFT STATION IT'S BEEN THAT'S THERE NOW IT'S BEEN DETERMINED TO BE ADEQUATE FOR 39 ADDITIONAL HOMES?

>> WE HAVEN'T ASKED THE DEVELOPER TO LOOK AT THAT AT THIS POINT, WE'RE LOOKING AT ZONING RIGHT NOW. BUT, WHEN WE GET TO CITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, THAT WILL BE LOOKED AT, BUT, I DON'T EXPECT ANY ISSUES, WHATSOEVER WITH THE SEWAGE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. MR. COTE?

>> FOR THE DEVELOPER. >> CAN THE DEVELOPERS PLEASE COME BACK UP. BOTH OF YOU, PLEASE, SIRS.

>> MY FIRST QUESTION IS WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE TO CHANGING YOUR EXHIBIT D MILLER CREEK VILLAGE STANDARDS UNDER THE C-1 COMMERCIAL ALLOWED USES TO STRIKE NUMBER SIX, AGRICULTURAL,

GRAZING? >> CAN YOU PULL THAT UP,

PLEASE? >> I SAW SOMETHING THERE.

>> (INDISCERNIBLE)

>> YEAH, ACTUALLY, WE DON'T NEED THAT.

>> ARE YOU OKAY WITH STRIKING THAT?

>> OKAY. >> BUT, THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A

C-1. >> YES.

>> WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE IT OUT. YEAH.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHY IT IS THERE.

>> NEITHER DO I. >> OKAY. NOW, THE HARD ONES, WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE TO, UM, ADDING A LANE TO ROWLETT ROAD FOR THE LENGTH OF YOUR PROPERTY AN ADDITIONAL LANE TO ROWLETT ROAD TO THE LENGTH OF YOUR PROPERTY? AS WELL AS A RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE ONTO MILLER ROAD?

>> ACTUALLY, WE DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE TO LOOK INTO THIS REPORT

TRAFFIC REPORT. AND -- >> NO, I'M ASKING YOU RIGHT NOW IF YOU WOULD BE AMENABLE TO DOING THAT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT

THE TRAFFIC STUDY CALLS FOR. >> BUT, REMEMBER, THERE'S ANOTHER RIGHT-HAND LANE ALREADY THERE. A LONG ONE. AT THE END IN THE CORNER. AND, BEFORE THAT, WE HAVE A FULL TURN OPENED

THERE TOO. >> I THINK THERE IS A LITTLE

CUT THROUGH LANE THERE. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF IN THAT SITUATION, LET'S SAY THEY AGREED TO BUILD A LANE THERE, I'M PRETTY SURE THEY'RE NOT JUST ALLOWED TO DO THAT

UNLESS THERE'S A TRAFFIC STUDY. >> THE TRAFFIC SAYS WE HAVE TO

DO THAT. >> I DON'T THINK THE TRAFFIC

STUDY WILL SAY THAT YOU CAN'T. >>

(INDISCERNIBLE) >> WE'RE KILLING AN ANT HERE

NOW. >> JEFF, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH US?

>> COMMISSIONER SWIFT AS FAR AS ADDING A LANE, THAT'S NOT PROHIBITED, PUTTING IN SIGNALS AND SIGNAGE HAVE TO BE WARRANTIED. A LANE MAY BE JUSTIFIED, GIVEN THE COMMERCIAL ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. UM, BUT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY SAYS. AS FAR AS MILLER ROAD GOES, AND TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, THERE IS ALREADY A RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE AT ROWLETT ROAD ONTO MILLER ROAD AND A PORKCHOP THAT ALLOWS A FREE-FLOWING RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE.

>> HAVE YOU TAKEN THAT PORKCHOP?

>> WELL, BASICALLY I'M ASKING IF THE APPLICANT WILLING TO BUILD THAT THIRD LANE ON ROWLETT, THE LENGTH OF HIS PROPERTY AND STILL MAINTAIN A RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE?

>> YES. IT'S POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT'S NARROW ON THE NORTH END,

[01:40:04]

>> I'M THINKING, THOUGH, THAT THAT RIGHT-HAND-ONLY TURN LANE THAT YOU HAVE EXITING OUT OF THAT PROPERTY WILL GO AWAY IF YOU END UP PUTTING IN ANOTHER LANE AS WELL AS A TURN LANE, OKAY. SO, THERE WOULD ONLY BE TWO ENTRANCES TO THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. AND, I GUESS THE SAME QUESTION WOULD BE ARE YOU AMENABLE TO PUTTING IN A DECELERATION LANE ON MILLER ROAD INTO THE FIRST ENTRANCE INTO YOUR PROPERTY? BECAUSE, PEOPLE COMING THROUGH THAT LIGHT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO TURN, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO STOP, THEY WANT TO GET THROUGH

THAT LIGHT. >> YES. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

THAT PART WE'RE WAITING FOR THIS WERE REPORT.

>> BUT, I'M NOT, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU WOULD.

>> WE HAVE DEDICATED ALREADY THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS DEDICATED

FOR THAT. >> WE WILL TO EVERY COMPLIANCE

NEEDED. >> I'M SORRY?

>> WE'LL DO EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED TO BUILD THERE.

>> WELL, NOW, THAT'S A FREE TICKET.

>> IT'S LIKE, WHEN THE TRAFFIC REPORT CAME, SO, I WANTED TO

COMMENT, WE COULD DO THAT, YES. >> IF I CAN INTERJECT, I THINK THE QUESTION THAT IS COMING FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS SHOULD THEY RECOMMEND FAVORABLY FOR THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST? THEY ARE MIGHT RECOMMEND WITH THEIR RESPONSE HAVE A CONDITION THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO IN ADDITION TO INSTALLING YOUR RIGHT-HAND TURN DECELERATION LANES AN ADDITIONAL LANE REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR TIA PRODUCES OR RESULTS IN. AND THAT IS THE QUESTION WHICH IS BEING ASKED IF YOU, WOULD YOU THE APPLICANT BE AMENABLE TO THAT CONDITION BEING

PLACED ON THE PD. >> YES, WE DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THAT ONE SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT ONE. BUT, WE HAVE ROOM

THERE. >> SO, IT'S A YES OR NO

QUESTION. >> YES.

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, AGAIN,

GENTLEMEN. >> OKAY. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? WOULD Y'ALL LIKE TO? ROBERT, GO AHEAD.

>> I'LL START WITH THOUGHTS AND, UM, WE'VE OBVIOUSLY DONE THIS ONE A FEW TIMES, I KNOW IT'S BEEN MY ENTIRE PLANNING AND ZONING CAREER THAT I'VE BEEN WITH Y'ALL. BUT, JUST INITIALLY THINKING ABOUT LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY UP THERE AND I KNOW THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE SF 40, AN SF 40, I DON'T THINK FITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHERE IT'S OUR FAULT FOR REZONING IT TO THE OTHER SIZES BUT, I THINK THIS NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTS BIGGER HOUSES ON THE BLOCK, THIS REPRESENTS 39, $800,000 HOMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, I THINK THAT OVERALL, THE BIGGEST ISSUES THAT I'VE HEARD TIME AND TIME AGAIN ARE TRAFFIC AND SEWER.

AND I THINK THOSE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND I HAVE FAITH IN THE STAFF THAT IF IN THE PAST THAT WE APPROVED SOMETHING, WE CAN'T BUILD SOMETHING UNLESS IT'S APPROVED. I'M INCLINED TO APPROVE THE PROJECT, BUT, ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY OTHER IDEAS.

>> THANK YOU, ROBERT. JOHN? >> I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION

FOR THE APPLICANT, THOUGH. >> OH, ONE MORE TIME, THIRD

TIME'S A CHARM. >> I WANT YOU TO GET YOUR STEPS

IN TODAY. >> FIRST, I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE THE APPLICANT KUDOS FOR HIS PERSISTENTSY IN THE PROJECT, BUT, I ALSO NOTICE THAT HAD YOU STIPULATE LATE IN YOUR PD THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND START BOTH PHASES OF THIS PROJECT TOGETHER, OKAY. AND, THAT'S, GOOD, I AGREE WITH THAT.

THAT'S GREAT. BUT, MY QUESTION WOULD BE, HOW DO YOU PLAN ON FINISHING THEM? ARE THEY GOING TO BE TOGETHER OR ARE WE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE RESIDENTIAL AND HAVE THE SITE PREP FOR THE COMMERCIAL AND YOU KNOW, HAVE IT PETER OUT.

>> I THINK THE RESIDENTIAL MAY BE WILL GO FASTER.

>> YOU THINK THAT THE RESIDENTIAL WILL GO FASTER?

>> THAT'S WHAT I THINK, YEAH. >> AND HOW MUCH FASTER?

>> NO, >> THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW.

THEY START AT THE SAME TIME. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IT'S

[01:45:03]

TIME. >> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT ENDING UP WITH 39 RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND A SITE WHICH IS PREPPED FOR COMMERCIAL AND JUST DOESN'T COME TO FRUITION. SO, IS THERE ANY, UM, ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO DO OR, UM --

>> OKAY, GO AHEAD. >> WE TRIED TO START THE BOTH PROJECTS TOGETHER BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF UTILITY WORK FOR THE HOUSES, FOR THE 39 HOMES WE WILL COMPLETE THE UTILITY AND ROAD WORK AND START THE WORK ON THE COMMERCIAL ALSO. AND RIGHT NOW, AS THE INFLATION IS ALREADY HIGH, IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE GOING TO FINISH ALL THE UTILITY WORK IT WILL BE DONE AND WHEN THE MARKET BECOMES NORMAL, THE 39 HOMES WILL NOT BE A BIG DEAL IN THIS AREA BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF BUYERS WAITING FOR HOMES IN THIS AREA. IN THE MEANTIME, WE'LL OPEN THE COMMERCIAL AND

ALL THE HOUSES WILL BE SOLD OUT. >> WELL, AGAIN, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A PD THAT'S BEEN PUT TOGETHER C-1 AND SOME RESIDENTIAL. YOU KNOW, IT'S A PACKAGE DEAL AND WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THAT BASICALLY ALL YOU'LL GET CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AND SELL HOMES, BUT, YEAH, WE STARTED THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST UM, WE DON'T YOU KNOW.

>> NO, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY, YOU KNOW -- .

>> LIKE A RESTAURANT OR SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF WILL COME VERY FAST. SOME OF THEM WILL BE STARTED.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT. SO, I'M NOT A DEVELOPER, SO, YOU'LL HAVE TO HELP ME. SO, LET'S SAY YOUR POURING THE STREETS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I ASSUME THAT YOU PROBABLY DO THE PAVEMENT FOR THE COMMERCIAL AT THE SAME TIME, IS THAT HOW THAT WORKS AND YOU'LL BE RUNNING THE UTILITIES FOR THE COMMERCIAL AT

THE SAME TIME? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT, THE COMMERCIAL PIECE IS GOING TO BE PROFITABLE, JUST LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL AND, FOR YOU TO REGAIN YOUR EXPENSE FOR BUYING THE PROPERTY AND DEVELOPING IT, YOU NEED TO GET THEM BOTH GOING.

AM I WRONG? >> SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.

>> DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID?

>> WELL, TO ME, IN MY MIND, AND I JUST, WAS WONDERING IF YOU AGREE, THIS IS YOUR DEVELOPER, THIS IS HOW YOU MAKE YOUR MONEY, SO, YOU'LL MAKE MONEY ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE BUT YOU'LL ALSO MAKE MONEY ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WOULD DELAY THAT, FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO DELAY

THE HOUSES. >> AND THE COMMERCIAL, WE'RE KEEPING IT, WE'RE NOT SELLING IT.

>> AND YOU'VE DONE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BEFORE?

>> YES. >> WELL, I PERSONALLY, WE'VE

SEEN THIS PROPERTY -- >> ONE MORE QUESTION.

>> OH. GO AHEAD, PETER. >> THANK YOU.

>> UM,AL CONCERN, UM, AND IT'S JUST A CONCERN AND I'M CURIOUS, UM, WE'VE HAD COMMERCIAL DOECHLS HERE, SMALL ONES NOT BIG ONES THAT HAVE YET TO BE FINISHED OUT AND BY FINISHED OUT, THEY HAVE YET TO HAVE TENANTS IN THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE ACROSS THE CITY OF ROWLETT. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT THE RESIDENTS IN ROWLETT DO NOT WANT, OKAY. THE KIND OF TENANTS THEY DO NOT WANT. SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR IT, BUT, YOU'RE A DEVELOPER, YOU PUT THIS PROPERTY UP, UM, HAS TO BE A MARKETING PLAN THERE HAS TO BE A TARGET THAT YOU HAVE, THERE HAS TO BE A TYPE OF TENANT THAT YOU WANT. A TYPE OF TENANT THAT THESE RESIDENTS IN OUR COMMUNITY WANT. AND WE HAVE, LIKE I SAID, FAIRLY NEW PROPERTIES AND THERE ARE STILL

[01:50:03]

ON THE COMMUNITY SIDE WE HAVE A CERTAIN TYPE OF TENANT THAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THERE. WE DON'T WANT XYZ, BUT WE DON'T WANT IT BATH EITHER. I'M NOT TOO WORRY ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL, THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT THE MARKET'S VERY VOLATILE RIGHT NOW, EXTREMELY VOLATILE, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MARKET'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN 18 MONTHS, BUT I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE WAY IT LOOKS AND WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE, I JUST HOPE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THIS COMMUNITY REALLY WANTS IN TERMS OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT WE DON'T WANT FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, PETER. >> SO LET ME ASK YOU, WOULD YOU BE AGREEABLE TO THIS CONDITION AND THAT WOULD BE THAT YOU WILL NOT GET THE FINAL CO FOR THE LAST 10 RESIDENTS PRIOR TO GETTING THE CO ON THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

>> YES. OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? >> HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO SAY SOMETHING HERE? I THINK SO. UM, I STARTED TO SAY SOMETHING HERE A MINUTE AGO, I THINK THIS IS, I LIKE THE MASONRY WALL AROUND THE PROJECT, I LIKE THE SIZE AND PRICE OF THE HOMES AND THE LOTS. AND, THIS IS THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT PROPERTY'S INCEPTION. IT'S A DIFFERENT, MORE CHALLENGING PIECE OF LAND. AND, UM, YOU SEEM PRETTY CONFIDENT ABOUT IT.

YOU'RE SMILING A LOT. SO, I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT.

>> NO, I MEAN, LIKE -- >> CAN I SAY SOMETHING?

>> SURE. >> FOR BOTH OF US, BESIDE OUR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, WE BUILD OUR OWN HOMES ALSO. IT'S LIKE THIS TYPE, YOU KNOW. AND, ALSO, I JUST MENTIONED TO HIM, WE HAVE QUITE A FEW SHOPPING CENTERS RIGHT NOW THAT WE OWN AND WE HAVE A VERY GOOD MARKETING TEAM WHO'LL BE HELPING US TO REACH OUT TO THE NATIONAL TENANTS SO THAT WILL BE LONG-LASTING IN THE

SHOPPING CERTAINTY. >> OKAY.

>> WELL, Y'ALL CAN TAKE A SEAT NOW, I BELIEVE, AND THANK YOU

AGAIN. >> ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT

WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION. >> NO.

>> YOU'VE GOT A QUESTION? >> I HAVE A TALKING POINT OR

TWO. >> I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU WERE RAISING YOUR HAND FOR A MOTION, JOHN.

>> MAY BE IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES. BUT, I WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC, UM, THAT WE ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING ARE IN FACT LISTENING TO THE CITIZENS OF ROWLETT AND TAKE THEIR COMMENTS SERIOUSLY DURING OUR DELIBERATIONS AND TO THAT POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC'S NOT CONFUSED OVER SOME OF THE COMMENTS MADE DURING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

SPECIFICALLY, UM, A PORTION OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 213.003 AND THAT'S ADOPTION OR AMENDMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAY BE ADOPTED OR AMENDED BY ORDINANCE FOLLOWING A PUBLIC HEARING IN WHICH THE PUBLIC IS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE TESTIMONY AND PRESENT WRITTEN EVIDENCE AND REVIEW THE BY THE MUNICIPALITY'S PLANNING COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT IF ONE EXISTS AND I DO BELIEVE THAT WE DO HAVE ONE OF THEM.

AND THE MUNICIPALITY MAY ESTABLISH IN THESE CHARTER BY ORDINANCE A PROCEDURE FOR ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

[01:55:05]

FIVES. >> SOME HAVE SAID THAT SPOT ZONING, THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO SPOT ZONING AND AGAIN I WAS UNABLE TO FIND A REFERENCE TO SPOT ZONING IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND LET ME TELL YOU THAT'S TWO HOURS OF MY LIFE I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RECOVER. AND I'M NOT BEING PAID TO

RESEARCH CASE LAW. SO, UM -- >> YOU'RE NOT BEING PAID AT

ALL. >> NOT BEING PAID AT ALL. SO, I'LL DEFER TO THE DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING PROVIDED TO US IN THE ROWLETT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HANDOUT.

>> MA'AM YOU CAN NOT SPEAK AT THIS TIME. THIS MEETING IS IN

SESSION. >> YOU CAN NOT SPEAK AT THIS TIME. IF YOU CONTINUE TO DO IT, I'LL HAVE TO ASK YOU TO LEAVE

THE ROOM. >> SO, I'LL DEFER TO THE SPOT ZONING DEFINITION PROVIDED TO US IN THE ROWLETT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HANDBOOK PAGE 8 THAT READS, SPOT ZONING AWARDING A ZONING CHANGE TO A SPECIFIC TRACK OF LAND THAT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES USUALLY FOR IMPROPER MOTIVE. ONCE AGAIN, I'M NOT BEING PAID TO SIT HERE, SO, YOU CAN TAKE THAT HOWEVER YOU WANT. BUT, BASICALLY, THIS CHANGE IS IN NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES.

THERE'S COMMERCIAL ON THE -- >> WEST?

>> YEAH, THE WEST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY AND THERE'S RESIDENTIAL ON THE EAST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE SOUTH.

>> AND NORTH. >> OKAY. AFTER TAKING THIS INTO CONSIDERATION, AND ALL THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED HERE, TONIGHT, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. THAT'S

ALL I HAVE." >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU.

>> JOHN MADE A REALLY, REALLY GOOD POINT. THE I THINK THAT I CAN SPEAK FOR AWFUL US UP HERE FROM MY EXPERIENCE HAVING BEEN A PART OF IT FOR A FEW YEARS. OUR MAIN CONCERN ALWAYS IS THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT. I THINK THAT I CAN SAY THAT FOR ALL OF US. I'M A RESIDENT, I LIVE VERY CROSS CLOSE TO THIS AREA, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC TOO, BUT, I HAVE A LOT OF FAITH IN THE STAFF, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE LAWS AND RULES THAT THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY WHEN THEY ARE INVOLVED IN A PROJECT OF THIS NATURE. UM, ENGINEERING STUDIES WILL BE DONE, FLOOD STUDYING WILL BE DONE, TRAFFIC STUDIES WILL BE DONE, WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT THAT THE APPLICANT IS SMILINGLY, AMENABLE TO, UM, OUR REQUEST FOR AND I BELIEVE SOME OF THIS WOULD COME OUT IN A MOTION. BUT, I AGREE WITH JOHN

[02:00:06]

FOR A MOTION? >> THERE'S THAT MOTION HAND.

OKAY. GO AHEAD, JOHN. >> MADAM CHAIR I MAKE A MOTION TO EYE PROVE THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY SF 40 FOR PLANNED LIMITED RETAIL USES AND A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OF SF 8 USE AND APPROVAL THE CONCEPT SITE PLANS AND DEVELOPING CONDITIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. ONE, THE APPLICANT ADDS A THIRD, NORTHBOUND LANE AND RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE ON ROWLETT ROAD FOR THE LENGTH OF THINKS PROPERTY, TWO, INSTALL A RIGHT-HAND DECELERATION LANE ON MILLER ROAD AT HIS FIRST ENTRANCE. AND, THREE, STRIKE NUMBER SIX ON THE CONDITIONS THAT, EXCUSE ME, NUMBER SIX ON HIS LIST OF COMMERCIAL USES. AND FINALLY, CONDITION THAT YOU WILL NOT GET THE FINAL CO FOR THE LAST 10 RESIDENCES UNTIL YOU GET THE FINAL CO FOR THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

>> ADDITIONALLY APPROVE THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR TO

AMENDMENT THE ZONING MAP. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONSIDERATIONS BY THE CITY AND IN ADDITION OF FOUR ADDITIONAL ITEMS BY

MR. COTE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. ENGEN. ALL IN FAVOR?

[4C. Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on a request by Peter Gomez, Cambridge Homes on behalf of property owner Cambridge Land Lake Park, LLC., to amend a Tree Removal Permit on property zoned Form-Based New Neighborhood (FB-NN) District. The 35.2-acre site is located approximately 400 feet south of Panama Drive at the termination of Sunrise Drive and Lafayette Drive, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

>> AND THAT ITEM PASSES. >> MOVING ONTO ITEM 4 C OF OUR AGENDA. CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY PETER GOMEZ CAMBRIDGE HOMES ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER, CAMBRIDGE LAND LAKE MARK LLC TO AAMEND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ON A PROPERTY ZONE FORM BASED NEW NEIGHBORHOOD, THE 35.2-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED 400 FEET SOUTH OF PAN IN A MA DRIVE AT THE TERMINATION OF SUNRISE AND LAFAYETTE DRIVE IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU, SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. HOPEFULLY THIS IS A MUCH

EASIER CONSIDERATION. >> SO, AS YOU STATED WE'RE HERE TO CONSIDER A PERMIT. YOU'VE SEEN THIS ONE BEFORE. COME THROUGH FOR THE LOCATION AT LAKE PARK. AND SO, IT IS LOCATED ON THE GRAPHIC TO THE RIGHT. THIS IS A 35.2-ACRE SITE AND IT IS LOCATED 400 FEET SOUTH OF PANAMA DRIVE. AND THE PROPERTY IS BEING DEVELOPED WITH 142 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. PART OF THAT PROCESS DOES REQUIRE THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, AND IT'S NOT IN ORDER, BUT, IT'S ESSENTIALLY, THE MAY 4TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING DID APPROVE A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TODAY, AND THERE ARE NOTABLE DIFFERENCES THAT WE WILL DISCUSS, UM, AND IT ALLOWED FOR 225 PROTECTED TREES TO BE REMOVED TOTALLY 2,005 ONE 66 CALIPER INCHES AND LEAVING A DEFICIT OF 83 CALIPER INCHES WHICH TOTALLED $10,500.12 WHICH WERE PAID TO THE REFORESTATION FUND. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED FOR 142 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND FOUR OPEN SPACES. THE PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT IS TO BE COMPLETED BOTH PHASES BY 2025.

[02:05:04]

[02:10:03]

>> PLANNING AND ZONING CONSIDERATION MAY RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IFS DETERMINED THAT ONE, THE REMOVAL OF THE TREE IS NOT REASONABLY REQUIRED TO CONDUCTIVITIES AND TWO A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION CAN BE MADE TO PRESERVE THE TREES OR THE INTENT IS NOT BEING MET BY THE APPLICANT. THE STAFF'S ACCOMMODATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AS THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND RETAINING WALLS. THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, HE DO DOES NOT HAVE A FORMAL PRESENTATION BUT HE IS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> JOHN. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT THE SPECIFIC UNFORESEEN UTILITY WAS

THAT REQUIRED THIS? >> THE SPECIFIC WHAT?

>> THE SPECIFIC UNFORESEEN UTILITY REQUIREMENTS WERE TO

PROMPT THIS CHANGE? >> JEFF, WOULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT? I KNOW THAT ONE OF THEM IS SEWER AND THE OTHER ONE, I BELIEVE, IS ESSENTIALLY STORM OR DRAINAGE FOR WATER AND SO, THAT WOULD BE THE ONE TO THE LEFT WOULD BE THE STORM.

>> I THINK WHEN THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, THE ORIGINAL TREE REMOVAL PERMIT CAME BEFORE YOU WHEN THE ORIGINAL TREE REMOVAL CAME BEFORE YOU AND COUNCIL, I DON'T THINK THEY SHOWED THESE UTILITIES ON THAT PLAN.

>> SO, UTILITIES ARE THE STORM WATER, THE SEWER DRAIN, AND THE

SUBSEQUENT RETAINING WALLS? >> YES.

>> THIS IS A STORM DRAIN, THIS IS A SEWER LINE. AND THE BLUE, AS CARLOS SAID ARE THE RETAINING WALLS.

>> AND WHAT ARE THE GRAY LINES THERE?

>> CONTOURS. >> WHOSE CONTOURS?

>> I ONLY SAY THAT BECAUSE I LOOK AT THE ELEVATION DRAWING THAT'S PROVIDED IN THE PACKAGE, AND THAT'S LIKE, THOSE CONTOURS ARE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. THEY SHOULD BE GOING

UP. >> RIGHT, BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING

TO LIFT THAT CORNER. >> THIS IS LOW. AND, THIS IS

HIGH. >> RIGHT. BUT, THE CONTOUR LINE SHOULD BE RUNNING THIS WAY, THEN, AS YOU CLIMB THAT

ELEVATION AROUND THERE, RIGHT? >> WELL, NO. SO YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, THOSE CONTOUR LINES ARE SORT OF INTERSECTING THE WALL. IT'S, THIS RIGHT AREA RIGHT HERE IS FLAT, THIS IS A SLOPE DOWN TO THE FIRST RETAINING WALL.

>> SHOW ME THE FLAT PART, JEFF. >> RIGHT HERE.

>> THE ROAD IS HERE. >> RIGHT.

>> AND THIS WOULD BE THE PARKWAY. RELATIVELY FLAT.

>> RELATIVELY FLAT TO THAT RETAINING WALL?

>> WELL, TO THE EDGE OF, OF, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE SIDEWALK,

OR... >> THE TRAIL.

>> IT'S RELATIVELY FLAT HERE? >> THE TRAIL.

>> BECAUSE THAT DRAWING'S OUT TO LUNCH WHEN YOU COMPARE TO TO

THE TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP HERE. >> THE FIRST ONE, I DON'T RECALL THE ELEVATIONS AND THE APPLICANT, WHO IS HERE, MAY BE ABLE TO INFORM US BETTER AS TO THE RELATIVE HEIGHTS OF THESE WALLS BUT THIS IS A TWO-TIERED WALL SYSTEM. AND, IT DOES GO

DOWN QUITE A BIT. >> RIGHT.

>> I'M LOOKING, AGAIN, AT THE. P>> YOU MEAN THE GRADING PLAN R -- BECAUSE, THE NATURAL T TOPOGRAPHY IS SIGNIFICANTLY

(INDISCERNIBLE) OF THE GRADES. >> IT ACTUALLY SAYS IT'S THE

PLANT LEGEND. >> IT'S THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH THE ATTACHED LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT SHOWS.

[02:15:01]

>> I'M NOT SURE THAT THOSE ARE ACCURATE.

>> CARLOS, CAN YOU HOLD THAT UP?

>> I JUST WANT CARLOS TO PULL THAT UP SO YOU COULD SEE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, IT IS SHEET, ATTACHMENT, 3, SHEET L8.

>> I GUESS WHAT I'M DRIVING AT IS I'M OPPOSED TO RIPPING OUT ALL THE TREES, WE WERE ABLE TO SAVE ONE.

>> THE GREEN TREES ARE SAVED. >> THE GREEN DOTS ARE SAVED.

>> BUT, OUT OF ALL THE ONES THAT WE'RE PULLING OUT, I MEAN -- I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED TO TAKE OUT ANYMORE OF THOSE RED DOTS BETWEEN THOSE TWO RETAINING WALLS.

>> BECAUSE THAT'S ALL FILL. >> BASED ON THE LANDSCAPING --

>> THAT'S ALL FILL. >> IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT HERE ON

THE TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP. >> I'M NOT SURE THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN REPRESENTS IS THE GRADING, THE ACCURATE GRADING

SCHEME THAT THEY HAVE DESIGNED. >> THIS LOOKS MORE LIKE THIS IS BEING FILLED IN, WHEREAS HIS SHOWS THE SLOPE.

>> IT SHOWS A 20-FOOT DROP BETWEEN THE UPPER LEVEL.

>> WE DON'T HAVE ACTUAL PICTURES?

>> HOW DO YOU EXPECT US TO MAKE A DECISION IF YOU DON'T GIVE US

THE RIGHT PICTURES. >> I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S BEEN BUILT. YEAH, SO, THOSE ARE THE NATURAL EXISTING CONTOURS.

>> THOSE ARE THE NATURAL, EXISTING CONTOURS?

>> YES. >> SO, WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A

RETAINING WALL THERE. >> AND FILL.

>> FILL THE BACK SIDE OF IT? >> YES.

>> THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF FILL THERE.

>> EVEN THE TREES WILL BE UNDER GROUND.

>> BUT THAT WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE, UNLESS, FOR SOME REASON, I DON'T SEE THE SECOND, I DON'T SEE THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE SECOND RETAINING WALL FOR THE SMALLER INTERIM WALL.

>> THE STREET IS CONSI CONSIDERABLY SO, THE BOTTOM OF THAT LITTLE VALLEY THERE IS 450, I DON'T RECALL THE ELEVATION TO THE STREET, BUT, I'M GUESSING IT'S --

>> I'M SORRY? >> 480.

>> 30 FEET, THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT.

>> SO, THERE'S CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF FILL THAT'S BEEN

PLACED. >> ON THE BACKSIDE OF THAT

WALL? >> YES.

>> AND SO (INDISCERNIBLE).

>> WELL, THE, THE, THE FRONT SIDE THE FRONT SIDE OF THE WALL IS RIGHT HERE. EVERYTHING BEHIND THERE IS FILLED. THAT'S WHY THIS TREE HERE IS IN FILL AND IT CANNOT BE SAVED. AS

THESE TREES ARE ALSO. >> SO, YOU'RE SAYING IT'S A

TWO-STEP WALL? >> IT'S A TWO-TIERED WALL.

YES. >> WHAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND

THAT? JUST STRENGTH? >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE APPLICANT. THEY DESIGNED THE SITE.

>> OKAY. APPLICANT? >> GO AHEAD.

>> IT HELPS THAT THEY LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS AND

I SEE IT EVERYDAY. >> THIS IS YOUR BACKYARD?

>> YES. >> YES.

>> COMMISSION, THANK YOU, I'M COLIN WITH ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, WE'RE THE PLANNERS AND ENGINEERS FOR CAMBRIDGE HOMES, AND I THINK THE QUESTION WAS WHAT ARE WE DOING A TWO-TIERED WALL SYSTEM? WE'VE WORKED WITH OUR RETAINING WALL COMPANY WALLCO TO COME UP WITH THE BEST DESIGN TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TREES. I THINK HE THE MISCONCEPTION HERE IS THAT THERE ARE NO TREES BEING LEFT. THERE ARE A LOT OF TREES STILL WITHIN THIS AREA. THEY JUST MIGHT NOT MEET THAT 8-INCH REQUIREMENT.

SO, THIS AREA'S VERY HEAVILY TREED STILL. THESE AREN'T ALL OF THE ACTUAL JUST TREES WITHIN THE AREA. BUT, GOING BACK TO THE RETAINING WALLS, UM, SO, AS YOU MENTIONED WE'VE GOT ABOUT 30-FEET OF ELEVATION FALL. AND, CREATING A RETAINING WALL THAT IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND AT 30 FEET IS VERY DIFFICULT AND IT PUTS A HUGE BURDEN ON THE HOA BECAUSE THEY WILL BE THE ONES THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF IT. IT IS GOING TO BE IN AN OPEN SPACE AREA. SO, WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH WALCO, THE RETAINING

[02:20:03]

COMMISSIONER? >> YES. THANK YOU.

>> SO, WE ASKED JEFF THE QUESTION AND WE'RE BACK HERE LOOKING AT THIS AGAIN BECAUSE THERE WERE CHANGES AND WE CALLED THEM UNFORESEEN UTILITIES, OBVIOUSLY, THE CITY'S IN CHARGE OF THOSE. WERE THESE UNFORESEEN BY YOU GUYS OR JUST SOMETHING THAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND LOOK ATT A

LATER TIME? >> SO THE TREE REMOVAL WAS APPROVED AFTER WE DID THE CITY'S DESIGN WORK. WE KNEW THAT WE HAD TO HAVE UTILITIES AND HAD TO GET CONNECTIONS TO THE EXISTING UTILITY LINES AND GET STORM WATER OFF OF OUR SITE. THAT'S NOT UNFORESEEN. THE EXACT LOCATIONS OF WHERE IT TOOK PLACE, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY. ONCE BEGOT THE CIVIL PERMIT APPROVED WE DID COME BACK AND REALIZED WE NEEDED TREES TO BE TAKEN OUT IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE DURING THE

GRADING PROCESS. >> I'LL ASK CARLOS, HOW MANY MORE TREES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT NOW?

>> FROM THE ONES THAT WERE INITIALLY?

>> CORRECT. >> SO, TECHNICALLY, THE FIRST

ONE WAS APPROVED 225 TREES. >> THIS IS 232. SO, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENCE OF 7 TREES. AGAIN, THE CREDIT

NUMBERS CHANGED. >> SO, WE'RE GETTING MORE CREDIT BECAUSE OF THE PARKLAND OUT OF THAT?

>> WELL, THEY GET LESS CREDITS IN FAVOR FOR IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE LESS TREES WHICH ARE SAVED WITHIN THEIR PROTECTED. BUT, ALSO, OCE WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT, WE REALIZED SOME NUMBERS THAT WERE ESSENTIALLY DISCREPANCIES IN THE INITIAL NUMBER. SO, THAT NUMBER STILL WENT DOWN SO, THERE ARE STILL MINOR DISCREPANCIES BUT IT IS THE REMOVAL OF THE ADDITION

SEVEN TREES. >> MORE THAN THE INITIAL PLAN.

I'M A BANKER AND WENT TO THE DOLLARS AND I WONDERED WHY IT

QUADRUPLED IN PRICE. >> WELL, THE AMOUNT OF TREE THAT IS WE'RE PLANTING ON-SITE DON'T MAKE UP FOR WHAT IS BEING REMOVED AND IF ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS WE'VE WORKED WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN TRYING TO FIT AS MANY TREES, IT'S TO OUR BENEFIT TO HAVE AS MANY TREES ON SITE FOR FUTURE LAND OTHER THANES AT THE END OF THE DAY, IN 10 YEARS YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A SURVIVING TREE. AND SO, WE'VE DONE AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY INTO THE REFORESTATION FUND AND THE APPLICANT IS UNDERSTANDING

AND WILLING OF THAT. >> ANYTHING ELSE,

COMMISSIONERS? >> JOHN?

>> FOR STAFF. >> OKAY.

>> THIS, I GUESS, IS AN ADDITIONAL $45,000 INTO THE

REFORESTATION FUND? >> AN ADDITION $35,000.

>> BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY PAID $10,000.

>> OKAY. >> SO, MY QUESTION IS WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON WHAT WERE THE REFORESTATION FUND CURRENTLY STANDS AND WHAT

WE EXPECT TO DO WITH THAT MONEY? >> CERTAINLY.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT NOW, JUST PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.

>> I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IN FACT THERE IS A POLICY IN DRAFT FORM NOW THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE PARK'S ADVISORY BOARD AND THEN TO COUNCIL IN THE FORM OF A WORK SESSION TO TALK ABOUT THE DISSEMINATION OR THE DISPERSEMENT OF THE TREE ITEMIZED IN THE REFORESTATION

FUND. >> DO YOU KNOW THE AMOUNT?

>> IT'S ABOUT $400,000 RIGHT NOW, APPROXIMATELY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> SO, IT IS MANAGED BY OUR PARK'S DEPARTMENT. WHICH, PERHAPS, WE CAN DO A WORK

SESSION. >> .

[LAUGHTER] >> A JOINT WORK SESSION.

>> THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR.

[02:25:04]

>> COMMISSIONERS? >> ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION?

>> MR. ENGEN >> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND

APPROVAL OF THE TREE PERMIT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY MR. ENGEN FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 4 C ON THE AGENDA, DO I

HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHO BEAT WHO. ROBERT.

>> OKAY. ACTUALLY, I THINK THAT I HEARD PETER FIRST. SO, I'LL LET PETER BE OUR SECOND. AND ALL IN FAVOR?

>> SHE'S THROWING STUFF NOW. >> I'M SORRY.

>> AND THAT WAS A UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. AND, WE ARE ADJOURNED. (MEETING

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.