Jun 13, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission

[00:00:05]

>> GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND WELCOME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2023. I SHOW 7 PM IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT AFTER. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN. THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS OR REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION OR CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. THE PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON YOU MAY COMPLETE A CITIZEN INPUT FORM ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE BY 3 PM THE DAY OF THE MEETING. ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FOR IN-PERSON COMMENTS OR ANYONE THAT IS HERE TO COMMENT ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN TONIGHT REGISTRATION FORMS, INSTRUCIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AROUND THE CORNER. PLEASE FILL ONE OUT AND TAKE IT OVER HERE TO MISS NICK'S. LET'S CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. WE DO HAVE A OREM. ITEM NUMBER TWO CITIZENS INPUT AT THIS TIME WE MINUTE COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION DURING CITIZENS INPUT. IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM OR TONIGHT MIGHT WANT TO WAIT FOR THAT AGENDA ITEM TO COME UP BUT IF YOU ARE HERE TO JUST SPEAK ABOUT SOMETHING IN GENERAL IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RAISE YOUR HAND AND COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

COMMISSIONERS HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES?

ANY COMMENTS, EDITS, CHANGES? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I THINK WE NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT. WE HAD NOBODY TALK ABOUT.

>> I DON'T THINK WE NORMALLY DO THAT THAT WOULD BE FINE TO

DO THAT. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE. >> OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONSIDER THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH WOULD REMOVE THE MINUTES.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? X I SAID IT.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY MISS WILLIAMS ALL IN FAVOR? AND

[4A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Mark Kerbey on behalf of property owner First United Methodist Church Rowlett regarding a Major Warrant to Article 5.4.11(b) of the Form-Based Code to allow a monument sign on property situated within the Form-Based Urban Village (FB-UV) District and located at 4405 Main Street, northwest of the intersection of Main Street and the President George Bush Turnpike, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS THEY BE MADE IN PERSON AND WOULD BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE TO SPEAK TONIGHT. AS I MENTIONED REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE CORNER. IF YOU HAVE NOT FILLED ONE OUT PLEASE GRAB ONE AND TAKE IT OVER TO MISS NICK'S. WE WILL LIMIT EACH PERSON'S TIME AT THE PODIUM TO 3 MINUTES. WILL YOU PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES. ITEM FOR A CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY MARK KIRBY ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH FOR ROWLETT REGARDING A MAJOR WARRANT ARTICLE 5.4.11 B OF THE FORM-BASED CODE TO ALLOW MONUMENTS SIGN ON PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN THE FORM-BASED URBAN VILLAGE FB UV DISTRICT. LOCATED AT APRIL 4, 2005 MAIN STREET. NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET IN THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE IN THE CITY OF

ROWLETT, TEXAS. YES SIR. >> COMMISSIONERS THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. YOU ALWAYS READ IT SO WELL AND MUCH OF THE INFORMATION WE WILL BE DISCUSSING TODAY A MAJOR WARRANT OR MONUMENT SIGN IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 13POINT 05 ACRES. CONSISTING OF TWO PARCELS NORTH OF MAIN STREET AND WEST OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH ROAD. THE ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY IS URBAN

[00:05:01]

APPROXIMATELY A 4 FOOT SIGN IS CURRENTLY INSTALLED IN THE MIN STREET FRONTAGE AND THIS SIGN IS SLATED TO BE REMOVED SHOULD THE REQUEST FOR MAJOR WARRANT BE TONIGHT OR NOT TONIGHT BUT CITY COUNCIL UPON YOUR RECOMMENDATION. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, ARTICLE 5.4.11 B OF THE FORM CODE DOES STATE THAT MONUMENT SIGNS ARE ALLOWED ONLY ALONG THE FRONTAGES OF HIGHWAY 66 OR LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE ACCESS ROAD. THE PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THESE LOCATIONS THEREFORE A MAJOR WARRANT REQUEST IS APPLICABLE. THE APPLICANT IS A REQUESTING A MAJOR WARRANT ARTICLE 5.4.11 B OF THE FORM-BASED CODE TO ALLOW A MONUMENT SIGN ON PROPERTY WITHIN FORM-BASED URBAN VILLAGE. A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT A ALONG MAIN STREET THERE ARE FOUR MONUMENT SIGNS BECAME ACROSS. TWO OF THOSE ARE GOVERNMENT SIGNS WHICH ARE EXEMPT PER SECTION 77.512 D1.

THAT'S THE PARK AND CITY HALL. YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE GRAPHICS. THE OTHER TWO MONUMENT SIGNS ARE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY AND MAIN STREET DENTAL CARE WHICH IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF DOWNTOWN. THERE'S BEEN ONE OTHER MAJOR WARRANT REQUEST SINCE THE FORM OF THIS CODE WAS DONE FOR A MONUMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT AND THAT WAS FOR THE ROD VETERANS RESOURCE OUTREACH CENTER LOCATED ON INDUSTRIAL STREET. THIS WAS A 40 SQUARE FOOT MONUMENT SIGN AND 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE REQUEST MARCH 5 2018. THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER MAJOR WARRANT REQUESTS SUCH AS THE VILLAGE OF ROWLETT SIGN AND OTHER WALL SIGNS THAT CONSIDER THE SIZE BUT THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY OTHER MONUMENT SIGNS THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED WITHIN THIS DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED SIGN THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED TONIGHT WILL KEEP THE SAME SETBACK AS THE CURRENT SIGN WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 13 FEET AND BE APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIGN YOU CAN SEE THE GRAPHIC ON THE BOTTOM. THE SIGN WOULD LOOK VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT IS SHOWN THERE ON THE TOP WITH ESSENTIALLY AN 8 FOOT HIGH SPLIT WITH A 4 FOOT BASE THAT CARRIES THE NAME OF THE CHURCH AND THE ACADEMY. AND THE CHANGING SIGN ABOVE. IT IS ABOUT 8 FEET IN LENGTH. THIS NEW SIGN WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 64 FT.? WHICH IS 22 FT.? ARCHER THAN THE EXISTING SIGN. IF APPROVED THE EXISTING SIGN WOULD BE REMOVED AS MENTIONED BEFORE. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE GRAPHIC ON THE LEFT WHAT THE EXISTING SIGN LOOKS LIKE AN APPROXIMATELY TO THE STREET AND SIDEWALK AND THEN AN ESTIMATION OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE ON THE RIGHT SIDE WITH THE NEW SIGN BEING RELOCATED. SOME CONSIDERATIONS TONIGHT THE BUILDING DOES PROCEED THE FORM-BASED CODE THEREFORE IT WAS NOT SITUATED CLOSER TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TYPICALLY WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR AN 18 TO 26 FEET BUILD TO ZONE WHICH MEANS THE BUILDIN WOULD BE RIGHT UPON THE SIDEWALK AND THUS WHY A WALL SIGN WOULD BE THE PRIMARY SIGN METHOD OR MEDIUM. AND SO, WITH THIS BUILDING BEING 85 FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE CURVE IT SEES SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE THAT YOU HAVE FROM THAT PEDESTRIAN RALLY. TYPICALLY AGAIN WE HAVE THE BUILDINGS UP FRONT, YOU HAVE THAT PEDESTRIAN VISIBILITY READILY AVAILABLE TO YOU. THIS BUILDING IS SETBACK IT IS A ONE-STORY BUILDING AND SO A WALL SIGN WOULD BE VISIBLE HERE YOU REALLY WOULDN'T SEE IT UNTIL YOU ARE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. AND SO AGAIN IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, THE PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE FORM-BASED CODE SO IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE SIGN BE APPROVED SINCE THE PREVIOUS SIGN IS BEING REMOVED.

AND SO, MAJOR WARRANTS MAY ONLY BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

MAJOR WARRANTS ARE INTENDED TO ALLOW FOR DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND ARE CONSIDERED BY A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. SECTION 1.5.3 OF THE SBC SETS FORTH THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE APPROVAL OF DENIAL OF MAJOR WARRANTS

[00:10:02]

YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THATT YOU ARE CONFIDENT THAT THE APPROPRIATE NOTIFICATON WAS PROVIDE. I ASKED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IN THE PACKAGE THE HIGHLIGHTED D PARCEL IS THE PARCEL NEXT TO THE PARCEL THAT WILL ACTUALLY HAVE THESIGN IN IT . THE 200 FOOT RADIUS WOULD ACTUALLY BE EXPANDED FARTHER TO THE WEST THAN WHAT YOU SHOWED.

>> I CAN VERIFY THATTHAT WITH THE GIS TEAM I KNOW THE GRAPHIC DID SHOW ONE OF THE PARCELS AND A COT THAT TODAY AS WELL. I WILL VERIFY WITH GIS TYPICALLY THEY DO RUN THE FULL EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY. BUT I CAN FOLLOW UP AND MAKE SURE THAT PRIOR TO

THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. >> I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

>> FAIR ENOUGH. >> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS MARK KERBEY. I AM REPRESENTING 4405 MAIN STREET FIRST METHODIST CHURCH TO THE BOARD COULD BASICALLY MY ADDRESS RESIDENCE IS.FOR HEARING THIS AND CONSIDERING THIS MAJOR WARRANTS. IT'S THE INTENT OF FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH TO UPDATE OUR MONUMENT SIGN TO BE ABLE TO SHOW ACTIVITIES AND THINGS THAT THE CHURCH WOULD BE INTERESTED IN IN THE COMMUNITY.

BASICALLY THE CURRENT SIGN SINCE I BECAME A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH IN THE 1990S IT IS OVERDUE AND BEING REPLACED.

THIS SIGN THAT UC ON THE SCREEN WILL ACTUALLY GIVE US NOT ONLY THE CHANGEABLE SIGN BUT THE STAGNANT SIGN AS WELL WHICH WE THINK IS AESTHETICALLY PLEASING TO THE PUBLIC AND SO IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN TO THE DIGITAL SIGN WE WOULD STILL HAVE SIGNAGE AND IT SHOWS THAT OUR CHRISTIAN ACADEMY IS AT THIS LOCATION AND THE ACADEMY DOES VERY WELL. IT SERVES A LOT OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN THE COMMUNITY. BASICALLY IT IS A 4 X 8 DIGITAL SIGN ON A 4 X 8 BASE AND WE PLAN ON PUTTING A FLOWER BED AROUND IT SO IT'S NOT JUST A SIGN SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAWN. IT WILL BE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING. WE DO PLAN ON TAKING THE OTHER SIGN DOWN AS PART OF THE QUOTE FOR THE SIGNAGE IS TO REMOVE THE OLDER SIGN. NOT ONLY THE SIGN BUT THE FOUNDATION AS WELL. WE ARE GOING ON AND TAKING THE OLD SIGNAGE OUT. SO WE REQUEST THE WARRANT BE GRANTED BY P&Z COMMITTEE AND THE CITY COUNCIL WILL APPROVE IT. WE THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THE COMMUNITY. AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>> CHAIR: THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

MR. JOHN COTE? >> COUNCILMEMBER: WOULD YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW TALL THE SIGN IS FOR THE FIRST BAPTIST

CHURCH? >> SPEAKER: IT'S THE SAME

SIZE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: 8 FEET TALL?

>> SPEAKER: IT IS. IN FACT I WENT AND MEASURED THE SIGN .

THE TRUSTEE COMMITTEE WANTED THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE SIGN THE DIMENSIONS AND BASICALLY THE BUILD. THEY LIKE THE SIGN

[00:15:05]

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THANK YOU. IF THIS IS APPROVED AND YOU CHANGE THE SIGN OUT WOULD THAT LED OR ELECTRONIC PORTION HAVE ANY TYPE OF CONTROLS ON IT TO ALLOW IT TO DIM FROM DUSK TO

DAWN HOURS? >> SPEAKER: YES SIR. THAT IS PART OF THE SIGN CODE I BELIEVE. THAT IT HAS TO HAVE DIMMING AT NIGHT AND WE DO PLAN ON DIMMING IT. IN FACT, WE CAN ACTUALLY TURN THE SIGN OFF DURING CERTAIN HOURS. IT IS A CLOUD-BASED SIGN AND WE CAN ACCESS IT AND PROGRAM IT ANYWAY WE WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO DISPLAY BUT THE ACTUAL DIMMING OF THE SIGN IS A REQUIREMENT AS WELL AS EVERY IMAGE HAS TO BE ON THEIR 48 SECONDS. WE CANNOT HAVE A MOTION PICTURE. IT HAS

TO BE AN EIGHT SECOND STATUS. >> CHAIR: ANYTHING ELSE MISS

WILLIAMS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT TYPE OF ACE WILL THE SIGN BE INSTALLED ON?

>> SPEAKER: IT IS A FOUNDATION THAT WILL NOT ONLY BE A CONCRETE FOUNDATION BUT IT HAS SEVERAL PEERS SO IT WILL NOT TILT. THAT IS ONE THING WE DON'T LIKE ABOUT THE FIRST BAPTIST SIGN IS IT DOES TILT SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE FOUNDATION AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE. WE DID GET THE SIGNED CONTRACTOR TO MAKE SURE HE PUT IN A GOOD BASE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: HOW TALL WILL THE BASE BE?

>> SPEAKER: BASED ON THE SIGN THAT GOES UP IS FOREFOOT. AS FAR AS THE PEERS I DO NOT KNOW THE EXACT DEPTH OF THE PEERS.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THE., YOU'RE NOT GOING TO POUR A BASE ON TOP

OF THE PEER? >> SPEAKER: IT WILL BE A CONCRETE BASE 2 TO 4 INCHES IS WHAT THEY HAVE ON THE DIAGRAM THAT I SAW ON THAT. B2 OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> SPEAKER: AND THEN THE BRICK WOULD BE INSTALLED ON THAT.

>> CHAIR: ANYONE ELSE? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADD SOME INFORMATION ON THAT HERE THE SIGN BASE ITSELF WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE DESIGNED BY A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. THE HEIGHT OF THIS ANYTHING THAT IS 6 FEET OR MORE IS A REQUIREMENT AND AN ENGINEER DESIGNED THAT. SO WE WILL INSPECT THAT WITH THE CITY INSPECTORS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES GET BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENGINEERING PLAN.

>> CHAIR: ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU SO MUCH. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AT THIS TIME WE WILL FORMALLY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT IS HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT? SUSAN DO YOU HAVE ANYBODY? SEEING NONE WE WILL FORMALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONERS? I THINK THIS HAS BEEN WELL-PLANNED. I THINK BASED ON THE WAY THE SETBACK IS ON THEIR BUILDING I THINK IT WILL BE A NICE ADDITION TO HELP THEM LET PEOPLE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE AND HELP THEM GROW. I AM GOING TO BE FOR THIS TONIGHT. ANYONE

ELSE? COMMENTS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I THINK IT MEETS THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE FORM-BASED CODE AND I THINK IT WOULD BE AN ATTRACTIVE AND IMPROVEMENT THAT I LOOK FORWARD

TO. >> CHAIR: NICE! DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COMMENT? MR. FRISBIE?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I WOULD ECHO THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE FOUNDATION AND RECOMMEND YOU PUT VOID BOXES UNDER THE SLAB

TO KEEP IT FROM MOVING. >> CHAIR: A WHAT BOX?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: A VOID BOX. THEY ARE CARTONS THAT GOES UNDER THE CONCRETE SO WHEN THE PLATE EXPANDS IT DOES NOT PUSH UP ON THE SLAB. IT IS A MINOR THING AND THE ENGINEER WILL KNOW. OTHER THAN THAT I AM IN VERY MUCH FAVOR OF THIS.

>> CHAIR: MR. JOHN COTE DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US A MOTION? > COUNCILMEMBER: I WILL GIVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAJOR

WARRANTS. >> CHAIR: OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL ON THE FLOOR. DO I SHAVE A SECOND?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIR: ALL IN FAVOR? DID EVERYBODY VOTE? LET'S DO A HAND VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR. THAT

[00:20:20]

IS UNANIMOUS. >>> MOVING ON TO ITEM 4B.

[4B. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Tyler Scott, Kimley-Horn, on behalf of property owners Rocky Liuzzi and Doreen Sue Family Trust to: 1) Rezone the subject property from General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District and Planned Development (PD) District for light manufacturing uses to Planned Development (PD) with a base zoning of General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District; 2) Approve a Concept Plan to construct an approximately 70,000 square feet building; 3) Amend the Comprehensive Plan; and 4) Amend the official Zoning Map of the City. The property is located northwest of the cul-de-sac of Enterprise Drive, consisting of Lot 6, Block 1, Rowlett Business Park, a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Boyd & Kneggs Business Park Replat, and Tract 6 of the U Matthusen Abstract 1017 also described as all of Tract 1 to the Doreen Sue LiuzzI & Doreen Sue Luizze Family Trust Inst. No. 201700024931, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

>> THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE INTRODUCTION TO THIS REQUEST THAT IS WE WILL WORK THROUGH THIS BIT BY BIT. THROUGH OUR PRESENTATION THIS EVENING. AGAIN, WE HAVE THIS PROPERTY THIS REQUEST AND WE HAVE THREE PARCELS HOPEFULLY THAT WAS CLEAR AND IF NOT WE WILL POINT THAT OUT. THIS WE WILL START AT THE BOTTOM THIS IS PARCEL NUMBER 1, THIS IS PARCEL NUMBER 2 AND THIS HERE IF I CAN GET IT, THIS IS PARCEL NUMBER 3 WHICH IS AN ACCESS DRIVE EXISTING PAVED ACCESS DRIVE FROM THIS PROPERTY TO LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. IT IS A ZONING THAT IS SPLIT BETWEEN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHICH IS THIS PARCEL HERE WHICH IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND THIS HERE IS THE COMMERCIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICTS AND THIS IS THE ACCESS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE C2 DISTRICTS. THE PROPOSED CONCEPT THAT THE APPLICANT IS BRINGING FORWARD IS FOR A SINGLE BUILDING OF APPROXIMATELY 70,000 BUILDING OF APPROXIMATELY 70,000 FT.? ON SITE PLAN TO THE RIGHT. THE LOADING BAYY ON THE PROPERTY ARE INTERNAL TO THE SITE AND THEY ARE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE WITHIN THAT NOTCH. THEY WOULD BE SCREENED FROM THE DRIVES THAT ARE AROUND THE BUILDING. WITHOUT THE SITE ACCESS WOULD COME FROM THE ENTERPRISE DRIVE EXISTING STREET WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC BULB AS WELL AS THROUGH THIS ACCESS EASEMENT AGAIN WHICH IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THE SITE PLAN DOES REFLECT 108 VEHICLE PARKING SPACES AS WELL AS THE ONE LOADING AREA WHICH WILL HAVE 10 DOCK DOORS WHICH TWO OF THOSE ON THE NORTH END THE SOUTH END WILL BE LARGER SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE LARGER VEHICLES AND THEN THESE OTHER REMAINING EIGHT B ORIENTED FOR SMALL COMMERCIAL VEHICLES SUCH AS BOX TRUCKS OR SMALLER THAN THAT. HERE IS THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN. AGAIN, IT DOES GENERALLY CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LANDSCAPING BUFFER TREE PLANTING AND INTERIOR LANDSCAPING. AGAIN, SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL THESE DETAILS WOULD BE CONFIRMED THROUGH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT LAND REVIEW. THE BUFFERS HERE ARE CONSISTING OF COMPATIBILITY AND INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFERS. I WILL START WITH THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS. COMPATIBILITY IS PRETTY MUCH DESCRIBING LAND USES THAT ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE AND THE DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES STATE THAT THESE ARE REQUIRED WHEN THERE ARE COMPATIBLE SIMILAR LAND USES WHERE THERE'S NOT

[00:25:01]

WE THEN HAVE THE INCA PALLET INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFERS ON THE NORTH LINE AND EAST PROPERTY LINE. THOSE USES ARE RETAIL COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT USES. THE REASON FOR THE INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER IS NOT BECAUSE OF A DISSIMILAR USE BUT BECAUSE F THE HEIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS GREATER THAN 14 FEET. ON THAT. SO, THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT AT ITS HIGHEST POINT WOULD BE 41 A HALF FEET. THAT IS WHAT THAT IS. IT IS A GREATER THAN 14 FOOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE BUILDINGS TO THE NORTH AS WELL AS TO THE EAST. WITHIN THAT INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER THE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT THERE WOULD BE ONE TREE FOR EVERY 35 LINEAL FEET AND EVERGREEN SHRUBS FOR EVERY 30 FEET. THE WIDTH OF THAT BUFFER IS NO LESS THAN 10 FEET. IN WIDTH. AS A NOTE THERE ARE SOME EXISTING EASEMENTS AND UTILITIES THAT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE PLANT MATERIALS WITHIN THE BUFFERS. THEY WOULD BE RELOCATED AND POINTED OUT GENERALLY THAT WOULD BE A PORTION OF THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER HERE ON THE WEST AND THERE IS ALSO TO THE NORTH AND THE EAST. THOSE TREES HAVE BEEN RELOCATED NOT REDUCED IN NUMBER BUT RELOCATED TO DIFFERENT PORTIONS ON THIS SITE

WHERE THEY FIT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SEEING THAT YOU BROUGHT UP UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AND MOVING TREES, WHAT ABOUT BUILDINGS TILT OVER THEM?

>> SPEAKER: THAT WOULD ALSO NOT BE PERMITTED.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YOU HAVE ONGOING THROUGH THE CENTER OF

THE BUILDING. >> SPEAKER: THAT WOULD BE RELOCATED SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED BUT THAT LINE WOULD BE

RELOCATED. AS WELL. >> SPEAKER: COMMISSIONERS, ONE THING THIS IS DISCUSSING THE ENTITLEMENTS BUT ELEMENT WITH CONFLICT RELATED TO EASEMENTS THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ON THE EASEMENTS. A RE-PLAT WOULD BE ISSUED TO MAKE SURE IT IS ABANDONED OR RELOCATED. ALL OF THAT APPLICATION WILL OCCUR

POST ENTITLEMENTS. >> CHAIR: THANK YOU.

>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION AND FULL CLARIFICATION. OKAY WE WILL MOVE NOW TO THE REQUEST FOR THE PERMITTED USES ON THE SITE. SO THE INTENDED USE OF THIS TENANT FOR THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE IN THE OFFICE WAREHOUSE TYPE OF USES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO HAVE A SPECIFIC USE -- A SPECIFIC LIST OF USES TO ALLOW FOR THAT. WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS MENTIONED BEFORE THAT THE BASE OWN BV C2 DISTRICT AND THAT MEANS THAT WOULD BE THE BASE USES.

HOWEVER WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THOSE MAY BE MODIFIED EITHER TO ADD OR REDUCE AND IN THIS CASE THERE WOULD BE BOTHOF THOSE THINGS HAPPENING . THE MAJORITY OF THE USES WITHIN THE C2 DISTRICT WOULD BE NOT PERMITTED SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO ADD THE CONTRACTOR SHOP USE AND OFFICE WAREHOUSE USE AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT D. ALSO THERE WOULD BE NO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS PERMITTED ON THE SITE. THE STAFF WOULD ASSERT THOSE USES ARE GENERALLY THE PROPOSED USES ARE GENERALLY CONFORMANT WITH THE USES TO THE SOUTH AND THE WEST OF THIS PROPERTY. WITH THOSE USES BEING MORE COMMERCIAL THAN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IN NATURE.

[00:30:05]

PERMITTED. >>> ANOTHER MODIFICATION THAT THEY ARE SEEKING WOULD BE IN REGARD TO THE PARKING STANDARDS. THEY ARE REQUESTING TO HAVE A MODIFICATION THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR ONE PARKING SPACE PER 1500 FT.? OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE USE. THEY HAVE PROVIDED A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT THEY PROPOSE WOULD BE OFFICE USE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY 300 FEET AND THEN THE WAREHOUSE WOULD BE PROVIDED AT ONE PER 1000 FT.?. YES THAT DOES END UP YIELDING MORE PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER THE ORDINANCE. THAT IS THE REASONING ALONG IF THEY AGAIN NEED TO RECONFIGURE OR RE-TARGET THE USERS FOR THIS PROPERTY. THEY DO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THAT AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED ON-SITE. I AM NOT RECALLING THE EXACT NUMBER THAT WOULD BE, BUT IT IS AN ADDITIONAL PARKING OF THE 108 SPACES, OVER AND ABOVE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE. AGAIN, THEY ARE NOT INTENDING FOR THAT TO HAPPEN BUT IT DOES ADD IN FLEXIBILITY. IF THEY ARE NOT AGAIN ABLE TO PROVIDE IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED AND AT SOME FUTURE DATE THEY WISH TO REPOSITION THIS PRODUCT IN THE MARKET. THEY WOULD HAVE TO PEITHER PROVIDE THE PARKING ON-SITE OR THEY WOULD NEED TO ENGAGE NEARBY PROPERTIES FOR SHARED PARKING AGREEMENTS AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE THE STAFF AGAIN ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. AGAIN, BECAUSE WE SEE THE VISION THEY ARE PUTTING FORWARD FOR THE WAREHOUSE OFFICE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

HOWEVER, LIKE THE FUTURE THINKING AS WELL THAT THERE IS THE ALREADY BUILT-IN FLEXIBILITY SHOULD THAT USE NEED TO CHANGE AND THERE IS THAT PARKING. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THEY ARE PROPOSING IS EXCESSIVE

ON THE SITE. >>> ALONG THE LINES OF PARKING THERE IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DIMENSION OF THE PARKING SPACES. THE DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES REQUIRE A 90 DEGREE PARKING, HEAD IN PARKING TO BE 9 FEET TO 20 FEET. WHICH WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE OVERHANG HERE THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REDUCE THAT TO 9' X 18' TO USE THAT SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE AREA AS THE OVERHANG. WE, THE STAFF DO NOT SUPPORT THAT. BECAUSE, IT COULD BOTH COMPROMISE PEDESTRIANS ACCESSIBILITY ALSO IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN FRONT OF THIS COMMISSION SEVERAL TIMES THE LARGE-SIZE OF VEHICLES THESE DAYS AS WELL.

AND SO, WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE CAUSING BOTH CONGESTION FOR THE SIDEWALK SPACE FOR PEDESTRIANS AS WELL AS FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE ACCESSIBILITY NEEDS AND ALSO COULD PERHAPS MAKE THAT THE PARKING LANE AND THE FIRE LANES A BIT MORE TIGHT THAN THEY SHOULD BE. THEY ARE ALSO REQUESTING A CHANGE TO THE PARKING LOT BUFFERING. THE CODE DOES REQUIRE A MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN ANY STRUCTURE IN A PARKING AREA TO BE 10 FEET. THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT TO BE 6 FOOT INSTEAD OF 10. THE JUSTIFICATION THEY PROVIDE IS THAT THE 10 FOOT IS REALLY MORE ALIGNED TOWARDS A HIGHER

[00:35:05]

IT IS PROPOSED TO BE A CONCRETE TILT WALL TYPE STRUCTURE THAT THEY WOULD INCLUDE SOME MORE TRADITIONAL MASONRY TYPE REQUIREMENTS. WE ARE AGAIN FEELING THAT IT IS A REASONABLE THING FOR THEM TO DO. IT DOES SHOW THEIR INTENT TO HAVE THIS BE A MORE QUALITY AND ATTRACTIVE TYPE OF BUILDING CODE SECONDLY THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT ANY BUILDING THAT IS OVER 20,000 FT.? BE DESIGNED TO HAVE MORE OF AN APPEARANCE OF A SMALLER BUILDING BLOCK THROUGH VARIATION OF HEIGHT, TEXTURE, COLOR AND DEPTH. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT THIS BE A SINGLE BUILDING MASS. THEY WOULD PROVIDE SOME ARTICULATION PREVEALS AS SHOWN ON THE ELEVATION THERE AS WELL AS HAVING A PLANE CHANGE THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED OF NO LESS THAN 9 INCHES AS WELL. A THIRD ITEM REGARDING THE BUILDING ITSELF IS THAT THERE SHOULD BA 3 FOOT HEIGHT CHANGE IN CHANGE SETBACK FOR THE PARAPET WALL 60 FEET IN LENGTH. I WOULD HIGHLIGHT THAT YOU CAN SEE THE LION ON TOP THE PARAPET WALL THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE OF 2 FEET RATHER THAN THE 3 FEET AND AGAIN THAT IS WHERE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WOULD BE 41 A HALF FEET ONLY AT THE TOP PEAK OF THAT

PARAPET WALL. >>> LASTLY THERE IS A REQUIREMENT WHEN A BUILDING IS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OR STREETS THAT THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS IN EXCESS OF 35 FEET BE BROUGHT DOWN WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE THIS IS NOT ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL STREETS THEREFORE WE FEEL THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT TO BE

AS PROPOSED. >>> NEXT ITEM TO ADDRESS WE

[00:40:02]

>>> IN REGARD TO THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION WE DID SEND OUT NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET AND 500 FEET ON MAY 25. THERE WERE 20 NOTICES SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET AND THERE WERE 26 SENT OUT TO PROPERTIES WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPERTY. THE RESPONSES WE RECEIVED BACK WERE TO IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 500 FOOT COURTESY NOTICE AND THOSE ARE PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG MAIN STREET AND THE CONCERN THAT PRIMARILY WAS EXPRESSED IN THAT WAS THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WOULD BE LIKELY TO INCREASE THE EXISTING FLOODING THAT OCCURS AFTER A HEAVY RAIN AT THE UNDERPASS OF THE DART RAIL WITH MAINSTREET. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE EXISTING GENERAL COMMERCIAL C2 DISTRICT TO PD

[00:45:05]

AS WELL AS, AMENDING THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN WERE NECESSARY, APPROVING AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY. WE WOULD SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING

CONDITIONS. >>> THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF VEHICLE WORKING SPACES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ROWLETT BELLMAN CODE. SECONDLY, WHEEL STOPS WILL BE UTILIZED FOR THE WORKING SPACES THAT A BUT TO THE STRUCTURE. AND, THIRDLY, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SEMI TRAILER, TRACTOR-TRAILER, 18 WHEELER TRUCKS GOING TO AND FROM THE SITE WOULD BE NO MORE THAN TWO PER DAY. WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION. WE ALSO HAVE MR. COHEN THE ENGINEERING DIRECTOR AND THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR CHARLES MEZA RACK IS THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SHOULD THERE BE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ECONOMIC ELEMENT IMPACT OF THIS PROPOSED

CHANGE. >> CHAIR: THANK YOU, ALEX.

STAFF, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONERS? MARK

ENGEN.[BLEEP] DEE. >> COMMISSIONER: I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW-UP ON PUBLIC COMMENT. YOU TOUCHED ON IT WITH REGARDS TO FLOOD CONTROL. MY QUESTION FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT FLOOD CONTROL WILL THERE BE ANY ISSUES COMING IN THAT WOULD INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RAINFALL INTO THE

AREA BY THE VIADUCT? >> SPEAKER: I WILL DEFER TO

OUR ENGINEER ON THAT. >> COMMISSIONER: I KNOW YOU HAVE A BUFFER BUT I ASKED THE QUESTION SO IF ANYONE IS HERE

WE CAN GET THAT ELIMINATED. >> SPEAKER: I WANT TO CLARIFY ELEMENTS DON'T INCREASE RAINFALL BUT THEY COULD INCREASE RUNOFF. AND CERTAINLY THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT WOULD NATURALLY INCREASE RUNOFF. THEY WOULD THEREFORE BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT DETENTION. WHICH REDUCES THE RUNOFF TO THE CREEK TO ITS PRE-EXISTING DEVELOPMENT RATE WHICH THEREFORE WOULD NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE CREEK.

>> CHAIR: CAN I GET YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND CREDENTIALS FOR THE MEETING MINUTES FOR THE AUDIENCE TODAY:

>> SPEAKER: JEFF COHEN DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING CITY OF

ROWLETT. >> SPEAKER: WOULD THIS HELP IF THERE WAS A DETENTION POND TO ELIMINATE WHEN WE HAVE BIG FLOODS? WHAT WOULD THE CITY RECOMMEND?

>> SPEAKER: THE DRAINAGE RULES FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT DO NOT REQUIRE DEVELOPMENTS TO MAKE THINGS BETTER BUT THEY CERTAINLY REQUIRE THAT THEY DO NOT MAKE THINGS WORSE. SO DETENTION IS A MEANS OF NOT HAVING, IT WOULD NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ADJOINING CREEK. THE SITE CURRENTLY DRAINS TO THE CREEK AND CAUSES, CONTRIBUTES TO FLOODING TODAY

BEFORE IT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. >> COMMISSIONER: AT LEAST HAVING A BUFFER ALONG THE CREEK IS THAT GOING TO DIVERT IT?

>> SPEAKER: LIKE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER?

>> COMMISSIONER: YES, ISN'T THAT WHAT IS ON THE WEST SIDE? I THINK OF A LANDSCAPE OFFER AS A BERM.

>> SPEAKER: THAT CAN HELP BUT THE PRIMARY MEANS OF CONTROLLING RUNOFF TO THE CREEK TO MITIGATE THE EFFECT OF

DEVELOPMENT IS ATTENTION. >> COMMISSIONER: OKAY WE WILL HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT. MY NEXT QUESTION ON THE NORTH SIDE WHICH WOULD BE TOWARDS LAKEVIEW THERE IS AN ALLEY. WHOSE PROPERTY IS THAT? IT IS A VERY BAD ALLEY AND WILL THE DEVELOPER BE IMPROVING THAT ALLEY?

>> SPEAKER: I DON'T THINK THAT IS AN ALLEY.

>> COMMISSIONER: WHO OWNS THAT? CARS TO DRIVE THROUGH

THERE. >> SPEAKER: IT HAS BEEN A PUBLIC ALLEY DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT BY THE PREVIOUS

DEVELOPMENTS. >> COMMISSIONER: IS IT PART OF

THE LAND PROPERTY? >> SPEAKER: PART OF THE

[00:50:02]

TO MAINTAIN. >> COMMISSIONER: THAT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED.

>> SPEAKER: IF I COULD INTERJECT THE COMMISSIONERS CAN SEE, COMMISSIONER MARK ENGEN CAN YOU POINT OUT THE EXACT

AREA YOU ARE SPEAKING TO? >> COMMISSIONER: RIGHT THERE.

YES. YOU KNOW WHERE BRONZE IS IN THE DENTAL OFFICE?

>> SPEAKER: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS NORTH-SOUTH

CONNECTION? OR EAST-WEST? >> SPEAKER: THAT WAS DEDICATED

AS A PUBLIC ALLEY TO THE CITY. >> COMMISSIONER: IT WOULD BE NICE IF THAT WERE TO BE IMPROVED.

>> SPEAKER: THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO IMPROVE THE ADJOINING ALLEY. THE ALLEY IS ALREADY IMPROVED TO CURRENT CITIES AND HURTS. IT MIGHT BE DEGRADED AND WE MIGHT NEED TO DO MAINTENANCE ON IT BUT IT IS BUILT TO CURRENT CITY STANDARDS

CONCRETE ALLEY. >> SPEAKER: IF I CAN INTERJECT ONE MORE TIME I APOLOGIZE. THE TEAM IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IT IS A DEDICATED ALLEY. WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPROVE ALLEYS WHERE WARRANTED. WE LOOK AT IS IT ACC NR OF THE SHOPPING CENTER TO DETERMINE WHOSE RESPONSE ABILITY THAT IS. THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS WE ARE ALREADY WORKING IN THE AREA TO ENSURE THAT IF WE GOT PARKING LOTS IN NEED OF CARE AND WE ARE ATTENDING TO THOSE AND WE WILL ALSO ADD THIS TO THE LIST. IT IS ALREADY ON THE RADAR TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IT IN TERMS OF IMPROVEMENT OR A FACELIFT TO ENSURE IT IS EASILY ACCESSIBLE.

>> COMMISSIONER: THANK YOU. MY OWN PERSONAL COMMENT ABOUT ENTRANCE INTO THIS LOCATION I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER OFF FOR A SEMI TRUCK TO COME THROUGH AS ON ENTERPRISE RATHER THAN LAKEVIEW BECAUSE IT REALLY IS SHARP. I COULD SEE SOME OF THE SMALLER BOX TRUCKS OR SEMI'S TO USE ENTERPRISE DRIVE TO COME INTO THAT AREA. IT IS A NARROW ROAD BETWEEN

BUSINESSES FROM LAKEVIEW. >> CHAIR: WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF

THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY? 25 FEET? >> SPEAKER: ABSOLUTELY. NOW OFF OF ENTERPRISE THEY CAN ONLY MAKE A RIGHT TURN. IT WOULD BE REALLY IMPOSSIBLE IF IT WAS A SEMI TO MAKE A LEFT TURN OR DIFFICULT. LIKELY WOULD SEE RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT ONTO ROWLETT ROAD AND RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT - I JUST WANTED TO

CLARIFY. >> CHAIR: COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. LOUIS FRISBIE? GO AHEAD.

>> COMMISSIONER: I WANT TO COMMEND MARK ENGEN THOSE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS. I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE I WAS ABOUT TO BRING UP SEVERAL OF THEM MYSELF. THE FIRST OF WHICH THAT I WANTED TO DISCUSS IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL IS THE FLOODING AT MAIN STREET OR AT THE UNDERPASS. THAT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR MANY YEARS ACTUALLY. I HAD THE MISFORTUNE OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH THERE DURING A RAIN EVENT AND IT IS NOT A GOOD PLACE TO BE WHEN IT IS RAINING. A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE OR LANDSCAPE AREAS THAT IS NOT BEING REDUCED, RIGHT MAC IN TERMS OF THE PERCENTAGE REQUIRED BY

ORDINANCE? >> SPEAKER: CORRECT IT IS NOT.

>> COMMISSIONER: WHEN THE SETBACKS ARE BEING ASKED TO BE WAIVED USUALLY THE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GETS AFFECTED. THE LANDSCAPING AREAS TEND TO BE REDUCED. THE CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH IS IT IS MORE IMPERMEABLE AREA THAN GENERATES MORE RUNOFF TO THE DOWNSTREAM CONDITION. I WANT TO BRING THIS UP AGAIN I APOLOGIZE TO MY FELLOW COMMISSION MEMBERS. THE PATTERN THAT WE HAVE SEEN SOME OF THESE DEVELOPERS IN THE PAST IN MANY CASES IS THAT A FLOOD STUDY OR DRAINAGE STUDY WOULD

[00:55:05]

THAT IS JUST TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN IT AS I SAID EARLIER HAPPEN REPEATEDLY WHERE DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE BROUGHT IN WITH VERY HIGH CHANGES IN TERMS OF THE PERCENTAGE OF ADDITIONAL RUNOFF WITH DRAINAGE STUDIES THAT WILL THROUGH VARIOUS TECHNICAL APPLICATIONS WILL END UP JUSTIFYING THAT NO ADDITIONAL OR NO DETENTION IS REQUIRED AND ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN IN THESE KINDS OF

SITUATIONS. >> CHAIR: MR. LOUIS FRISBIE ARE YOU SAYING THE STUDY DICTATES THAT RETENTION IS NEEDED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE WAIVED?

>> COMMISSIONER: WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT CURRENT CITY RETENTION BE IMPLEMENTED. A DETENTION STUDY CAN BE PERFORMED THE SAYS NO, NEVERMIND YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. WE HAVE SEEN THAT HAPPEN REPEATEDLY. I DON'T WANT TO BRING UP ADDITIONAL CASES BUT THERE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN A FEW. THE POINT IS THAT AND THE WAY THAT, I UNDERSTAND THE WAY THE CODES HAVE BEEN CHANGED OR AT LEAST THE WAY WE HAVE ASKED THE CODE REVIEWERS TO TRY TO TIGHTEN THAT LOOPHOLE A LITTLE BIT MORE. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT: YOU ARE OVER THERE NODDING YOUR HEAD. I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE. MY POINT IS IF WE ARE BEING ASKED NOW TO MAKE A COMPROMISE AND GIVE SOME THIS IS ONE PLACE I WANT TO TAKE SOME TOO. SO DETENTION MUST BE MANDATORY AND CANNOT BE WAIVED. THAT IS MY

RECOMMENDATION. >> CHAIR: REGARDLESS OF WHAT

THE STUDY SAYS? >> COMMISSIONER: THERE WILL BE A STUDY IN THE TERMS OF CALCULATION BUT A STUDY IS NOT REQUIRED. A STUDY IS REQUIRED IF THEY ARE GOING TO TRY TO WAIVE THE DETENTION. WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU MIGHT AS WELL NOT EVEN DO THAT. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE -THE DEVELOPMENT WILL REQUIRE A CIVIL ENGINEER TO DO DETENTION CALCULATIONS WITH A DETENTION SYSTEM OR DRAINAGE SYSTEM OF SOME SORT. THAT IS ALREADY IN THE CODE. YOU HAVE TO DO THAT. WHAT SOME OF THESE DEVELOPERS DO IS OVER AND ABOVE THAT AS A MINIMUM. THEY WILL PAY AN ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER, DEVELOPER ENGINEER SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARSOF ADDITIONAL FEES TO TRY TO WAIVE THE DETENTION AND AS I SAID BEFORE, DETENTION DOESN'T JUST HELP WITH THE FLOODING OR THE ADDITIONAL RUNOFF. IT ALSO HELPS WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS, BEING SO CLOSE TO A CREEK. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO TRY TO KEEP

[01:00:05]

>> CHAIR: ANYONE ELSE? JOHN COTE?

>> COMMISSIONER: IF WE ARE GOING TO TALK DETENTION AND RETENTION OF GOT A QUESTION. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A STUDY OF ANY TYPE FOR RUNOFF WHEN LONE STAR STORAGE INCREASED THEIR CONCRETE FOOTPRINT? IT IS JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT CREEK. I MEAN, IT WAS LIKE TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO

RECALL. >> SPEAKER: I DON'T RECALL THAT PROJECT COMING ACROSS THROUGH OUR OFFICE. I THINK IT

IS OLDER THAN THAT. IT. >> SPEAKER: IF YOU GIVE US A FEW MINUTES WE WILL TRY TO PULL SOMETHING UP TO SEE IF THEY SUBMITTED SOMETHING FOR EXPANSION.

>> COMMISSIONER: TO THE COMMENT.

>> SPEAKER: TO MR. LOUIS FRISBIE'S COMMENT I DRIVE THAT ROAD OCCASIONALLY MYSELF. BUT IF WE HAVE IN OUR TOOLBOX THE ABILITY TO DO AN ENGINEERING STUDY THAT CONFORMS WITH THE STANDARDS AND IT IS FOUND NOT TO REQUIRE RETENTION I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN TURN AROUND AND REQUIRE SOMEBODY TO HAVE RETENTION ON THEIR PROPERTY OR DETENTION ON THEIR PROPERTY.

>> CHAIR: THAT GETS BACK TO MY QUESTION.

>> SPEAKER: YEAH. >> CHAIR: UNTIL WE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED, HOW CAN WE REQUIRE IT? IS THAT

WHAT YOU MEAN, JOHN? >> SPEAKER: MAY I INTERJECT? MAYBE IT IS THE LAST TIME FOR THE EVENING, I WILL TRY MY BEST. I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER LOUIS FRISBIE'S COMMENT REGARDLESS OF THE STUDY OR NOT PHYSICALLY THE INFRASTRUCTURE BE PROVIDED. I THINK THAT IS WHAT COMMISSIONER LOUIS FRISBIE IS SAYING, IS THAT CORRECT? REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE STUDY SAYS. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THE STUDY ANYWAY. THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY SHOULD NOT ONLY BE TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT OF DETENTION BUT IN THIS INSTANCE GIVEN THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE COMMISSION, CAN IT BE MADE AS A CONDITION OF THE RECOMMENDATION? IT CAN BE MADE A CONDITION OF RECOMMENDATION. BUT AGAIN, ULTIMATELY, YOUR RECOMMENDATION WILL BE DIRECTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. REGARDLESS, IT CAN BE MADE AS A RECOMMENDATION. BUT THE STUDY STILL HAVE TO REFER AND IT MIGHT SAY DETENTION IS REQUIRED THAT IT MIGHT SAY DETENTION IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS AND

THE COUNCIL APPROVES. >> COMMISSIONER: BUT WHAT MR. LOUIS FRISBIE IS SAYING HE WANTS TO MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. WHAT I AM SAYING IS IF THE STUDY IS DONE AND THEY DETERMINED USING ALL OF THE ENGINEERING TOOLS AVAILABLE TO THEM THAT IS NOT ACQUIRED, THEN YOU ARE SAYING

WE CAN STILL REQUIRE IT? >> SPEAKER: THAT IS WHAT COMMISSIONER LOUIS FRISBIE IS ASKING. BUT IF WE CHOOSE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE INSTALLED REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE STUDY.

>> CHAIR: AND JEFF, WHAT YOU SAID WAS - IF - TELL US WHAT YOU SAID OR REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THAT, SIR.

>> COMMISSIONER: THE REQUIREMENT FOR DETENTION?

>> CHAIR: OR WHAT COULD HAPPEN. WHAT WILL HAPPEN BASED

ON THAT PARCEL BEING VALID. >> COMMISSIONER: WE WILL REQUIRE THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THE DRAINAGE CODE. THEY WILL DO AS LOUIS FRISBIE HAS SUGGESTED THEY WILL PROVIDE CALCULATIONS AND WE WILL STUDY THEM. WE WILL MAKE SURE THEY ARE COMPLIANT WITH OUR CODE AND WITH GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES. I AM SORRY, CHAIRWOMAN, WHAT EXACTLY -

>> CHAIR: IF YOU FEEL LIKE BASED ON THE CALCULATIONS MADE THAT ATTENTION IS REQUIRED WE WILL WIRE IT.

>> COMMISSIONER: GUESS I WILL.

[01:05:01]

>> CHAIR:. >> CHAIR: MR. FRISBEE, AHEAD.

>> SPEAKER: I WANT TO CATCH UP ON SOME FINE POINT. THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT THING. LET ME TAKE A STEP BACK. IF WE WERE A SEMI RURAL CITY WITH VERY LARGE TRACKS OF LAND THAT WERE UNDEVELOPED AND WE SAW A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT HAPPEN, YOU WOULD AUTOMATICALLY SEE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL RUNOFF GOING INTO THE CREEKS. THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE CITY FROM THE TIME IT'S BEEN A LITTLE TOWN. WE ARE PRETTY FAR ALONG IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT. POINT NUMBER 1. THE CITY OF ROWLETT HAS A VERY ACUTELY OR SITUATION GEOGRAPHICALLY AND THAT WE HAVE HALF OF THE PERIMETER OF THE CITY IS A LAKE. WHAT WE SEE IS THAT A LOT OF THESE DEVELOPERS AND SOMETIMES JUSTIFIABLY SO WE WILL ASK FOR A WAIVER FROM DETENTION EVEN THOUGH THE CODE ASKS OR REQUIRES IT TO HAVE DETENTION BECAUSE THERE IS A LAKE RIGHT HERE AND GUESS WHAT, THE LAKE ASK AS A HUGE DETENTION POND BUT IT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO BE THE CITY'S DETENTION POND. RIGHT? THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS. POINT NUMBER 3 AS LAND DEVELOPS OUT AND SURFACE RUNOFF INCREASES YOU GET EROSION IN THESE CREEKS THAT IS DOWNSTREAM OF THE DEVELOPMENT SO IT'S BAD FOR THE CREEK AND BAD FOR THE DIVIDER DILLY ENVIRONMENT AND YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT EROSION IS IT'S THE WASHING OUT OF DIRT AND SIDES OF THESE EMBANKMENTS THAT WASHES INTO, YES WHAT, THE LAKE. ALL OF THIS IS LEADING TO POLLUTANTS AND SEDIMENTS AND BASICALLY MORE STUFF WASHING INTO THE LAKE THAT AGAIN WASN'T DESIGNED, WASN'T BUILT TO SERVE THAT PURPOSE AND YET WE DO IT ON A VERY REGULAR BASIS. POINT NUMBER 4 IS THAT SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES LIKE THIS ONE HAS A STREAM THAT IS ALONG THE BACK OF IT AND SOME OF THESE ENGINEERS THAT ARE HIRED TO DO THE STUDIES WILL SAY THAT CREEK ACTS AS AN EXTENSION OR A GATEWAY TO THE LAKE.

THEREFORE, IF YOU WILL ALLOW ME TO DUMP WATER QUICKLY INTO THE LAKE WHY CAN'T YOU ALLOW ME TO DUMP WATER INTO THE CREEK THAT LEADS QUICKLY INTO THE SAME LAKE. THESE ARE THE LOOPHOLES THAT THESE VERY CLEVER ENGINEERING COMPANIES AND VERY CLEVER DEVELOPERS WILL TRY TO USE TO JUSTIFY WAVING THE DETENTION AND PART OF THE REASON, I UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU PUT IN THE DETENTION, 1 TO 2 THINGS WILL HAPPEN. EITHER YOU WILL HAVE TO GIVE UP A LITTLE BIT OF YOUR LAND TO ACCOMMODATE THESE THINGS IF IT'S GOING TO BE PUT IN AN OPEN LANDSCAPE AREA WHICH IS WHY I ASKED ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPE AREA PER THE CODE. NUMBER 1 AND NUMBER 2 IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GET ONTO THE PAVEMENT WHICH IS A VERY EXPENSIVE STRUCTURE.

THE ADVANTAGES THAT BOTH OF THESE TYPES OF STRUCTURES ACCOMPLISH THE VERY SAME THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHICH IS THAT YOU SLOW DOWN THE WATER. THE RELEASE RATE TO MATCH MORE OR LESS THE SAME CONDITIONS THAT THE CURRENT LAND HAS NOW. SO, AS JEFF SAID BY CODE THEY ARE REQUIRED NOT TO MAKE THINGS WORSE OR AT LEAST THAT'S THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE ARE FINDING THAT THESE DEVELOPERS AND THEIR ENGINEERS HAVE FIGURED OUT THESE LITTLE LOOPHOLES TO SAY THAT REALLY DOESN'T HAPPEN HERE. WELL, IT DOES. YOU KNOW? COMMON SENSE TELLS YOU YOU TAKE THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND A USED TO BE A BUNCH OF FARMLANDS AND THEY HATED OVER BUMPER-TO-BUMPER THERE'S MORE WATER GOING SOMEWHERE THAT SITS DOWNSTREAM OF US. THE LAST AND MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT IF WE DON'T AS A COMMUNITY CONTROL THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF THE VERY SMALL FLOOD CONTROL DEVICES IF WE JUST LET IT KEEP ON GOING WE ARE ASKING FOR TROUBLE IN TERMS OF FLOODING. ABOUT SIX OR EIGHT ON SO GO THE

[01:10:01]

PROTECT THE PUBLIC SAFETY. >> CHAIR: BASICALLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS IF THE CITY DETERMINES THAT RETENTION OR DETENTION OR WHATEVER IS REQUIRED THEN IT CANNOT BE

BASICALLY? HIS PROPERTY? - >> COMMISSIONER: YES. I WOULD SAY THAT'S THE CONDITION. DO NOT GIVE THEM THE WIGGLE ROOM TO COME OUT AND DO ART OF MY EXPRESSION VOODOO ENGINEERING.

DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE MAN HIND THE SCREEN.

>> CHAIR: OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? MISS WILLIAMS?

>> COMMISSIONER: I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH MR. LOUIS FRISBIE AND I THANK HIM FOR HIS EVALUATIONS AND COMMENTS.

>> CHAIR: MR. TUCKER ARE YOU GOOD SO FAR? DO YOU HAVE ANY

COMMENTS? >> COMMISSIONER: CAUGHT DOWN THERE AT THAT LITTLE DIP ON MAIN STREET AND I HAD TO TURN AROUND. OKAY. THIS IS, THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AT THIS TIME WE WILL -I'M SORRY, WHAT? I AM SORRY. THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION. IF YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION, PLEASE COME UP. I AM SORRY, IT HAS BEEN A LONG

DAY AND IT IS NOT OVER. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING MADAME CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. DON LARK WITH HOPEWELL DEVELOPMENT, BASED BELLMAN COMPANY AND WE HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 30 YEARS IN THE CANADIAN MARKETPLACE. WE MOVE DOWN INTO THE US IN 2016 AND NOW WE ARE ACTIVE IN THE GREATER PHOENIX AREA, LAS VEGAS AND DALLAS-FORT WORTH WHERE WE OWN FOUR PROPERTIES AND HOPE TO ADD ANOTHER ONE IN YOUR FINE CITY.

WE HAVE MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM FROM KINLEY HORNER ENGINEERS WHO HAVE A HEARING OF THE MOST RECENT DISCUSSION WITH LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS REGARDING DRAINAGE, TRAFFIC AND WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK US. WE HAVE OUR ARCHITECT AND A GENTLEMAN FROM COLLIER OUR BROKER WHO WILL BE DOING THE LEASING ON THE PROJECT. TO MOVE US FORWARD. WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION. A LOT OF THE IMAGES WERE SHOWN IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION BY STAFF SO WE POSSIBLY DON'T HAVE TO GO THERE. IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS WE CAN RING UP THE IMAGES. I DON'T WANT TO REGURGITATE WHAT YOU ALREADY HEARD BUT I GATHER THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND TYLER SCOTT IS WITH KINLEY HORN ONE OF OUR ENGINEERS AND PERHAPS I WILL HAVE HIM ADDRESS MY EXPERIENCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT. I'VE BEEN WITH US FOR 30 YEARS NOW AND YOU'RE TYPICALLY MATCHING POST TO PREDEVELOPMENT FLOWS. WE DEAL WITH DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS AND WE ALWAYS NEED THEM WITH THE GENERAL PACE OF DEVELOPMENT AND WE DON'T DO VOODOO ENGINEERING OR TRY TO SCREW THINGS OVER. THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS AND THAT'S THE REASON WE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 30 YEARS. PERHAPS I WILL HAVE TYLER GIVE A BRIEF INTRODUCTION ON HOW DRAINAGE WILL WORK IN THIS AREA BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS A KEY ISSUE.

>> SPEAKER: MY NAME IS TYLER SCOTT AND I AM WITH KINLEY HORN AS AN ENGINEER. WITH REGARDS TO DRAINAGE A LOT OF GOOD POINTS BROUGHT UP TONIGHT. OUR INTENT IS TO MEET THE DRAINAGE ORDINANCE AND WE WILL DO A PREDEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS OF THE SITE WITH THE EXISTING FLOWS AND POST ANALYSIS IDENTIFYING THE FLOWS WITH THE CONCRETE AND NON-TRAINING. THAT WILL SHOW THAT WE WILL MORE THAN LIKELY NEED DETENTION IF YOU DO A PURE

[01:15:01]

WHAT WE WILL ATTEMPT TO DO IS PROVIDE WILL TO PULL RELEASE POINTS IN THAT TRUCK COURT TO MIMIC OVERLAND FLOW INSTEAD OF HAVING A POINT DISCHARGED DEVELOPMENT FLOWS DETAINED.

CURRENTLY RENELL THE WATER GENERALLY SHEET FLOWS PIER THERE ARE SOME ISOLATED POINTS WHERE IT CONVERGES INTO FEDERAL STREAMS AND CONSTITUTES A CREEK. ALL THAT BEING SAID IT WILL HELP MITIGATE ANY EROSION, ADDITIONALLY I AM MORE THAN CONFIDENT THAT AS WE WORK WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WE WILL IDENTIFY ANY OTHER CONTROL MEASURES THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED AT DISCHARGE POINTS. WHATEVER IT IS WE ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO COMPLY. SO, HOPEFULLY THAT CLEARS UP A LITTLE BIT I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT DRAINAGE.

>> CHAIR: COMMISSIONERS ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANTS ENGINEER? >> COMMISSIONER: I AM NOT AN ENGINEER BUT JUST USING COMMON SENSE IT IS ALREADY FLOODING WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE. COMMON SENSE, THE CONCRETE IS GOING TO INCREASE THE COEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF. SO, IF WE ALREADY HAVE A FLOODING SITUATION, I WOULD BE FLABBERGASTED IF A DRAINAGE REPORT CONCLUSION WAS THAT A DETENTION SYSTEM WAS NOT

NECESSARY. >> SPEAKER: TO THAT POINT, YES. I DON'T KNOW HOW TECHNICAL Y'ALL WANT TO GO BUT IT COMES TO THE POINT YOU'RE ANALYZING IN THE OVERALL DRAINAGE BASIN. SO WHEN YOU SEE PEOPLE SAY GET OUT OF THE DETENTION REQUIREMENT TYPICALLY WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT IS AS THE WATER DEVELOPS AND LOSE ELITE LEAVES THE SITE THAT WATER IS USUALLY GONE. SO BEFORE THE BASIN SEES A PEAK THE SITE IS ALREADY DEVELOPING THE WATER SO IT DOES NOT SEE A PEAK AT THE POINT YOU ARE ANALYZING. SORRY, I'M GETTING A LITTLE TECHNICAL. IN THIS CASE WE ARE HIGH ENOUGH IN THE BASIN ARE A TINY STUDY WOULD NOT AND IF IT THE SITE AT ALL.

IT WOULD SHOW YOU STILL NEED DETENTION ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE A FLOODING ISSUE DIRECTLY DOWN FROM THE SITE. IT IS A STRUGGLE FOR ME TO SEE IT ELIMINATE THE POTENTIL AND THAT IS THE EASIEST ANSWER. WE ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO PROVIDE DETENTION ESPECIALLY AS THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES. I THINK THERE COULD BE WIGGLE ROOM AS A TRUE POST ANALYSIS OR A SLIGHT REDUCTION -IT WOULDN'T BE OVER DETAINED BUT I DON'T WANT TO COMMIT TO SAYING WE ARE DOING EXACTLY PROPOSED BECAUSE IT MAY NOT WASH OUT THAT WAY BUT I AM VERY CONFIDENT THAT THERE IS NO STUDY THAT WOULD SHOW THAT RETENTION.

>> COMMISSIONER: YOU CHANGED THE SUBJECT. CAN YOU ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THE NUMBER OF 18 WHEELERS THAT YOU FORESEE BE USING THIS FACILITY?

>> SPEAKER: I CAN TRY. DON WOULD PROBABLY BE A BETTER

REPRESENTATION. >> SPEAKER: PERHAPS I CAN HAVE BEN WALLACE FROM COLLIER WHO IS A TEAM MEMBER AND COLLIER WILL DO THE LEASING ON THE PROJECT AND THEY HAVE READ EVEN SOURCING DIGITAL TENANT THIS PROPERTY AND CAN PROBABLY BETTER SPEAK TO THE TYPES OF USERS WE ARE EXPECTING TO SEE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THEIR TRUCK REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE DONE DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS CANADA, SOME LARGE ONES. VERY LARGE EDUCATION CENTERS PAID THIS IS A VERY SMALL, RELATIVELY SMALL BUILDING COMPARED TO THE LAKEVIEW IS A SPARK I THINK THAT'S THE NAME OF THE DEVELOPER THAT WAS

[01:20:04]

I'M STILL HONESTLY HEARING NEW NAMES EVERY TIME I COME DOWN HERE. OBVIOUSLY WITH THAT MANY JURISDICTIONS IN A RELATIVELY SMALL SIZE YOU ARE IN NEED OF SUFFICIENT SPACE OR SUITABLE SPACE FOR THE BUSINESSES TO GROW IN THE COMMUNITY.

HOPEFULLY WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING TO TAKE A PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN LONG SINCE, FOREVER AND VACANT OR DERELICT IN MY MIND. AND TURNING IT INTO AN INVESTMENT WITH JOB CREATION, PROPERTY TAXES AND SO ON ENHANCING THE AREA. HAPS, IF YOU WOULD NOT MIND A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE TYPES OF TENANT URC THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THE PROPERTY AND THE TYPE OF TRUCK REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE AND DON'T HAVE.

>> CHAIR: STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES,

PLEASE, SIR. >> SPEAKER: BEN WALLACE, LOGISTICS TEAM AND SO WHAT I DO ON A DAILY BASIS IS TALK ABOUT TRUCK TRAFFIC AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR A USER IN THE COMPANY. AS PART OF OUR TEAM TO REPRESENT THE END-USERS MY SPECIALTY IS REPRESENTING DEVELOPERS AND BUILDING OWNERS. I HAVE BEEN WORKING THE NORTHEASTERN MARKETS FOR OVER EIGHT YEARS NOW AND I HAVE SEEN WHERE THESE TENANTS ARE COMING FROM AND WHO NEEDS SPACE IN THIS AREA. AND SO IN REPRESENTING THIS BUSINESS, WHENEVER YOU SEE THESE TYPES OF BUILDINGS BEING DEALT IN A RESIDENTIAL OR URBAN AREA, THE VERY FIRST MOVERS WILL BE CONTRACTORS. SO WHETHER THAT IS A MILESTONE ELECTRIC OR A PLUMBING GROUP OR OVERHEAD DOOR GROUP OR ANY OF THOSE GUYS THAT WANT TO BE CLOSE TO ROOFTOPS, THOSE ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS. SEE THAT WITH MCKINNEY AND DENTON AND TERRELL, THEY ARE ALL OVER. WITH THAT SAID, I THINK IN THE PRESENTATION WE TRIED TO REALLY DESIGN THE BUILDING TO NOT MAKE SENSE FOR A DISSERTATION USER. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PUT UP THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN OR IN MY DOING THAT? THERE YOU GO.

>> CHAIR: IS SOUNDS LESS LIKE 18 WHEELERS BUT SMALLER

BUSINESS BOX TRUCKS TO ME. >> SPEAKER: I WILL KEEP USING THE MILESTONES. YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SMALL TRUCKS ALL AROUND WITH THE HOUSES AND THEY HAVE THEIR SMALL TRUCK FLOW.

THAT IS MORE OF THE VISION HERE . THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO POINT OUT IS THAT THIS SITE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE FOR USERS THAT HAVE HIGH TRUCK TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF THE BUMP OUTS ON THE LEFT SIDE. IF THAT WAS OUR TARGET WE WOULD HAVE PUT DOORS ALONG THE ENTIRE LEFT SIDE OF THE BUILDING. AND SO WE BUMP THAT OUT TO PUT A STOREFRONT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER IN ADDITION TO LIMITING THE DOORS TO HALF OF WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY SEE IN A BUILDING LIKE THIS. AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE SITE CONSTRAINTS AND DESIGNS TO PUSH FORWARD WITH WHAT I THINK THE CITY OF ROWLETT NEEDS AND ALSO WHAT I

THINK WOULD WORK VERY WELL. >> COMMISSIONER: SO ARE YOU

PREDICTING NO 18 WHEELERS? >> SPEAKER: THEY HAVE TO GET THEIR STUFF IN AT SOME POINT SUPPLY OR WHETHER IT IS AN 18 WHEELER OR BOX TRUCK BUT THE USERS IN THIS AREA IN ROWLETT, RICHARDSON AND PLANO IS LIKE ONE WEEK. IT IS REALLY NOT A LOT. WHENEVER WE DRIVE AROUND YOU WILL SEE CARS IN THE 18 WHEELERS WILL BE DROPPING OFF THE PRODUCT AND AND IT WILL PICK UP PICKUP TRUCKS AND BOX TRUCKS.

>> COMMISSIONER: HOW LONG WILL THEY DROP OFF PRODUCTS?

>> SPEAKER: PROBABLY EVERY COUPLE DAYS.

>> COMMISSIONER: HOW MANY 18 WHEELERS? > SPEAKER: ONE.

TWO PER DAY AND I DON'T PERCEIVE THAT BEING AN ISSUE

[01:25:04]

>> COMMISSIONER: TWO PER DAY WOULD BE A FAIR MAXIMUM NUMBER?

>> SPEAKER: I WOULD SAY SO. >> COMMISSIONER: OKAY, THANK

YOU SO MUCH. >> COMMISSIONER: I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TRUCKS COMING IN TO THE FACILITY. I ASSUME THEY WILL COME IN ON ENTERPRISE DRIVE? OR WILL THEY TRY TO COME DOWN THAT NARROW STREET AT SPROUTS? IT'S ONLY 25 FEET WIDE AND THERE ARE CARS PARKED THERE.

>> COMMISSIONER: PERHAPS I CAN ADDRESS THAT MAYBE STAFF CAN AS WELL. WE HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH STAFF AS RECENTLY AS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO IT'S THE PREFERENCE THAT TRUCKS COME ON ENTERPRISE DRIVE. ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S ORDINANCE ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT A TRUCK ROUTE, ROWLETT IS NOT A TRUCK ROUTE SO MUCH AS LAKEVIEW. SO LONG AS TRUCKS ARE COMING TO A DESIGNATED BUSINESS ON THE SHORTEST ROUTE POSSIBLE AND HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE COMING TO A PROPER LOCATION, IT IS FINE AND WE WERE FINE WITH THAT. WE ALSO THOUGHT COMING OFF OF LAKEVIEW MADE SENSE AS WELL BECAUSE IT'S A SIGNALIZED ENTRANCE ON THAT LOCATION AND PERHAPS STAFF CAN COMMENT BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT'S THE PREFERENCE TO BRING THEM OFF OF LAKEVIEW AS WELL. I THINK ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE LIMITED EXPECTATION OF SEMITRUCK TRAFFIC WHETHER IT IS ONE ON ENTERPRISE, ONE ON LAKEVIEW OR TWO INTO OR ZERO AND TWO OR TWO AND ZERO IS RELATIVELY MODEST IN SCOPE. IT IS ALMOST LIKE DO YOU FOLKS HAVE A PREFERENCE? WE UNFORTUNATELY HAVE GOTTEN MIXED MESSAGES. I WOULD CERTAINLY WELCOME STAFF INPUT ON WHICH DIRECTION IS PREFERRED. [LAUGHTER]

>> COMMISSIONER: THANK YOU. YOU HAVE GOTTEN THE GENERAL TENOR OF THE LOCAL ORDINANCE. SO THE COUNCIL RECENTLY AMENDED THE TRUCK ROUTE ORDINANCE TO REMOVE ROWLETT FROM BEING A TRUCK ROUTE. HOWEVER, STATE LAW DOES ALLOW FOR THE CONTINUATION OF TRUCKS TO SERVE EXISTING BUSINESSES HERE THEY ARE TO DO THAT IN THE LEAST DISRUPTIVE SAFEST WAY. AND IN SOME DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE HAD WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE, OF COURSE IT IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING THIS TRUCK ROUTE WHICH THEY CONTINUE TO DO. IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE STATE LAW AS INTERPRETED AND GUIDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH HIS LEGAL MIND AND LEGAL ADV. WHAT THAT INCLUDES IS THAT TRUCKERS ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO BEGIN TO OPERATE THE MOST DIRECT AND SAFEST ROUTE. AND SO, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR TRUCKS TO AS IT WAS STATED EARLIER TO LIKELY IF THEY WERE TO USE ENTERPRISE DRIVE TO ACCESS THIS SITE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE LEFT TURN FROM ENTERPRISE DRIVE PERHAPS IF THEY ARE COMING FROM GARLAND UP ROWLETT ROAD TO SAFELY MAKE THE LEFT TURN. IF THAT IS THE BEST AND SAFEST DIRECT ROUTE TO DO THAT CONVERSELY COMING FROM THE SITE A LEFT TURN FROM ENTERPRISE DRIVE ONTO ROWLETT ROAD WHICH IS NOT A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IS NOT LIKELY TO BE THE MOST DIRECT SAFEST ROUTE. HOWEVER, TAKING THAT RIGHT TURN ONTO ROWLETT ROAD TO GO SOUTHBOUND MAY IN FACT BE THE SAFEST MOST DIRECT ROUTE WITH THAT. SO ADDRESSING THE NORTHBOUND EXIT OR ACCESS TO LAKEVIEW PARKWAY THAT MAY AGAIN BE THE APPROPRIATE ROUTE FOR VEHICLES TO TAKE IF THEY ARE SEEKING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A LEFT TURN TO GO ALONG LAKEVIEW PARKWAY 66 W. INTO GARLANDS AND ACCESS THE ORDER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. IT WOULD AGAIN, TALK THIS THROUGH.

[01:30:03]

>> CHAIR: ARE YOU TALKING FROM 66?

>> SPEAKER: TO MAKE A TURN EITHER FOR 18 WHEELERS TO MAKE A TURN OR TWO ACCESS 66 FROM THE SITE OR TO MAKE A TURN FROM 66 TO THIS SITE ALONG THAT ROUTE WHICH AGAIN IS WHY WE HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION. AND THEN ALSO AS THEN MENTIONED AND DON HAS ALSO SAID, THEY HAVE POSITIONED THIS PRODUCT TO HAVE VERY LIMITED 18 WHEELER TRAFFIC IN THERE. THEY WILL BE VERY COGNIZANT OF THAT WHEN SELECTING THE SITE AND SECONDLY THE DRIVERS THAT DRIVE THOSE LARGE VEHICLES ALSO I BELIEVE ARE PRETTY WELL ATTUNED TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT AND KNOW THE MANEUVERS THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO MAKE WITH THAT.

>> CHAIR: ALEX, A QUESTION. I PHAVE BEEN HERE 23 YEARS AND TRUCKERS USED ROWLETT ROAD LIKE 75 FOR YEARS. IT WAS A PAIN IN THE REAR. WHEN AWAY WITH 190 AND - I DON'T WANT TO GET IN THAT SITUATION AGAIN. IS IT GOING TO BE EASIER TO GET TO THIS FACILITY FROM ROWLETT ROAD FROM 66? YES, SIR NO.

>> SPEAKER: I WILL NOT ABLE TO CLEARLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION WHERE I CAN SAY WHAT THEY HAVE INDICATED THROUGH THAT AND WHAT WE AS STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING WOULD BE THAT THERE WOULD BE AT MOST TWO OF THESE TRUCKS PER DAY WHICH IS QUITE SMALL WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC OVERALL WITHIN THE CITY. WITH THAT. AND SO, AGAIN IT IS NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WOULD BE A HIGH-VOLUME OF THAT.

>> CHAIR: WE KNOW FOR SURE THERE WILL BE 18 WHEELERS.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE LIMITED JUST BY CHANCE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LEASE IN HERE THAT IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO BOX TRUCKS.

WE KNOW FOR SURE THERE WILL BE 18 WHEELERS COMING IN.

>> SPEAKER: MOST OF THIS PRODUCT IS BUILT ON SPEC AND CAN COME REALLY APPEAL TO MANY DIFFERENT USERS. THE PROBLEM THAT YOU GET IS FORT WORTH YOU'VE GOT A COLLEGE TAKING UP A MAJORITY AND LIKELY THERE WILL BE SOME REQUIREMENT. EVEN IF THIS IS LIKE A MCDONALD'S SEMI TRUCKS TO COME USUALLY TO DELIVER PRODUCT. IT IS NOT UNUSUAL. IT IS THE TYPE OF LOCATION THAT COULD SUIT A TENANT WHO HAS LARGE TRUCK

REQUIREMENTS. >> CHAIR: OKAY.

>> SPEAKER: I WOULD EVEN ADD THE RESTAURANTS TO THE NORTH WOULD HAVE TO GET THEIR FOOD IN SOME WAY WHETHER IT IS 18 WHEELERS OR THE BOX TRUCKS OR SOMETHING. WE SEE GROCERY STORES AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS THEY CAN HIDE IT BUT IT DOES HAPPEN. THAT'S REALLY THE DIVISION OF THE TRAFFIC WE ARE

SEEING. >> CHAIR: I IMAGINE THEY ARE COMING OFF OF 30 AND 190 266 AND IT'S NOT AFFECTING ROWLETT ROAD. THAT WAS MORE MY CONCERN.

>> SPEAKER: IF YOU ARE SEEING AN OWNERSHIP STANDPOINT OF WHICH WAY IS COMING FROM MY OWN PERSONAL.

>> CHAIR: I KNOW THAT I LIVE OFF OF ROWLETT ROAD.

>> SPEAKER: WE WOULD LEAVE IT TO YOU TO SAY WHAT YOU PREFER IN A LOGICAL STANDPOINT I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO GO IN ON ENTERPRISE. IF YOU ARE DOING THAT IN A CLOCKWISE MANNER.

>> CHAIR: GO AHEAD JOHN. >> COMMISSIONER: LOGIC DOESN'T ALWAYS PLAY TRUE. [LAUGHTER] THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN AND EVEN FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE IS THIS IS HERE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE TO

[01:35:01]

TO GO OUT ENTERPRISE YOU ARE GOING TO UNAPPROVED TRUCK ROUTE, YOU HAVE TO MAKE A RIGHT HAND TURN BECAUSE THERE'S NO LEFT-HAND TURN DOWN TO MILLER THAN A LEFT-HAND TURN TO MILLER TO GET ONTO GEORGE BUSH. OKAY? THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS THROUGH SPROUTS TREE. OKAY? IF WE COULD PULL UP THE IMAGE IN OUR PACKAGE THAT SHOWS THE HIGHLIGHTED PARCEL I THINK IT IS INTERESTING TO SEE THAT THERE IS AN 18 WHEELER SITTING ON THAT ROAD.

>> SPEAKER: GIVE ME A SECOND. MY HAVE TO SWITCH BACK TO THE

OTHER PRESENTATION. >> SPEAKER: ONE IS LAS VEGAS,

ONE IS PHOENIX. >> COMMISSIONER: IT'S AN 18

WHEELER. >> CHAIR: IF YOU ARE FROM CANADA AND YOU GET HOME, IT'S GOING TO BE OVER 100 HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER: THUS THE CONCERN I SEE ALL THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE ON ENTERPRISE ROAD WHICH HATED BECAUSE THE ROAD IS IN REALLY BAD CONDITION AND TWO, THEY ARE STUCK WITH HAVING TO NAVIGATE HOW DO I GET TO AN APPROVED TRUCK ROUTE VIA ROWLETT ROAD AND WILL COME THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT SHORTCUT TO SPROUTS ONTO THE 66. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT - [CHUCKLE] NO, I AM TALKING ABOUT THOUGH WHERE YOU HIGHLIGHTED THE PARCEL IN RED.

OKAY? I WISH I COULD TELL YOU WHAT PAGE THIS IS. OKAY.

OKAY. IT IS IN THE ATTACHMENT.

>> SPEAKER: IF I COULD INTERJECT WHEN YOU SPEAK SPEAK PINTO THE MICROPHONE OTHERWISE YOU WILL NOT BE RECORDED.

>> SPEAKER: THAT IS WITHIN OUR ATTACHMENTHMENT. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS IN THE PRESENTATION.

>> COMMISSIONER: THAT IS A SHAME.

>> CHAIR: WHERE IS IT IN THE PACKET?

>> COMMISSIONER: LET ME TRY TO GET IT. IT IS EXHIBIT H, ATTACHMENT ONE AFTER EXHIBIT G. THE REAL CONCERN HERE IS IT IS A 25 FOOT WIDE STREET WHICH IS SUFFICIENT FOR TWO TRUCKS TO BE PASSING UNLESS OF COURSE MY TRUCK IS PARKED IN THE RESTAURANT PARKING LOT BECAUSE IT STICKS OUT IN THAT 25 FOOT PSECTION. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THAT IS KIND OF AN ISSUE THERE BUT THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT ALLEYWAY. THAT ALLEYWAY IS IN REALLY POOR CONDITION. THIS IS GOING TO END UP BEING THE " TRUCK ROUTE" TO 66. WOULD YOU GUYS BE AMENABLE TO WORKING WITH THE CITY TO IMPROVE THAT SECTION OF THE ALLEYWAY THAT YOU HAVE TO CROSS?

>> SPEAKER: THE CROSSING, IN THE PRESENTATION, ONE OF THE THREE PROPERTIES THAT WE WOULD BE PURCHASING IS NOT THAT STRIP. IT CROSSES OVER THE PUBLIC, A SMALL PORTION OF THE

PUBLIC ALLEY. >> YOU HAVE THAT CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE SMALL STRIP AND THE OTHER TWO PARCELS.

>> SPEAKER: YES IF IT IMPROVES THE SEGMENT INTO OUR PROPERTY IT IS A BIT OF A NO-BRAINER REALLY. THE REMAINING SECTIONS EAST AND WEST OF THE CROSSING IS PRETTY SKETCHY. BUT AS YOU

SAW, - >> COMMISSIONER: THAT IS THE SLIDE IF YOU BLOW IT UP AND LOOK AT STRIP YOU CAN SEE AN 18 WHEELER SITTING ON THAT ROAD. HE IS PROBABLY GOING TO BRONZE.

[01:40:04]

ABOUT. >> COMMISSIONER: SO.

>> CHAIR: OH YEAH. NOW THAT ROAD WE HAVE PRETTY MUCH TO DEATH. WERE NOT USING ANY HORSES THERE. LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR PARKING SPOTS. BECAUSE THE CITY IS NOT HAPPY WITH YOU TRYING TO DECREASE THOSE TWO 18 FEET. THEY WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE WHAT IS IT, 20? 20. SO, WITHOUT INCREASING OR DECREASING YOUR BUILDING SIZE OR ANY OF THE SETBACKS OR WHATNOT YOUR STREET IS GOING TO BECOME ONLY 22 FEET WIDE.

WHICH I DON'T THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

>> COMMISSIONER: THE IMPLICATION OF THAT EXTRA 2

FEET. >> COMMISSIONER: 4 FEET.

>> SPEAKER: THE DOWNSIDE IS IT COMES OUT OF THE BUILDING AND ONE OF THE REASONS THESE INFILL SITES SIT VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED AND COME DERELICT EYESORES AT TIMES IS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHALLENGED TO DEVELOP. THEY ARE NOT INEXPENSIVE AND IN THIS REAL ESTATE BUSINESS EVERY SQUARE FOOT IS MEANINGFUL. IF YOU TAKE 2 FEET OFF THE NORTH AND 2 FEET OFF THE SOUTH AND EAST SIDE IT KNOCKS OFF ABOUT 3000 FT.? WHICH THEY NOT SEEM LIKE MUCH. AND IN A REAL ESTATE PERFORMA IT HAS A MATERIAL IMPACT. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO DEVELOP PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT FUNCTIONAL. WE FEEL THE PARKING SPACE IS THE CURRENT STANDARD SPACE. AND IN THE ORDINANCE THEY ARE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT. I LIVE IN WESTERN CANADA AND WE HAVE TRUCKS AS PWELL AND PEOPLE WHO DRIVE TRUCKS BUT NOT EVERYBODY DOES AND NOT EVERY PARKING LOT IS A PROBLEM. HONESTLY A LOT OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS FRANKLY YOU DON'T EITHER PARKING LOTS THAT FULL. A LOT OF THE TIME. I DO QUESTION THE NEED FOR THE OVERSIZED PARKING STALL.

ESPECIALLY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IT HAS A MATERIAL IMPACT ON THE ECONOMICS OF DEVELOPMENT. AND THERE'S NO IT OTHER WAY TO SAY IT BUT IT DOES.

>> COMMISSIONER: I GUESS YOUR ANSWER IS COMES OUT OF THE

BUILDING? >> COMMISSIONER:

>> SPEAKER: THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER OPTION SO YES. YOU ALSO HAD ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE EASEMENT OF THE PROPERTY? IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE EASEMENT WHEN THE PROPERTIES WERE PLATTED AND THAT WOULD BE AN EDGE ON THAT PROPERTY. THERE'S NOTHING PHYSICAL IN THAT EASEMENT AREA AND WE WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO SPEAK TO ALL THE POTENTIAL 'S UTILITY COMPANIES BOTH CITY AND PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES THAT THEY HAVE HAD AN INTEREST IN THAT THEY ALL INDICATED THERE WAS NO INFRASTRUCTURE AND NO REQUIREMENT FOR IT IN THE FUTURE AND IF THERE WAS WE WOULD HAVE REROUTED IT AROUND THE BUILDING BUT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE GROUP. SO WE DRILLED DOWN TO IT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN'T PUT A BUILDING ON TOP OF IT AND IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR US TO FIGURE

IT OUT IN THE PROCESS. >> COMMISSIONER: I UNDERSTAND AND I JUST ASKED BECAUSE IT IS PRESENTED TO US AND WE HAD NOT TALKED TO ANY AGILITY COMPANY. IF REMOVING TREES BECAUSE WE HAVE UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY SET IS A BIG TO ME WELL ARE WE GOING TO MOVE THE BUILDING? IT'S THE ONLY REASON I BROUGHT

IT UP. THANK YOU. >> CHAIR: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU ALL. >> CHAIR: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO AT THIS TIME I WILL FORMALLY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE IS ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT PTHAT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND OR COME ON UP. YES, I'VE GOT ONE.

>> SPEAKER: MY NAME IS RAY EGGS AND I RESIDE AT.ADDRESS]. IN WATERVIEW. I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF ROWLETT FOR 54 YEARS. I AM THE OWNER OF THE FIRST ROWLETT CENTER.

I'D TILT IT, I BUILT ALL FOUR OF THE BUILDINGS AND WE ALSO SOLD ALL OF THE PROPERTY TO BRAHMS WHICH IS NO HUBBARDS. I

[01:45:01]

GO DOWN ANYTIME YOU WANT TO COME IN THE MORNING, COME DOWN THERE AND CHECK OUT THE CUL-DE-SAC AND YOU'VE GOT AT LEAST ONE OR TWO OR SOMETIMES 318 WHEELERS AND GUESS WHAT THEY ARE DOING? THEY'VE GOT FORKLIFTS THAT THEY ARE UNLOADING AND I HAVE HAD THAT LITTLE ALLEY THAT WE PUT IN IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A DEDICATED ALLEY WE PUT IT IN SO WE COULD HAVE ACCESS GOING INTO THE SHOPPING CENTER AT SOME POINT AND IT IS ALL TO PIECES. IT'S A PART OF THESE PEOPLE PROPERTY. WE STILL HAVE TRACK 1 WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE MY OFFICE BUILDING WE HAVE MEG'S ELECTRIC AND OFFICE WAREHOUSE AND CONSEQUENTLY I KNOW THE GUY VERY WELL AND HE WAS GOING TO PUT IN SOME THINGS LIKE WE HAVE WHICH IS INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. THE 2.6 ACRES WHICH THE 25 COMES OFF OF LAKEVIEW PARKWAY 25 FEET. THAT WAS A 2.6 ACRE THAT WE HAD WHICH WAS AN EXTENSION OF THE RETAIL. ONLY FIVE PERCENT RETAIL UP THERE JUST GO TAKE IT. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM I HAVE IS IT IS REALLY DANGEROUS. WE HAVE THE ONLY POST OFFICE IN TOWN THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC THAT COMES OFF OF ROWLETT ROAD RIGHT INTO IT AND THEN WE HAVE A DANCE STUDIO NEXT TO THAT.

WE HAVE A CHURCH RIGHT ACROSS WHICH THEY COME AND PARKIN MY PARKING LOT ON SUNDAY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PARKING AND AZ Z -

[01:50:14]

>> COMMISSIONER: I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO REZONE TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT PD DISTRICT FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT PD WITH THE BAY ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL C2 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THAT WE DO NOT WAVER ANY DETENTION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS TO THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF VEHICLE PARKING SPACES THAT NEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ROWLETT VIOLENT CODE AND NUMBER 3 THE WHEEL STOPS UTILIZED ON ALL PARKING SPACES ABUTTING THE BUILDING AND FOUR THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF THE SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER 18 WHEEL TRUCK COMING AND GOING FROM THE SITE. SO THEY SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN FOUR PER DAY.

>> CHAIR: WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> COMMISSIONER: SECOND. >> CHAIR: WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. MARK ENGEN. ALL IN FAVOR? DO WE NEED A SHOW OF HANDS? OKAY. LET'S DO A SHOW OF HANDS. I DID NOT VOTE. IT SAYS VOTED ON MINE. A SHOW OF HANDS? ALL IN FAVOR? AND THAT LOOKS UNANIMOUS. OKAY. MOVING ON TO ITEMS 4C. CONDUCT A

[4C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request to amend the Future Land Use Plan set forth in the Comprehensive Plan from “Estate Residential” to “Low Density Residential” for 3 contiguous parcels totaling approximately 21.45 acres. The property is situated west of Chiesa Road opposite Vernon Schrade Middle School, in the City of]

>> SPEAKER: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THIS WAS A REQUEST THAT WOULD AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM THE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL TO LOW-DENSITY DESIGNATION. WE WOULD WANT TO REITERATE AT LEAST THIS ONE TIME THAT THE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WOULD NOT CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. IT MERELY ADDRESSES ONE OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE MADE IN DISCUSSION POINTS THAT WERE MADE IF THERE IS A ZONING CHANGE WHICH THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE AWARE OF. HAVING DONE A NUMBER OF THOSE, WITH THAT, WE WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT SHOULD THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED THE NEXT STEP THEN WOULD BE TO PURSUE AND TO FILE FOR A ZONING REQUEST FOR A PLANT ELEMENT DISTRICT THAT WOULD BE FOR SUBDIVISION, SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THAT LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY. AND SO WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THE DETAILS OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WOULD ENTAIL. SO, FOR THE BACKGROUND ON THIS, THESE PARCELS, THIS PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPED PIER THE CURRENT ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY IS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SS 40 DISTRICT. THAT IS INTENDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE OF LOTS THAT ARE 40,000 FT.? GENERALLY SLIGHTLY LESS THAN AN ACRE OR MORE. WITH A MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT AREA OF AT LEAST 2400 FT.?. AGAIN, TO NOTE THE CONFERENCE APLAN OF ROWLETT 2020 SETS OUT THREE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BEING ESTATE RESIDENTIAL WHICH WOULD BE TYPIFIED BY LOT AREAS OF 20,000 FT.? AND ABOVE. LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH WOULD HAVE LOT AREAS BETWEEN 7000 AND 20,000 FT.? AND MEDIUM

[01:55:05]

>>> THE PROCESS FOR AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE WHICH SET FORTH THE GENERAL RULE BOOK THAT WE MUST FOLLOW FOR OUR OPERATIONS DOES NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC PROCESS SET OUT FOR AMENDING A CONFERENCE OF PLAN BEYOND THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN MUST BE ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY WHICH WOULD BE HERE IN ROWLETT AS THE CITY COUNCIL. THERE MUST BE AT LEAST ONE PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED WHERE OPPORTUNITY IS PGIVEN FOR PRESENTATION OF BOTH TESTIMONY AND WRITTEN EVIDENCE.

AND THIRDLY THAT THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IS REVIEWED THE PLANNING STAFF AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE PROCESS HERE IN ROWLETT DOES CONFORM TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AS WAY THAT THOSE THINGS COME FORWARD ARE THROUGH ZONING ACTIONS, ZONING REQUEST, ZONING CHANGE REQUEST SPECIAL USE PERMIT TYPES OF THINGS. SO WITH THOSE AS THE COMMISSION IS AWARE THERE ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS OF WHICH THIS IS ONE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HOLDS IN A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING SHOULDN'T MOVE FORWARD FOR COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL WOULD BE A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING HELD FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT WOULD HELP MAKE NEED THAT SECOND REQUIREMENT IN THE ABOVE LIST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS BEING CONDUCTED. THERE IS OF COURSE OPPORTUNITY FOR APPLICANTS TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AS WELL AS PUBLIC INPUT AND THAT ALSO HITS THAT SECOND PART THAT THERE IS AVAILABILITY FOR THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN FOR TESTIMONY AND WRITTEN EVIDENCE AND THEN THIRDLY WE AS THE STAFF BOTH REVIEW AND DO ANALYSIS THROUGH A STAFF REPORT AND PRESENTATION TO BOTH THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THAT. THAT AGAIN HITS THE PART OF THE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING STAFF AND YOURSELVES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO DO THAT AND THEN LASTLY THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THE ZONE CHANGE SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE IT IS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE WHICH INCLUDE THE STATEMENT THAT SAYS AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS REQUIRED OR AS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT. SO THEREFORE THE PROCESS THAT WE FOLLOW HERE IN ROWLETT DOES MEAN THE REQUIREMENT PER THE STATE CODE. AS SUCH WE WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN TYPICALLY HERE IN ROWLETT IS BASED UPON THE EXISTING LAND USE CONDITIONS WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA. ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE WE HAVE A BLOWUP OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CONTAINED WITHIN THE 2019 DATE TO THE ROWLETT 2020 PLAN AND LET ME TURN ON THE AREA. THIS IS IN THE GREEN SPECKLE LIGHT GREEN SPECKLE JUST THE ENTIRE AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR STATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF WHICH THIS ENTIRE AREA TOTALS 63 A HALF ACRES DID THE REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT IS MAKING WOULD BE TO AMEND JUST ABOUT 21 A HALF ACRES OR APPROXIMATELY A THIRD OF THIS AREA. OVERALL THERE ARE TO PARCELS WITHIN THIS AREA. THOUGH THE TWO ANYONE PARCELS THAT ARE NOT PART OF THIS REQUEST, 19 OF THOSE 21 PARCELS THE MINIMUM VOTING REQUIREMENT OF 40,000 FT.? AND SO THEY ARE AT LEAST 1 ACRE IN AREA. THE TWO REMAINING LOTS ARE APPROXIMATELY A HALF ACRE WHICH WOULD BE LIKELY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF GREATER THAN 20,000 FT.?. THE REMAINING LOT IS ABOUT .35 OF AN ACRE SO BE A THIRD OF AN ACRE AND THEREFORE IT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A STATE LOT AND BOTH OF THOSE LOTS AGAIN ARE NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CURRENT ZONING ENEMA LAND AREA ON THE. ALSO THE 21 PARCELS THAT ARE THERE, JUST OVER HALF OR 11 OF THOSE BASED ON OUR RESEARCH HAVE HOMES THAT

[02:00:03]

ANOTHER NOTE ON THIS BECAUSE PART OF OUR ZONING HAS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA I'M SORRY NOT JUST THE LOT AREA BUT DWELLING UNIT SIZE CURIOUSLY ALL OF THOSE HOMES HAVE A SIZE OF LESS THAN 2400 FT.? WHICH IS THE MINIMUM DWELLING AREA WITHIN THE SF 40 ZONE. THEREFORE, AGAIN, TO PUT THAT OUT THERE, THAT LOTS AREA IS IN CONFORMANCE. THE DWELLING AREA SIZE DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE ZONING. HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IT REALLY ADDRESSES THE LOT SIZE AND NOT THE SIZE OF THE HOME. THEREFORE STAFF WOULD SUGGEST THIS DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ON LARGE ESTATE ACREAGE IS LONG-STANDING AND WELL ESTABLISHED WITHIN THAT AREA WHICH IS DESIGNATED FOR THE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. I CAN SEE SOME LOOKS OF CONFUSION. PERHAPS WE CAN DELVE MORE INTO THAT IF NECESSARY. FOR THE DISCUSSION POINTS, WE LOOKED AT WITHIN THE CODE THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE LOOK AT FOR A ZONING CHANGE SINCE WE TYPICALLY GET THESE THINGS WITH ZONING CHANGES USE THOSE AS OUR ANALYSISPOINT AS WELL. NOT ALL OF THEM JUST THE ONES THAT ARE TYPICALLY ADDRESSING THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN ISSUE AS WELL AS SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT A PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS ANTICIPATED FOR THIS SITE WOULD HAVE. SO THE QUESTION IS TO WHETHER THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONFERENCE OF LAND LAND USE PLAN WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS OR IMPACTS UPON THE OTHER PROPERTY IN THE AREA OF THE SUBJECT TRACT. AGAIN THE AREA IS PRIMARILY SINGLE-FAMILY IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD NOT CHANGE THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR. HOWEVER WE WOULD STATE THAT THE PREDOMINANT PATTERN IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY IS LARGELY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON THE ACREAGE TO THE NORTH AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH DO COMPOSE THE REMAINDER OF THIS AREA DESIGNATED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR STATE RESIDENTIAL. SO CHANGING THIS SECTION OF THAT WOULD PUT THIS DEVELOPMENT IN CONFLICT WITH THE PREDOMINANT LAND-USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA. ALSO BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU AND ALSO IT IS TYPICAL WITH ANYTHING LIKE THE PREVIOUS CASE THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED IF THERE WERE TO BE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN PUT FORWARD AND APPROVED ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF COURSE WE DO REVIEW THOSE THINGS FOR THEIR SPECIFIC IMPACTS BUT WOULD AGAIN STIPULATE THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT UPON THIS PROPERTY WOULD INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER, STORMWATER, TRAFFIC AND IMPACTS

TO INFRASTRUCTURE. >> COMMISSIONER: COULD YOU DO ME A BIG FAVOR? RUN THIS BACK BY ME BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT IF WE CHANGE THIS ZONING IN ANTICIPATION OF APD THAT COMES IN WITH LOW DENSITY HOUSING THAT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROPERTIES NORTH AND SOUTH OF IT?

>> SPEAKER: NO, TO THE NORTH AND WEST.

>> COMMISSIONER: THERE IS NOTHING WEST BUT A LAKE.

>> SPEAKER: NOT EXACTLY. THERE ARE THREE HOMES THAT ARE

DEVELOPED TO THE WEST. >> COMMISSIONER: OKAY, TO THE WEST BUT SOUTH OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS SF SEVEN?

>> SPEAKER: CORRECT AS YOU CAN SEE I'M NOT RECALLING WHAT THE EXACT ZONING IS BUT KNOWING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DOES GENERALLY REFLECT WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT AFTER YOUR PAID YOU CAN

[02:05:03]

>> COMMISSIONER: WHEN YOU SAY IT WILL BE IN CONFLICT WERE TALKING ABOUT THE 3 TO 5 PROPERTIES?

>> SPEAKER: THE 35 PROPERTIES THAT THEY ARE LOOKING TO CARVE OUT OF THIS SPECKLED GREEN AREA THE CONTINUOUS AREA. YES.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. FOR THE GOOD WORD.

>>> SECONDLY THE ANALYSIS WE WOULD LIKE TO TOUCH ON IS THE SUITABILITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE EXISTING PROJECTED FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF STATE RESIDENTIAL COMPARED WITH THE PROPOSED LOW DENSITY ON THERE.

AGAIN, WE WOULD SAY THAT THE EXISTING CLASSIFICATION WAS STATE RESIDENTIAL INTENDED FOR LARGE LOTS AND FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE DOES ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN WITHIN THIS AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR STATE RESIDENTIAL THIS ENTIRE 63 ACRES. THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE THE PRIMARY DAILY LND-USE TO THE SOUTH AND NORTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE WHICH I JUST WENT OVER AND AGAIN WE WOULD SAY THE STAFF WOULD SAY IT'S NOT ENTIRELY UNSUITABLE FOR US TO CONSIDER AN INCREASED DENSITY ON THIS SITE BUT WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AND WHAT WOULD SET FORWARD TO SUGGEST THAT WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE AND PREMATURE TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THIS PIECEMEAL AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AS IT WOULD COMPROMISE THE STATE RESIDENTIAL USES WHICH ARE IN THE AREA ON NEARBY PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE REMAINING ACREAGE PARCELS THAT DO NOT HAVE HOMES IN THIS SECTION OF PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF CHEESE ELITE CHEISA ROAD.

AND WE WOULD CONSULT THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 62 A HALF ACRE AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR STATE RESIDENTIAL USE RATHER THAN TO DO JUST A PIECEMEAL AMENDMENT TO THESE THREE PROPERTIES. ALSO WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN IS A BREAKDOWN OF THE ENTIRE CITY ACREAGE THAT IS PROJECTED FOR THE VARIOUS LAND-USE TYPES. SO ON THIS CHART HERE ON THE RIGHT YES, IT HAS BEEN PROBABLY FIVE YEARS SINCE THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED THINGS HAVE CHANGED OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS AS TO WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN WOULD ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE BUT IT IS CLOSE ENOUGH FOR WHAT OUR ANALYSIS IS IN HERE WHICH HAS NOT CHANGED SO SIGNIFICANTLY THAT THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS WHAT THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION TO ON THE SITE IS THE PREDOMINANT LAND-USE IN THE CITY CURRENTLY AND PROJECTED INTO THE FUTURE AT ABOUT 38.8 PERCENT OF THE CITY. STATE RESIDENTIAL IS SECOND ON THAT LIST BUT IT IS STILL JUST ONE THIRD OF THAT AMOUNT. JUST OVER 12 PERCENT. STAFF WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE SHOULD BE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF LAND DESIGNATED FOR A STATE RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD ASSURE BOTH THE BALANCE GOING FORWARD OR CONTINUING THAT BALANCE THAT WE HAVE FOR THE HOUSING OPTIONS AND BOTH LOT SIZES AND HOME SIZES THAT WE

HAVE HERE WITHIN THE CITY. >>> ALSO TO BE SURE THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ENSURE THE FUTURE USES ON-SITE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE ON SCALE WITH USES ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT TRACT. AGAIN TO TOUCH UPON THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST AND THE NORTH ARE DEVELOPED WITH LARGE LOTS AND FAMILY RESIDENCES OR BECAUSE OF THEIR CONFIGURATION IF THERE IS NOT HOME DEVELOPED THEIR THAT IS THERE WELL SUITED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ESTATE SIZED HOMES ON ESTATE PSIZE LOT. DESIGNATING THE SUBJECT TRACKS OUT OF THIS

[02:10:05]

WITHIN THE 62 ACRES. >>> LASTLY WITH THAT WE LOOK AT THE SUPPLY OF LAND OVERALL AND AGAIN THIS TOUCHES BACK UPON THE PREVIOUS POINT AGAIN THAT SHOULD THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED IT WOULDN'T REALLY INCREASE THE LAND DESIGNATED FOR STATE RESIDENTIAL USE AND ALSO ADD TO WHAT IS ALREADY THE PREDOMINANT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY THAN THE CITY BEING THE LOW DENSITY ON THERE. THE SECOND PART TO THIS DOES AGAIN TOUCH UPON WHAT THE DEMAND IS. IT IS HARD FOR US, IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO STAND UP HERE AND STATE THAT THERE IS NOT A VERY STRONG DEMAND FOR MOREDENSE SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS HERE IN ROWLETT. AND YOU ARE PROBABLY THE LARGEST OF THE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WE NEED TO SAY THAT TO THE LEAST BECAUSE WE HEAR THOSE REQUESTS OFTEN TIMES BUT WE WILL ALSO REITERATE WE RECOMMEND THAT THERE SHOULD BE A COMPLETE REVIEW OF THIS ENTIRE 62 ACRES BEFORE THERE WOULD BE ANY CHANGE CONSIDERED TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A REZONING REQUEST. HOWEVER HE FELT THAT THE APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION WAS TO NOTIFY AS IF IT WERE A REZONING REQUEST AND SO THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD THEIR RIGHTS TO BE INFORMED AND PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS PROTECTED AND RESPECTED. THEREFORE WE DID NOTIFY FOR THIS AND THAT WAS BACK ON MAY 25. THERE WERE 44 NOTICES DOUBT PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET. THERE WAS ONE NOTICE THAT WAS SENT BACK IN OPPOSITION. CHARACTERIZING THE IMPACT THAT THERE WOULD BE ON TRAFFIC AND TO THE EXISTING QUALITY-OF-LIFE IN THE AREA AND THERE WAS 48 NOTICES SENT OUT TO PROPERTIES WITHIN 500 FEET AND WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES FROM ANY OF THOSE OWNERS. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR THE DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM A STATE RESIDENTIAL TO LOAD AND THE RESIDENTIAL. AGAIN WE BELIEVE THIS PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION CHANGE IS NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN OF THE LARGER LOTS WITHIN THIS 62 A HALF ACRE AREA. WE ARE AGAIN RELUCTANT TO RECOMMEND A PIECEMEAL AMENDMENT TO THIS AREA AND WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE MORE APPROPRIATE STEP SHOULD THERE BE A DESIRE TO CONSIDER CHANGING THIS WOULD BE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ALL THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS 62 A HALF ACRE AREA IN CONSULTATION WITH ALL OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS. WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE THIS EVENING AND HE IS PREPARED WITH BOTH A PRESENTATION AND ALSO TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> CHAIR: THANK YOU ALEX COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR

THE RECORD AND THERE WE GO. >> SPEAKER: EVENING COMMISSIONERS. IT SEEMS LIKE I'M ALWAYS HANDICAP TO GET TO THE LAST OF THE MEETING, I'M THE LASTPERSON AND I KNOW EVERYONE GETS TIRED OF THE RHETORIC AND TALK. I WILL KEEP IT AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE. MY NAME IS ROBERT LACROIX, 23 YEARS. TO QUALIFY WHO I AM AS FAR AS I REPRESENT THE OWNER. IT IS A COMPANY AND THE OWNERSHIP IS BASED OUT OF CANADA AND THEY HAVE OWNED 21 ACRES. THEY CONTACTED ME PRIMARILY BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN A LONGTIME PLANNER IN THIS AREA.

I WAS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT FOR 15 YEARS. I WAS PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF HEATH AND INTERIM PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FATE AND PLANNING GEORGIA FOR THE CITY OF MOUNT PLEASANT. I'VE BEEN THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF LORENA AND DOWN SOUTH OF WACO CURRENTLY AS A CONSULTANT PLANNER IS WHAT I DO. I'M STILL DOING IT. I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH LONGER I WILL DO IT BUT I BEEN DOING IT POSTED 40 YEARS. I HAVE A LOT OF

[02:15:01]

I SUGGESTED TO THE OWNER THAT WE DO SOMETHING LIKE WE DID IN ROCKWELL WHICH IS HAVE A MIX. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A CHARACTER OF BIGGER LOTS, LARGER LOTS THAT NEED TO BE THERE SO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT WE HAVE PRODUCED A CONCEPT PLAN THAT WE CAN SHOW YOU IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT TONIGHT THAT THE STAFF DID NOT WANT TO SHOW IT TO YOU IN THE PRESENTATION THAT I DO HAVE COPIES OF IT IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT. WHAT WE INTEND TO DO IS TO TAKE THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROJECT AND DO ARCHER LOTS 15,000 FT.? OR LARGER AND FILTER THEM DOWN WHERE WE HAVE OPEN SPACE GOING INTO THE PROJECT TO CREATE THE OPEN SPACE WE CREATE A MIX OF LOT SIZES AND OPEN IT UP TO WHERE IT OPENS UP TO A PARK WHERE IT IS DOWN IN THAT INTERSECTION AND THERE'S A TRAIL SYSTEM THAT GOES TO THAT ELEMENT. HOW IT AFFECTS THOSE BACK PROPERTIES, THERE IS AN ISSUE THERE, TOO. THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY IN THE FRONT THE ONLY ACCESS THAT THOSE PEOPLE HAVE IN THE BACK IS THROUGH THIS PERSON THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY. IT IS HIS ACCESS. IT IS AN EASEMENT BUT THEY GO THROUGH HIS PROPERTY TO GET THROUGH THE BACK ON THE LAKESIDE. THAT'S THE NUMBER 1 BIG ISSUE. HOW DO WE RESOLVE THAT? IF WE CAN GET TO A DENSITY LEVEL AND FOR STRUCTURE, THIS OWNER CAN GO BACK THERE AND PUT A PAVED ROAD TO ACTUALLY BECOME ON THE EASEMENT WE DESIGNED IT THAT WAY WE DON'T TAKE ANY EASEMENT AWAY FROM THE FOLKS THAT HAVE PAVED ACCESS INTO THEIR PROPERTY. WE WOULD SCREEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OR TO SCREEN THE THINGS THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR THOSE PROPERTIES WE WOULD DO SUBSTANTIAL SCREENING. LET'S SEE IF I CAN MOVE OVER A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.

THESE ARE JUST SOME THINGS THAT ALEX HAS GONE OVER REGARDING THE DIFFERENT THINGS. I WANT TO SHOW YOU THIS PICTURE. THIS GIVES YOU A BETTER FEEL FOR EXACTLY HOW DENSE THIS AREA IS ALREADY AND THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE TO THE NORTH IF YOU GO EVEN FURTHER TO THE NORTH 62 ACRES IF YOU GO TO THE NORTH THERE IS A MOBILE HOME PARK THAT IS BEEN THERE I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY YEARS BUT IT IS VERY DENSE. THERE ARE ISSUES WITH THAT AS THESE PROPERTIES AGE OUT AND I HAVE SEEN THIS IN

[02:20:06]

HONESTLY THERE IS A POINT WHERE THESE HOMES WILL AGE OUT AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE TERRY DOWNS. OBVIOUSLY THE MARKET VALUE FOR THE PROPERTY WILL BE WORTH MORE THAN THE HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY. I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT IN THERE SOME OTHER ISSUES THERE ARE SOME BUSINESSES GOING ON IN THE PROPERTY OR YOU CAN TELL THEY ARE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE PROPERTIES AND CONDUCTING BUSINESSES ON THE PROPERTY IN SF 40 WHICH IS PROBABLY I'M NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD GO AND LOOK AT IT NECESSARILY BUT I CAN TELL THERE'S OTHER THINGS GOING ON IN THE PROPERTY. THERE IS A MOBILE HOME PARK AS WE SAID UP THERE AND AS THESE PROPERTIES BECOME MORE VALUABLE AND THE LANDS IN THIS AREA IS MOVING PEAST CONSISTENTLY. THE DEVELOPMENT IS MOVING UP TOWARDS GREENVILLE THAT'S HOW WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS TO I 30 AND THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT COMING INTO DALLAS IS MOVING IN TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS IT'S MOVING EAST, NORTH TO FRISCO BUT DEFINITELY MOVING EAST AND WE ARE GOING TO GET MORE PUSH AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HIGH DENSITY. I KNOW ROWLETT HAS ALLOWED A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF APARTMENT. THERE'S NO INTENT FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED THAT WAY BUT I WILL TELL YOU ONE THING IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP A LOW-DENSITY HIGHER VALUED HIGH-QUALITY DEVELOPMENT THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT SURROUND THE REST OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT WILL INCREASE THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY SUBSTANTIALLY.

LET ME GET BACK TO WHY THIS WILL HAPPEN. THERE IS NO SEWER CAPACITY TO ANY OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT GOES OUT THERE RIGHT NOW. THE CITY HAS INDICATED TO US THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF I BUILD ONE HOUSE IN THE 21 ACRES I HAVE TO CREATE THE SEWER CAPACITY. IT'S A 15 INCH VICTOR FIVE CLAY LINE THAT'S IN THERE BUBBLY FROM THE 70S ARE OLDER I DON'T KNOW HOW OLD THAT LINE IS BUT THERE'S NO CAPACITY IN THE SEWER RIGHT NOW. SO ANYTHING THAT GETS BUILT THAT .5 ACRE TRACK IF THEY COME IN AND ASK FOR CONSTRUCTION THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET SEWER IN THERE. THE COST OF SEWER RIGHT NOW THE OWNERS ESTIMATED IT, IT IS $1 MILLION.

IF NOT MORE. I WILL TELL YOU KNOW THAT I HAVE WORKED IN RURAL CITIES AND DOING THESE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THOSE NUMBERS ARE THERE ONE DAY AND NEXT DAY 30 PERCENT HIGHER IN TRYING TO PUT IN SEWER OR WATER WHATEVER THE INFRASTRUCTURE MIGHT BE. THE REASON WE TOOK THIS APPROACH TO COME TO YOU TONIGHT TO ASK THIS QUESTION IS I THINK YOU ARE REASONABLE FOLKS THAT CAN THINK THROUGH THIS. I KNOW THE STAFF HAS THEIR OPINION AND I DO AGREE. I DO DISAGREE THAT THE PIECEMEAL APPROACH THAT THEY ARE SUGGESTING BECAUSE YOUR PROCESS OF ZONING IF IT DOESN'T COORDINATE WITH THE LAND USE

[02:25:01]

LESS THAN THREE UNITS PER ACRE I THINK WE CAN ACTUALLY GET THE FUNDAMENTAL PRICE TO LOOK TO PUT THE SEWER IN AND WE CAN DO A HIKE ALL THE THING. AGAIN IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE CONCEPT PLAN I DON'T WANT THE STAFF TO GET UPSET WITH ME BUT I WOULD BE GLAD TO GIVE YOU A COPY RIGHT HERE IF YOU WANT TO ACCEPT IT AND I WILL HANDED OUT TO YOU BUT THAT IS UP TO YOU.

ADAM CHAIRMAN IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT I WOULD BE GLAD TO

GIVE IT TO YOU. >> CHAIR: MISSIONARIES, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THIS QUIET ALL NIGHT. NOT EVEN YOU JOHN?

>> COMMISSIONER: MY QUESTION WOULD BE MORE FOR THE STAFF.

THAT IS, THE SEWER LINE THAT THE APPLICANT IS TALKING ABOUT, WHO ELSE DOES THAT SERVE? AND WHAT DOES THAT SERVE? WHICH

WAY IS IT FLOWING? [LAUGHTER] >> SPEAKER: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHERE IT COMES FROM BUT IT IS FLOWING ALONG THE SHORELINE AND IT GOES TO THE RIGHT. I WANT TO SAY IT IS THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN? IT IS THE EASTSIDE OF STATION.

>> COMMISSIONER: IT COLLECTS SEWER FROM?

>> SPEAKER: I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER WHAT SIZE IT IS. 15? IT IS 15 OKAY. IT IS A FAIRLY GOOD TRUNK MEAN. I HAVE IT LOCKED. IT HAS BEEN MANY MONTHS SINCE I LOOKED AT THIS.

>> COMMISSIONER: WHEN IT GETS TO THE STATION IT IS EXTREMELY DEEP. THE COST TO DO THAT AND ABOUT THE TIME YOU GET TO THE

STATION IT GETS WAY DEEP. >> SPEAKER: I REMEMBER IT IS PRETTY DEEP. IT LOOKS -LET'S SEE IF I CAN SEE THIS.

[02:30:10]

>> COMMISSIONER: WHAT IS THE DEPTH OF THE SEWER LINE ON THE PROPERTY LINE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? WHAT IS THE DEPTH ON THE SEWER LINE OF THE PROPERTY ARE TALKING ABOUT?

>> COMMISSIONER: THERE'S NO SEWER LINE THERE.

>> COMMISSIONER: THERE'S NO CAPACITY IN THAT LINE. ZERO.

>> SPEAKER: IT IS UNDERSIZED FOR WHAT IT'S SERVING RIGHT NOW AND THAT IS WHY NOBODY CAN BUILD AND ADD TO IT.

>> COMMISSIONER: IF NO ONE CAN BUILD OR ADD TO IT OR REPLACE IT WITH A LARGER LINE I MEAN - IF THERE IS NO CAPACITY WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO TRY TO PUT YOUR SEWER LINE AT?

>> SPEAKER: WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION, THEY HAVE BEEN CONSULTED WITH ENGINEERS FROM THE CITY THE CIP PERSON.

IS THAT KIMBERLY HORN? WHOEVER THE PERSON WAS. WAS IT YOU? I WAS TOLD WE HAVE TO CALL SOMEBODY.

>> COMMISSIONER: OUR SEWER CONSULTANT?

>> SPEAKER: YES THERE IS A CONSULTANT THAT I NEEDED TO CALL AND TALK TO ON WHETHER OR NOT WHAT COULD BE DONE OUT THERE. YOU EITHER PUT A PARALLEL LINE IN OR WE REPLACE THE EXISTING LINE TO A LARGER LINE. I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHAT THAT SIZE WILL BE BUT WE COULD PUT A PARALLEL 15 BUT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GET YOHNKE THE CAPACITY OR DOUBLE THE

CAPACITY ESSENTIALLY. >> SPEAKER: WERE TALKING IF YOU PUT A PARALLEL LINE YOU HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO

THE LIFT STATION. >> SPEAKER: ABSOLUTELY.

>> COMMISSIONER: EVEN THE LARGER LINE YOU WOULD HAVE TO

DO THAT. >> SPEAKER: ABSOLUTELY.

>> COMMISSIONER: YOU ARE WILLING TO FOOT THE BILL? IF

WE GET THE LOW DENSITY? >> SPEAKER: IF WE GET TO A LOT SIZE WHERE WE CAN DO THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THERE'S WAYS TO DO THAT. AND THE APPLICANT HAVE TO FRONT SOME OF THE COST, THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT BUT THERE MAY BE A WAY TO SHARE THE COST WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS. BUT WHAT THAT IS IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO THAT THE INVESTMENT THE STREETS THE INFRA STRUCTURE THE QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT IS EXTREMELY HIGH.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUT CHEAP DEVELOPMENT IN THERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE HIGHER DEVELOPMENT AND IT WILL BRING THE COST OF A LOT OF. YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT IS WAY FAR BETTER THAN WHAT IS OUT THERE NOW AND THAT'S WHY I POINTED OUT TO YOU. WHAT'S OUT THERE NOW IS NOT ADDING VALUE TO THE CITY. THE ABILITY TO GET THAT SEWER LINE IN THERE IT WILL INCREASE THE VALUE OF ALL THAT PROPERTY OUT THERE AND CAUSE THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP. WHETHER IT IS - RIGHT NOW YOU'VE GOT WHAT I CALL A THUMB. YOU GOT THE ZONING AT SF 40.

IF YOU ELECT NOT TO ZONE IT IT IS STILL FINE BUT IF YOU CHANGE THE LAND USE IT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO COME BACK AND WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH YOU ALL AND GET TO SOME KIND OF DENSITY THAT YOU ARE HAPPY WITH THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE INTENDED AND GETS THE SEWER LINE PUT IN. BUT IF WE GET STYMIED AT THIS POINT THIS IS THE SUGGESTION I HAD FOR THE OWNER. WE CANNOT COME IN AND SPEND HONESTLY IT COST $30,000 TO DO A ZONING CASE HERE IN ROWLETT. THE INITIAL APPLICATION IS $3800 AND THAT DOESN'T COVER TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OR DRAINAGE STUDIES IS PROBABLY THE $2000 TO GET A ZONING CASE THROUGH. IT DOES MAKE SENSE THAT WE HAVE NO DIRECTION TO COME TO YOU ALL WITHOUT SOME KIND OF DIRECTION BUT WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO ME IF YOUR ON-SCREEN ANSWER PLAN DOES NOT ALLOW THE FIRST THING OUT THE DOOR IS THAT YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE PLAN SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO? WE WANT TO TAKE THE STEP TO GET IN FRONT OF YOU AND GET THE QUESTION ANSWERED AND GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DECISION AND IF IT'S NOT THAT WAY IT DOESN'T HAPPEN BUT IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR IT TO PHAPPEN SO IT'S UP TO ALL OF YO TO MAKE THAT DECISION. THANKS A BUNCH IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.

>> COMMISSIONER: I DON'T AND I APPRECIATE YOUR STANCE.

>> CHAIR: THANK YOU, SIR. GIVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ARE

APPLICANT? >>.

>> CHAIR: OKAY. THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD LET'S GO AHEAD AND PUBLICLY OPEN PUBLIC FORUM FOR THE ITEM. I DO HAVE A SPEAKER CARD. STANLEY POLLARD.

WOULD YOU COME UP AND SHARE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORDS?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: STANLEY POLLARD, BEEN HERE SINCE 89, 34 YEARS. I WAS ON P&Z FROM 95 TO 2005

[02:35:06]

ONE OF THEM BEING THAT CHEISA OR KHAZEI ROAD WHATEVER YOU WANT TO RUN WITH WAS SLATED TO STAY A TWO LANE ONE IN EACH DIRECTION FROM LIBERTY GROVE ALL THE WAY BACK DOWN TO THE 66 OR SO MANY YEARS. THE ONLY THING THAT GOT WIDENED IN THE INTERIM BETWEEN 2005 AND NOW IS THE FOUR LANES OF TWO DANDRIDGE WHERE HORTON PUT IN A SUBDIVISION ENDANGERED AND YOU'VE GOT TO REMEMBER THAT YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE WORTH AND SOUTHBOUND TO AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO A MIDDLE SCHOOL 9/12 PMONTHS THAT HANDLES TRAFFIC. UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING AFTER YOU TAKE OUT 20 PERCENT OF THE ACREAGE FOR YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD LEAVE YOU ENOUGH SPACE TO PUT ABOUT 18 LOT. ABOUT 36 CARS WHICH WOULDN'T IMPACT CHEISA VERY MUCH. WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR, TO GO TO THE LOW INTO DENSITY I WILL SAY THIS. THAT IS THE CRAZIEST THING THAT WE HAVE SEEN THAT ROWLETT 2020 WENT TO THE LOW DENSITY 20,000 LOTS ALL THE WAY TO SEVEN. THAT IS ALMOST A THREE TIMES DIFFERENCE. IF YOU WENT TO 21 IT WOULD BE THREE TIMES THAT YOU COULD GO THREE LOTS FOR EVERYONE DEPENDING ON HOW YOU SELECTS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LOT. ANYWAY, BE THAT AS IT MAY IF YOU GO THE LOW DENSITY THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING ULTIMATELY I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ZONING REQUEST. IF YOU GO FROM LOW DENSITY ZONING YOU ARE GOING TO GUARANTEE THAT YOU COULD HAVE 7000 SQUARE-FOOT LOTS FOR THE WHOLE THING AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. IF YOU WENT TO THE 7000 SQUARE-FOOT LOTS THAT'S PACKING AFTER YOU TAKE THE 20 PERCENT FACTOR OUT OF THERE. THAT IS PACKING 106 LOTS IN THERE INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT 18. IF YOU GO THE 2.93 THAT THEY ARE ASKING BASED ON THE 21+ ACRE LOTS YOU ARE ASKING FOR 50 LOT. HE'S MENTIONING 60. I DON'T CALCULATE IT AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE. I THINK HE IS CORRECT WHEN HE TELLS YOU THAT THERE IS A MONEY PROBLEM TO DO ALL OF THIS AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A NUMBER OF LOTS TO MAKE

THE EQUATION WORK. THANK YOU. >> CHAIR: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING WE WILL FORMALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONERS ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMENTS FROM ANYBODY MR. LOUIS

FRISBIE? >> COMMISSIONER: I DO HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF THIRD WHAT'S THE DESIGNATION OF CHEISA ROAD? ARE THEY PLAN TO ANYWHERE IN THE NEXT 5 TO 10 YEARS? FOR THAT SECTION SPECIFICALLY?

>> SPEAKER: I WILL SPEAK TO THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

IT IS A FOUR-LANE ROAD IN A, A LANE UNDIVIDED ROAD AND IT IS AN UNDIVIDED ROAD WITHIN A 65 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH IS WHAT CHEISA IS ON THE THOROUGHFARE. I WILL LET JEFF SPEAK TO WHERE IT MIGHT LIGHT AND THE PRIORITY LIST OF IMPROVEMENTS.

>> COMMISSIONER: FOUR-LANE UNDIVIDED?

>> COMMISSIONER: IT IS NOT ON THE RADAR AT THIS TIME. MOST

[02:40:04]

>> SPEAKER: THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SINCE WERE LOOKING AT BIG PICTURE STUFF I THOUGHT WE NEEDED TO HAVE A CLUE ON THAT.

A QUESTION WELL, I WILL SAY FOR THE OWNERS AND REPRESENTATIVES I APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT AND GIVING US YOUR FEEDBACK AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT WE ARE IN AS A COMMUNITY.

ON THE ONE HAND WE'VE GOT OUR STAFF THAT IS TRYING TO THINK GLOBALLY AND PROTECT OUR INTERESTS HERE AND ON THE OTHER HAND WE'VE GOT A DEVELOPER THAT WOULD LIKE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS PROPERTY. TO MR. POLLARD, IS THAT RIGHT? MR. POLLARD! AND THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN IS THAT IT IS A PICTURE OF WHAT CAN BE AND WITHOUT HAVING A SPECIFIC PLAN, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WOULD BE FORMAL IN A WAY THAT CAN BE TURNED INTO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND I THINK THE PID WAS MENTIONED AS WELL. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE SEEING THAT. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPERS REPRESENTATIVE.

HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH ANY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE NORTH OR HAS YOUR CLIENT SPOKEN TO SOME OF THE OTHER LANDOWNERS AND WHAT THE POSSIBILITY OF THEIR VISION MIGHT BE FOR WHERE THEY SEE IT GOING LET'S SAY IN THE NEXT 5 TO 20 YEARS?

>> SPEAKER: I DON'T KNOW IF THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER I'M DEALING WITH HAS DONE THAT BUT IN THE INTERIM THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE DEVELOPERS THAT HAVE COME FORWARD WITH THE REQUEST THE CITY GATE I DID SPEAK WITH THE LAST DEVELOPER THAT CAME IN AND THEY HAD SPOKEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT SAT BEHIND IT THREE OR FOUR IN THE BACK. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD THE THREE IN THE BACK WERE NOT OPPOSED TO JOIN IN ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND OF COURSE IT'S ABOUT HOW MUCH VALUE THEY WILL GET THE PROPERTY BUT THEY TOLD THEM THERE WERE THREE OF THEM IN THE BACK THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO CONSIDER TO TAKE IT ALL DOWN AND GO AHEAD AND BUY ALL OF IT IN THE BACK EXCEPT FOR THE 21 ACRES AND DIVIDE THE LOTS IN THE BACK. THEY WERE NOT OPPOSED TO MAKE A DEAL WORK FOR THEMSELVES TO GO AHEAD AND SELL THE PROPERTY. THAT TELLS ME THERE IS AN ATTITUDE THAT IF SOME DEVELOPMENT COMES OR THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO SELL THE PROPERTY AT THE RIGHT PRICE. THAT'S THE ONLY POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE TO YOU IS THAT AND IT STARTS HAPPENING SOMEBODY IS GOING TO START TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY AGE OUT THERE GOING TO WANT TO SELL THE

PROPERTY. >> COMMISSIONER: SO THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE TO THE WEST. NOW, PTO THE NORTH I GUESS THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN ENIGMA. I CAN SEE WHY THE PEOPLE ON THE WEST WOULD WANT TO HAVE AN IMPROVED ACCESS POINT IF A RIGHT NOW ALL THEY HAVE IS THE EQUIVALENT TO A DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS THE PROPERTIES. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE IT WOULD BE NICE FOR THEM TO HAVE A PAVED IMPROVED URBAN ROADWAY TO GET TO THAT PROPERTY. AND THE POINT WAS MADE THAT BY LAW THEY HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, IT HAS TO BE MAINTAINED LEGALLY. TO BE HONEST WITH YOU I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH THIS THING. I AM KIND OF TORN. I'M LISTENING. CLUE ME IN TO WHAT YOU THINK.

>> COMMISSIONER: I AGREE WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONER AND WHAT

HE'S SAYING. >> COMMISSIONER: IT IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION AND I KNOW THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DOING THEIR EMPTY FOR QUITE A WHILE AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE DO LEAVE IT AS FOR YOU THOUSAND AND IF THE DEVELOPER COMES IN AND SAYS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE LOTS AT 25,000 I DON'T THINK WE WOULD OBJECT. WE DON'T WANT TO GO INTO LOW DENSITY. WE WOULD

[02:45:06]

>> CHAIR: I CAN DEFINITELY SEE THE INFRASTRUCTURE COST BEING PROHIBITIVE IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH LOTS TO DEVELOP TO MAKE SOME MONEY. YOU DON'T WANT TO MESS WITH THE BIG HEART ACHE AND HEADACHE TO DO IT IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE A PROFIT.

SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT RATIO IS.

I DON'T REALLY LIKE THE LOW DENSITY EITHER ALTHOUGH THE WAY IT IS SURROUNDED BY THE SMALLER LOT, IT SEEMS LIKE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO GET SOME HAPPY MEDIUM WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO THE 7000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT. THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT. JOHN?

>> COMMISSIONER: I THINK TO BE HONEST WITH YOU IT IS A 40S BUT MR. SEAVER COULD PROBABLY TELL ME BETTER IS SELLING LIKE HOT CAKES TODAY. IT'S MORE OF THE SMALLER LOTS THAT ARE GOING.

TO BE HONEST WITH YOU CHANGING THIS TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH A 7000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT WOULD MAKE A COMMISERATE. IT WOULD MAKE IT COMMISERATE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND. MR. POLLICK BROUGHT UP THE PROBLEM CONCERNING TRAFFIC AND THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC IS ALL ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT SCHOOL AND ON THE WEST SIDE. ADDED TRAFFIC FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF CHEISA AND NOT ON DANDRIDGE. AND WITH THE IMPROVEMENT AND THE MERIT CONNECT THEIR THERE'S GOING TO BE ON THE RADAR IN THE CITY IN A MINUTE IN THE SECTION TO BRING IT UP TO FOUR LANES FROM WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW ON CHEISA TUMERIC TO MAKE AN ISELLE CORRIDOR. AND I DON'T SEE ANY REAL BIG PROBLEMS WITH GOING TO A LOW DENSITY AND WE MAKE IT CONTINGENT THAT THE SEWER LINE BE UPDATED TO THE LIFT STATION BECAUSE THAT IS NOT ANYTHING UNOFFICIAL FOR THE CITY. MUNAL

MULLIDAD? >> SPEAKER: MAN OBJECT? WE WANT TO STAY IN THE PURVIEW OF THE AMENDMENT. THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. AS WE TALK WE ARE SLOWLY READ GRAVITATING TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT PARAMETERS AND DIGITAL PROVISIONS WE WANT TO PUT ON A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT BECAUSE AGAIN THIS IS DIFFERENT.

>> COMMISSIONER: WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF WE CHANGE THE COMP PLAN THERE WON'T NECESSARILY BE A DEVELOPMENT UNLESS SOMETHING

HAPPENS WITH THE SEWER LINE. >> SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. WE KNOW THERE ARE INFO STRUCTURE OBLIGATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS TO ASSESS A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. YOU ALL KNOW THERE WILL BE THOSE COMPLICATIONS. THE ANALYSIS THAT IS BEEN CONDUCTED THUS FAR AND I WILL USE THE STAFF ANALYSIS IS TO PURELY ADDRESS WHETHER CARVING OUT A PIECE OF LAND AREA AND CHANGING THAT DESIGNATION IS APPROPRIATE OR SHOULD IT BE LOOKED UPON COMPREHENSIVELY TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT DENSITY OR COLOR CODING OF FUTURE LAND USE PLAN WILL LOOK LIKE. WE'VE ALL TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT INCLUDING THE DEVELOPER RAISING THE TOPIC OF WELL, PERHAPS DOING A PID OR DOING A PD WHICH WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT. SO,

[02:50:08]

>> COMMISSIONER: I UNDERSTAND. BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN TO COME BEFORE US WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND REQUEST FOR ZONING CHANGE IS IT GOING TO COST THE APPLICANT WHOLE LOT MORE WITH NO GUARANTEES VERSUS IN THIS PROCESS HE HAS AT LEAST SOME KNOWLEDGE THAT HE WOULD HAVE A BETTER ODDS AT GETTING APPROVAL ON HIS MONEY SPENT. FOR ALL OF THOSE STUDIES THAT HE HAS TO DO IN ORDER TO COME FORWARD.

>> SPEAKER: ON WHAT TYPE AND FORM OF ZONING APPLICATION THAT COMES FORWARD. AGAIN, WITH THIS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IF IT IS APPROVED AND THE EVALUATION OF THE ZONING CASE WILL BE LOOKED AT IN THE SURROUNDING NOT JUST THE BUILT IN ENVIRONMENT GRANTED THERE SOME LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES IN THE AREA AND IT ABSOLUTELY HAPPENS IN ANY AREA. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT. ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF WAS TO GET THE ENTIRE AREA COMPANY AND CIVILLY. BECAUSE BECAUSE OF THE INFO STRUCTURE PROGRAMMING IT MIGHT BE BETTER THE FUTURE ENVIRONMENT. AND IT HAPPENS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES AND THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE. IT'S ABSOLUTELY AN AVENUE YOU CAN CHOOSE AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE THERE WITH ANOTHER APPLICANT OR ZONING CHANGE WHICH WILL ASSESS THE APPLICATION.

>> COMMISSIONER: WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? THE THREE THAT LEAVES YOU WITH TWO OPTIONS TO EITHER APPROVE IT OR DISAPPROVE

IT. >> COMMISSIONER: OKAY. IN MY MINDS EYE, WHETHER IT IS THIS APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER APPLICANT ONE, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO WAIT FOR ANOTHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CYCLE TO ROLL AROUND UNTIL WE START LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT SF 40 IS AN ANTIQUATED ITEM JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE WHO WANT SF 40. WE GOT MORE AND MORE POPULATION AND NOT ANYMORE LAND. WE ARE JUST MOVING TO THE SMALLER ACREAGE AND SMALLER LOT SIZES. TO SIT HERE AND SAY WE SHOULD CHANGE THIS CONFERENCE A PLAN FOR THESE PARTICULAR LOT I DON'T THINK IS A PROBLEM. SO I WOULD

BE IN FAVOR. >> SPEAKER: SO THERE YOU GO.

>> CHAIR: LIKE I SAID, TAKING A LOOK AT THIS AND ALL THE CURRENT BUILD ZONING AROUND IT IS SMALLER LOTS. IN FROM THE

NORTH- >> COMMISSIONER: THE OTHER ITEM ON THAT, MISS LISA ESTEVEZ YOU SENT OUT NOTICES AND WE DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING BACK EXCEPT FOR ONE PERSON WHO IS WORRIED ABOUT TRAFFIC. EVERYONE ELSE IN THAT AREA IS EITHER NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION DOES NOT CARE.

>> CHAIR: MARK ENGEN DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? LOUIS FRISBIE?

>> COMMISSIONER: I AM SORRY I WILL MAKE IT BRIEF. I HAD A QUESTION TWO TH THE IMPLICATIONS ARE WHETHER WE APPROVE IT AND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE IF WE

DISAPPROVE IT. >> SPEAKER: MAY I ANSWER IT RECORDS? IF YOU DISAPPROVE THE REQUEST. IF YOU RECOMMEND UNFAVORABLY AND SHOULD COUNSEL NOT APPROVE THE REQUEST LET'S

[02:55:01]

ZONING. >> COMMISSIONER: I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD YOU WHEN YOU SAID TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE AREA, PRINCIPALLY. YOU WORKED TALKING BECAUSE ALEX KEPT SAYING THE 86 ACRES OR WHATEVER. BUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THIS SELECTED AREA YOU WANT TO LOOK AT FROM THIS STANDPOINT OF HAVING APD AVAILABLE ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE OR ARE YOU STILL SAYING THE WHOLE 86 ACRES?

>> SPEAKER: I WANT TO MAKE SURE I STAY WITHIN THE AGENDA ITEM AND I'M TRYING NOT TO STEP OUTSIDE OF THAT. IN TERMS OF THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT I BELIEVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO LOOK AT THAT ENTIRE SPECKLED AREA THAT ALEX SHARED ON THE MAP AND SAY LET'S LOOK AT THE WHOLE AREA, PRINCIPALLY IN TERMS OF IF WE ARE DISCUSSING AND ASSESSING THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT WOULD IT JUST BE THE THREE PROPERTIES OPPOSED TO THE ENTIRE 22 OR 21 PROPERTIES? THAT IS THE QUESTION AND THAT WAS THE STAFF'S CONCERN. NOW,

YES? >> COMMISSIONER: I THINK THE APPLICANT EVEN SAID THIS. WE LOOK AT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES AT THE MICROLEVEL ALL THE TIME. IS THERE A DIFFERENT

WITH THIS ONE? >> SPEAKER: APSLEY NOT. AGAIN I'M NOT GOING TO TALK TO ANY APPLICATION BUT WHEN THIS ONE COMES IN AT TIMES THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS ON EXPANDING THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE OR INCORPORATES TO ENSURE COHESIVENESS OR COMPATIBILITY.

IT'S A TWO-WAY STREET. YOU ASSESS THE 2A PLAN AND THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES WHERE IT MIGHT NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERENCE A PLAN AND YET THE BUILT IN ENVIRONMENT OR THE FUTURE ENVIRONMENT LINDSAY ITSELF TOWARDS AN AMENDMENT IN THE OPPOSITE DOES WORK THAT WAY, TOO. THE COMMISSIONER LOUIS FRISBIE DID I FINISH ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION?

>> COMMISSIONER: I INTERRUPTED MARK SO I DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOUR TIME IF THERE WAS A QUESTION. IF WE DECIDE TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AS PROPOSED THE OWNER WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BEFORE US WITH A

DETAILED CONCEPT PLAN? >> SPEAKER: NOT NECESSARILY.

>> COMMISSIONER: MAYBE THAT IS THE OUT. WOULD YOU CONSIDER APPROVING THIS MODIFICATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT A CONFERENCE OF CONCEPT PLAN IS PLACED BEFORE US AT THE TIME THAT ZONING IS REQUESTED. HE HAS TO COME BEFORE US TO

REQUEST ZONING, NO? >> SPEAKER: THIS IS AN

[03:00:02]

OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO ASK. >> COMMISSIONER: THE DISADVANTAGE IS WE ARE BEING ASKED FOR COMPLAINTS OF LAND-USE PLANNING WHICH IS A BIG PICTURE KIND OF EXERCISE OF WHICH WE ARE BEING ASKED TO ZONE IN AND LOOK AT SOMETHING IN PARTICULAR WITH THE IMPATIENS THAT THERE ARE ZONING DECISIONS THAT ARE GOING TO SPIN OFF OF THIS DOWNSTREAM.

WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO IS NOT HANDICAP EITHER THE OWNER OR YOU AS A PLANNING REVIEWER. AND AGAIN, PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE OF THAT. THAT IS A DISADVANTAGE THAT WE HAVE UP HERE IF YOU PUT YOURSELF IN OUR SHOES WE ARE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER SOMETHING AND DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS ANIMAL LOOK LIKE. WE ARE BEING TOLD THAT IT WILL HAVE A MIX OF THIS OR THAT BUT IF WE APPROVE IT THEN WE OPEN UP POTENTIALLY A CAN OF WORMS THAT THIS THING COULD COME IN WITH REALLY MUCH HIGHER DENSITY BECAUSE WE ARE APPROVING A RANGE OF APPLICATIONS, CORRECT? SO YOU SEE WHERE IT IS DIFFICULT FOR US SO ONLY WAY I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE IS TO SAY I WILL PAPPROVE IT THE CONDITION THAT IF YOU COME TO US WITH A ZONING CHANGE YOU'VE GOT TO COME IN WITH A VERY COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT.

>> CHAIR: WOULDN'T CONFERENCE OF CHANGE HAVE A MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM LOT SIZE? ISN'T REQUIRED TO HAVE THOSE?

>> SPEAKER: FOR SURE. DEBITING ON THE APPLICATION.

THE ZONING CATEGORY WOULD DICTATE THOSE SO IF THE APPLICANT CAME AND YOU SAW THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS THE ZONING CASE. AGAIN DEPENDING ON IF YOU ARE RECOMMENDED THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ACTED UPON FAVORABLY BY THE COUNCIL THEN YES, YOU HAVE GOT THOSE FEW ACRES THAT HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LOW-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS A RANGE ABSOLUTELY 70 TO 20,000 FEET IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. SO THAT BEING SAID, PERHAPS THROUGH THAT EVALUATION AND LAND-USE ASSESSMENT THE REMAINING AREA WOULD BE ASSESSED OR ADDRESSED IN TERMS OF WOULDN'T NEED TO BE MODIFIED OR NOT? YOU CAN TELL COMMISSIONER FRISBY SHYING AWAY FROM ANSWERING ZONING QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS REQUEST.

>> CHAIR: I GET IT. [LAUGHTER]

>> COMMISSIONER: TO ANSWER A CONCERN OF MR. FRISBY GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN TO CHANGE FROM A STATE TO LOW-DENSITY YOU ARE RIGHT. WERE GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING FROM 15 TO 7. SO AT LEAST BACK STOPPED AT THE 7000 WHICH HAPPENS TO BE WHAT A LOT OF THOSE HOMES IN THAT AREA RIGHT NOW. SO, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO COME IN AND SAY I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE YOU APD BASE IT ON SF FIVE THE SNOW GOING TO WORK BECAUSE IT IS LOW-DENSITY. NOT A HIGH DENSITY.

>> CHAIR: BUT WOULDN'T THOSE LOTS LIKE THE SF FIVE?

>> COMMISSIONER: SF SEVEN NOT SF FIVE.

>> CHAIR: I THOUGHT THAT WAS MORE LIKE 7000. OKAY. IN THAT CASE-ÁSPEAKER2Á AT LEAST IT WAS MENTIONED THE CHANGES YOU ARE PROPOSING ON THE NEW COMMISSION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU'RE GETTING THE SF SEVEN? YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH SF NINE OR SF EIGHT? SO IT WOULD STILL BE FIGURE.

>> COMMISSIONER: THE CHANGES WE WILL GET RID OF SF FIVE SIZES. AS THE SMALLEST LOT SIZE. IT IS GOING TO BE 7000

THAT NAMED SF ONE. >> COMMISSIONER: KNOW YOU

REALLY CONFUSED US. >> COMMISSIONER: RS ONE.

>> SPEAKER: THAT IS PURELY A DISCUSSION THAT THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP IS HAVING. AND SO, YOU HAVE AN EXISTING CODE IN PLACE.

>> CHAIR: ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? LOOK AT JOHN HE IS

[03:05:01]

READY. >> COMMISSIONER: ADAM CHAIRMAN I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AS SET FORTH IN THE RESIDENTIAL TOTALING PROXIMALLY 21.45 ACRES IN THE PROPERTY SITUATED TO THE WEST OF CHEISA ROAD OPPOSITE OF THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND CITY OF

ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> CHAIR: WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE ITEM DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> COMMISSIONER: I WOULD SECOND THAT.

>> CHAIR: HAVE A SECOND BY MR. TRAN 52. YOU READ IT JUST TO STATE IT? IS THAT RIGHT? YOU READ IT AS STATED? YES. IT IS LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. NOT HIDE IN CITY. LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AND, WE HAVE A SECOND AND WE WILL DO A RAISE OF HANDS? AT THIS TIME ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR-I AM

SORRY TO FRISBY? >> COMMISSIONER: FOR CLARIFICATION FROM HERE GOES TO COUNSEL AND THEY HAVE THE FINAL

DECISION. >> CHAIR: THEY MAKE A

RECOMMENDATION. >> COMMISSIONER: THAT'S CORRECT BUT I WANTED TO TED TO BE REMINDED PLEASE THE RULES REGARDING THE PERCENTAGES OF APPROVAL IF IT'S UNANIMOUS, THREE QUARTERS, SAY THAT AGAIN. THAT IS IMPORTANT. COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND CLARIFY. I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE RULES OF THE

GAME. >> SPEAKER: THE REQUEST IS NOT FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING IS FOR A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. FUTURE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. THE ZONING THERE IS A RULE OF A SUPER MAJORITY OF PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY OF CITY COUNCIL SHOULD THE REQUEST BE DENIED THEM TO ACT FAVORABLY UPON IT. SO THAT RULE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

>> COMMISSIONER: TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, IF THIS WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE, ULTIMATELY THE COUNCIL COULD STILL KICK THIS BACK? ALL RIGHT. IT IS IMPORTANT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WE DON'T TIE THE

COUNCIL'S HANDS. >> COMMISSIONER: IT'S NOT

ZONING. IT'S SIMPLE. >> CHAIR: ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. I HAVE SIX. ALL OPPOSED? ONE. THAT ITEM CARRIES.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.