Feb 07, 2023 City Council Meetings

[00:00:04]

GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. THANKS FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

PRIOR TO THE START OF EACH MEETING, COUNCIL BEGINS WITH AN INVOCATION AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO JOIN US, PLEASE STAND.

LET'S PRAY. FATHER WE THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY. LORD, WE ALSO THANK YOU FOR THE RAIN. AND ABOVE FREEZING TEMPERATURES.

WE THANK YOU FOR ALL OF OUR LEADERS HERE TONIGHT AND OUR PEOPLE OF OUR GREAT CITY AND FATHER, WE ASK YOU TONIGHT THAT YOU WOULD GUIDE AND DIRECT THEIR VERY THOUGHTS, WORDS AND ACTIONS. LORD, WE SEEK YOUR WILL AND YOUR COUNCIL FROM HEAVEN TONIGHT.

WE KNOW YOU'RE A GOOD GOD AND YOU GIVE US GOOD THINGS.

EVERY PERFECT GIFT COMES FROM YOU.

LORD, WE ASK TONIGHT AS YOUR CHILDREN, WE KNOW THAT YOU WILL GRANT IT, FATHER BLESS THIS CITY, OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, ALL OUR FAMILIES, SCHOOLS, BUSINESS.

SO WE THANK YOU FOR THIS TIME THAT WE CAN PRAY.

AND THANK YOU THAT IS THE FIRST THING THAT WE DO IN JESUS NAME.

AMEN. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A SPECIAL GUEST WITH US HERE TODAY.

FOR OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, WE'VE BEEN HAVING BOY SCOUTS COME TO PROVIDE THAT. AND SO TONIGHT, WE HAVE WILLIAM SPARKS WITH BSA TROOP 646. COME TO THE MIC.

AMERICAN FLAG. AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

NOW THE AMERICAN PLEDGE, OR THE TEXAS FLEDGE.

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS FLAG, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, ONE STATE, UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE.

>> THANK YOU, YOU CAN NOW BE SEATED.

[5A. Mayor’s State of the City Address.]

THE MAYOR'S STATE OF ADDRESS. GIVE ME A SECOND TO GET RIGHT UP THERE. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. GOOD EVENING, ROWLETT, EVERY YEAR IS MAYOR IS TASKED WITH PROVIDING THE ANNUAL STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS. THIS IS MY FIRST STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS. I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE STATE OF OUR CITY IS GREAT. THOSE WHO KNOW ME WELL KNOW ME THAT I AM A HISTORY BUFF. SO I WOULD LIKE TO START OFF BY PROVIDING SOME HISTORY OF OUR COMMUNITY.

AND HOW WE ARRIVED TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

DANIEL ROWLETT, A SMALL IMMIGRANT COMPANY OF SEVERAL FAMILIES LEFT TENNESSEE FOR TEXAS IN 1835, THEY SETTLED IN THE TULIP BEND AREA OF THE RED RIVER NEAR PRESENT DAY BOTTOM.

MILITARY SERVICE PERFORMED DURING THE TEXAS REVOLUTION, HE EARNED A LAND GRANT LOCATED IN COLLIN COUNTY, NEAR PRESENT DAY ALLEN. A LARGE CREEK CAME TO THE LAND AND CAME TO BE KNOWN AT ROWLETT'S CREEK.

DANIEL ROWLETT BECAME A LEADING CITIZEN AND NEVER LIVED NEAR TH CREEK. BURIED IN THE OLD ENGLISH CEMETERY IN BOTTOM. THE AREA NOW KNOWN AS ROWLETT WAS DIVIDED BETWEEN TWO IMMIGRATION COMPANIES, WS PETERS COLONY AND PETERS LAND WAS WEST OF ROWLETT ROAD, MERCER COLONY, SOUTH OF PETERS HELD A STRIP OF EASTERN ROWLETT ROAD. AMERICAN SETTERS BEGAN MOVING TO THIS AREA IN THE 1840S. FRENCH AND GERMAN SPEAKING SETTLERS BEGAN ARRIVING IN TEXAS IN 1844, THEY STARTED COLONIES BEFORE MOVING TO THE NORTH.

THE FIRST POST OFFICE IN ROWLETT, WAS OPENED ON APRIL 5TH, 1880. THE NAME WAS LATER CHANGED TO ROWLETT, RECOGNIZING ROWLETT CREEK, A MAJOR TRIBUTARY OF THE EAST FORK OF THE TRINITY RIVER. RAILROADS BEGAN TO SPREAD WESTWARD AFTER THE CIVIL WAR BRINGING NEW WAVES OF SETTLERS.

THE GREENVILLE AND DALLAS RAILROAD REACHED ROWLETT IN 1889. BY THE TURN OF THE CENTURY, ROWLETT WAS A THRIVING FARM COMMUNITY WITH MANY STORES AND SERVICES ALONG WITH SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES.

[00:05:05]

THE MAIN INDUSTRY IN ROWLETT WAS COTTON.

TODAY, TWO COTTON GINS STILL STAND AND SERVE OTHER USES.

AND IN 1960S, INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 30 WAS BUILT, PROVIDING A MORE DIRECT ROUTE TO DALLAS. THE RESERVOIR WHICH OFFERS ROWLETT MORE THAN 30 MILES OF SHORE LINE NOW, MAKING ROWLETT A LAKEFRONT COMMUNITY. GROWTH BECAME INEVITABLE.

POPULATION OF 5100 TO AROUND 70,000 PEOPLE TODAY.

MANY OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAVE DESCENDENTS HERE, ROWLETT CAN TRULY BE CALLED A CITY THAT IS BUILT BY FAMILY, FRIENDS AND COMMUNITY. SO FAST FORWARD TO TODAY.

ROWLETT AGAIN, IS HOME TO AROUND 70,000 RESIDENTS.

NESTLED ON THE SHORES OF LAKE GREAT HUBBARD.

HERE YOU CAN WATCH A SUNSET ON THE LAKE, PARTICIPATE IN ANY NUMBER OF WATER SPORTS, WHICH MAKES US ONE OF THE HANDFUL OF COMMUNITIES THAT CAN OFFER THIS TYPE OF LAKE SIDE LIVING.

ROWLETT RESIDENTS CHOOSE TO LIVE HERE BECAUSE THEY CAN ENJOY ALL OF THE AMENITIES A CLOSE-KNIT COMMUNITY CAN OFFER.

UNIQUE SHOPPING OPPORTUNITIES, QUALITY HEALTH CARE, BEAUTIFUL LAKE SIDE PARKS, A VARIETY OF COMMUNITY ENTERTAINMENT AND SPECIAL EVENTS AND MUCH MORE. WE HAVE OUR DOORS WIDE OPEN TO THE WORLD AND BECOME A PRIME LOCATION FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT TURNPIKE, INTERSTATE 30, OFFERING EASY ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE METROPLEX. ROWLETT IS CONNECTED TO THE NORTH TEXAS REGION. THIS BRINGS MAJOR DEVELOPMENT DIRECTLY TO ROWLETT. POTENTIAL NEW RESIDENTS WHO DESIRE ATTRACTIVE, AFFORDABLE URBAN STYLE LIVING.

WITH THAT, PLEASE JOIN ME AS WE VIEW THE STATE OF THE CITY COMMUNICATION TEAM.OWLETT'S - ALL RIGHT.

>> COUNCIL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME TO THE FRONT.

[00:24:46]

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT.

[00:24:48]

[00:24:52]

ESPECIALLY DREW FOR ALL OF THE EDITING AND HANNAH AS WELL FOR THE SCRIPTING AND HOSTING THAT AS WELL.

[00:25:02]

THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

[5B. Presentation of a proclamation recognizing the month of February 2023 as Black History Month and request to light the Water Tower]

NEXT ITEM. ITEM 5B PRESENTATION OF THE PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2023 AS BLACK HISTORY MONTH AND REQUEST THE WATER TOWER BE LIT.

PRESENTING THAT PRESENTATION WILL BE COUNCIL MEMBER PAM BELL. RDIC, YOU CAN COME UP TO THE

FRONT. >>

>> GOOD EVENING. A LITTLE SHORT THERE.

ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT.

I'M GOING TO READ A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE ABOUT BLACK HISTORY MONTH. OKAY.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH IS AN ANNUAL CELEBRATION OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF BLACK AMERICANS IN U.S.

HISTORY. DEDICATION TO RESEARCHING AND PROMOTING ACHIEVEMENTS IN BLACK AMERICANS LIKE CARTER G.

WOODSON. HOLD ON JUST A MOMENT.

SEE, THESE ARE EXTRA EYES. OKAY.

SO I CAN READ THIS. A WEEK LONG CELEBRATION THAT EVOLVED INTO A MONTH-LONG CELEBRATION THAT IS CELEBRATED EACH FEBRUARY. EACH YEAR A THEME IS ASSIGNED.

THIS YEAR'S THEME IS BLACK RESISTANCE.

WHICH EXPLORES HOW BLACK AMERICANS HAVE HISTORICALLY RESISTED OPPRESSION FORMS RACIAL TERRORISM TO RACIAL PROGRAMS. THE ROWLETT DIVERSITY AND EQUITY AND INCLUSION COMMITTEE MISSION IS TO PROACTIVELY, WHICH IS REALLY GOOD ENGAGE IN ROWLETT'S DIVERSE POPULATION.

TO ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY BY CELEBRATING AND FOSTERING MUTUAL RESPECT AND INTEGRITY AND FAIRNESS, ENGAGE WITH OTHERS IN DELIBERATE AND COLLABORATION TO ENRICH A VIBRANT CULTURE OF ROWLETT. ADDITIONALLY, IT IS REQUESTED THAT DOWNTOWN WATER TOWER BE LIT TO RED, GREEN AND YELLOW.

9ON FEBRUARY THE 24TH, 2023, RED FOR THE BLOOD OF THOSE THAT HAVE LOST THEIR LIFE, GREEN FOR THE GROWTH, FROM THE MOTHER LAND AND YELLOW FOR HOPE. JUSTICE AND EQUALITY.

LIGHTING THE WATER TOWER IS A SYMBOLIC AND RECOGNIZING BLACK HISTORY MONTH. AND ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE DIVERSE POPULATIONS IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT AS WELL AS -- EXCUSE ME. AS WELL AS HISTORY AND ONGOING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COUNTRY. OKAY.

AND ALSO I'M GOING TO READ IS THE PROCLAMATION HERE.

AND ALSO IT IS WITH GREAT PLEASURE I DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S REALLY NEAT. I REMEMBER GROWING UP AND THIS WAS SOMETHING ELSE. MY PARENTS REALLY ENCOURAGED ME AND I ENCOURAGED MY GRANDKIDS TO KNOW ABOUT OUR HISTORY.

AND I'M GOING TO READ THE ROWLETT'S PROCLAMATION.

WHEREAS, FOLLOWING THE PATH LAID DOWN BY MANY TRAIL BLAZERS, BLACK AMERICANS, TODAY, WE ARE CELEBRATED AND INCLUDED IN MORE SECTORS OF OUR POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMICAL, EDUCATIONAL ARENAS. WHEREAS, EACH MONTH WE

[00:30:05]

I NEED SOME WATER. JUST A MOMENT.

EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME.

THE BOLDER OF SEPARATION AND INEQUALITY AND UNFAIRNESS, CLOSER TO THE SIDE OF JUSTICE AND EQUALITY.

THANK YOU. JUST A MOMENT.

OKAY. KAREN BLAZ AS THE FIRST BLACK MARCH OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CORRINA BROWN JACKSON, THE FIRST BLACK FEMALE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, MIKE GRIER, THE FIRST BLACK GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, AKEL, THE FIRST BLACK CHIEF OF POLICE IN TEXAS, AND FORT BEND COUNTY. CYNTHIA MARSHALL, THE CEO OF DALLAS MAVERICKS. AND THE FIRST BLACK FEMALE CEO IN THE NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION.

LONDON MALONE AND DEE EDWARD PEARSON.

THE ROWLETT MLK, JUNIOR DAY ESSAY WINNERS.

WHEREAS THE BLACK AMERICANS STORY IS ONGOING AND INTER-WOVEN WITH AMERICA'S STORY THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS SHINING EXAMPLES OF RESILIENCE AND DETERMINATION AS ROWLETT -- EXCUSE ME.

AS ROWLETT'S ELECTED LEADERSHIP REFLECTS THE DIVERSE COMMUNITY THAT THEY SERVE, WE ALL BENEFIT FROM MULTI-CULTURAL CONTRIBUTIONS, SKILLS, TALENTS, THOUGHTS AND IDEAS THAT WOULD LEAD US CLOSER TO BUILDING -- EXCUSE ME.

GENERALLY UNITED ROWLETT. NOW THEREFORE, I PAM BELL FOR BLAKE, MAYOR FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT, TEXAS, HONORABLY DECLARE FEBRUARY AS CELEBRATING BLACK HISTORY MONTH.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE WATER TOWER WILL BE LIT IN RED, FOR THE BLOOD, GREEN FOR THE MOTHERLAND AND YELLOW FOR HOPE, JUSTICE AND EQUALITY. FEBRUARY 24TH IN RECOGNITION OF OUR BLACK COMMUNITY WHOSE INFLUENTIAL AND LASTING CONTRIBUTIONS IN OUR CITY PLAY A VITAL ROLE IN THE MAKING OF ROWLETT, THE BEST PLACE TO LIVE, WORK AND PLAY.

THIS IS AWESOME. THANK YOU.

>> RDIC, IF Y'ALL WANT TO SPEAK AS WELL, PLEASE FEEL FREE.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER BELL. I KNOW THAT WAS TIRING.

>> I KNOW IT. I'M A MEMBER OF THE ROWLETT DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION COMMISSION.

WE THANK THE CITY COUNCIL, THE MAYOR AND YOU, THE CITIZENS OF ROWLETT FOR EMBRACING DIVERSITY AND CELEBRATING WITH US THIS BLACK HISTORY MONTH. AND GETTING OUT THERE AND THE LIBRARY HAS PLENTY OF ACTIVITIES AND WE ALSO HAVE A SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN GOING ON AS WELL FOR ACTIVITIES, YOU CAN DO AROUND ROWLETT, IN CELEBRATING WITH US BLACK HISTORY MONTH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[APPLAUSE] >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY CAUGHT THAT WE DO HAVE OUR ESSAY CONTEST WINNERS WITH US HERE TONIGHT. SO ONE BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE

FOR THEM. >> [APPLAUSE] .

Y'ALL WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

>> NO. WE'RE GOOD. >> TAKE A PICTURE.

YOU DID. >> THANK YOU.

[00:35:33]

ALL RIGHT. SOMEBODY IS EXCITED TO BE HERE.

[5C. Presentation of the Comprehensive Monthly Financial Report (CMFR) for the period ending December 31, 2022.]

ITEM 5C, WHICH IS PRESENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31ST, 2022, AND MAKING THAT PRESENTATION WILL BE WENDY, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND INTRODUCING SOMEBODY NEW TO ROWLETT.

>> YES, COUNCIL. TONIGHT I'M GOING TO INTRODUCE TO YOU OUR NEW BUDGET OFFICER, THIS WILL BE HER FIRST RESENTATION TO COUNCIL. SHE IS GOING TO PRESENT THE QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT TO YOU AND SHE WILL BE PRESENTING THE REPORTS IN THE FUTURE AS WELL.

WELCOME SHERI DODSON OUR NEW BUDGET OFFICER.

>> WELCOME TO ROWLETT. >> THANK YOU.

GLAD TO BE HERE. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. TONIGHT'S FINANCIAL PRESENTATION IS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 21ST OF 2022.

THIS IS THE FIRST QUARTER. PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION, THIS WAS MUCH MORE DETAILED WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE EARLIER TODAY. OKAY.

WE WILL START WITH AN OVERVIEW OF THE REVENUES.

OVERALL THE CITY HAS EARNED OR RECEIVED 47 MILLION FOR THE FIRST QUARTER. THAT AMOUNT IS 39 PERCENT OF THE REVISED OPERATING BUDGET OF $121 MILLION.

AND TWO PERCENT MORE THAN FORECASTED THROUGH THE MONTH OF DECEMBER. FOR THE SAME PERIOD, WE HAVE UTILIZED $26 MILLION, WHICH IS 21 PERCENT OF THE REVISED BUDGET OF THE $124 MILLION. AND THAT IS FOUR PERCENT LOWER THAN THE FORECAST FOR THE QUARTER END.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT SOME REVENUE TRENDS.

WE'LL START WITH PROPERTY TAXES.

PROPERTY TAXES REPRESENTS 60 PERCENT OF THE GENERAL FUND REVENUE BUDGET. AND THOSE ARE PRIMARY COLLECTED IN DECEMBER AND JANUARY. THROUGH QUARTER ONE, THE CITY HAS COLLECTED $22 MILLION IN GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX REVENUE. WHICH IS 465,000 OR TWO PERCENT LESS THAN WHAT WAS FORECASTED. BUT HERE IS THE GREAT NEWS, WE HAVE REVIEWED JANUARY TAX COLLECTION DEPOSITS FROM DALLAS COUNTY AND REVENUES HAVE CAUGHT UP AND EXCEEDED THE FORECAST BY THE END OF JANUARY. NOW, LET'S LOOK AT SALES TAX.

SALES TAX IS A VERY IMPORTANT INDICATOR OF THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE ROWLETT COMMUNITY.

SALES TAXES ARE COLLECTED BY THE STATE COMPTROLLER AND ARE RECORDED TWO MONTHS LATER. OVERALL THE SALES TAX REVENUE IS 7 PERCENT ABOVE FORECASTED AT THIS TIME OF THE YEAR.

WATER FEES. WATER SALES REPRESENT 57 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UTILITY FUND BUDGET AND COVERS THE COST OF WATER AND WATER REVENUES ARE THREE PERCENT ABOVE FORECAST THROUGH THE FIRST QUARTER. NOW LET'S LOOK AT SEWER FEES.

SEWER CELL SEWER SALES REPRESENT 40 PERCENT OF THE UTILITY FUND. SEWER REVENUES ARE RIGHT AT FORECASTING AS OF DECEMBER QUARTER END.

AND NOW WE WILL LOOK AT THE BUDGET FORECAST OF THE GENERAL AND WATER SEWER FUNDS. SO YOUR GENERAL FUND HAS TO DO WITH A LOT OF THE TIMING OF THINGS, SO OUR EXPENDITURES WERE DOWN THERE DUE TO SAFETY SUPPLIES THAT ARE ON ORDER.

SOME SEASONAL CONTRACTS. OUR ANNUAL CONTRACTS THAT AREN'T PAID UNTIL LATER ON IN THE YEAR.

AND THIS IS VERY TYPICAL OF WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IN THE FIRST QUARTER. AS NEW CONTRACTS ARE BEING SECURED AND PROJECTS ARE STARTING UP.

PERSONNEL COSTS ARE UNDER RIGHT NOW.

PRIMARILY DUE TO NEW POSITIONS ADDED.

[00:40:02]

SO IT'S A LOT OF TIMING OF GETTING ITEMS IN.

NOW LET'S LOOK AT OTHER FUNDS. TO FINISH OUT TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION, FOR THE BUDGET YEAR ENDING IN 23, THE FUNDS, THE DRAINAGE, THE REFUGE, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE FUNDS ALL MET OR EXCEEDED FORECASTED REVENUES AND WERE WITHIN THE BUDGETED EXPENSES.

NOW, DEBT SERVICE WAS SLIGHTLY BELOW BUT THAT WAS DUE TO THE TIMING OF THE PROPERTY TAXES, WHICH WE RECEIVED THAT MONEY IN JANUARY. SO NOW WE ARE ABOVE TARGET THERE. THE EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT FUND IS CURRENTLY EXCEEDING FORECASTED EXPENDITURES BY $295,000. 16 PERCENT DUE TO UNUSUAL HIGH BENEFIT CLAIMS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

THE STOP LOSS REIMBURSEMENT FOR SOME OF THESE LARGE BENEFIT CLAIMS HAVE PUT REVENUES ABOVE FORECAST.

WHICH IS ENOUGH TO BALANCE OUT. THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR YOU.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME?

>> COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

[5D. Presentation of the first quarter investment report for period ending December 31, 2022.]

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND OUR NEXT ITEM, SORRY, I WAS LOOKING AT YOU LIKE YOU SHOULD JUST GO AHEAD AND START.

ITEM 5D, PRESENTATION OF THE FIRST QUARTER INVESTMENT REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31ST, 2022.

AND MAKING THAT PRESENTATION WILL BE WENDY BADGETT.

>> YES. AGAIN, GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.

WENDY, THE CITY'S FINANCE DIRECTOR.

I'M HERE TO REPORT THE FISCAL YEAR 2023 FIRST QUARTER INVESTMENT REPORT UPDATE. AS A REMINDER, BEFORE WE GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THE REPORT, THE TEXAS PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT ACT REQUIRES ANNUAL ADOPTION OF OUR INVESTMENT POLICY AS WELL AS A QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT PRESENTATION TO OUR COUNCIL. OUR INVESTMENT POLICY WAS LAST ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 1ST, RECENTLY, OUR MONTHLY AND QUARTERLY REPORT UPDATES ARE PREPARED BY PFM, WHO IS OUR ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY. FOUR OBJECTIVES IN THE CITY POLICY FOR INVESTMENT PROGRAM, FIRST AND FOREMOST OF THE SAFETY OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE CITY FUNDS.

MAINTENANCE AND LIQUIDITY. PORTFOLIOS ARE MANAGED IN SUCH A WAY THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO MEET CASH FLOW REQUIREMENTS, ORDERLY MANNER. PUBLIC TRUST FOR INVESTMENT OFFICERS TO AVOID ANY TRANSACTION WHICH MIGHT INVOLVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR OTHERWISE IMPAIR PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AND THE CITY'S ABILITY TO GOVERN EFFECTIVELY.

FINALLY, A RETURN ON INVESTMENT THROUGH DESIGNING PORTFOLIOS OF AN OBJECTIVE, OBTAINING A MARKET RATE OF RETURN.

AND CONSIDERING OUR LIQUIDITY NEEDS.

WE HAVE 2 PERFORMANCE MEASURES, AS SHOWN. SHORT-TERM INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO IS MEASURED AGAINST THE S&P GIP INDEX 30-DAY YIELD. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS DURING THE DECEMBER QUARTER END WERE CHARACTERIZED BY HIGH BUT DECELERATING DEFLATION. A STRONG LABOR MARKET EVIDENCED BY NEW JOBS ADDED. LOW UNEMPLOYMENT AND WAGE INCREASES. THE FED AGGRESSIVELY TIGHTENED MONETARY POLICY, BY RAISING TO FOUR AND A HALF.

CONTINUING RECESSIONARY RISK AND SLOWING ECONOMIC GROWTH EXPECTATIONS. AT PRESENT, MARKET EXPECTATIONS ARE FOR A MODEST ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN, RATHER THAN DEEP RECESSION. THE ECONOMIC PICTURE REMAINS CLOUDY. EMPLOYMENT IS STRONG, WAGE GROWTH IS ELEVATED. BUT CONSUMER SAVINGS HAVE DECLINED, CREDIT HAS INCREASED. HOUSEHOLD WEALTH HAS FALLEN FROM STOCK MARKET DECLINES. INFLATION APPEARS TO HAVE PEAKED AND PRICE INCREASES ARE SLOWING, BUT BUSINESSES ARE PULLING BACK ON CAPITAL INVESTMENTS.

THE PORTFOLIO CREDIT QUALITY MEETS POLICY LIMITS.

AS OUR INVESTMENTS MEET OR EXCEED THE CREDIT RATING

[00:45:02]

THAT PERFORMANCE WAS SLIGHTLY UNDER THE BENCHMARK FOR THE QUARTER, BECAUSE OF THAT POLICY CHANGE AS I EARLIER REFERENCED, THAT WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 1ST.

CHANGED THE BENCHMARK DURATION. HOWEVER, FOR THE ENTIRE MONTH, WE HAVE BEEN MORE GEARED TOWARD THE NEW POLICY, SO WE ACTUALLY HAD A LOWER DURATION FOR THE QUARTER THAN WHAT THE BENCHMARK SET FOR THE START OF THE YEAR. AND THAT IS ALL FOR TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION. I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF

YOU HAVE ANY. >> COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS?

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

APPRECIATE IT. OUR NEXT ITEM, 5E, UPDATE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, AND MANAGEMENT, FINANCIAL POSITION, MAJOR PROJECTS, MAKING THOSE ANNOUNCEMENTS WILL BE MAYOR PRO

TEM. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO SIT ON THIS SIDE? COMING UP ON MAY 6TH.S ARE - THE FILING PERIOD TO BECOME A CANDIDATE BEGINS TOMORROW.

YOU MAY REQUEST A GUIDE THAT HAS ALL OF THE INFORMATION YOU NEED. THE FILING PERIOD IS OPEN.

I THINK THIS IS AN OLD ANNOUNCEMENT.

YOU CAN FILE RIGHT NOW IF YOU WANT.

THE ROWLETT PUBLIC LIBRARY AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR KIDS HAVE RETURNED. AGES FIVE THROUGH EIGHT MEET ON THE FIRST AND THIRD THURSDAY. AGES NINE THROUGH 12 MEET ON THE SECOND AND FOURTH THURSDAY. NOT TOO LATE.

FIVE SPACES AVAILABLE FOR THE 44TH CITIZENS POLICE ACADEMY.

FEBRUARY 23RDRD. CLASSES WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, FROM 7 TO 9:00 P.M. FOR 12 WEEKS.

DON'T MISS OUT ON THIS GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET AN IN-DEPTH LOOK. WE HAVE RECEIVED A REPORT FOR THAT THE PHONE NUMBER FOR THE ROWLETT MUNICIPAL COURT HAS BEEN SPOOFED. PLEASE KNOW THAT THE COURT STAFF WILL NEVER ASK YOU FOR YOUR PERSONAL, MEDICAL OR INSURANCE INFORMATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, PLEASE CALL THE COURT DIRECTLY.

HANG UP THE PHONE AND CALL THE COURT.

THEY WILL GIVE YOU THE ANSWERS THAT YOU NEED.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THESE AND ANY OTHER CITY INFORMATION, PLEASE VISIT ROWLETT.COM. OR CALL THE ACTION CENTER.

>> NOW WE HAVE AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM DEPUTY MAYOR

PRO TEM. >> THIS IS LEAH, TONIGHT'S ANIMAL SHELTER FEATURED ANIMAL. BLUE EYED BEAUTY.

SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS OLD. SO NOT A SPRING CHICKEN.

AND SHE IS THE MOST LAID BACK PUP AROUND.

IF SHE ISN'T OUTSIDE EXPLORING, SHE IS IN HER BED NAPPING.

SHE WOULD BE BEST IN A CALM HOME.

SO WOULD I. SHE LOVES TO GO ON WALKS, EMPHASIS ON WALK, NOT RUN. SMART GIRL AND KNOWS BASIC COMMANDS. SHE PREFERS PEOPLE OVER DOGS BUT SHE HAS MADE A FEW PUP FRIENDS AT THE SHELTER.

HER REACTION TO CATS IS UNKNOWN.

LEAH WAS FOUND AS A STRAY, BUT ONCE GETTING MORE INFORMATION, THE SHELTER DISCOVERED THAT SHE WAS NOT A STRAY.

HER OWNERS SIMPLY NO LONGER WANTED HER.

THEIR LOSS CAN BE YOUR GAIN. REMEMBER ALL ADOPTIONS INCLUDE SPAY NEUTER MICROCHIPS AND UP-TO-DATE VACCINATIONS.

CONTACT THE ANIMAL SHELTER TO MEET THIS BEAUTIFUL SMART GIRL.

COME SEE WHAT OTHER PUPS ARE AVAILABLE.

IF HAVING A DOG PERMANENTLY ISN'T SOMETHING YOU'RE READY TO COMMIT TO FULLY, THERE ARE ALSO OPPORTUNITIES TO FOSTER AS WELL. ALSO, WANTED TO SAY HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO THE ROWLETT CITIZENS CORE COUNCIL, CITIZEN CORPS COUNCIL, RCC ENCOMPASSES EAST TECH CERT, EXPLORER POST ONE, BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA TROOP 646.

[00:50:04]

THE CLASS IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC WITH A NON-REFUNDABLE FEE OF $40 PAYABLE AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION.

GOING TO BE A NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SKY WARN CLASS AT THE GRANVILLE ARTS CENTER, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 18TH, 9:00 A.M. A SHORTER COURSE.

A VOLUNTEER PROGRAM. THAT WILL TRAIN YOU TO BE A SEVERE WEATHER SPOTTER. AND YOU CAN LOOK INTO THAT.

THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER CLASS IN ROCKWALL ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7TH,

AT FIVE P.M. >> ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS?

> COUNCIL MEMBER BELL. >> OKAY.

THIS IS A MONTHLY THING NOW FOR THE SENIORS.

EXCEPT THIS ONE IS CALLED AGING AND ANXIETY.

IT IS FEBRUARY 28TH. AND IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME TIME, 11:00 A.M. TO 12:30 OVER AT THE RECREATION CENTER.

IT'S AGES 55 PLUS. BUT I WOULD SAY ANYONE CAN COME BECAUSE YOU MIGHT KNOW SOMEONE THAT IS 55 PLUS.

LOVE TO SEE YOU THERE. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER GALAWARDE. >> GET YOUR FISHING POLES OUT.

THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD WILL BE SPONSORING THE SPRING SAND BASS TOURNAMENT ON MARCH 18TH.

CHECK-IN HOURS WILL BE FROM FIVE TO SEVEN A.M.

FISHING HOURS FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 1:00 P.M.

PREREGISTRATION IS $20, PRIZES, FIRST PLACE $300 VISA GIFT CARD. DAY OF REGISTRATION IS CASH REGISTRATION ONLY. IF YOU WISH TO REGISTER IN ADVANCE, PLEASE CALL 972-412-6170.

[6. CITIZENS’ INPUT]

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS? OW WE GET TO HEAR FROM Y'ALL. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 6, CITIZENS INPUT. AT THIS TIME COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC.

NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL DURING CITIZENS INPUT.

>> OUR FIRST SPEAKER WILL BE DAVE HALL.

AFTER THAT WILL BE STANLEY POLLARD.

>> THANK YOU. COME UP TO THE MIC, STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE

THREE MINUTES >> DAVE HALL ROWLETT.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CURRENT AND PAST COUNCILS FOR THE HELP IN PROTECTING THE FRONT OF MY MY KAYAK.

IN LAST MONTH'S PRIOR COUNCIL MEETING, COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO MOVE THE STORMWATER LINE ADDITIONAL TEN FEET FARTHER FROM MY ROD IRON FENCE. I HOPE WE CAN PUT THIS ARGUMENTATIVE ISSUE TO BED. NEVER TO BE USED TO TAKE UP MY TIME AND THE COUNCIL'S TIME AGAIN.

MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION, BY APRIL 2017, ONE YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE TORNADO, I HAD REBUILT MY HOUSE AT 6809 MILLER ROAD TO RECEIVE MAIL SERVICE AND TRASH PICK-UP, I WAS REQUIRED BY STAFF TO SUBMIT A PLAT WITH ADDITIONAL DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MILLER ROAD.

THIS TRANSLATES INTO A GIFT OF FIVE FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY OF MY PERSONAL LAND WHICH I OWN, HOW MANY OTHER RESIDENTS WERE REQUIRED TO GIVE A PORTION OF THEIR LAND TO REBUILD THEIR HOUSES DESTROYED BY THE TORNADO.

I REFUSED TO SIGN AND SUBMIT THIS PLAN WHERE I WOULD HAVE BEEN COERCED TO GIVE MY LAND TO THE CITY FOR THE PRIVILEGE TO REBUILD AFTER THE 2015 TORNADO. I PAID FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS TO HAVE THIS WORTHLESS PLAT PREPARED.

WHEN THE CITY NEEDS ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, THERE IS A LEGAL AND ETHICAL PROCESS FOR THE CITY TO USE, EMINENT DOMAIN.

IF THE COST OF THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IS MORE EXPENSIVE, THEN THE LANDOWNER SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE.

IF THE BENEFIT EXCEEDS THE EMINENT DOMAIN COST OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE CITY SHOULD PURCHASE IT FROM THE LANDOWNER.

THE CITY IS PLANNING ON DEVELOPING CAPITAL PROJECTS

[00:55:06]

BY THE WAY, I HAD MY MILLER ROAD MAILED DELIVERED TO MY WATERVIEW HOUSE. I TRUCK MY MILLER ROAD TRASH OVER TO THE WATERVIEW HOUSE. OVER TIME, WHEN THE POST OFFICE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE STATE OF AFFAIRS, BOTH BEGAN DELIVERING THEIR SERVICES TO MY MILLER ROAD HOUSE.

WHEN YOU INCLUDE MAIL DELIVERY TO MY KAYAK DELIVERY, I HAVE NO LONGER HAVE RELIABLE MAIL DELIVERY OR STREET ADDRESS.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ROWLETT CITY SERVICES LACK THE REDUNDANCY AND RESILIENCE TO ALLOW THEM TO BE USED TO TARGET A RESIDENT. WHEN THE STAFF PLAYS GAMES, THERE ARE EMBARRASSING CONSEQUENCES.

I STILL DON'T HAVE RELIABLE MAIL SERVICE EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE TORNADO. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. I WANT TO SAY (INAUDIBLE)

>> THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

>> SAMUEL POLLARD, ROWLETT TEXAS.

I LIVE IN THE GENERAL AREA OF WHICH I'M ABOUT TO SPEAK, COUNCIL AND MAYOR. YOU HAVE AN ITEM AND THE REASON I'M SPEAKING NOW IS BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT I WILL BE HERE WHEN THIS COMES UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

8B. AND THAT IS THE REZONING FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY, HORSE STABLES AT ROWLETT AND MILLER ROADS. P&Z LEVEL, THE P&Z REQUESTED WHETHER THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILLING TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL LANE OF TRAFFIC ON ROWLETT ROAD, SOUTH OF MILLER AND WRAPPING AROUND ON MILLER TO THE EASTBOUND SIDE ALONG TO THE FIRST ENTRY. TO THIS, THE APPLICANT SAID THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO DO. AND TONIGHT'S PACKET THAT YOU HAVE, THE THIRD PAGE, I THINK THAT THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT STAFF ASKED OR SAW THE LEGAL OPINION, CLARIFICATION FOR IT, IN REGARDS TO THE STREET AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS, IF THAT IS WHAT WAS ASKED, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS WHAT THE CORRECT METHOD OR CORRECT VERBIAGE.

THERE IS NOTHING THAT REQUIRES AN APPLICANT TO PUT IN A PIECE OF ROADWAY. CONVERSELY, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU'RE UNDERNEATH -- THAT YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM THE ZONING REQUEST EITHER.

THERE CAN BE A NEGOTIATED REQUEST IF YOU DECIDED TO IN FACT, REZONE THIS. AND THAT IS, IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO PUT IN AN ADDITIONAL LANE, WHICH IS NEEDED ALONG THE COMMERCIAL STRIP THERE UP TO AND INCLUDING PUTTING BACK A RIGHT TURN LANE AND THEN GOING ON MILLER AND PUTTING IN A DECELERATION LANE THERE, THEN THEY CAN DO THAT.

AND I UNDERSTAND LEGALLY THEY CAN DO THAT.

AND AS LONG AS YOU ACCEPT IT, THAT IS FINE.

YOU CANNOT TELL THEM THEY GOT TO DO IT.

BUT AGAIN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THEM, YOU'RE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO GIVE THEM THE ZONING.

IT'S A TRADE-OUT. I DON'T BELIEVE, I KNOW THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN'T MAKE ANY COMMENTS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANYTHING THAT IF YOU ASKED THE RIGHT WAY, THAT IT WOULD BE, YOU CAN'T ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT.

YOU'RE ALLOWED, I THINK TO HORSE TRADE AND TO BE ABLE TO SUGGEST TO THEM YOU PUT THAT IN, AND I MIGHT BE WILLING TO GIVE YOU THE ZONING. BUT YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE TO

GIVE YOU THE ZONING. >> THANK YOU.

NO OTHER COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT.

WE DID RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT FORMS ON THE CITY WEBSITE.

TWO OF THOSE WERE OPPOSED TO ITEM 8B.

[7. CONSENT AGENDA]

THESE ITEMS WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION.

COUNCIL HAS PULLED ITEMS, HOLD ON, 7D AND 7F FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA TO GO ON TO INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

DOES ANYBODY IN ATTENDANCE WISH TO PULL ANY OF THE OTHER

[01:00:02]

SEEING NONE, LAURA, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE CONSENT AGENDA

ITEMS INTO THE RECORD. >> 7A, CONSIDER APPROVING THE MINUTES. 7B, CONSIDER A CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR UTILITY BILL, PRINTING AND MAILING SERVICES.

7C, CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CALLING THE GENERAL ELECTION FOR MAY 6TH, 2023. 7E, CONSIDER A CONTRACT TO REPLACE THE FENCE AT WET ZONE WATER PARK.

7G, CONSIDER AMENDING THE R CO-ED BYLAWS.

7H, CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CALLING A SPECIAL CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION FOR MAY 6TH, 2023.

7I, CONSIDER APPROVING AND RATIFYING EMERGENCY REPAIRS TO A SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION AND 7J, CONSIDER THE PURCHASE OF AN OUTDOOR DIGITAL LED DISPLAY.

>> COUNCIL, DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> COUNCIL MEMBER

>> MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS

READ BY THE CITY SECRETARY. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GALAWARE.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BELL. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CALL THE VOTE. THAT ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[7D. Consider amending the City Council Rules of Procedure.]

LAURA IS COMING UP. >> COUNCIL MEMBER BELL REQUESTED THIS ITEM TO BE PULLED.

SO YOU CAN I GUESS DO A HIGHLIGHT AND THEN GO FROM THERE. IS THERE A SPECIFIC QUESTION?

>> I BELIEVE THIS WAS THE ITEM THAT YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS.

>> OKAY. >> CAN YOU HIT YOUR RTS.

>> OKAY. YEAH.

THE REASON I WANTED TO HAVE IT PULLED, THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS BECAUSE I'VE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE IN VARIOUS VENUES, I'M ALWAYS AROUND THE CITY, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IF IT'S ADDRESSED HOW MANY TIMES A PERSON CAN CALL IN AND SAY THEY'RE SICK. OR THEY'RE ON VACATION OR ET CETERA. AND REALLY SOME OF THE PEOPLE DID NOT WANT THIS IN. AND I DID CHECK AROUND SEVERAL -- IT WAS NINE CITIES I CHECKED ON.

OUT OF THE NINE, FIVE OF THEM SAYS NO. THEY DO NOT -- EVERYTHING IS ADDRESSED IN-PERSON.

AND THE OTHERS SAID AS LONG AS IT'S A QUORUM AT THE CITY HALL, THEY'RE FINE WITH IT. AND IF YOU WANT THOSE NAMES, I HAVE NO PROBLEM TELLING YOU WHAT CITIES I CHECKED ON.

BUT THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH.

AND REALLY I THINK IF IT'S NOT ADDRESSED HERE HOW MANY TIMES A PERSON CAN CALL IN AND SAY THEY'RE ON VACATION, THEY'RE ILL, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.

THAT NEEDS TO BE PUT IN HERE. BECAUSE WE CAN HAVE SOMEONE

CALL IN JUST ABOUT EVERY TIME. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.

THIS WAS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT IS ADVISED IN STATE LAW, ALLOWING THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL IN.

THE PART REGARDING BEING ILL WAS AN EXTRA STEP, MORE STRICT REQUIREMENT THAT IS NOT RECOGNIZED IN STATE LAW.

THAT WOULD BE MORE ALONG OUR LINES OF THE RULE.

THIS INTENT, THIS IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY TO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT AS THE LAST MINUTE AS A RESULT OF ILLNESS. THERE HAS BEEN SOME OF US YOU KNOW, OVER THE YEAR WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED THAT YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, HAD TO MISS A MEETING.

BECAUSE WE WERE SICK. AND SO THIS IS JUST TO PROVIDE THAT FLEXIBILITY. IF SOMEBODY IS ABUSING IT, THEN

>> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STOP IT IF IT'S NOT ADDRESSED?

>> ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. PEOPLE CAN VOTE THEM OUT NEXT TIME BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP TO COUNCIL MEETINGS.

THAT IS THE PEOPLE'S DECISION. PEOPLE PUT THEM THERE.

PEOPLE CAN TAKE THEM OUT. >> BELIEVE ME, THAT IS WHAT THEY SAID, TOO. YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED.

>> YEAH. I AM SURE IF A MEMBER OF COUNCIL DECIDED NOT TO SHOW UP TO CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS IN-PERSON, THEN THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT

THAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION. >> OKAY.

[01:05:04]

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? COUNCIL MEMBER

>> YEAH. I'M ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS.

I TEND TO AGREE IT CAN BE ABUSED.

I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT KIND OF RULES WE CAN PUT IN PLACE TO PREVENT THAT RIGHT NOW. I'M INCLINED TO GO WITH THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE AND ASSESS AS WE GO.

I THINK WE CAN UPDATE THIS AT A FUTURE MEETING IF WE FIND AN INSTANCE WHERE THIS IS ACTUALLY BEING ABUSED.

BUT I LIKE THE IDEA OF PROVIDING THE FLEXIBILITY.

I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO IT WHENEVER I NEED TO, BECAUSE I KNOW I'M GOING TO GO ON VACATION AT SOME POINT AND I'M GOING TO MISS A MEETING AND I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO DIAL IN. BUT THAT IS NOT PART OF THIS POLICY. SO I WOULD HAVE TO MISS THAT ONE. I THINK WE CAN DEAL WITH THIS DOWN THE ROAD, IF WE NEED TO. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> GOOD POINT, COUNCIL MEMBER. IF WE EXPERIENCE AN ISSUE WITH ABUSE OF IT, COUNCIL AT ANY POINT COULD BRING IT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION AND UPDATE IT AS NEEDED.

SO THAT IS A GOOD POINT. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM

>> YES. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS POLICY DOES NOT ALLOW THE VIDEO CONFERENCING FOR SOMEONE WHO IS ON VACATION.

JUST FOR SOMEONE WHO IS ILL. AND THE REASON THAT I ORIGINALLY BROUGHT THIS UP WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS AN INSTANCE WHERE I HAD A RESPIRATORY INFECTION, VERY MILD, BUT DIDN'T WANT TO COME AND RISK EXPOSING THE REST OF THE COUCIL TO IT BECAUSE IN THESE POST COVID DAYS, WE'RE A LOT MORE COGNIZANT OF THAT, ABOUT GETTING OUT IN PUBLIC WHEN WE HAVE MINOR RESPIRATORY ILLNESS. I THINK THAT THE VOTERS, THEY ELECTED US TO REPRESENT THEM. AND IF THE ONLY WAY WE CAN REPRESENT THEM AND MAINTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY IS TO DO IT VIA A VIDEO CONFERENCE, THEN I THINK THAT IS WHAT -- I KNOW THAT IS WHAT MOST OF THE ONES THAT I TALKED TO AGREED TO. AND SOME OF THEM DID EXPRESS THE CONCERN THAT WHAT IF THE COUNCIL MEMBER DECIDES TO DO ALL MEETINGS LIKE THIS, JUST SAY THEY'RE SICK AND NOT SHOW UP AND DO IT VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE.

I REALLY DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING WITH ANY OF THE PEOPLE UP HERE. BUT IF THEY DID, CERTAINLY I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH INSTITUTING SOME SORT OF A CONTROL MECHANISM ON THAT. BUT I THINK, AS COUNCIL MEMBER GALAWARDE SAID, IT'S PROBABLY BETTER TO GO AHEAD AND ASSESS IT AND SEE IF THAT DOES HAPPEN. I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT HAPPENING. I THINK THAT COVID SHOWED US THAT VIDEO MEETINGS CAN BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE AND WORK JUST AS WELL AS IN-PERSON MEETINGS, WHEN IT'S NECESSARY TO DO THAT.

AS IT WAS NECESSARY DURING COVID, AS IT'S NECESSARY OCCASIONALLY, VERY OCCASIONALLY, WHEN A COUNCIL

MEMBER IS ILL. >> COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON.

>> YEAH. I DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD EVER WRITE A RULE THAT SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A PERSON.

SO AGAIN, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE PEOPLE HERE.

BUT WE WRITE A RULE FOR JUST THE GENERAL IDEA.

MAYBE A COMPROMISE HERE WOULD BE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT NOT TO EXCEED X NUMBER IN A CALENDAR YEAR OR TERM OR WHATEVER. MORE CALENDAR YEAR WOULD BE PROBABLY BETTER THAN A TERM. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE ANYBODY HERE WOULD ABUSE IT. BUT IF WE PUT THE PROPER GUARDRAILS IN IT, WITH SOMETHING LIKE NOT TO EXCEED X NUMBER OF MEETINGS, I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT TOO.

>> GOOD IDEA. I THINK IF WE EXPERIENCE AN ISSUE, THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN BRING BACK AND FIX AND PUT THAT IN THERE, ABSOLUTELY.

ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS?

>> ALL RIGHT. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM 7D. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER.

>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT CITY COUNCIL RULES OF

PROCEDURE. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM WENGET.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, CALL THE VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. THAT ITEM PASSES 6-1.

[7F. Consider a contract for field improvements at Community Park.]

[01:10:01]

WE'LL ACCEPT QUESTIONS. >> GOOD EVENING, WILL COME UP PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM AND WE'LL ACCEPT QUESTIONS.

>> GOOD EVENING, WILL COME UP PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM AND

WE'LL ACCEPT QUESTIONS. >> GOOD EVENING, DO A PRESENTA

AND WE'LL ACCEPT QUESTIONS. >> GOOD EVENING, WILL COME UP PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM AND WE'LL ACCEPT QUESTIONS.

>> GOOD EVENING, DO A PRESENTA AND WE'LL ACCEPT QUESTIONS.

>> GOOD EVENING, AND DO A PRES ITEM AND WE'LL ACCEPT

QUESTIONS. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO DISCUSS THE COMMUNITY PARKS.

THE PROJECT BEGAN WITH A STUDY FOR THE DRAINAGE.

SOPHISTICATED DRONE, TO HELP EVALUATE DRAINAGE AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE OUTFIELDS. ANALYSIS SHOWED DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND AREAS WITHIN THE PLAYING FIELDS, WATER POOLED OR SAT THERE. REALLY DELAYED PROGRESS TO CONTINUE TO PLAY GAMES. IT'S A HARD TOUGH ISSUE TO FACE WHEN YOU CAN'T MAKE REPAIRS ON IT.

MANY FACTORS THAT LED TO THESE CONDITIONS INCLUDE HEAVY USAGE, WHICH I'LL GET INTO IN A MINUTE.

WEATHER, OBVIOUSLY THE TEXAS WEATHER.

IRRIGATION. OFF-SEASON MAINTENANCE AND RESTING PERIODS. RESTING PERIODS BASICALLY ARE TIMES WHERE YOU ALLOW THE FIELDS TO REST, YOU DON'T PLAY ON THEM. YOU DO THE MAINTENANCE THAT YOU NEED TO DO IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BECOME HEALTHY.

WE DECIDED TO PURSUE THE FIELD THAT NEEDED THE MOST IMPROVEMENTS, BASED ON THE DATA THAT WE RECEIVED FROM LANDSCAPES UNLIMITED, WHICH WAS FIELD NUMBER FOUR, ON THE SOFTBALL SIDE. THE SOFTBALL SIDE, FIELD NUMBER FOUR IS ON THE RIGHT, WHICH IS THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PARK, AS THE FOUR FIELDS CLUSTER TOGETHER.

AS YOU'RE WALKING UP TO THE COMPLEX, IT'S THE FIRST FIELD ON THE RIGHT. JUST TO GIVE YOU ALL AN IDEA OF WHERE THE FIELD IS. SO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION. FIELD PROJECT IS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED IN LESS THAN TWO WEEKS.

WORK INCLUDES TILLING UP BOTH THE INFIELD CLAY AND THE TURF OUTFIELD. USING SOPHISTICATED EQUIPMENT THAT LANDSCAPE UNLIMITED HAS. THEY'LL SHOOT A GRAY TO ELIMINATE THE BIRD BATHS, WHICH WILL CONSISTENT A CONSISTENT GRADE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE FIELD.

TEN OF 12 MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR WE'RE PLAYING ON THESE.

AS YOU CAN TELL, IS A LOT OF WEAR AND TEAR.

RENOVATION WILL FIX SEVERAL SAFETY CONDITIONS OF THOSE FIELDS. PROPER GRADING WILL HELP WITH FIELD RECOVERY AFTER THE RAIN. AS IT IS NOW, IT'S RAINING.

IT MAY TAKE A DAY OR 2 FOR THE TURF TO DRAIN PROPERLY.

THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT FOR THE FIELD THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AGAIN, IS TILLING OF THE INFIELD CLAY AND OUTFIELD.

ANCHORS AND BASES AND THEN SODDING THE OUTFIELD WITH TIF 419. SO THE COST OF THE PROJECT, LIKE WE SAID EARLIER IS $126,241.12.

WHICH COMES OUT OF THE 2018 BOND.

PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE SET ASIDE FOR UPGRADES TO THE SPORTS FIELDS. IT WAS SCORE BOARDS AND SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE COVERED. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION EXECUTING AGREEMENT WITH LANDSCAPES UNLIMITED FOR FIELD IMPROVEMENTS FOR FIELD NUMBER FOUR IN THE AMOUNT OF $126,241.12.

THROUGH THE COMPETITIVE TIPS GRANT BIDS.

SO QUESTIONS? >> COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU ASKED

FOR THIS TO BE PULLED. >> MY INTENT ON PULLING THIS WAS TO ALLOW COUNCIL TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AT A LATER DATE WITH ADVICE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE USSA SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION, WHO IS INTERESTED ACTUALLY IN BETTER, BIGGER IMPROVEMENTS TO THESE FIELDS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ROWLETT'S COMPETITIVE EDGE WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES.

I UNDERSTAND IT'S A MORE EXPENSIVE PROSPECT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE COUNCIL HAVE A CHANCE IN A WORK

[01:15:01]

I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

IT WAS IN MY MIND TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM.

THE GENTLEMAN I WANT TO HAVE PRESENT WHEN WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION IS UNAVAILABLE THIS EVENING.

BECAUSE OF SOME REASONS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER.

OTHERWISE, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE THIS EVENING TO CHAT WITH

US DURING THIS ITEM. >> GO AHEAD.

>> IT'S YOU. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

AARON, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE SENSE OF URGENCY OF THIS OR IF WE WERE TO DELAY THIS FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS, BEFORE APPROVING IT, WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO YOUR SCHEDULE?

>> SO I THINK THE LONGER WE DELAY IT, WE'RE GETTING INTO THE BUSIER SEASON. YOU'RE NOW TAKING A FIELD AWAY FROM A VERY POPULAR SPORT, WHICH IS SOFTBALL AND TRYING TO CONDENSE IT. I THINK WHEN YOU DO THAT, THERE ARE SOME REPERCUSSIONS THAT YOU DO SUFFER, IS YOU LOSE TEAMS. YOU OBVIOUSLY YOU LOSE REVENUE WITH THAT.

I'M OLD SCHOOL GUY. SO I LIKE DIRT.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S ABOUT ROI AND THE BEST OPTION FOR YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE DOING. SO I THINK IF WE CONTINUE TO WAIT, WE'RE GETTING INTO MORE OF A BUSY SEASON, BUT ALSO WE'RE GETTING INTO SPRING, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO RUN INTO A LOT OF RAIN. SO WE'RE STILL CONTINUING TO PUSH BACK WORK ON THOSE FIELDS. SO I THINK THIS IS A SENSE OF URGENCY TO GET DONE IN ORDER TO NOT DELAY ANY ADDITIONAL EVENTS OR TOURNAMENTS THAT ARE SCHEDULED OUT THERE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER >> THIS IS MONEY THAT WE ALREADY BUDGETED THROUGH CIP? WHAT WAS THE TOTAL AMOUNT FOR

THE ENTIRE PACKAGE? >> FOR THE FIELD.

>> YEAH. >> 126

>> SO THERE WASN'T ENOUGH TO EVEN BEGIN TO START TO DO THE LA LA LARGERLANCHE LARGER 483 FOR THE TOTAL.

AND THAT COVERED SCORE BOARDS. >> THIS IS SHOWING WE HAVE

$483,000. >> TOTAL.

OKAY. >> THERE WAS A TRAIL THAT WAS

OUT THERE AS WELL. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE HAVE IDENTIFIED AS USABLE FUNDS OUT OF THAT REMAINING EXPENSE? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN THE PARK THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SPEND

MONEY ON? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

>> THERE ARE SOCCER FIELDS THAT ARE GETTING DRAINAGE.

THERE WAS A NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN COMMUNITY PARK, SCORE BOARDS, SIDEWALKS, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

ONE SECTION OF THAT FUNDING WAS SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATED FOR REPAIRING AND RENOVATING SOME OF OUR FIELDS.

BOTH SOCCER FIELDS, SOCCER FIELDS THAT HAVE DONE THIS.

AND BALL FIELDS AS WELL. THIS IS ONE OF THAT PROCESS.

THIS HAS TAKEN US A LONG TIME TO GET HERE.

I HAVE SPENT SIGNIFICANT TIME SPEAKING WITH OUR SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT, MIKE, AS WELL AS CARRIE, MIKE WOULD LOVE TO SEE US BE ABLE TO PUT TURF DOWN.

THE TEAM IS STUDYING THE PRICE AND LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF DOING THAT. THEY WERE ASKED TO DO THAT.

THAT WILL COME BACK IN OUR NEXT PROBABLY BOND ELECTION.

CURRENTLY, BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE'RE GETTING, IT IS SOMEWHERE AROUND $400,000 A FIELD TO DO.

BUT WE, THIS IS JUST INFORMATION THESE GUYS HAVE GATHERED FROM SOME OF THE PEOPLE THEY DO.

SO THEY ARE WORKING WITH SOME OF THE EXPERTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET THE RIGHT PRICE, THE RIGHT LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE. THE ISSUE IS THE LONGER WE DELAY THIS, THE MORE MAINTENANCE AND PRODUCT OUR

TEAM IS PUTTING ON THE FIELD. >> SO THERE ARE OTHER THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO SPEND THAT MONEY ON TO MAINTAIN COMMUNITY

PARK. >> ABSOLUTELY.

THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS NOT ALLOCATED TO REWORKING SOFTBALL

FIELDS. >> OKAY.

>> THAT IS WHERE I WAS GETTING AT, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A LIST OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE OUT THERE.

A LOT OF OTHER SPORTS ASSOCIATIONS, EVEN IF WE GOT A GOOD DEAL AND DID THEM ALL AT ONCE, THERE IS PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THERE TO DO ONE FIELD NOW.

I AGREE, MIKE HAS BEEN WANTING THIS, IT'S BEEN A DREAM OF

[01:20:02]

THIS IS WHAT THAT MONEY WAS ORIGINALLY ALLOCATED FOR AND THE VOTERS VOTED FOR. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT I AGREE, THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION, LARGER CONVERSATION, BUT ALSO WE NEED TO GET THESE FIXES STARTED SO THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO PLAY AND BE SAFE WHILE DOING SO.

>> A COUPLE OF PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT I'M WORKING FROM HERE, ONE IS THE ADULT SOFTBALL SEASON WAS CANCELLED.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT TEAMS ARE PLAYING ON THIS.

THAT WAS THE INFORMATION I GOT TODAY.

BECAUSE THIS WORK WAS SUPPOSED TO START SOONER RATHER THAN IN THE FUTURE HERE, IT HAD NOT. SO SEASON HAS BEEN CANCELLED AT THIS POINT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TOURNAMENT PLAY MAY BE AFFECTED. I CAN'T SEE WHERE WAITING TWO WEEKS TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION IS GOING TO MAKE THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE GIVEN THE SEASON IS CANCELLED.

I DON'T SEE THE SENSE OF URGENCY.

I WILL NOT VOTE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.

IF WE COULD EITHER HAVE THE CONVERSATION OR VOTE ME DOWN

EITHER ONE. >> I HEAR WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS CONVERSATION NEEDS TO HAPPEN. MY POINT IS, IS THE 100,000 OR HOWEVER MUCH WE END UP PUTTING TOWARDS THESE BASEBALL FIELDS IS NOT GOING TO GET YOU TO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO RIGHT NOW.

IN THE MEANTIME, IT'S COSTING MORE MONEY AND MORE TIME TO MAINTAIN THE FIELDS. I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SEASON BEING CANCELLED. IT'S NOT ON ME.

BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET TURF ARTIFICIAL FIELDS OUT THERE BY NEXT SEASON.

THEIR SEASONS ARE USUALLY SIX-EIGHT WEEK SEASON.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE ANTICIPATING TO PLAY IN SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ARTIFICIAL FIELDS OUT THERE IN SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS, EVEN 32 WEEKS. WHEN WE DO GET THEM BACK OUT AND PLAYING AGAIN, WE WANT TO HAVE AS SAFE A FIELD AS POSSIBLE. THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO PLAY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. OUR MAINTENANCE GUYS THAT HAVE A LOT OF AREA TO MAINTAIN ARE ALREADY HAVING TO SPEND MORE TIME OUT THERE BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES THERE.

IT'S COSTING US MORE MONEY IN TERMS OF THE DAY TO DAY MAINTENANCE TO MAINTAIN IT. I'M NOT DISCREDITING THAT THE OTHER CONVERSATION NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THIS COUNCIL DECIDES TO PUT ON FOR THE VOTERS TO DECIDE, I'M FOR HAVING THAT DISCUSSION.

I DON'T THINK THAT DISCUSSION WARRANTS PUTTING THIS OFF ANY LONGER. SO LET'S GET IT MOVING.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE I ASK FOR A MOTION?

MAYOR PRO TEM WENGET. >> COUNCIL MEMBER, I'M INCLINED TO AGREE WITH BRIAN, I THINK THE REASON BEING THAT IT'S NOT SIMPLY A $10,000 FIX AND WE CAN CORRECT THE FIELD.

THIS IS $120,000. THIS IS A LARGE NUMBER TO FIX ONE FIELD. AND I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO EXPLORE THE OPTION OF WHAT WE COULD DO LONGER TERM OR WHAT THE LONGER TERM PLAN IS. IF IT MEANS THAT WE APPROVE THIS IN TWO WEEKS, AND THE WORK BEGINS, SO BE IT.

I THINK THAT CONVERSATION IS WORTH HAVING BEFORE WE COMMIT TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY ON SOMETHING THAT MAY NOT BE A LONG-TERM GOAL FOR WHAT WE DO WITH THIS PARK, IF THAT MAKES

SENSE. >> IT DID.

BUT I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING ABOUT HAVING THE CONVERSATION. SO IF YOU CAN TELL ME HOW WE CAN IMPROVE THE SITUATION THAT RIGHT NOW IS COSTING US, AND COSTING THE PARKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET MORE MONEY ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS, WHERE THAT MONEY CAN BE SPENT SOMEWHERE ELSE ON OUR PARK, BECAUSE WE CAN HAVE THE LARGER FIX IN SIX OR EIGHT WEEKS WHEN THE NEXT SEASON STARTS, LET'S DELAY IT.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, THESE GUYS OUT THERE HAVE A JOB TO DO.

THEIR JOB IS TO GET THESE FIELDS READY SO THAT MIKE AND THEIR SOFTBALL TEAMS CAN GO OUT AND PLAY.

THEY'RE MISSING PLAYS BECAUSE OF DRAINAGE ISSUES.

YOU GET THROUGH THESE FIXES, THAT CUTS THOSE DOWN.

THEY GET MORE PLAY DAYS. IT MAKES IT EASIER TO MAINTAIN.

COSTS LESS TO MAINTAIN. YES, I AGREE THAT THIS IS -- WELL, THESE ARE ACTUALLY NOT SHORT-TERM FIXES.

THESE ARE BIG FIXES. IF THEY MAINTAIN IT RIGHT SHOULD LAST ANOTHER FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE YEARS BEFORE YOU HAVE TO DO A FULL FIELD MAKE-OVER AGAIN.

[01:25:01]

A WHOLE OTHER CONVERSATION. BECAUSE ARTIFICIAL TURF IS NOT FOREVER. IT HAS TO BE REPLACED TOO.

WHICH MEANS IT HAS TO GO INTO A CIP BOND CYCLE TO HAVE TIME FOR THAT TO BE ABLE TO BUDGET FOR IT.

WE'VE GOT TWO CONVERSATIONS GOING ON HERE.

ONE IS THE LONG-TERM FIX THAT IS GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF MONEY AND BEYOND DOWN THE ROAD. WHY WOULD WE SLOW UP A FIX THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NOW AND BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A LONG TIME FOR THE LONGER TERM FIX THAT CAN'T HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> IT DOES.

I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND MAYBE STAFF CAN HELP US WITH THIS, IS HAT THE DIFFERENTIAL IN THOSE MAINTENANCE COSTS ARE BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE SPENDING NOW FOR OUR STAFF TO MAINTAIN IT VERSUS WHAT WE COULD BE SPENDING DOWN THE ROAD ONCE THIS IS IMPLEMENTED, IF WE GO THAT ROUTE.

>> AND IF YOU DON'T -- DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA?

>> NO. WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA RIGHT NOW.

WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO SOME OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT DO HAVE TURF FIELDS. THERE IS STILL SOME COSTS WITH MAINTAINING A TURF FIELD. PURCHASING NEW EQUIPMENT.

BRUSHES, THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT YOU KNOW, YOU WOULDN'T TYPICALLY USE ON A DIRT INFIELD.

SO I CAN'T HONESTLY ANSWER THAT SPECIFICALLY WITH PROPER

NUMBERS RIGHT NOW. >> I MEAN, JUST SPIT BALLING, IF OUR TEAM WAS SPENDING TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH JUST TO MAINTAIN THIS FIELD, THIS IS STILL A YEAR'S WORTH OF MAINTENANCE THAT WE WOULD BE SPENDING RIGHT NOW TO MAKE THIS LONG-TERM FIX, ADMITTEDLY, LONG-TERM FIX THIS ONE TIME, AND WE MIGHT GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE MAKE A DECISION AND SAY OKAY, WE'RE READY TO DO TURF FIELDS IN THE NEXT 12 TO 24 MONTHS. AND THIS COULD BE THE FIRST ONE ON THE DOCKET IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, RIGHT?

>> VERY FINE POINTS MADE ON BOTH ENDS.

BUT I MUST SAY I WOULD RATHER NOT KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD ON THIS. I DEFINITELY TEND TO LEAN MORE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER GRUBACHI IN THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE $400,000 RIGHT NOW FOR ONE PARTICULAR FIELD, WHICH APPARENTLY ONLY 400,000 ONLY PAYS FOR ONE PARK POSSIBLY.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE $126,000. SO WE GOT TO DO WHAT WE CAN WITH THAT. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BUY US A TURF FIELD. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE ONE VIABLE OPTION IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT. AND I THINK THAT IT IS A GOOD DISCUSSION TO HAVE FOR THE FUTURE BOND ELECTION THAT IS AROUND THE CORNER. TO TALK ABOUT THE LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMUNITY PARK FIELDS.

AND I THINK THE TURF IS A VALID CONSIDERATION.

TONIGHT, I DON'T SEE THE MONEY THERE.

I DON'T SEE THE MONEY TO MAKE TURF FIELDS HAPPEN.

SO I HAVE TO WORK WITH THE MONEY I HAVE.

AND THE CITIZENS VOTED LONG AGO IN 2018 AND NOW WE'RE HERE TRYING TO SPEND THAT MONEY FOR THE PROJECT THAT THEY VOTED FOR. SO I FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE THIS TONIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER.

>> JUST ONE LAST COMMENT BEFORE WE MOVE TO A MOTION HERE.

PART OF MY CONCERN HERE IS WE HAVEN'T DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE CAN AFFORD ANY TURF OR NOT.

I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN TURF OR BASEBALL FIELDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT I DO KNOW SOMEONE AND TALKED TO SOMEONE TODAY WHO HAS SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME ON THIS AND BELIEVES THAT IT'S NOT $400,000 TO ACCOMPLISH HIS GOAL, WHICH IS TO PRODUCE AN INFIELD WHICH DOESN'T GET RAINED OUT. EVERY TIME WE HAVE A RAIN-OUT WE ARE LOSING MONEY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET IT DONE IN THAT TIME. I DON'T KNOW IF TWO WEEKS REALLY HAS THAT BIG AN IMPACT ON OUR MAINTENANCE TO HAVE A ONVERSATION AND FIND OUT WHETHER WE'RE TALKING $120,000 TO REDO THE ENTIRE FIELD, OR AS I WAS LED TO BELIEVE TODAY, POSSIBLY 100,000. I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE VALID NUMBERS OR NOT. WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION.

SO IF I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION, I CAN'T SUPPORT

SPENDING THE MONEY. >> I DON'T SEE HOW A TURF, I TOTALLY GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I DON'T SEE HOW $126,000 PAYS FOR FOUR TURF FIELDS IN ANY WAY.

>> WE DON'T HAVE -- I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> NOT AN EXPERT ON ATHLETIC FIELD MAINTENANCE.

BUT I KNOW MORE THAN THE AVERAGE BEAR.

AND I DO KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T DO AN INFIELD WITHOUT REDOING AN OUTFIELD. BECAUSE NOW YOU'VE CREATED A

[01:30:04]

YOU CAN'T GO HALF ON IT. TO DO A COMPLETE FIELD OF THOSE SIZE, YOU'RE TALKING ARTIFICIAL TURF FOR THE WHOLE OUTSIDE AND THEN ANOTHER TYPE OF PRODUCT FOR THE INFIELD.

AND THAT IS WHERE THOSE $400,000 NUMBERS COME FROM.

YOU'RE CREATING WAY BIGGER ISSUES IF YOU ONLY DID THE IN FIELD AND NOT THE OUTFIELD. FOR ME, I WANT TO DO IT RIGHT AND ALSO WE NEED TO PROBABLY DO UPGRADES TO THE LIGHTS, CONCESSION STAND, PUT IT INTO A PACKAGE THAT CAN NOW DO REGIONAL TOURNAMENTS, NATIONAL TOURNAMENTS, WE CAN GET PEOPLE HERE AND PLAY ALL THE TIME. LET'S HAVE THE LARGER CONVERSATION. FIGURE OUT WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO. MIKE HAS GOT CONNECTIONS ALL OVER THIS CONNECTION. PERFECT PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT YOU COULD PROBABLY BRING IN AND MATCH SOME OF THE DOLLARS WITH THE CITY DOLLARS TO ACTUALLY MAKE THIS INTO A DESTINATION PLACE TO HAVE SOFTBALL TOURNAMENTS. %-PN THAT WE NEED TO BE HAVING. NOT DO IT HALFWAY, LET'S DREAM

BIG AND DO IT RIGHT. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION AND WE

CAN HAVE MORE DISCUSSION. >> LET'S DO A MOTION.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 7F.

AS READ. >> AS READ?

>> MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION EXECUTING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH LANDSCAPE UNLIMITED FOR FIELD

IMPROVEMENTS AT COMMUNITY PARK. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BELL TO APPROVE ITEM 7F AS READ. ANY DISCUSSION?

MAYOR PRO TEM >> ONE LAST COMMENT.

I THINK WHAT IS LACKING IN ALL OF THIS OR WHAT I'M HEARING IS PERHAPS THERE IS A LACK OF VISION FOR WHAT THESE FIELDS SHOULD BE AND MAYBE THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND WE WANT THESE FIELDS TO BE PROFESSIONAL SPORTS FIELD IN THE FUTURE, NOW WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE WE'RE HAVING TO MAKE THESE REPAIRS BECAUSE WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE.

UNFORTUNATE TRUTH. AND I GET WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. I AM GOING TO PUSH IN ALL ASPECTS OF EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING FOR A MORE COHESIVE VISION OF WHAT WE WANT TO BE AS A CITY, AND WHAT WE WANT THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE.

WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE.

I THINK THE MORE THAT WE CAN WORK TOWARD THAT, THE EASIER THESE DECISIONS WILL COME AND WE WON'T HAVE TO QUIBBLE OVER WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE DOING WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER ALMOST TO BE EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE ON A SPORTS FIELD SO THAT IT'S USABLE THIS SEASON.

I WILL SUPPORT THIS ITEM, BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS AND BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN SAID HERE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GET IT RIGHT. GOING FORWARD, AS A CITY, WE HAVE TO HAVE A VISION THAT IS MORE COHESIVE AND WORKS TOGETHER AND ADDRESS THESE ISSUES BEFORE THEY COME TO THIS

POINT. >> MAN, YOU AND I AGREE ON THAT ONE 100 PERCENT. ABSOLUTELY.

BECAUSE THAT VISION NEEDS TO BE THERE.

THIS ISN'T DEFERREDED MAINTENANCE.

THIS IS BASEBALL MAINTENANCE. WHEN YOU HAVE A FIELD THAT GETS USED THAT HEAVILY, THIS TYPE OF RENOVATION HAS TO HAPPEN EVERY ONCE A WHILE. WHETHER IT'S AN ALL TURF INFIELD OR WHETHER IT STAYS GRASS AND CLAY, IT'S STUFF THAT HAS TO HAPPEN IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL MAINTENANCE OF A FIELD AND HOW IT WORKS. BUT YES, VISION IN TERMS OF WHERE WE WANT TO GO, 100 PERCENT.

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER.

>> YES. I TEND TO FEEL A LOT LIKE BRIAN DOES, IN TERMS OF NOT LIKING TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING WHEN I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION. AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION HERE THAT WE NEED.

BUT THE KEY TO ME WAS THAT THE CITIZENS VOTED FOR THIS MONEY TO DO THIS. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I AM GOING

TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> SEEING NONE, CALL THE VOTE. THAT ITEM PASSES 6-1.

[8A. Conduct a public hearing and take action on a request for a Special Use Permit to allow an enclosed accessory structure that is over 500 square feet in size on property zoned SingleFamily Residential District (SF-9). The 1.65-acre property is located at 4818 Chiesa Road, southeast of the intersection of Chiesa Road and Pennridge Circle, Lot 1 Block 1 of the Soliz Estate Plat, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ENCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OVER 500 FEET IN SIZE IN PROPERTY ZONE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT SF-9. LOCATED AT 4818 CHIESA ROAD, SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CHIESA ROAD.

[01:35:01]

>> ALEX. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SHOWN THERE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE IN RED. IT IS THE SF-9 DISTRICT, WHICH IS A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, REQUIRING A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 9,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 70,000 SQUARE FEET IN AREA. WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA ALONG PENRIDGE, THOSE ARE ABOUT 15,000 SQUARE FEET ON AVERAGE. LINDSEY, WHICH IS THE STREET HERE TO THE SOUTH, THAT IS ABOUT 8,000 SQUARE FEET.

THIS IS A LOT THAT HAS -- ABUTTS BOTH CHIESA ROAD AND PENNRIDGE CIRCLE. ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT DOES REQUIRE THAT IS OVER 500 SQUARE FEET REQUIRES THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP FOR THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THAT STRUCTURE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT A 1,650 SQUARE FOOT ENCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WHICH IS THIS BUILDING HERE.

THE SITE PLAN HERE DOES SHOW THE CURRENT HOUSE AND THE NUMBER OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE SITE.

AGAIN, WALK MORE THROUGH HERE. WE HAVE THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. WE HAVE ANOTHER METAL SHED, METAL BARN, THREE SMALLER SHEDS ON THE PROPERTY.

THE EXISTING LOT COVERAGE, WITH ALL OF THOSE STRUCTURES IS APPROXIMATELY SEVEN PERCENT. THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE WITHIN THE SF-9 DISTRICT IS 45 PERCENT.

WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF THIS STRUCTURE, THAT WOULD TICK THAT NUMBER UP TO ABOUT NINE PERCENT.

THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO A CORNER LOT AND A KEY LOT.

AS SUCH, IT DOES NOT HAVE A REAR YARD.

A KEY LOT IS ONE OF THOSE LOTS WHERE IT HAS FRONTAGE ON TWO STREETS, AS A CORNER LOT. AND THEN A REAR YARD THAT -- I LOST MYSELF THERE. THEN THE REAR YARD ABUTTS TO THE SIDE YARD OF ADJOINING LOTS.

IF YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE. I'LL ILLUMINATE THAT HERE.

SUBJECT PROPERTY. THEORETICAL REAR YARD.

NOT REALLY THEORETICAL. BUT FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT.

YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST ON PENNRIDGE CIRCLE, THIS IS THE SIDE YARD, MAKING THAT A KEY LOT THERE. WITHIN OUR ZONING CODE, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MUST BE AT LEAST 3 FEET FROM ALL THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS. POINT OUT HERE THAT THE PROPERTY IS 34 FEET FROM THE EAST, THAT THERE IS 3 FEET THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. THEY EXCEED THAT.

52 TO THE SIDE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH.

THAT IS ALSO 3 FEET REQUIRED THERE.

260 FEET FROM CHIESA ROAD. ALSO WITHIN THE SECTION REGARDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, THAT THEY SHALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICHEVER IS LESS.

THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL BE 12 FEET.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR THE SUP, REGARDING VISUAL IMPACT. THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT FOR DRIVERS, AS AN EXISTING FENCE LINE DOES EXIST ON PENNRIDGE.

POINT THAT OUT. M HERE IS WHAT YOU SEE MORE OR LESS AS YOU'RE COMING FROM CHIESA ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE AND THEN PENNRIDGE THERE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE. A BIT MORE OF THAT AS WELL TO AGAIN, SHOW WHAT THE PROPERTY IS, AND THAT THE VISIBILITY WOULD BE MINIMAL WITH THIS. AGAIN, THAT IS THE MAIN HOUSE THERE. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD BE SHORTER THAN THAT HOME. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERED THIS ITEM ON DECEMBER 13TH, 2022, AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WITH A UNANIMOUS 6-0 VOTE. THIS PROPERTY WAS NOTIFIED.

200-FOOT NOTICES WERE SENT TO 21 PROPERTIES.

NO RESPONSES THAT WERE RECEIVED, EITHER IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION. AND THEN THE 500 FOOT COURTESY

[01:40:01]

WITH THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS, ALSO THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING IF THE COUNCIL HAS ANY QUESTIONS OF

THEM. >> COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS?

>> WOULD THIS BE CONCRETE UNDERNEATH?

>> IT WOULD BE A REQUIRE TO HAVE A FOUNDATION THAT DOES MEET THE BUILDING CODE. I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE FOUNDATION MATERIAL WOULD BE.

THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO

ADDRESS. >> WELL, IT'S FOR RV TRAILERS, IF IT'S ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR CONCRETE, I AM GOING TO BE CONCERNED. DO YOU KNOW IF THAT IS GOING TO EXTEND TO THE DRIVEWAY THAT IS EXISTING OVER THE FENCES? I'M LOOKING AT THE AERIAL VIEW IN THE PACKET.

>> I CAN SEE IF I CAN GET THAT BACK.

>> THE APPLICANT DID GIVE A THUMBS UP THAT IT IS CONCRETE,

JUST FOR THE RECORD. >> PERFECT.

MY MAIN QUESTION, CONNECTIVITY TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND ENSURING THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE A FOUNDATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I FIGURED.

COUNCIL MEMBER. I WAS LOOKING AT YOU LIKE ARE

YOU SURE? >> IT WOULDN'T BE A CIRCUS IF I WASN'T HERE. JUST ONE QUESTION REALLY, DO WE KNOW WHAT THE ACCESSORY BUILDING IS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DID DO HORSEBACK RIDING LESSONS OR SOMETHING OUT THERE.

>> RV PARKING. >> STORAGE

>> RV STORAGE. >> OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> SORRY.

AMATEUR MOVE THERE. ALL RIGHT.

GIVE ME A SECOND. I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC -- YEAH. YOU DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE AN APPLICATION? APPLICANT, DID YOU WANT TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL OR ARE YOU GOOD?

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE WISHING TO MAKE A COMMENT, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES, COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD. DO NOT ANNOUNCE YOUR ADDRESS, JUST THE CITY. ANYONE WHO WANT TO SPEAK?

>> GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MAYOR PRO TEM.

>> YES, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER GALAWARDE. >> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM. AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GALAWARDI TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED.

ANY DISCUSSION? MAYOR PRO TEM.

>> ANECDOTAL THAN ANYTHING, I WANT TO SAY THAT I DRIVE DOWN CHIESA ON A REGULAR BASIS, I SAW THE SIGN ON YOUR FENCE, I BECAME VERY CONCERNED, I'M GLAD THAT IT'S NOT THAT.

>> YES. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES.

SORRY. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER.

>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY THIS ONE IS A PRETTY EASY ONE FOR ME. I AM A BIG BELIEVER IN PROPERTY RIGHTS, AS LONG AS THOSE ARE NOT ENCROACHING ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY RIGHTS, EVERYTHING THAT I SEE IN REGARDS TO THIS REQUEST INDICATES THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD IN ANY WAY IMPACT YOUR NEIGHBORS OR DRIVERS DOWN THE STREET OR ANYONE ELSE.

THE ONE OPPOSED RETURN DIDN'T STATE A REASON FOR OPPOSING IT.

SO I DON'T GIVE TOO MUCH CREDENCE TO THAT.

SO I AM GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CALL THE VOTE.

[8B. Conduct a public hearing and take action 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]

TO ONE, REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF-40 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD DISTRICT, AND

[01:45:02]

>> BEAR WITH ME, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF INFORMATION TO SHARE TOGETHER. SO STOP ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS DURING THAT TIME. JUST BY FOR THE PURPOSES OF A VISUAL AID, THE ILLUSTRATION IN FRONT OF YOU WITH THE RED ON IT FOR OUR VIEWING AUDIENCE HERE IN THE CHAMBERS AND AT HOME, AREA IN RED BOUNDED BY MILLER ROAD AND ROWLETT ROAD.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES, 19.89.

YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS SEPARATED WITH THE LONG BRANCH CREEK AND SO TO THE EAST OF THE CREEK, WE HAVE A 14 ACRE TRACT, AND TO THE WEST 5.41. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE TO ZONING ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS WELL AS RETAIL COMPONENT TO IT.

THE PROPERTY DOES BOAST 947 FEET ALONG MILLER ROAD.

PROPERTY ENCUMBERED WITH FLOODPLAIN, 3.7 ACRE.

MATURE TREE CANOPY WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.

COUNCIL, IN YOUR PACKET, THERE IS A BACKGROUND SECTION THAT PROVIDES THE HISTORY RELATED TO THE ACTIVITY THAT WE'VE SEEN RELATED TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE.

WE DID SEE ACTIVITY IN 2019 AND 2020, ALL FOR USES THAT WOULD ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY WITH COMMERCIAL USES BUT A PD ASPECT TO IT. THOSE DID NOT COME TO FRUITION.

THE PROPERTY HAS EXCHANGED HANDS. SINCE THEN WE HAVE THE APPLICANT WHO HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY USING, AND ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL USES. NOW, THE PURPOSE OF THE PD REALLY IS INTENDED TO INTEGRATE VARIOUS LAND USES, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE LAY OF THE LAND, ADDRESS OR ACCOMMODATE FOR ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A DEVELOPMENT THAT FINDS ITSELF TO BE NOT JUST COHESIVE WITH BUT ALSO COMPLIMENTARY OF THE BUILT IN ENVIRONMENT.

TAILORED WITH SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.

WOULD THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

SO AS IT RELATES TO THE LARGER TRACT, WHICH IS PROPOSED FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES, THE APPLICANT, AS I MENTIONED, IS REQUESTING A PD WITH THE BASE ZONING OF SF-8 CRITERIA.

THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF-40 DISTRICT.

THAT REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 40,000 SQUARE FEET.

AGAIN, AS WE LOOK AT EXISTING ZONING, WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THOSE PERHAPS WERE CREATED AS A RESULT OF AN EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN OR OF EXISTING USES.

BASED ON THAT, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THEN IDENTIFIES WHAT THAT FUTURE LAND USE PLAN COULD POTENTIALLY BE. SO SOMEWHAT OF A HOLDING PATTERN AS IT RELATES TO THE SF-14 DISTRICT.

THE PROPOSED PD, WITH THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MINIMUM LOT OF 8,000 SQUARE FEET AND IS REALLY FOLLOWING THE CRITERIA OF THE SF-8 DISTRICT.

WITH BASICALLY A DISTINCTION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TABLE IN FRONT OF YOU THE MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT AREA.

SF-8 BASE DISTRICT REQUIRES NO LESS THAN 1800 SQUARE FEET IN DWELLING UNIT AREA AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 3,000 SQUARE FEET OF DWELLING UNIT AREA.

SETBACKS PRETTY MUCH TRACK ALONG THE SF-8 DISTRICT.

IF YOU CAN SEE THE LENGTH OR THE DEPTH OF THESE LOTS IS PROPOSED TO BE DEEPER, AT 120 FEET.

THE IMAGE IN FRONT OF YOU, I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BLURRY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE COULDN'T AVOID THAT.

BUT I WANTED TO GIVE A PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF THAN WHY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AS IT RELATES TO THE SINGLE FAMILY COMPONENT DOWN HERE. SOME LARGER LOTS ALONG HERE.

[01:50:03]

THE SF-14 DISTRICT ALONG HERE. THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE THE CREEK THAT SUBDIVIDES, BIFURCATES THE PROPERTY FOR ALTERNATIVE USES, IN THIS CASE, COMMERCIAL USES. 39 LOTS ARE PROPOSED.

THE LARGEST LOT IS 11,624 SQUARE FEET.

WITH THAT, THE MINIMUM LOT THAT WE SEE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, 8,000 SQUARE FEET. RESULT IN AN AVERAGE OF 8,900 PLUS SQUARE FEET. ACCESS FROM MILLER ROAD WOULD BE VIA LOOP STREET. WEST ENTRYWAY WOULD LINE UP WITH FINON DRIVE, LEADING INTO THE VILLAS, LONG BRANCH DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE PROPERTIES WOULD BE FRONT LOADED.

ADDITIONAL DETAILS, EIGHT-FOOT MASONRY PERIMETER SCREENING WILL BE INSTALLED. AS YOU SEE IN YELLOW, ALONG THE EASTERN AND SOUTHERN PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOA.

20-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG MILLER ROAD IS REQUIRED.

AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING THAT.

YOU CAN SEE THAT IN GREEN ON THE SCREEN ALONG HERE.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO GOING TO PROVIDE AN EIGHT-FOOT WIDE TRAIL ALONG THE EASTERN BANK OF LONG BRANCH CREEK, WHICH EXTENDS TO MILLER ROAD AND LOOPING THROUGH THE PROPOSED RETENTION POND. MILLER ROAD EXTENDS ALL THE WAY SOUTH, TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROPOSED OR FUTURE DETENTION FACILITY WITH A TRAIL AROUND IT.

AS WELL AS ACCESS POINTS THROUGH THE COMMUNITY.

YOU CAN REFER TO THOSE TWO AS MID BLOCK PATHWAY, TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL CONNECTIVITY AND OPEN SPACE.

WANTED TO PROVIDE MORE DETAILS RELATED TO THE OPEN SPACE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT WE HAVE A PARK DEDICATED ALONG HERE.

GREEN SPACE ALONG THE RETENTION FACILITY.

LET'S NOT FORGET THAT THERE WILL BE A TRAIL SYSTEM.

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DETAILS ARE PRESENTED ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU, NARROW SLIVER OF PROPERTY.

TWO BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE PREPARED.

BUILDING A WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 44,850 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING B WOULD BE SMALLER OBVIOUSLY, AT 10,650 SQUARE FEET. BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT, AGAIN, I DO WANT TO STRESS THAT THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

AND SO THIS IS IF YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON IF WE WERE LOOKING AT PLAIN RETAIL USES, THE APPLICANT WOULD USE THOSE SQUARE FOOTAGES FOR RETAIL PURPOSES, THAT 216 PARKING SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED. JUST LIKE ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT, IT'S SLIGHTLY OVER PARKED.

AGAIN, ALL THIS WOULD BE FURTHER REFINED AND DEFINED AT THE TIME OF DETAILED PLAN SUBMITTAL.

THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. AND OF COURSE, THE CIVIL DRAWINGS TO FINE TUNE ACCESS OR ACCESS ACCESSIBILITY, PARKING RATIO REQUIREMENTS AND ENGINEERING RELATED ELEMENTS. I WON'T GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE USES, BUT THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ADDRESSED THE C-1 USES AND STRUCK THROUGH A NUMBER OF THEM.

THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PROCESS AND JUST AS AN OVERSIGHT, I THINK ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT DID REMAIN AT THE MEETING AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS AGRICULTURAL CULTIVATION WHICH WAS SINCE REMOVED.

I WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE. THEY ARE INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT D AS PART OF THE PACKAGE. NOW, COUNCIL, THERE ARE SEVERAL DRAINAGE CONCERNS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE TIME TO ADDRESS WITH YOU. I AM NOT THE EXPERT.

JEFF COHEN IS. HE IS OUR CITY ENGINEER.

HE IS GOING TO TAKE OVER THROUGH THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES SO HE CAN WALK YOU THROUGH THE WATER SHED ELEMENTS

AND DRAINAGE CONCERNS. >> THANK YOU.

COUNCIL, MAYOR. SO THIS PROPERTY DOES SIT ON LONG BRANCH CREEK. LONG BRANCH IS A LOCAL CREEK.

IT IS 2.6 MILES LONG. IT HAS A WATER SHED THAT IS ABOUT TWO SQUARE MILES. 2.1 EXACTLY.

[01:55:03]

AND IT CONSTITUTES ABOUT ONE AND A HALF PERCENT OF THAT WATER SHED. DURING THE 100-YEAR STORM AT MILLER, ALONG LONG BRANCH CREEK, WHEN THE FLOW GETS TO MILLER ROAD, THE DISCHARGE IS ABOUT 4800 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. THE 100-YEAR STORM FROM THE PROPERTY IS ESTIMATED PRELIMINARILY TO BE ABOUT 65 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, WHICH ALSO IS LESS THAN ONE AND A HALF PERCENT OF THE FLOW IN THE CREEK AT THAT POINT.

THE DEVELOPER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED, WILL NOT, IS NOT ALLOWED AND WE WILL NOT -- WE WILL ENSURE THAT HE DOES NOT DISCHARGE A RATE OF RUNOFF MORE THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DISCHARGED FROM THE PROPERTY. THE PRE-DEVELOPED RATE.

HE WILL ALSO HAVE TO SHOW THAT THERE IS NO IMPACT TO THE WATER SURFACES AND DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES.

SO WITH THAT CONSIDERATION, WE WITH SAFELY SAY THAT THE PROJECT IS UNLIKELY TO HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO DOWNSTREAM USERS ON LONG BRANCH CREEK.

I DID WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN AND HOW MILLER ROAD ROWLETT ROAD IS INTERACTING WITH THIS FLOODPLAIN AND HOW THE PROJECT IS IMPACTING OR NOT IMPACTING THESE CONDITIONS. MAINTENANCE OF CREEKS THROUGHOUT THE CITY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY TYPICALLY OF HOAS. WE DO, WE THE CITY, DO HAVE A RIGHT TO INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCEMENT AND TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS. THIS PROPOSED PROJECT WILL ALSO INCLUDE A FLOODPLAIN EASEMENT SIMILAR TO THAT.

AND AS I SAID, WE WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE AND CORRECT.

IF NEEDED. THERE ARE CURRENTLY, I'M SORRY.

THERE ARE CURRENTLY SOME LARGE 10 BY 10 BOX CULVERTS ACROSS MILLER ROAD RIGHT THERE THAT ALLOWS THE CREEK TO FLOW UNDER MILLER ROAD. THE 100-YEAR FLOOD FLOW, THOUGH, IN LONG BRANCH CREEK AT THAT POINT BECAUSE OF THOSE CULVERTS, THAT IS SORT OF A BOTTLENECK, DOES, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE IMAGE TO THE RIGHT, THAT BLUE AREA IS THE FLOOD WAY AND IT OVER TOPS ROWLETT ROAD AND MILLER ROAD IN THIS AREA.

THOSE CULVERTS WERE BUILT IN 1989.

THE WATER SHED SINCE THEN HAS DEVELOPED.

AND ADMITTEDLY, IN SOME CASES, WITHOUT DETENTION, THERE ARE WAYS TO MITIGATE THIS CONDITION HERE THROUGH THE CIP PROJECT PROCESS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A CIP PROJECT THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TASK FORCE. THE MILLER ROAD, THOUGH, OVER TOPPING DOES OCCUR UPSTREAM OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT.

THIS IS ALL UPSTREAM OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THE PROJECT DOES NOT IMPACT THIS CONDITION NOR DOES THIS CONDITION IMPACT THE PROJECT, ONCE THE FLOOD FLOWS GET THROUGH AND OVERTOP MILLER ROAD, THE FLOOD IS CONFINED TO THE CHANNEL.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, THOUGH, THE PROJECT WILL BE DESIGNED TO NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT DOWNSTREAM USERS AND JUST AS A NOTE, SIDE NOTE, WE ARE CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CIP PROJECT TO STABILIZE LONG BRANCH CREEK AND SOME OF THE

MORE EROSION PRONE AREAS. >> THANK YOU, JEFF.

COUNCIL, AS WE REVIEW THESE TYPES OF ZONING CASES, WE DO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS FROM A DRAINAGE PERSPECTIVE OR FROM AN INFRASTRUCTURE PERSPECTIVE.

HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, IT IS VERY TYPICAL THAT UNTIL ENTITLEMENTS

[02:00:03]

MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE LARGER EXERCISES IS TO ASSESS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN LIGHT OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND IN LIGHT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

NOW, THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND IF YOU RECALL, WE TOUCHED ON THIS EARLIER DURING THE PRESENTATION, DESIGNATES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

YOU CAN SEE THAT ON YOUR SCREEN TO THE RIGHT.

WHICH IS THIS AREA ALONG HERE. AND THEN IT DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS RETAIL COMMERCIAL. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING LOT SIZES THAT RANGE FROM 8,000 TO 11,000 SQUARE FEET, APPROXIMATELY. WHICH WOULD BE PLACED IN A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY. NOW, IT DOES -- LOW DENSITY CATEGORY IS NOT SYNONYMOUS TO ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.

AS I MENTIONED TO YOU EARLIER, OFTEN WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ADDRESSED, WHEN YOU'VE GOT A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, PREVIOUS TRENDS SHOW EXISTING USES, A COMP PLAN SOMETIMES DOES FOLLOW THAT NATURE. BUT THE TASK BEFORE US TODAY IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS INDEED APPROPRIATE OR WARRANT A CHANGE. AND IS THE ZONING CASE INDEED APPROPRIATE TO WARRANT THAT CHANGE.

PROPOSED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

OF COURSE, THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE ALONG ROWLETT ROAD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. WE CONDUCTED A BRIEF STUDY OR ANALYSIS OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE AREA TO THE NORTH ACROSS MILLER ROAD. REQUIRED A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET AND A MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE OF 1500 SQUARE FEET. TO THE EAST, WE POINTED THOSE AREAS TO YOU. MAINTAINED THE SF-14 CATEGORY, MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 40,000 SQUARE FEET.

WE KNOW THAT THE HOME SIZE IS 2400 SQUARE FEET.

SOUTH AND WEST, 7800 AND 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

RANGE WAS FROM 1500 TO 1200 MINIMUMS. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 8,000 SQUARE FEET. MINIMUM BUILDING AREA OF 3,000 SQUARE FEET. NOVEMBER 22ND MEETING, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTED 5-1 TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST, WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE STIPULATED ON THE SCREEN. ONE WAS TO ADD A 3 NORTHBOUND LANE FOR ROWLETT ROAD, THE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY AND A RIGHT HAND TURN LANE AT THE INTERSECTION WITH MILLER ROAD.

THE SECOND CONDITION WAS TO ADD A RIGHT HAND DECELERATION LANE ON MILLER ROAD. AS MENTIONED, AGRICULTURE CULTIVATION AND GRAZING USE WAS STRUCK, AS RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MADE MENTION TOO THAT THE MASTER DEVELOPER OR BUILDER NOT RECEIVE CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE LAST TEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PRIOR TO SECURING THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. I AM GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IF YOU WOULD BEAR WITH ME. TO GIVE YOU A VISUAL EXAMPLE OF WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED, I WANT TO EXPLAIN SOME CRITERIA RELATED TO THAT RECOMMENDATION. THE 3 NORTHBOUND LANE ON ROWLETT ROAD DOES CONFLICT WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND PLANNING STAFF, WE DETERMINED THAT ENFORCING THIS CONDITION WITHOUT A FULL BLOWN TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT WILL DEMONSTRATE EITHER A NEED OR NOT A NEED FOR REQUIRING THESE ENHANCEMENTS, WOULD NOT BE AMENABLE, SHOULD THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED THE TIA SUBMITTED WITH THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND THE CIVILS, AND REVIEW OF THOSE AND IF THERE WAS INDEED THROUGH THOSE REVIEWS OR STUDIES, THE NEED FOR THESE ENHANCEMENTS, THEN THEY COULD BE ADDRESSED AT THAT POINT.

BEAR WITH ME ONE SECOND. I WANT TO GO BACK.

WE HAVE RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF COMPILATION OF THE PACKET, WE RECEIVED THREE RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 200 FOOT

[02:05:01]

COUNCIL DURING THAT TIME AS OF TODAY, WE HAVE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL PROTESTS SIGNED PROTESTS, REGARDING THIS ZONING REQUEST. WHICH WOULD THEN RESULT IN A REQUIREMENT OF A SUPERMAJORITY TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST.

YOUR ACTION WOULD REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY.

I HAVE CONSULTED WITH DAVID BERMAN AND

>> FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, YOU HAVE RECEIVED WRITTEN SIGNED PROTESTS FROM AT LEAST 20 PERCENT OF THE OWNERS OF THE AREA OF THE LAND SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. WE HAVE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION

OVER 20 PERCENT. >> WHICH COMPELS, INVOKES THE THREE-QUARTER SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT UNDER STATE LAW.

SIX OUT OF SEVEN MINIMUM. >> AND WITH THAT, I'LL GO TO MY RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.

THANK YOU. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO A PD FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL USES WITH THE CONDITIONS PRESENTED IN YOUR PACKET.

APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE ZONING CHANGE AS WELL AS AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP. IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY OF ESTATE RESIDENTIAL IS REFLECTIVE OF THE PREVIOUS AEG STYLE TYPE USES AND PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS CONSIDERED LOW DENSITY AND NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY.

WE DO SEE A CONTINUED STRONG DEMAND FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTAL LONG ROWLETT DOES CONFORM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT

PRESENT AS WELL. >> DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO PRESENT SOMETHING? NO.

>> THEY WILL JUST ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS. >> COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR

STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? >> MAYOR PRO TEM

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION.

VERY THOROUGH. I NOTICE IN THE SITE PLAN THAT THERE IS AN EXIT ONLY LANE FROM THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

FURTHEST NORTH. I'M CURIOUS IF THAT HAS BEEN

REVIEWED BY YOUR TEAM. >> PRELIMINARY OR CURSORY LEVEL, ABSOLUTELY. BUT ONCE WE HAVE A DEFINED OR DETAILED SITE PLAN, THOSE COULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE.

BUT FIRST BLUSH LOOKING AT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE AN ENTRY ONLY, AS YOU'VE MENTIONED, YES, IT IS -- BUT WITHOUT THE TIA, WE CANNOT CONFIRM WHETHER THAT WOULD INDEED BE APPROPRIATE. IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE AS WELL.

BECAUSE THOSE USES COULD CHANGE OR THE PARKING RATIOS COULD CHANGE OR CIRCULATION PATTERN COULD CHANGE.

ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, THIS WAS CONCEPTUAL, SO ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES OCCUR WOULD HAVE TO CONTEMPLATE UNLESS DEVIATED FROM AS PRESENTED TO YOU FROM

THE ROWLETT DEPARTMENT CODE. >> UNDERSTOOD.

WHAT I'M SEEING ACTUALLY IS AN EXIT LANE FROM THE PARKING LOT ON TO ROWLETT ROAD. AND GIVEN THE LOCATION OF BUILDING B, WHAT I SEE HAPPENING IS SOMEONE USING THEIR GOOGLE MAPS TO GET THERE. SEEING BUILDING B ON THE RIGHT AS THEY'RE PASSING BY AND THEN TRYING TO MAKE THE HARD RIGHT TURN INTO THE DRIVEWAY. I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY WAY IT'S GOING TO WORK. IT'S GOING TO INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC. ONE INITIAL CONCERN OR SECOND QUESTION, TREE REMOVAL FOR THIS PROPERTY.

IS THERE ANY TYPE OF TREE REMOVAL PLAN THAT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT OR DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW MANY TREES WE MIGHT

BE LOOKING AT TAKING OUT? >> NOT AT THIS POINT.

TYPICALLY THE TREE REMOVAL PROCESS WILL COMMENCE AT THE PLATTING STAGE, ONCE THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE ON THE TREE CANOPY AND AT THAT TIME, IF THERE ARE THREE OR MORE PROTECTED TREES, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO BE APPROVED BY -- ACTED UPON BY COUNSEL. HOWEVER THAT WOULD, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN, THEY WILL HAVE TO SUBMIT A TREE PRESERVATION AND TREE SURVEY TO US.

>> IS IT YOUR INTERPRETATION BASED ON THE PLANS THAT THE RETAINING WALLS THAT INSTALLED ON EITHER SIDE OF LONG BRANCH, WOULD THOSE NECESSITATE TREE REMOVAL

>> I DO THINK THERE WILL BE IMPACT ON SOME TREES.

AGAIN, WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE AS THEY GO MORE DETAILED PROCESS OF THEIR PLAN SET. CONCEPTUALLY, WE DO ANTICIPATE

SOME TREES COMING OUT. >> FINAL QUESTIO.

[02:10:02]

DETENTION VERSUS RETENTION POND AND THE USE CASE HERE.

IF YOU WOULD. >> I'M GOING TO DEFER TO JEFF.

I CAN TALK ABOUT DETENTION, BUT HE WOULD BE BETTER IN

ADDRESSING THAT. >> RETENTION IS NO DISCHARGE.

AND DETENTION MEANS YOU DELAY THE DISCHARGE AND KEEP THE DISCHARGE TO SOME SPECIFIED LEVEL.

>> SO ASIDE FROM SOME TYPE OF RAIN EVENT, THUNDERSTORM LIKE WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW. THERE WOULD TYPICALLY NOT BE STANDING WATER IN THIS POND OR WOULD THERE BE STANDING WATER

IN THE POND? >> THE LABELS ALL SAY DETENTION SO THERE SHOULD NOT BE STANDING WATER.

SOME DETENTION PONDS ARE DESIGNED WITH A PERMANENT WATER SURFACE, A WATER POOL. BUT THE DETENTION VOLUME THAT IS REQUIRED IS MEASURD ABOVE THAT SURFACE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. THIS IS REALLY FOR BERMAN.

SO THE REASON YOU GAVE, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE REGARDING THE CONDITIONS. NO.

>> THIS ONE. >> NO.

>> WAIT. YOU MISSED IT.

>> I PRESSED THE WRONG KEY. THIS ONE.

>> YES. PER THE CITY ATTORNEY ENFORCING THIS CONDITION WITHOUT A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATING A NEED COULD BE A REGULATORY TAKING EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT IS AMENABLE. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, CONDITIONS COULD BE ADDED FREELY BUT PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY

NOT IN THIS CASE. >> NEVER REALLY KNOW.

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE ABSENCE OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT OR JUSTIFICATION, THE APPLICANT IF WE REQUIRED IT, COULD COMPEL PROPORTIONALTY ANALYSIS, WOULD HAVE TO HIRE AN OUTSIDE ENGINEER TO GIVE US AN ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT AND COST OF CONSTRUCTING THE IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHOUT THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO JUSTIFY IT, IT'S HARD TO SAY THAT WE CAN MAKE HIM DO IT WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY SOME KIND OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR IT.

IF WE DIDN'T REQUIRE IT NOW, I THINK WHAT MANAL WAS SAYING EARLIER, LATER IF TECHNICAL INFORMATION BECAME AVAILABLE THAT SHOWED THAT IT WAS NEEDED, WE COULD STILL AT THAT POINT IN TIME REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXTRA TURN LANE.

>> IT'S TOO PREMATURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THOSE

ENHANCEMENTS WOULD BE REQUIRED. >> I'M NOT SURE IF I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. YOU'RE LOOKING MORE CONFUSED.

>> ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE I HAVE TO KEEP MY OPINION TO MYSELF REGARDING HOW I FEEL VERSUS THE PROFESSIONAL THING TO DO AND MY DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY.

SO I'M GOING TO LET THAT SIT AND I WILL THINK ABOUT IT.

COUNCIL MEMBER >> KIND OF ON THE SAME TOPIC HERE, I DID WATCH THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING WHERE THEY DISCUSSED THIS. I DID NOT WALK AWAY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR A 3 THROUGH LANE ON NORTHBOUND ROWLETT ROAD AS IT APPROACHED MILLER.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THEY WERE ASKING THE RIGHT TURN LANE, WHICH IS VERY SHORT IN THAT AREA RIGHT NOW, BE EXTENDED FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY, SO THAT TRAFFIC THAT WAS INTENDING TO TURN RIGHT WOULD NOT BE STOPPED AT THAT INTERSECTION, AS IT IS TODAY. DOES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE FIRST OF ALL, DAVID, AND SECOND OF ALL, AM I MISUNDERSTANDING

WHAT P&Z WAS ASKING? >> WE ACTUALLY SAT DOWN AND WENT OVER THAT RECOMMENDATION. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE CLEARLY ARTICULATED WHAT CAME OUT OF IT. BUT THOSE TWO ELEMENTS, IT WAS TO EXTEND OR INCREASE THE LENGTH OF WHAT YOU SEE HERE FROM A RIGHT TURN PERSPECTIVE AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, TO INCREASE, TO INCLUDE OR CREATE WHAT I CALL A THIRD LANE

TRAVELLING NORTH AND SOUTH. >> WAIT.

I'VE GOT TO CLEAR UP SOME CONFUSION ON MY PART.

SO THEY ARE GOING TO CONSTRUCT THE THIRD LANE.

NO. >> IT WOULD BE ALL BASED -- SO THIS WAS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, TO INSTALL OR EXTEND OR ENHANCE THE RIGHT TURN LANE AND THEN TO CREATE A NORTH-SOUTH, LET ME REPHRASE.

TO INTRODUCE A THIRD LANE. >> OKAY.

[02:15:01]

>> SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT UNTIL WE DO NOT SEE IN-DEPTH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, WE CANNOT DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A WARRANT FOR THESE ENHANCEMENTS TO THE

ROADWAY OR THAT INTERSECTION. >> DAVID HIT YOUR BUTTON.

>> QUICK QUESTION. STAFF, WHAT DOES OUR TRAFFIC, THOROUGH FARE PLAN SAY ABOUT THIS INTERSECTION AND THE

NORTHBOUND TURN LANES. >> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DEFER TO JEFF. I HAVE NOT COMMITTED THAT TO

MEMORY. >> THE THOROUGH FARE PLAN DOESN'T ADDRESS THE INTERSECTIONS, PER SE, BUT IT DOES ADDRESS ROWLETT ROAD AND MILLER ROAD.

MILLER ROAD, I BELIEVE GETS ANOTHER LANE IN THE EAST-WEST DIRECTION, ULTIMATELY. AND THAT IS WHY THERE IS A RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION SOUGHT FOR FROM THIS PROPERTY OWNER, AFTER HE PLATS. BUT THE NORTH-SOUTH DIRECTION OF ROWLETT ROAD, I BELIEVE SOUTH OF MILLER IS CURRENTLY BUILT OUT TO ITS ULTIMATE CONDITION AND NORTH OF MILLER IS BUILT TO ITS ULTIMATE CONDITION.

SOUTH OF MILLER IT IS A FOUR-LANE DIVIDED AND NORTH OF

MILLER IS A SIX-LANE DIVIDED. >> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS SIX LANES SOUTH OF MILLER ROAD AND IN THE MASTER THOROUGH FARE PLAN. I'M GOING TO CONFIRM RIGHT NOW

AND MAKE SURE OF THAT. >> I WANTED CONFIRMATION OF THAT. IF THE THOROUGH FARE PLAN DOESN'T SAY OTHERWISE, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE TECHNICAL SUPPORT.

ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE TAKING A LANE ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY. BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY.

>> I CONCUR, JEFF COHEN IS CORRECT.

PLAN DOES REFLECT THAT IT IS AT ITS CURRENT DESIGN STANDARD.

THAT SHOULD BE UPDATED IN THE FUTURE.

SO MARK THAT ON YOUR LIST. GO AHEAD.

>> I AM SURPRISED THAT IT ACTUALLY REFLECTS THAT.

BUT I REMEMBER THE BATTLE WELL TO NOT ADD AN ADDITIONAL LANE SOUTH OF MILLER ROAD, BEING IN THIS VERY CHAMBER BACK IN I BELIEVE THE '90S, SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT LENGTHY LENGTHY DISCUSSION, WHERE BOTH THE FOLKS NORTH OF 66 ALONG ROWLETT ROAD AND THE FOLKS SOUTH OF MILLER ROAD GOT TOGETHER TO SAY NO, DON'T DO THAT TO US.

I'M HAPPY WITH IT REMAINING AT FOUR LANES.

BUT I HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS.

THE PROPERTY EAST OF THE CREEK, HOW LARGE IS THAT PROPERTY?

DO WE KNOW? >> THE PROPERTY EAST OF THE

SUBJECT SITE? >> THE ENTIRE LAND AREA EAST.

>> 14, GOSH. THERE WE ARE.

APOLOGIES. ALMOST THERE.

14.48 >> THE TRACTS ARE THE EAST AND WEST TRACTS THAT YOU'VE GOT DEPICTED THERE.

THAT WAS MY QUESTION, WHETHER THOSE WERE ACTUALLY TRACTS EAST AND WEST. BECAUSE I THOUGHT THE PROPERTY SOLD DIFFERENTLY. OKAY.

>> I'LL TRY A DIFFERENT VISUAL AID.

>> GO AHEAD >> COUNCIL MEMBER, I BELIEVE YOU'RE CORRECT. I DID LOOK AT DCAD A MOMENT AGO, THERE IS AN L SHAPED PORTION ON THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE FROM THE TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP.

NOT THAT ONE. SORRY.

>> I'M GETTING THERE. BEAR WITH ME.

WHAT AM I DOING? WRONG WAY.

SORRY. >> HANG IN THERE.

>> LONG DAY. >> I ALWAYS HIT THE WRONG BUTTON. IT'S DONE THE WHOLE PRESENTATION FOR YOU THREE TIMES OVER.

>> SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE A RECTANGULAR PIECE AND THEN OFF ON THE EASTERN SIDE, THERE IS A JOG UP TO THE NORTH. NOT THAT.

MORE TO THE LEFT. YEAH.

THAT LITTLE PIECE UP AND THEN OVER AND THEN DOWN.

THAT SECTION RIGHT THERE. THERE IS LIKE THAT L-SHAPED PIECE THAT IS TURNED ON ITS SIDE.

THAT IS ONE PARCEL AND THEN THE OTHER PARCEL IS LARGER.

>> NO. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> SO MY QUESTION IS HOW MUCH ACREAGE WAS THE RESIDENTIAL.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT. THE OTHER IS WHETHER IN THE PLANS DEPICTED ANY OF THE FLOODPLAIN THAT EXIST TODAY IS ACTUALLY BEING FILLED IN AS IT WAS ON THE NORTH SIDE.

>> ABSOLUTELY IS PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN RECLAIMATION, 3.7

[02:20:03]

ALL THE REQUISITE PERMITS AND COMPLY WITH ALL CODES AND

ORDINANCES. >> RIGHT.

IF YOU NARROW THE CHANNEL, YOU INCREASE THE RATE OF FLOW THROUGH THAT CHANNEL, THAT'S CORRECT?

>> LOGICALLY. >> YOU INCREASE THE RATE OF

EROSION DOWNSTREAM. >> WE KNOW THAT WE ARE DOING THE ENHANCEMENTS TO LONG BRANCH CREEK.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE CIVIL PLANS WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED TO ENSURE THAT ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED.

>> RIGHT. >> YEAH.

LET ME CLARIFY. I DIDN'T QUITE PICK UP EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, COUNCIL MEMBER. BUT THE RATE OF FLOW IS GOING TO STAY THE SAME. THE VELOCITY MAY CHANGE.

THE VELOCITY IS GOING TO BE DEPENDENT ON THE AREA.

SO IF YOU DEEPEN IT, YOU MAY OR MAY NOT INCREASE THE AREA OR DECREASE THE AREA, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU DO TO THE SIDES.

SO IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THEIR DESIGN AND THEIR FINAL ENGINEERING CONFIGURATION ON WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> THE PLAN PRESENTED IS GOING TO NARROW THE CHANNEL.

THAT'S CORRECT? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT.

THEY ARE GOING TO PUT WALLS. LOT OF THAT IS ON WEST SIDE, I BELIEVE. BUT THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CHANNEL ITSELF. I DON'T -- MAYBE THE APPLICANT

CAN SPEAK BETTER TO THIS. >> AGAIN, IF THEY DO SHOW A NARROWING OF THE CHANNEL, WITHOUT ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE.

FROM THE ZONING PERSPECTIVE, WITH THE PROPOSED USES, THEN IN THAT, THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE ANALYZING.

BUT WE ARE POINTING OUT THAT YES, WE HAVE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

THIS IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED ON THIS PROPERTY FROM A RESIDENTIAL PERSPECTIVE. WE DO KNOW THERE WILL BE FLOODPLAIN RECLAIMATION, BUT THE FINER ASPECTS OF THE ENGINEERING DESIGN CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

TOO PREMATURE. >> DID YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM

THE APPLICANT? >> IF HE HAS COMMENTS, SURE.

>> IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT PERTAINING TO THIS QUESTION,

FEEL FREE. >> I AM THE APPLICANT, ENGINEER FOR THIS PROJECT. NARROWING DOWN, WE ARE PUTTING WALL NEXT TO IT, BUT EAST SIDE INCREASE (INAUDIBLE) IT WILL NOT BE NARROW. CROSS-SECTION AREA WILL BE OKAY AND INCREASE, MAYBE IT MIGHT INCREASE ALSO.

SO IT'S LIKE THIS. COMING LIKE THIS.

AND THEN THIS ONE IS LIKE FLAT. ON THE EAST SIDE.

>> ON THE EAST SIDE. >> EAST SIDE A LITTLE BIT LIKE THIS. CUTTING A LITTLE BIT DOWN.

>> YOU'RE GOING TO LOWER IT >> LOWER IT.

SO WE ARE DOING LIKE THIS. THAT IS WHAT -- CONCEPTUAL RIGHT NOW. BUT WE CAN DO THAT ONE.

THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNED THAT WAY, CONCEPTUALLY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

ONE MORE QUESTION FOR MANAL. >> YES.

>> SORRY. SO THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THIS PROPERTY BORDERS PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTHEAST, WHAT IS THE -- WHAT ARE THE SIZES OF

THOSE PROPERTIES TODAY? >> I DO NOT HAVE THAT ANSWER.

WE CAN TRY AND DO -- CAN WE PULL UP JIS.

I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. I DO HAVE AN ANALYSIS FOR YOU.

THAT I CAN PROVIDE. >> SPECIFICALLY, I'M TALKING ABOUT WE HAVE DEVELOPED PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST, THERE IS A HOME THERE, RIGHT?

>> YES. BUT WHAT WE ENDED UP DOING, BEAR WITH ME, MAYBE I'LL FIND THE TABLE THIS TIME.

SO PROPERTY TO THE EAST, WE KNOW THE EXISTING ZONING IS

[02:25:04]

WE KNOW WHAT THE MINIMUM BUILDING AREA IS OVER THERE TOO. SO THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING ZONING REQUIREMENTS. IN YOUR PACKET, COUNCIL, YOU HAVE A TABULATION THAT ADDRESSES WHAT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT IS. IT'S NOT IN THIS PRESENTATION, I BELIEVE. AND WHAT THAT BUILT ENVIRONMENT SHOWS, WOULD YOU PULL THAT UP FOR ME, PLEASE.

WE CAN GO OVER THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.

I DON'T HAVE THE PACKET IN FRONT OF ME.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS ENTIRE AREA, IN THE CURRENT ZONING IS 40,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTIES.

>> ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. >> SOME MONTHS AGO A PROPERTY ALONG MILLER ROAD WAS PLATTED FOR THREE ONE ACRE SITES NEXT TO THE FIRE STATION. THE PROPERTIES THAT ABUTT THIS PROPERTY TO THE SOUTHEAST ARE I BELIEVE ALL ONE ACRE SITES.

AND THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST I BELIEVE IS MORE THAN ONE ACRE. I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT MEASUREMENT. SO AT PRESENT, ALL OF THE DEVELOPED PROPERTIES FROM THE EAST CREEK TO THE EAST, MEET THE SF-40 ZONING REQUIREMENT. AND IN FACT, ARE BEING MET BY NEW PROPERTIES BEING DEVELOPED ALONG MILLER ROAD.

FURTHER, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION, THE AREA THAT THIS COVERS, ALSO I BELIEVE KIRBY DRIVE ALSO SHARES THE SAME DEVELOPMENT. ALL OF THOSE ARE LARGER LOTS THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED AS LARGER LOTS.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> OR ARE DEVELOPED AS LARGER LOTS, YES. ABSOLUTELY.

SO THERE HAS BEEN A TRANSITION IN ZONING.

YOU'RE CORRECT. SO ORIGINALLY, ABSOLUTELY, THEY WERE SF-40. I THINK IF I WERE TO TAKE A STAB AT GUESSING WHAT THAT LAND USE PATTERN WAS OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME AGRICULTURE USES THERE.

AND OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, WE SAW THEM BECOME LARGER AGRICULTURAL OR RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

AND FROM THERE, WE SAW THAT PATTERN SLOWLY START CHANGING.

ESPECIALLY WITH WHAT YOU SEE IN THE ACTIVITY TO THE NORTH AND ACROSS MILLER ROAD TO THE WEST, WHERE THOSE LOTS ARE MUCH MUCH SMALLER. AND THE DWELLING UNITS ARE

SMALLER TOO. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

A SPOT AGAIN DEVELOPED A WHILE BACK TO THE WEST, ONE ACRE LOTS. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESCRIBES THIS AREA AS 20,000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER LOTS.

TO THE EAST OF THE CREEK AND COMMERCIAL TO THE WEST OF THE

CREEK. >> I'M SORRY.

WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE. >> FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESCRIBES THE LAND EAST OF THE CREEK AS 20,000 PLUS LOTS AND TO THE WEST OF THE CREEK AS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT. >> SO TO THE NORTH WE HAVE A BOUNDARY, WHICH IS MILLER ROAD, MANMADE BOUNDARY, BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE COMMERCIAL, WE HAVE A NATURAL BOUNDARY, THE CREEK. AND TO THE SOUTH, WE HAVE A HIGHER DENSITY, I WANT TO SAY IT'S A PD, BUT MOSTLY I THINK

AT THE TIME WAS SF-10 TYPE. >> RIGHT.

ABOUT 7800 MINIMUM. >> SO I GUESS PART OF MY POINT IS I DISAGREE THAT 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS ARE LOW DENSITY, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 40,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY, TRANSITIONING IMMEDIATELY FROM 40,000 TO 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. YOU KNOW, THE FURTHER DOWN THIS PATH WE GO WITH ADDING GREATER AND GREATER DENSITY, TO ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPERS WHO PURCHASE LAND, KNOWING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THE GREATER OUR TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ARE GOING TO BE. AS I SAW IN ONE OF THE COMMENTS MADE, WE CUT OFF THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO WISH TO ACTUALLY HAVE THAT SIZEABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY.

I OBSERVED OVER THE PAST YEAR ANY PIECE OF PROPERTY OF THAT SIZE THAT COMES UP SELLS ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AND IS BUILT ON ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. I DO NOT HAVE ANY CONCERNS THAT THIS PROPERTY CAN'T BE DEVELOPED WITH A MINIMUM 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. SO I DISAGREE WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION THEN THAT THIS IS A CONGRUENT ZONING, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY TO THE

EAST. >> I JUST HAVE SOME INFORMATION. YOU HAD ASKED ME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.

IF I MAY ANSWER THAT QUESTION. THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND THE MINIMUM ZONING REQUIREMENTS ARE OFTEN DIFFERENT.

ABUTTING EIGHT PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AN AVERAGE OF 19,000 SQUARE FEET. ABUTTING PROPERTIES TO THE EAST HAVE AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 55,918 SQUARE FEET AND AVERAGE

[02:30:04]

IN TERMS OF LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT, MERELY FOLLOWING THE DEFINITION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>> I DISAGREE WITH THE DEFINITION.

>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS? MAYOR PRO TEM

>> YES. IT'S CLEAR THAT A LOT OF EFFORT HAS BEEN PUT INTO THE DRAINAGE SITUATION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

WHAT IS THE DRAINAGE PLAN FOR RUN OFFS SINCE WE'RE ADDING SO

MUCH IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. >> JEFF MENTIONED IN HIS SLIDE DECK THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT A DRAINAGE STUDY, NUMBER ONE. THERE COULD BE NO ADVERSE IMPACT OR NOT BE AN INCREASE ON ADJACENT PROPERTY.

THAT WILL HAVE TO BE PRESENTED AND STUDIED.

THE DEVELOPER MENTIONED THAT THEY DO HAVE A PLAN FOR THE CREEK AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO MANAGE THAT.

THEY DO HAVE THE WATER SHED. SO A CIVIL ENGINEERING PLAN SET WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT WHICH WOULD BE REVIEWED BY OUR TEAM. TO ENSURE SPLINS WCOMPLIANCE WITH DRAINAGE REGULATIONS OR GUIDELINES.

>> I'LL SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS I SHARED, IF THE RUNOFF IS SIMPLY GOING TO BE COMING DOWN THE DRIVE AND ON TO ROWLETT ROAD, NUMBER ONE THAT IS A LOW SPOT RIGHT HERE AS YOU APPROACH MILLER ROAD. BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE STREET DRAIN ON BOTH SIDES, GUTTER, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD THAT WOULD BE COLLECTING ALL OF THAT WATER. IF THE WATER IS COMING OFF OF THE DEVELOPMENT, INTO THE ROADWAY, INTO THE ROADWAY, AND FURTHER IMPACT TRAFFIC THAT IS TRAVELLING NORTHBOUND

>> WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ENGINEERING WILL CAPTURE AND ENSURE, NO PUN INTENDED, MAKE SURE THAT IS NOT ADVERSELY

IMPACTING CURRENT CONDITIONS. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT?

>> REALLY? WOW.

ALL RIGHT. WITH NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO MAKE A COMMENT, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD.

IF YOU HAVEN'T FILLED OUT A CARD OUT, PLEASE DO SO BEFORE YOU LEAVE. LAURA.

>> OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS JOHN SCOLA AND THEN DENNIS O'RILEY.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JR, AND I LIVE IN ROWLETT. CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS JUST PRESENTED, FLUP IS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, NOT HISTORICAL.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS REFLECTIVE OF WHAT THE CITIZENS OF ROWLETT WANT THE FUTURE OF ROWLETT TO LOOK LIKE.

IT'S NOT MERELY A REFLECTION OF PAST OR CURRENT USE.

ALL THE PREVIOUS REZONED REQUESTS FOR THIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN DENIED. THIS REQUEST IS NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT. ACCORDING TO THE REPORT WE JUST HEARD, APPROVAL CRITERIA SET FORTH AT 77805 HAVE NOT BEEN MET.

NUMBER ONE, WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING CORRECTS AN ERROR OR MEETS A CHALLENGE OF SOME CHANGE IN CONDITION.

OBVIOUSLY NOT MET. NUMBER 2, WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

REGARDLESS OF THE REMARKABLE PAGE LONG LITERARY GYMNASTICS, SF-8 IS NOT ESTATE RESIDENTIAL. NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. NUMBER THREE, WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING WILL PROTECT OR ENHANCE HEALTH, CHILD MORALS. THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING CHILD TRAFFICKING, SO THEY GET ONE. NUMBER 4, WHETHER THERE IS SUFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION IN UTILITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES TO SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

AND THERE IS NO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

NO UTILITY STUDY. NO WATER SEWER CAPACITY STUDIES. WHY ARE WE ASKING THIS QUESTION IF NONE OF THE STUDIES REQUIRED TO GRANT THE REZONE ARE GOING TO BE DONE. THE ANSWER FOR THAT ONE AGAIN IS NO. NUMBER 5, WHETHER THE PREPARED REZONING IS LIKELY TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 115 YARDS OF MY PROPERTY LINE MATURE TREES, ALL ALONG THE FENCE LINE WILL BE DESTROYED BY

[02:35:03]

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SIGNIFICANT TO YOU.

BUT THE CURRENT ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENSURE THAT THOSE ARE PROTECTED TODAY. BY THE WAY, THAT FACT WAS COMPLETELY SKIPPED IN THE ANALYSIS DONE BY THE DIRECTOR.

NUMBER 6, WHETHER PROPOSED REZONING HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE PROPERTY.

I THINK IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS THE REMOVAL OF ALL OF THE TREES WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHAT IS HARDSHIP THAT REQUIRES WAIVERS FOR FRONT GARAGES, WHAT HARDSHIP. WHEN DOING THE COMPATIBLE ANALYSIS, WHY DID THEY LEAVE OUT ALL OF THE SF-40 PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THREE HUGE SF-40 PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE TABLE SHOWN TO YOU.

HOW DO WE JUSTIFY SF-8 BEING COMPATIBLE WITH SF-40?

WHY DOES STAFF (INAUDIBLE) >> THANK YOU.

NEXT COMMENT. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DENNIS O'RILEY AND THEN TERRY MILLIKIN.

>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M DENNIS O'RILEY, LIVE IN ROWLETT. WE RECEIVED IN RETURN THE 500-FOOT NOTICE. WE BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE GREATER CONSISTENCY WITH THE ADJOINING DEVELOPMENTS.

MOST HOMES HAVE LARGER LOT SIZES, RESPECTIVELY, I DISAGREE WITH THE STAFF, THE DENSITY TO THE DEVELOPMENT IS INCONGRUENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBOR. MAYBE A 10 TO 20 PERCENT REDUCTION IS A BETTER FIT WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS WOULD LIKELY IMPROVE DRAINAGE AROUND THE HOMES.

THE ROWLETT URBAN DESIGN PLANNING GROUP BELIEVES THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED THE DETENTION POND TO MANAGE CREEK RUNOFF. AND WE WONDER IF SUCH A POND WOULD CREATE AN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD DURING THE HOT SUMMER, SINCE IT APPEARS TO BE CLOSE TO HOMES.

THEY INDICATED IT WAS A DETENTION POND, BUT RELEASES WATER DOWN. I HAVE TO THINK THAT THAT POND IS GOING TO HOLD WATER FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

ESPECIALLY AFTER A SUMMER THUNDERSTORM.

WE ALSO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL PORTION.

DOES ROWLETT NEED SUCH A DEVELOPMENT.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE VACANT SPACES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, VACANT SPACES IN A LEGACY DEVELOPMENT JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

MOST OF THESE HAVE BEEN VACANT FOR SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME.

ALL VACANT SPACE APPEAR TO BE SIMILAR TO THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL SITE. WE ALSO QUESTION THE PURPOSE OF ROWLETT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHEN AS PART OF THE ZONING CHANGES, THE PLAN IS AMENDED. IT SOUNDS LIKE ZONING IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY. WE BELIEVE A LOWER DENSITY, QUALITY MAYBE EVEN A GATED COMMUNITY CAN BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE ABUTTING AREA AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND STILL BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. THERE CERTAINLY APPEARS TO BE SOME ECONOMIC HEAD ROOM SINCE THE DEVELOPER IS WILLING TO BUILD THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC, NORTHBOUND THROUGH LANE, THE RIGHT TURN LANE AND THE DEACCELERATION LANE ON MILLER.

FINALLY, THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF IFS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, AS EXAMPLED WITH THE DISCUSSION EARLIER. STACY AND I ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING AND ASK THAT YOU DENY YOUR REQUEST.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND DUE DILIGENCE IN THE

MATTER. >> THANK YOU.

>> NEXT COMMENT. >> NEXT IS TERRY MILLIKIN.

>> STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD.

>> TERRY MILLIKIN, 3802 HIDDEN VALLEY CIRCLE ROWLETT.

WHEN I WAS A CHILD, I WATCHED A TELEVISION PROGRAM CALLED STAR TREK. THERE WAS A VULVON BY THE NAME OF MR. SPOCK, WHO ALWAYS CAME UP WITH THIS RETORT, HE SAID THAT WOULD BE ILLOGICAL. WHAT I WILL SAY TO YOU TONIGHT IS THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ILLOGICAL.

AND HERE IS WHY, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S PROBABLY VIOLATES THREE STATE ORDINANCES. STATE LAWS.

IT VIOLATES 14 ORDINANCES, THE CITY'S ORDINANCES.

THE CONCERN I HAVE THAT I DON'T THINK THIS DEVELOPER HAS EVER PUT TOGETHER A PROJECT LIKE THIS.

[02:40:04]

AND WHAT THAT IS GOING TO DO TO THE INTEGRITY OF WHAT HE SAYS HE IS GOING TO DO AND HE MAY BE GOING TO DO EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS HE'S GOING TO DO. BUT IF YOU HAVE A CONCEPT PLAN THAT HAS ALL OF THESE VIOLATIONS IN IT, THE NEXT OWNER IS GOING TO SAY YOU APPROVED THOSE.

THE CITY STAFF POINTED OUT THAT THIS PLAN DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND IT DOESN'T.

AS THEY'VE SAID, REDUCING LOT SIZES FROM 20,000 TO 8,000 HAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SE. AND IT IS ILLOGICAL.

THE CITY POINTED OUT THAT THE GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM IS IN QUESTION. I'M AN ENGINEER.

I QUESTION IT TOO. BUT IF YOU APPROVE THIS CONCEPT PLAN, WITHOUT KNOWING WHETHER THE SEWER SYSTEM IS GOING TO WORK, THAT ILLOGICAL. WITHOUT A FLOOD STUDY, WE'VE GOT EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION. IT WILL BE ILLOGICAL TO APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH -- WHETHER THEIR FLOODPLAIN IS GOING TO WORK AT ALL.

THE BIG ONE TO ME, IS THAT SHOVING TWO-STORY HOUSES SEVEN AND A HALF FEET AWAY FROM LARGE ACREAGE LOTS, IS TOTALLY ILLOGICAL. THAT IS WHAT THIS DEVELOPER WANTS TO DO. AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THIS CONCEPT PLAN TALKS ABOUT AN EIGHT-FOOT SCREENING WALL THAT WILL TAKE OUT ALL OF THE PERIMETER TREES AND THEN THERE IS THE QUESTION ABOUT THIS THIRD LANE AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS A -- YOU'RE AMENDING THE COMP PLAN.

YOU DON'T SAY HOW THE TRAFFIC THOROUGH FARE PLAN IS A PART OF THE COMP PLAN. YOU CAN SAY WE AMENDED THAT TOO. SO WHAT, MY QUESTION IS, IF SOMEONE TRIED TO BUILD A HOUSE RIGHT NEXT TO YOU, SEVEN AND A HALF FEET AWAY, WHAT WOULD YOU DO.

(INAUDIBLE) >> THANK YOU.

DAVID BERMAN, CAN YOU ADDRESS THE ALLEGATION THAT THREE STATE LAWS ARE BEING VIOLATED BY THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

>> I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.

>> I FIGURED. THANKS.

LAURA, ANY OTHER CARDS. ALL RIGHT.

I BELIEVE YOU ADDRESSED THIS ALREADY IN CITIZENS INPUT.

(INAUDIBLE) TYPICALLY IF YOU CAN'T COMMENT ON CITIZENS, THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND YOU DO SO WITH CITIZENS INPUT, EITHER WAY, TYPICALLY WE WOULDN'T ALLOW IT.

BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THE PRECEDENT.

BUT I'LL ALLOW IT IT IN THIS ONE CASE, FOR YOU.

SO GO AHEAD, COME UP. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> CITIZENS INPUT BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IF I WOULD BE HERE BECAUSE MY SON'S CONDIUGH AND SINUS CONDITION.

BUT I STAYED. THE PIECE OF CONCRETE ON ROWLETT ROAD AND MILLER ROAD, THAT I REFERRED TO PREVIOUSLY, IF YOU RECALL, I MADE A COMMENT YOU CAN'T FORCE THE GUY TO DO THAT. BUT IF THEY VOLUNTARILY DO IT, THEY CAN DO THAT. AND THEY CAN VOLUNTARILY DO IT AND IF THEY DON'T WANT TO VOLUNTARILY DO IT, THIS MEETS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS BEEN THERE FOR 30 YEARS. AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I THINK THE ZONING HAS BEEN IN PLACE AT LEAST 30 YEARS OR CLOSE TO IT. AND SO IT WOULD BE ON GROUND TO DENY THIS BASED ON THE CURRENT ZONING. AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE DEVELOPER DID NOT OWN THE PROPERTY FOR 30 YEARS.

NOT 20 YEARS. NOT 10 YEARS.

THIS WAS THE ZONING WHENEVER THEY MADE THE DEAL FOR AND THE COMP PLAN HAS NOT CHANGED ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

AND THAT TIME. SO I WOULD URGE YOU IF THEY'RE NOT VOLUNTARILY WILLING TO PUT IN THE ROADS, THEN IT NEEDS TO GO WITH THE COMP PLAN AND THE CURRENT ZONING AND BE DENIED.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

LET'S SEE HERE. HOW MANY -- HOW MANY PEOPLE

[02:45:04]

IF THERE IS NO OTHER PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? APPLICANT, YOU CAN --

>> HE HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE.

>> I'M SORRY? >> HE HAD -- COUNCIL MEMBER HAD ONE QUESTION THAT THEY WERE ASKING.

>> SORRY. >> I THINK MY ONLY QUESTIONS WERE IN REGARDS TO THE DRAINAGE OF THE COMMERCIAL PIECE.

>> YES. >> WHICH I THINK MANAL COVERED PRETTY WELL. AND JEFF.

YES. SO I THINK I'M GOOD THERE.

I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT ALL OF THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT IS DONE.

DRAINAGE, SEWER LINE, WATER, EVERYTHING SHOULD WORK OUT.

WE DON'T PROCEED WITHOUT ANY PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.

>> THANK YOU. MY QUESTION IS FOR MANAL.

AND I WANT TO PREFACE MY COMMENTS BY SAYING THAT I HAVE A HIGH DEGREE OF FAITH IN OUR DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

AND I KNOW SOME COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TONIGHT ABOUT QUESTIONING OUR DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THEIR MOTIVATION AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE.

BUT I HAVE A VERY HIGH DEGREE OF FAITH IN OUR DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. MY QUESTION MANAL, IF YOU COULD PLEASE WALK US THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS, FROM START TO FINISH. WHAT REQUIREMENTS ARE WE ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW TO IMPOSE UPON THE DEVELOPER PRIOR TO THIS POINT. BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, LIKE A TIA AND THINGS LIKE THAT CANNOT BE REQUIRED UP TO THIS

POINT. >> YOU CAN ANSWER THE PARTS REGARDING EVERYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED AT STATE LAW.

BECAUSE I'LL LET HIM ANSWER THAT ONE.

>> OKAY. IF I MISS SOMETHING, JUST LET ME KNOW, I'M GOING TO TRY AND METHODICALLY OR ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. IF A DEVELOPER, WE WILL USE THE TERM APPLICANT, IF SOMEONE IS INTERESTED IN REALIZING DEVELOPMENT ON A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND, THE FIRST STEP IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ORDINANCES THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL HAVE ADOPTED ALLOW THE USE TO OCCUR.

IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE USE IS NOT ALLOWED, LET'S SAY THEY MADE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ZONING ACTION, TOSSING THAT IN THERE, THE APPLICANT HAS THE PREROGATIVE OR THE RIGHT TO REQUEST TO CHANGE THAT ZONING. IF AN APPLICATION IS MADE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING REQUEST, THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT IS PLACED ON YOUR PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THAT ZONING AGAINST THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, TO ASSESS THE VIABILITY OF THE COMP PLAN, BECAUSE THE COMP PLAN IS UPDATED EVERY FIVE YEARS, UPDATED EVERY TEN YEARS, DEPENDS.

SOMETIMES THAT DOES FALL ALONG THE WAYSIDE.

AND IMPORTANTLY, ONCE AN ANALYSIS IS BEING CONDUCTED, THERE ARE TEN ELEMENTS TO THAT ANALYSIS THAT DETERMINE WHETHER THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ZONING AND ASSOCIATED USES WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING LAND USES, THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, I AM SUMMARIZING, AND OF COURSE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE. IT IS GENERAL PRACTICE THAT IN ORDER TO PROCEED TO YOUR NEXT STEPS OF DETERMINING HOW NOT TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT OR ADVERSELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING USES, LAND USES OR HAVE AN EXTRA BURDEN ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE, TYPICALLY ZONING PROCESSES REQUIRE THAT, TYPICALLY THE ZONING PROCESS CREATES THE ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT TO GO TO THE NEXT STEP TO REALIZE THAT.

SO THE TASK THAT IS I'M TRYING TO FIND THE WORD IN ENGLISH.

I APOLOGIZE. BUT THE TASK FOR THE PLANNING AND FOR THE PLANNING TEAM IS THAT TO PUT ON, TO CONDUCT THAT ANALYSIS AND TO ENSURE THAT SUSTAINABLE ELEMENTS ARE CREATED OR IMPLANTED WITHIN THIS REQUEST TO ENSURE THAT IF

[02:50:01]

AND WE TRY TO EVALUATE AND ENSURE THAT THOSE STANDARD DETAILS OR ENHANCEMENTS IN THE PD ARE NOT DETRIMENTAL.

NOW IF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PER THE CITY OF ROWLETT ORDINANCES IS NOT REALIZED WITHIN TWO YEARS, THEN THAT PD IS BASICALLY YOU COME BACK AND YOU REZONE THE PROPERTY TO ITS EXISTING CONDITION.

I HOPE I ANSWERED ALL OF THE QUESTIONS.

I THINK, DAVID. >> DAVID, DID YOU WANT TO GO INTO THE LEGALITIES OF WHAT CONDITIONS WE ARE ALLOWED TO

REQUIRE. >> WE IMPOSE EVERY CONDITION OUR ORDINANCES REQUIRE. WE WILL APPROVE ZONING FIRST, ONCE ZONING LAYS THE FOUNDATION FOR SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, THE NEXT STEP IS PLATTING.

AND THAT PROCESS, OUR DISCRETION BECOMES MUCH MORE LIMITED. IN CONNECTION WITH THE ZONING ITSELF, WE'VE GOT FAIRLY BROAD DISCRETION.

WE CAN DENY IT OR APPROVE IT AND WE WHATEVER WE BELIEVE TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE. WHEN IT COMES TO PLATTING AND THE NEXT DEVELOPMENT STAGES OUR DISCRETION IS MUCH MORE LIMITED AND WE REALLY DO NEED TO HAVE TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE IMPOSE.

AS WELL AS ORDINANCE SUPPORT. WE HAVE TO HAVE A CODE PROVISION THAT AUTHORIZES, THAT IMPOSES THIS CONDITION AND THAT AUTHORIZES IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN REQUIRE THE TURN LANES FROM WHAT YOU JUST STATED, HOW YOU STATED IT.

>> IF A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SUPPORTS IT THEN WE CAN AT A LATER POINT IN TIME. FOR TODAY'S PURPOSES, THOUGH, WE DON'T HAVE TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR IT AT ALL.

DENY THE ZONING, IF YOU THINK THAT TURN LANE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. BUT YOU CAN'T IMPOSE IT AS A REQUIREMENT AS AN EXACT TODAY WITHOUT KNOWING THAT THE COST IS ROUGHLY PROPORTIONATE TO THE IMPACT THAT IT WOULD HAVE ON

THE TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE. >> OKAY.

>> IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. BUT MAYBE IT DOES.

>> IT WORKS. FINE.

MAYOR PRO TEM. >> FRANKLY, IT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE THE CHICKEN AND THE EGG. WE CANNOT REQUIRE A TIA PRIOR TO REZONING. WE DON'T HAVE THE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE TO THEN REQUIRE ROADS, RIGHT?

NO WAY -- >> IT'S WORKING.

>> YOU HAVE TO WAIT. >> PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS GIVE US A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY. BUT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ZONING SETS FRAMEWORK. SIMPLY SAYS THESE ARE THE AUTHORIZED USES. WHEN WE DO A PD ORDINANCE LIKE THIS, WE'RE FOCUSING MORE THAN JUST THESE ARE THE APPROPRIATE USES, WE'RE COMING UP WITH MORE OF A DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAN ORDINARY STRAIGHT ZONING WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? ORDINANCES AND CODE PROVISIONS ARE GEARED TOWARDS YOU HAVE THIS BROAD ZONING, AUTHORIZED USES FIRST IN PLACE. AND THEN YOU BEGIN TO FOCUS IN ON EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT TO BUILD AND WHAT YOU NEED TO DEDICATE TO THE PUBLIC TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT.

SO IN A PD, IT'S KIND OF A COMBINATION OF BOTH, BUT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, IS THAT SIMPLY APPROVING THE ZONING REGULATIONS. IF OUR ORDINANCES REQUIRE A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS NOW, WE WOULD REQUIRE IT.

THAT TYPE OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT ISN'T YET REQUIRED.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> I DON'T LIKE THE ANSWER, BUT OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER

>> YEAH. JUST WANTED TO REMIND THAT ONCE A ZONING OF A STANDARD ZONING CLASSIFICATION HAS BEEN MADE, THAT THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES APPLY.

[02:55:04]

AND THAT DEVELOPER WOULD THEN BE REQUIRED TO PUT IN ALLEYWAYS, AND NOT HAVE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES.

>> UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING

COMMISSION. >> AS A VARIANCE.

>> AS THE PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS, CORRECT.

SO ONCE THE PLAT MOVED FORWARD AS A CONDITION OF THE PLAT APPROVAL. THAT IS HOW THE ROWLETT

DEVELOPMENT CODE READS. >> WE'LL DPIKS FIX THAT.

>> YES, WE WILL. >> I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS AT

THIS POINT. >> NO. DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING THERE WAS MADE MENTION OF A GRAVITY SEWER, POTENTIAL ISSUE WITH THE GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM.

I'M HOPING STAFF CAN ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS AND SPEAK TO

THAT, PLEASE. >> YES.

I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT THIS AFTERNOON, IN FACT.

>> YES. SO AS YOU HEARD TONIGHT, THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN, OR THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT SEVERAL TIMES IN RECENT YEARS.

ONE OF THOSE PROPOSALS WAS BY A COMPANY CALLED SCOREBERG WHO DEVELOPED THE PROPERTY NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY ACROSS MILLER ROAD ON THE CORN NORTHEAST CORNER.

THEY FORESAW THE NEED TO INSTALL THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH SEWER, SO THEY INSTALLED A MAN HOLE THAT IS DEEP ENOUGH TO SERVE THIS PROPERTY. MAYBE SOME OF THE PROPERTIES ALONG THE CREEK MIGHT HAVE TO BE FILLED A BIT.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO DO THAT. BASED ON THE WALL CONFIGURATION THAT YOU CAN SEE ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

BUT PRIMARILY, THE RESIDENTIAL PIECES OF THIS PROPERTY CAN BE SERVED BY CONNECTING TO THE SEWER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MILLER ROAD IN THE VILLAS AT LONG BRANCH.

>> COUNCIL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER THIS. DO YOU KNOW IF THE APPLICANT HAS REACHED OUT TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS TO KIND OF GARNER SUPPORT OR EXPLAIN WHAT THEIR PLAN IS FOR THIS PROPERTY, WHAT

HAS BEEN HAPPENING. >> TYPICALLY DO RECOMMEND TO THE APPLICANT TO DO SO. I DO NOT KNOW IF THEY HAVE REACHED OUT TO THIS SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT IS MY THOUGHT THAT THEY HAVE NOT.

THEY HAVE NOT. >> CAN THE APPLICANT ADDRESS

WHY THAT IS. >> THE ISSUE WAS THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, I THINK TEN YEARS BACK SHE LEFT.

SO WE REACH OUT, SHE TRIED TO GIVE US SOME CONNECTION.

BUT WE DIDN'T GET ANYONE. AFTER THAT, WE DIDN'T PURSUE

MUCH. >> SO YOU NEVER MADE ANY EFFORT TO SPEAK WITH ANYBODY IN THE HOMES AROUND THE DEVELOPMNT?

>> WE DIDN'T WALK THROUGH. WE DIDN'T WALK.

WE REACH OUT TO SOMEONE THAT SAID SHE WAS A COMMUNITY LEADER LADY, SO SHE LEFT I THINK TEN YEARS BACK.

>> JUST AS A FRIENDLY PIECE OF ADVICE, I THINK IT WOULD BENEFIT YOU VERY MUCH GOING FORWARD IN YOUR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS TO REACH OUT TO THOSE NEIGHBORS.

BECAUSE IF YOU CAN DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP WITH THEM, THE PROCESS IS GOING TO GO MUCH MORE SMOOTHLY THAN THIS ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP THAT WE'VE BUILT HERE.

>> FOR INSTANCE, LIKE RETAINING WALL, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SO WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NOT REQUIRED OR SOME COMPENSATION WE NEED TO DO, WE CAN DO. BUT WE AGREE TO BUILD IT.

SOMEHOW FIND A WAY TO SAVE SOME TREES WE WILL DO THAT.

>> I THINK IT'S THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION.

THEY ARE SUGGESTING THAT THEY WANT LARGER LOT SIZES.

YOU MIGHT KNOW THAT BEFORE YOU PUT FORTH YOUR PROPOSAL AND THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SMOOTHER PROCESS FOR YOU.

THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING. >> THANK YOU.

COUNCIL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> OKAY.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.

[03:00:01]

>> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> YES, MAYOR.

I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST TO REZONE.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM W, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER TO DENY THE ITEM AS READ.

DISCUSSION, WE'LL START FROM THIS END.

>> SO THIS PROPERTY HAS COME TO COUNCIL BEFORE US MULTIPLE TIMES, COME TO US. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME.

I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT, THE APPLICANT HAS PUT IN, I KNOW THAT HE HAS DONE SOME WORK SINCE THE PLANNING AND ZONING ORIGINAL DISCUSSIONS. WITH THIS PROPERTY, I HAVE TO STICK WITH MY GUNS, IF YOU WILL, I BELIEVE THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH IS GOOD FOR THIS AREA.

I BELIEVE THAT THE COMMERCIAL ELEMENT OF THIS PROPERTY MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. IT IS A GOOD USE OF A VERY DIFFICULT PIECE OF PROPERTY. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE CREEK, WHICH I VIEW AS A NATURAL BARRIER BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, AS WELL AS THE SIX-LANE MILLER ROAD TO THE NORTH, PROVIDE A MANMADE BARRIER, SO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO CONSIDER THOSE USES AS THE ADJACENCY USES. I DO HAVE TO CONSIDER THE USES TO THE EAST. ALL OF WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER, FIVE TIMES LARGER THAN THE PROPOSED LOT SIZES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. THAT BEING THE CASE, AND THIS SAME USE IS NOT JUST FOR A SMALL AREA JUST TO THE EAST, BUT CARRIES THROUGH FOR QUITE A BIT, ALL THE WAY TO THE LAKE, IN THE WHOLE AREA WAS INTENDED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO BE FOR LARGER PROPERTY SIZES. WITH THAT, I AM PLANNING TO

SUPPORT THE MOTION TO DENY. >> YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

>> ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER.

>> FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK MAYOR PRO TEM WENGET FOR MAKING THAT MOTION. BECAUSE IT KIND OF FALLS INTO WHERE I'M THINKING. I SIT UP HERE AND PATIENTLY LISTENED TO ALL OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO SEE IF IT WOULD SWAY MY THINKING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

BUT WHAT I HEARD REALLY JUST KIND OF REINFORCES THE CONCERNS THAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY WITH THE STORAGE UNIT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS COUNCIL A WHILE BACK. THOSE CONCERNS ARE THE IMPACTS IT HAS TO ROWLETT ROAD AND MILLER ROAD.

ALSO, IN ADDITION TO THE OPPOSITION, I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THIS. AND SO I APPRECIATE THE MOTION

THAT YOU PUT OUT THERE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON, I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE. I KNOW I ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED THROUGH THE CITIZEN INPUT PORTAL AND VIA E-MAIL AND COMMENTS SHARED TONIGHT. FIRST OF ALL, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ME DENYING THIS REQUEST IS REALLY ABOUT LOT SIZES.

I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH WHAT HAS BEEN SHARED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GALAWARDI. THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS MEANT FOR LARGER ESTATE SIZED HOMES. PAIRING THAT DOWN TO SF-8 ZONING, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE PROPERTIES IN THERE UP 11,000 SQUARE FEET SIMPLY IS TOO SMALL.

I DON'T THINK IT'S THE RIGHT FIT.

IF YOU WERE BRINGING TO US THE COMMERCIAL PIECE, ON THE WEST SIDE OF LONG BRANCH, I THINK IT'S GREAT, GOOD FIT.

THERE WERE COMMENTS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S NEEDED.

I THINK THE MARKET WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S NEEDED. THE MARKET IS GOOD AT THAT.

IF THE SPACE LEASES, IT'S NEEDED.

AND ACCESSIBILITY HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THAT.

BUT MY DECISION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE ZONING PROCESS THAT THE CITY UTILIZES. I WANT TO POINT OUT A FEW STATE STATUTES MENTIONED IN EARLIER, AND SECTION 213.002 SAYS THAT WE MAY ADOPT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE DONE THAT.

211.004, ZONING APPLICATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IF ONE EXISTS.

WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BUT SECTION 213.003 OFTEN SEEMS TO BE NEGLECTED, THAT PROVIDES FOR A PROCESS BY WHICH TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ORDINANCE, WHICH IS WHAT WE DO WHEN WE ADOPT THESE ZONING ORDINANCES, IF WE WERE TO ADOPT ONE. I WANT TO POINT OUT ALSO, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WAS MADE MENTIOND,.005 PROVIDES

[03:05:05]

THAT STATEMENT SAYS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE ZONING REGULATIONS OR ESTABLISH ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. FROM ALL OF THAT, AND FROM ALL THE RESEARCH I'VE DONE, WHICH HONESTLY, MANY HOURS, IT IS NOT PLEASANT RESEARCH TRYING TO RESEARCH ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT CITIES, MINUTES AND AGENDAS, WATCH THEIR VIDEOS AND CONVERSATIONS, IT'S A TON OF WORK.

BUT EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE FOUND DOES NOT SAY THAT WE'RE DOING IT WRONG. NOTHING IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS INCORRECT OR AGAINST THE LAW.

BASED ON WHAT I'M READING IN STATE STATUTE, I'M NOT SEEING THAT EITHER. THAT COMES DOWN TO THE ADVICE OF OUR CITY ATTORNEY, WHO I HAVE CONSULTED WITH ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. AS WELL AS OUTSID COUNCIL.

I WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. ENGAGING WITH THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE AND OUTSIDE COUNCIL AS WELL.

ALL BROUGHT ME BACK TO THE SAME PLACE, THE PROCESS THAT THE CITY IS USING TO ADOPT AND MAKE CHANGES THROUGH THESE ZONING CHANGES IS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

WITH THAT, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPER TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON WHAT MIGHT WORK FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS POTENTIAL THAT ESTATE STYLE HOMES THAT ARE MAYBE EVEN AS LOW AS SF-20 MIGHT BE A GOOD FIT.

BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON THAT, FIND THINGS THAT WORK. AND FIT WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SURROUNDS YOU. THANK YOU.

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER.

>> THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT YOU'VE PUT IN ON THIS.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN FRUSTRATING BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD SO MANY OF THESE PROPOSALS ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY COME BEFORE P&Z, COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND THIS ONE I HAVE TO SAY IS BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS ONES.

BUT IT STILL DOESN'T QUITE GET THERE.

AND MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE LOW DENSITY IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL DEPARTURE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FROM THAT IT'S NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL.

IF IT WERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 8,000 SQUARE FEET. AND THE LOW DENSITY IS 7,000 TO 20,000. SO THAT IS WAY ON THE LOW END OF THE LOW DENSITY. IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ON THE HIGH END, LIKE 18,000, MAYBE THERE WOULDN'T BE THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE. BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE AND THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL DEPARTURE.

I HAVE OTHER CONCERNS, MOST OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ALREADY ADDRESSED. AS USUAL, COUNCIL MEMBER GALAWARDI SAID MOST OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS PLANNING TO SAY. NOW I DON'T HAVE TO SAY THEM.

SO JUST WILL SAY THAT FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR -- OR VOTING FOR THIS

PARTICULAR MOTION TO DENY >> COUNCIL MEMBER BELL.

>> BEING THE LAST ONE. >> I'M THE LAST ONE.

>> I MEAN, NEXT TO THE LAST ONE.

DITTO. DITTO.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SMALLER LOTS BEING LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE LARGER LOTS. BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT GOOD.

IT REALLY ISN'T. I WAS LISTENING TO THE NEIGHBOR OVER THERE, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE TREES. I LIKE TREES ALSO. AND I THINK THE TREES SHOULD STAY INTACT. AND THIS PARTICULAR FENCE OR WHATEVER YOU SAY, STRUCTURE, IT WILL INTERRUPT THOSE TREES.

AND WE'RE KNOWN FOR THE TREE CITY.

BUT I'M NOT -- ALSO ONE THING THAT ALL OF US HAS SAID, TALK WITH THE NEIGHBORS. THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.

WE WOULD NOT HAVE ALL OF THESE PEOPLE COMPLAINING SAYING NO IF YOU WOULD JUST ADDRESS THEM. TEN YEARS AGO, YOU COULD HAVE GONE -- LET ME TELL YOU, EVEN THOUGH THE PERSON HAS BEEN GONE FOR TEN YEARS, YOU COULD HAVE GONE DOOR TO DOOR AND TALK TO THOSE PEOPLE. THAT STREET IS NOT THAT LARGE.

SEVERAL PEOPLE I KNOW LIVES ON THAT STREET.

O DOWN AND TALK TO THOSE PEOPLE.

KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND THAT IS IT.

[03:10:03]

>> THANK YOU. PART OF MY CONDITION TONIGHT WAS THAT THERE BE RIGHT TURN LANES THAT SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.

SINCE WE CANNOT CONDITIONALIZE THAT THE DEVELOPER CONSTRUCT THE RIGHT HAND TURN LANES PRIOR TO A TIA, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. THAT PROCESS IS SOMETHING WE MUST FIX WHILE WE ARE RECONSTRUCTING THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. I WILL SAY, THOUGH, THAT I LIKE THE PROPOSAL OVERALL. I LIKE THAT THESE 39 HOMES ARE OF HIGHER QUALITY. AND START AT A PRICE RANGE OF AROUND 800 TO 900,000. I BELIEVE WE COULD USE MORE HIGHER QUALITY HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY.

I THINK THIS PROPOSAL ACCOMPLISHES THAT.

I AM A BIG FAN OF THE 55,000 SQUARE FOOT OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. I THINK THERE IS PLENTY NEED FOR MORE COMMERCIAL RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY AROUND THIS INTERSECTION.

BUT AGAIN, PART OF MY PERSONAL CONDITION FOR APPROVING THIS WAS ON THE INCREASE OF CAPACITY FOR TRAFFIC IN THE AREA, WHICH WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH RIGHT HAND TURN LANES AND ADDITIONAL THIRD LANE. BECAUSE THAT CANNOT BE CONDITIONALIZED, I CAN THEREFORE NOT TRUST THAT A DEVELOPER WILL FOLLOW THROUGH ON THAT.

WHICH MEANS I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL.

WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CALL THE VOTE. NO MEANS YES TO THE MOTION TO DENY. ADDITIONALLY -- YES.

I'M TRYING TO GET Y'ALL TO ALL SAY YES APPARENTLY.

SORRY. YES MEANS TO THE DENIAL.

AND ALSO, IT'S IMPORTANT TO STATE THAT YES THERE IS A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO APPROVE THIS IF THERE WERE ANOTHER MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM.

THAT BEING SAID, CALL THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

THE MOTION TO DENY PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ITEM 8B IS THEREFORE DENIED. OUR NEXT ITEM IS 8C.

[8C. Consider adoption of a resolution directing publication of Notice of Intent to issue Certificates of Obligation.]

LATE WITH US. >> YES.

I WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASLEEP FOR 3 HOURS BY NOW.

BEAR WITH ME. I'LL KEEP MY EYES OPEN.

OKAY. SO THIS LAST ITEM IS 8C.

IT'S TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DIRECTING --

>> CAN WE HAVE SILENCE IN THE CHAMBERS.

IF YOU'RE WANTING TO TALK, CAN YOU PLEASE DO SO OUT IN THE LOBBY. THANK YOU.

>> THIS ITEM IS TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION. AND THE FIRST SLIDE I WANT TO GO OVER IS JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT ARE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATON FOR OUR CITIZENS. COS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF PUBLIC DEBT MADE AVAILABLE TO GOVERNING BODIES, THEY'RE SIMILAR TO GENERAL OBLIGATION OR WHAT WE CALL GO BONDS.

THEIR USAGE TO FUND MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS. DIFFERENT FROM GO BONDS IN THAT THEY DO NOT REQUIRE VOTER AUTHORIZATION AND NOT USED FOR REFUNDING DEBT LIKE GO BONDS ARE.

COS ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION ACT OF 1971, SUB CHAPTER C OF 271 OF THE LOCAL TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. FEE REVENUES OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO. NOW WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE PROJECT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING THIS ITEM FOR TO FUND.

AND THAT IS AS COUNCIL HAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, THERE IS AN URGENT NEED FOR A PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY IN SAPPHIRE BAY THAT WILL SERVE AS FIRE STATION NUMBER FIVE.

AND PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL LIVING, RETAIL, OFFICE, SPACE, SURF AND BEACH CLUB, LAGOON AND PUBLIC AMENITIES SUCH AS A CONFERENCE CENTER AND DESTINATION RESORT. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER, THE SHEER DENSITY OF IT, TYPE OF NATURE OF THE BUILDINGS WITHIN IT. AMENITIES THAT IT WILL HAVE,

[03:15:03]

WHEN WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE RESOURCES, WHILE FUNDING IS ANTICIPATED TO BE REALIZED FROM THE TAX REVENUE GENERATED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE ITSELF, OVER TIME, THE CITY HAS PLANNED AND PREPARED FOR COSTS THAT MUST BE PRE-FUNDED.

IN PLANNING FOR THIS FACILITY NEED, THE CITY'S AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER DEEDED AN APPROXIMATE ONE ACRE PARCEL TO THE CITY AS THE LOCATION FOR THIS PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY.

TO STAFF THE FIRE STATION, THE CITY APPLIED FOR AND WAS AWARDED STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, WHICH WE CALL A SAFER FEDERAL GRANT TO COVER THE SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF 18 NEW FIREFIGHTERS FOR THE FIRST THREE YEARS.

THE NECESSARY LADDER TRUCK AND MEDIC UNIT FOR THE FACILITY ARE PLANNED TO BE FUNDED THROUGH FINANCE PURCHASES INCLUDED IN THE ANNUAL ADOPTED BUDGETS. PHASE ONE OF THE NEW FACILITY WAS APPROVED BY ROWLETT VOTERS IN THE 2021 BOND ELECTION.

PHASE TWO, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TONIGHT, CONSTRUCTION COST OF $12 MILLION WAS PRESERVED AS DISCUSSED IN THE WORK SESSION TONIGHT. THAT 12 MILLION WAS PRESERVED IN THE DEBT PORTION OF THE CURRENT TAX RATE SO THAT WE COULD FUND THIS, THE NEED FOR THIS FACILITY WITH NO INCREASE TO THE TAX RATE. SO WHY TONIGHT THERE IS A SENSE OF URGENCY REGARDING THIS DECISION OF ISSUES COS VERSUS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, BASED ON THE CURRENT RATE OF CONSTRUCTION, WE EXPECT BY LATE SPRING OR EARLY SUMMER OF THIS YEAR WE WILL HAVE OCCUPANTS IN THE HOME.

FACILITY DESIGN IS ALREADY IN PROGRESS.

IF WE ISSUE COS, WE COULD MOVE FORWARD SEEMLESSLY TO BEGIN PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE PLANS.

SAVING SEVERAL MONTHS AND REDUCING THE TIME NEEDED TO MOBILIZE FIRE STATION NUMBER TWO.

ADDITIONALLY, THE STATUS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW STATION COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE CITY'S OVERALL ISO, RERATING THAT IS SCHEDULED FOR THIS YEAR.

AND OVERALL THE CRITICALITY OF THE ELEVATED STRUCTURES, THE TYPE OF USES AND THE RISK OF RELYING ON ON-SITE FIRE FACILITIES MAKE THIS PROJECT AN APPROPRIATE USE FOR ISSUING COS AS OPPOSED TO DELAYING THE START OF THE CONSTRUCTION.

AND FINALLY, ACTIVITY, CURRENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY INDICATES THAT THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY NEEDS TO BE OPERATIONAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION, WHICH IS SLATED FOR JUNE OR JULY OF THIS YEAR.

ISSUANCE OF COS WILL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY 12 MILLION FUNDING FOR THE FUNDING AND THE TIMELINE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE JOINT FACILITY STATION AND POLICE SUBSTATION.

STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT ISSUING COS INSTEAD OF ISSUING THIS REQUEST IN A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ELECTION IS NOT TYPICALLY OUR FIRST CHOICE. AND IF STAFF TAKE THIS, STAFF DOES NOT TAKE THIS DECISION LIGHTLY TO BRING THIS TO YOU, IN TERMS OF EVALUATING THIS OPTION, WE STRESS THE RISK THAT WE FACED IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE BY NOT STARTING THIS PROJECT NOW. SHOULD COUNCIL WISH TO PROCEED WITH THIS FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE PROJECT, A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE THE COS, MUST BE ADOPTED BEFORE STAFF CAN ADVANCE TO THE NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS OF ISSUES THE DEBT ON APRIL 4TH.

SO AT THIS TIME I AM GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR UP FOR COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS AND ACTION.

>> COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER GALAWARDI. >> THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. SO YOU MENTIONED THAT IN THE OUT OF THE $12 MILLION, TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS IS FOR EQUIPMENT. I PRESUME THIS IS DURABLE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD MATCH TO A 20-YEAR BOND, IS

THAT CORRECT? >> IT WOULD BE EQUIPMENT THAT QUALIFIES TO BE PURCHASED FOR THE 20-YEAR BOND.

[03:20:01]

>> OKAY. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER. >> GOT TO FIND THE RIGHT LANGUAGE. THANK YOU.

MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY STRUCTURE

AT SAPPHIRE BAY. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'M SORRY. COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS READ. ANY DISCUSSION?

MAYOR PRO TEM. >> WENDY, I THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. AND I THANK YOU ESPECIALLY FOR THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE IN REGARDS TO THE INTENTIONALITY OF DOING THIS. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE TAKE FOR GRANTED OR WE'RE DOING FLIPPANTLY, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS DONE AND WE GET THIS DONE QUICKLY.

THAT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE TIMELINE.

ACQUIRING THE FUNDS FOR THIS PARTICULAR STATION, WHICH WILL HOUSE BOTH POLICE AND FIRE IS OF THE ESSENCE.

THAT WE GET THAT DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER.

I KNOW THAT JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, ON COUNCIL, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THINGS THAT I WOULD NORMALLY APPROVE FOR A CO.

THIS IS A ONE-OFF FOR SURE. BECAUSE I RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF IT. WHEN OUR FIREFIGHTERS ARE MINUTES AWAY, THAT IS WHEN SECONDS COUNT.

AND YOU KNOW, PATROLLING AND MONITORING I-30 FOR ACCIDENTS AND TAKING CARE OF ACCIDENTS AND CLEARING SCENES ON I-30 HAS BECOME A REAL PROBLEM. OUR RESPONSE TIMES HAVE INCREASED. WE'VE HEARD THAT FROM THE CHIEF OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND IT CONTINUES TO GET WORSE WITH TRAFFIC AND CONSTRUCTION THAT IS HAPPENING.

IT IS SO NECESSARY FOR US TO POSITION OURSELVES FOR WHAT ROWLETT IS GOING TO BECOME AND NOT WHAT ROWLETT IS TODAY.

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER.

>> YES. DITTO.

NO. SOMETHING THAT I SAID WHEN I WAS RUNNING FOR COUNCIL IS I M OPPOSED AND STILL OPPOSED OBLIGATING THE CITY TO TAKE ON DEBT WITHOUT HAVING THE CITIZENS TO VOTE ON THAT.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE.

THE ONLY INSTANCE IN WHICH I WOULD CONSIDER DOING THAT WOULD BE WHEN IT WAS TO SUPPORT ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT, THAT MEANS POLICE, FIRE, WATER, SEWER, ROADS, THOSE THINGS THAT ARE VERY CRITICAL TO THE OPERATION OF OUR CITY AND TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS. EARLIER, I MENTIONED THAT ONE OF THOSE ITEMS WAS AN EASY ONE FOR ME.

THIS ONE WAS NOT AN EASY ONE FOR ME.

I WENT BACK AND FORTH OVER THIS MANY TIMES.

AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION, AS JEFF DID, THAT THIS IS NECESSARY. BECAUSE OF THE TIME FACTORS.

AND TIME IS MONEY. THE LONGER THAT WE PUT THIS OFF, THE MORE IT WILL COST. BUT NOT JUST COST IN DOLLARS.

IT COULD COST IN LIVES. BECAUSE OF THE DELAYED RESPONSE TIME. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. AND I FEEL AFTER MUCH CONTEMPLATION THAT IT IS IN KEEPING WITH MY BASIC

PRINCIPLES. >> COUNCIL MEMBER

>> SO I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SHINDER IN TERMS OF THE PREFERENCE TO HAVE ITEMS LIKE THIS GO BEFORE THE VOTERS.

BY THE TIME WE'LL HAVE HAD $13 MILLION INTO THIS PROJECT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEBATE WAS TWO YEARS AGO WHEN THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE, WHAT THEN WAS THE CIPTF EQUIVALENT, TO FUND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WAS CHANGED TO JUST FUND DESIGN. I FELT THEN THAT WAS A MISTAKE.

I FEEL NOW IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE.

I FEEL IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE IN THE FUTURE TO HAVE ANY BOND ELECTION WHERE YOU ARE ONLY FUNDING DESIGN.

IT PUTS ANY FUTURE COUNCIL TO MAKE A DECISION TO VOTE TO CREATE INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE CITIZENS WITHOUT THEIR APPROVAL. BUT AS YOU CAN TELL FROM MY MOTION, I BELIEVE THE CASE HERE IS THE EXCEPTION.

WE NEED TO DO THIS. BUT I REALLY HATE, I WOULD NOT PUT A FUTURE COUNCIL IN THE SAME POSITION.

[03:25:05]

>> COUNCIL MEMBER. >> YEAH.

I WANT TO ECHO APPRECIATION TO YOU WENDY AND YOUR TEAM.

IT'S A HARD DECISION. AS OTHERS HAVE EXPRESSED, IT'S MY DEFAULT POSITION TO NEVER TAKE ANYTHING OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE CITIZENS THAT THEY SHOULD VOTE ON.

AGAIN, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS AS WELL.

CRITICAL THING TO THINK ABOUT. WE CAN ILL-AFFORD TO HAVE LIVES AT RISK AND HOPEFULLY GET ASSETS TO THEM ON A GOOD DAY, SEVEN TO EIGHT MINUTES, WHEN WE NEED SECONDS OR MINUTES TO RESPOND. SO FOR THAT REASON, I AM FOR THIS. HOPE WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS AGAIN, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE TO DO THIS.

AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF Y'ALL LIKE TO DO IT EITHER.

BUT THAT IS WHERE WE'RE AT. >> COUNCIL MEMBER BELL.

>> I AM FOR IT. AND I HAVE TALKED AND LISTENED TO THE CHIEF AND STATION NUMBER TWO WOULD BE THE ONLY STATION THAT COULD HANDLE THAT WITHOUT THE STATION AT SAPPHIRE BAY.

FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IT TAKES ABOUT 14 MINUTES TO GET TO I-30, THAT IS IF HE CAN GET THERE.

BECAUSE IF IT'S AN ACCIDENT, IT MAY BE 30 MINUTES. AND IN THAT SITUATION, WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT NEEDS ATTENTION RIGHT THEN.

SAY WITHIN THEY CAN GET TO THEM WITHIN TWO MINUTES, THREE MINUTES, THAT AWESOME. COULD BE MORE THAN ONE.

AND THAT IS THE WHOLE IDEA OF IT.

I KNOW I THANK YOU WENDY FOR WHAT YOU'VE DONE FOR WHAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAS DONE. THANK YOU, CHIEF.

BUT MY THING IS, A LIFE A LIFE IS WORTH $12 MILLION.

YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE YOURS. IT COULD BE YOUR RELATIVES.

THAT IS WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT. SO I'M FOR IT.

I WAS FOR IT FROM THE BEGINNING.

I KNEW WE WOULD FIND THE MONEY. BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT A LIFE.

AND YOU ASK YOURSELF, WHAT IS IT WORTH?

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

VERY GOOD COMMENTS. COS CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY ENOUGH. THE PUBLIC TRUSTS US WITH BEING RESPONSIBLE WITH THEIR MONEY AND SO WHEN WE ARE CONSIDERING DEBTING OUT MULTIPLE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, DOING IT THROUGH A CO BOND, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE PUBLIC, IS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER. AND THERE ARE ONLY VERY FEW THINGS THAT JUSTIFY THE USE OF A CO BOND.

SOME CITIES USE CO BONDS TO BUILD NEW COMMUNITY CENTERS.

IRRESPONSIBLE. IN THIS CASE, COUNCIL MEMBER BELL IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, LIVES ARE AT STAKE.

IT TAKES YOU'RE LUCKY IF YOU CAN GET SOUTH OF CHIESA IN 14 MINUTES WITH A CAR, LET ALONE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A HUGE APPARATUS, TRYING TO MANEUVER THROUGH TRAFFIC.

BUT ESPECIALLY NOW WHEN IT'S DOWN TO ONE LANE.

THAT IS A SERIOUS TRAFFIC ISSUE.

AND WHEN SECONDS DO COUNT, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GET THERE IN SECONDS OR MINUTES, WE'RE HAVING TO GET THERE IN 20, 30 MINUTES. SORRY.

ALLERGIES. SO I KNOW OF INSTANCES WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN PRETTY BRUTAL CALLS ON 30.

WHERE YOU HAVE CPR HAPPENING ON THE HIGHWAY BY CIVILIANS.

WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A RESPONSE COMING FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY TO GET TO SOUTH OF 30, THAT COULD IMPACT A LIFE.

LITERALLY. SO THE NEED FOR A FIRE STATION SOUTH OF 30 IS NOT A QUESTION. IT IS NOT A QUESTION.

IT IS A REQUIREMENT. IF OUR OBLIGATION IS TO PRIORITIZE PUBLIC SAFETY, AS A COUNCIL, THIS IS NOT A QUESTION, THIS IS AN OBLIGATION.

WE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE CO.

THAT IS HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS. SO THAT IS WHY I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS ADDITIONALLY, THE RISK OF A SPLIT ISO RATING WOULD HAVE SEVERE CONSEQUENCES TO OUR COMMUNITY AND WE DON'T WANT THAT. SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CALL THE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM PASSES

[03:30:06]