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

YOU, BRIAN, FOR ALL OF YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE. GOOD LUCK IN THE FUTURE. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 5A. UPDATE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MANAGEMENT , FINANCIAL POSITION, MAJOR PROJECTS, OPERATIONAL ISSUES, UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST AND ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST. WH DID I GIVE THAT TO? COUNCILMEMBER ELISE BOWERS WIL BE PRESENTING THAT ITEM.

>> ALL RIGHT. -- WROTE WILL BE CLOSED FROM MILLER ROAD TO BAY HILL DRIVE FROM 7:00 A.M. UNTI 5:00 P.M. ON FRIDAY, JUNE 14TH, TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CEMETERY STORY LINE AS PART OF THE NEW ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT. THE DETOUR MAP IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. WEATHER PERMITTING, ALL LANES OF I-30 WILL BE CLOSED FROM 9:00 P.M. SATURDAY JULY 15 , THROUGH 11:00 A.M., SUNDAY, JULY 16TH. ACCESS FROM EASTBOUND I-30 WILL BE CLOSED A DELL ROCK ROAD. HOWEVER, WE WILL HAVE ACCESS TO NORTHBOUND DELL ROCK ROAD. ARE YOU LOOKIN FOR WAYS TO GET INVOLVED AND GET BACK TO THE COMMUNITY? IF SO, WE HAVE A SPOT FOR YOU. WE ARE LOOKING FOR A COMMITTED RESIDENT WILLING TO SHARE THEI EXPERTISE, EXPERIENCE, AND INSIGHT BY VOLUNTEERING TO SERVE ON A BOARD OR COMMISSION THE DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS I AUGUST 14TH. FINALLY, IT IS NO TOO LATE TO SIGN UP FOR THE LIBRARY SUMMER READING PROGRAM.

THERE ARE READING CHALLENGES FOR ALL AGES WITH THE DRIVER FOR FANTASTIC AND PRIZES . AN ELECTRIC GUITAR , A PLAYGROUND SET, SUPERHERO ACTION FIGURES. THE MORE YOU READ, THE GREATER YOUR CHANCE OF WINNING. IT IS A ROWLETT.COM/LIBRARY FOR MORE DETAILS BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THESE OR ANY OF THE OTHER GREAT THINGS GOING ON IN OUR CITY, PLEASE VISIT ROWLETT.COM OR GIVE THE ACTION CENTER A CALL AT 972412 SIX 100.

>> THANK YOU. AND NOW TIM HAS AN UPDATE.

>> YES, WHAT DO I HAVE TO TALK ABOUT? THE FEATURE FROM THE

[00:35:05]

ANIMAL SHELTER. THIS BEAUTIFUL GIRL IS CALLED AMES THAT SHE IS AROUND 4 1/2 YEARS OLD. SHE IS RARING TO GO ALL THE TIME. SHE IS ACTIVE IN HAS LOTS OF ENERGY AND SHE IS ABSOLUTELY GREAT WIT KIDS . WHAT MORE COULD YOU ASK? YOU PREFER TO BE A SOLO PUP AND SHE DOES NOT DO WELL WITH OTHERS. OH, THAT'S OKAY. WE AR NOT SURE ABOUT HER POSITION ON CATS AMES IS POTTY TRAINED, CRATERING, AND KNOWS BASIC COMMANDS. THAT IS MORE THAN SOM PEOPLE I KNOW. SHE LOVES TO PLA WITH STUFFED ANIMALS AND SHE LOVES CAR RIDES TO GET A PUP CU FROM STARBUCKS. REMEMBER ADOPTION INCLUDES SPAY NEUTER, MICROCHIP, AND UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION. INFORMATION ON AMES OR ANY OF THE OTHER ADOPTABLE ANIMALS, PLEASE CONTACT ANIMAL SERVICES AT 972-412-6219 , OR COME BY THE SHELTER AT 4402 INDUSTRIAL STREET. 10:00 A.M. UNTIL 5:00 P.M., TUESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.

I REALLY HATE TO SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD, BUT I AM GOING TO. OUR ANIMAL SHELTER IS STILL IN CODE RED. THIS MEANS, AS YO KNOW BY NOW, THAT ALL THE KENNELS ARE FILLED. IF YOU HAV BEEN TOSSING AROUND THE IDEA OF ADOPTION OF FOSTERING, THIS WOULD BE A GREAT TIME TO MAKE I HAPPEN. JUST GO DO IT. EVEN SPREADING THE WORD ABOUT OUR ANIMAL SHELTER AND ALL AVAILABLE ANIMALS WOULD HELP A GREAT DEAL. THANK YOU.

[6. CITIZENS’ INPUT]

OTHER UPDATES ? ALL RIGHT. WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 6, CITIZEN INPUT. THIS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE. PLEAS BE PREPARED TO SPEAK WHEN YOU REACH THE PODIUM.

>> OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS DAVID HALL OF ROWLETT.

>> THANK YOU. >> JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD AT TH TIME YOU START.

>> I WAS TOLD THAT THE CITIZEN -- WILL BE LIMITED. HERE'S MY ABBREVIATED VERSION. WORKING A PROGRAM AND GETTING ABOUT 30 VETERANS OUT THROUGH THE PROGRA AT THE PARK WITH OUR PROGRAMS. I'M WORKING WITH TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE TO PRODUCE A PROGRAM FEATURING OUR PROGRAMS AT THE BE SHOWN ON PBS DURING THE DPW DO YOU SHOW. AND I WOULD SUGGEST, I WOULD HOPE YOU WOULD NOT LIMITED CITIZEN INPUT. THA IS ONE OF THE WAYS WE GET TO TELL YOU WHAT IS GOING ON THE CITY . THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE

COUNCIL. >> THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER MANUALS OF ROWLETT. THEY MET THANK YOU. COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE AT THE TIME YOU START

>> MY NAME IS -- AND I AM A ROWLETT CITIZEN. 10 93. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK TONIGHT. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL. SO I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND HOW PERSONAL THIS TOPIC IS TO ME. IN MY OPINION, WHEN YOU LOOK AT SERVINGOUR ANIMALS, WE GO TO A PLACE THAT MAKES US BETTER PEOPLE. I LOVE THE CITY, BUT I'M SO DISAPPOINTED WITH WHAT I'M WITNESSING AT THE ANIMAL SHELTER. THEY NEED HELP. THEY NEED HELP. VOLUNTEERS, KNOWLEDGEABLE STAFF, AND DEFINITELY THE SUPPORT OF OUR CITIZENS. IS MY UNDERSTANDING, BASED ON MINUTES FROM THE ANIMA ADVISORY BOARD, THERE IS BEEN AN ONGOING DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NEED FOR RENOVATIONS OF OUR OUTSIDE KENNELS. IN APRIL , FINALLY, $30,000 WAS DEDICATED TO REDO THIS OUTSIDE PANEL . IT IS JULY. WHERE DID THIS INSTALL? WHERE ARE WE? THERE I NOTHING GOING ON. WE ASK CITIZEN TO DONATE TANGIBLES.

THEY SHOW UP BIG TIME. BUT WE NEED YOU TO STEP UP AS WELL. SO EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR -- DOG -- CAN ENJOY SAFE, SANITARY, AND A COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT. THE DRAINAGE DOES NOT WORK. THE TARP IS WORN OUT , AND THE FENCING IS IN TERRIBLE CONDITION. IT IS A DANGER TO THE DOGS. PLEASE HELP GET THIS BALL ROLLING AGAIN. ANOTHER BI AREA OF NEED IS MEDICAL EXPENSES. THEY ARE ASTONISHING BUT UNDERSTANDABLE. THE SHELTER HAS BEEN -- SINCE MARCH OF 22. THAT IS OVER A YEAR. ANIMALS AR BEING SURRENDERED, DUMPED, OR BROUGHT IN BY THE ACO'S THAT O

[00:40:02]

AN INCH OR THAT REQUIRE EXTENSIVE CARE. SOMETIMES, EVEN AMPUTATIONS. THE CONDITIONS OF OUTSIDE CATTLE ARE ALSO CONTRIBUTING TO MEDICAL HEALTH OF OUR ANIMALS BUT IT RAINS LIKE IT HAS BEEN THE LAST FEW DAYS, TWO, THREE INCHES OF WATER, ARE STANDING IN THOSE KENNELS OUTSIDE. WHEN THE GROUND IS SATURATED, BRINGS UP OLD PARASITES TO THE TOP LIKE HOOKWORMS AND POWERFUL. AND WITH WATER, OF COURSE, WE HAVE HEART WORMS. DOGS THAT HAVE YOUR INFECTIONS, EAR MITES, THEIR PARASITES MAY BE TREATED, BUT THEN BROUGHT BACK TO THE SAME CONDITION AND IT WILL BECOME A CHRONIC CONDITION FOR THEM. SO MY REQUEST IS THAT YOU FIND WHERE THE KENNEL WAS THE RENOVATIONS WERE STALLED AND MOVING FORWARD QUICKLY. ADD MORE AS I KENNELS BEEN 25 INSIGHT . WHEN YOU 24 OUTSIDE, NOT 13. AND WE NEED AN INCREASED BUDGET TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCREASED NEEDS SO ALL ANIMAL CAN GET THE CARE THEY NEED WHILE IN OUR SHELTERING CARE.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT COMMENT? >>

>> OKAY. >> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS -- NO WAIT A SECOND. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE PASSION. I JUST ASK THAT WE HOLD THE CLAPPING, PLEASE. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER

PLEASE? >> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS LILA

CONNOR OF ROWLETT . >> PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STAT YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> >> MY NAME IS LILA CONNOR. I TRULY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK FOR OUR CITY .

I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 1990. I AM VERY PROUD OF OUR CITY.

I WAS A NURSE FOR 35 YEARS. I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER MUCH MORE CLOSELY THE NEEDS O OUR GOD-GIVEN CREATURES. THEY FEEL PAIN AND SUFFERING IN OUR SHELTER. WE WADED THROUGH WATE TO OUR MAILBOX , TO OUR ANKLES? GETTING OLDER AND WE CANNOT. W UNDERSTAND BECAUSE YOU'RE SO BUSY, WE TRY NOT TO BRING THAT UP. I HAVE, BUT THE ANIMALS DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT . I CAN AT LEAST KNOW EVERYBODY IS BUSY AN TRYING TO DO ROADS AND EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TO DO. I UNDERSTAND THAT IN MY PROFESSION. SO PLEASE KNOW I A THANKFUL FOR ALL YOU DO. I AM HERE TO ASK YOU , DO NOT WAIT UNTIL YOU YOURSELF MIGHT FEEL THE SAME. TREAT THESE ANIMALS A YOU OWN PETS AND THESE PADS AN BEFORE THE THE -- WE ALL FEEL IT SUFFERING. DO NOT WAIT UNTI YOU GET TO THE END WHERE YOU SAY LISTEN, MAYBE I SHOULD'VE LOOKED A LITTLE CLOSER WHERE THINGS FEEL PHYSICALLY, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW YOU DO WITH OUR POLICE. SO THANK YOU. PLEASE LOOK AT OUR SHELTER MUCH MORE CLOSELY . THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MONIQUE FOSCO. SHE IS OF ROWLETT.

FOSCO. SOME OF YOU KNOW ME WELL SOME OF YOU DO NOT. I AM HERE T SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD AND SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE ANIMAL SHELTER. THE CONDITIONS ARE DEPLORABLE. YOU WOULD NOT WANT YOUR ANIMALS TO BE WAITING IN FILTH GOOD HE WOULD NOT DO WAN TO TAKE YOUR ANIMALS OUT OF THEIR KENNEL AND HAVE WATER SPLASHED ON YOU , IN YOUR MOUTH IN YOUR FACE . IT IS ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING. I MEAN, THE ACO'S DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN WITHIN THEIR POWER WITH WHAT THEY ARE GIVEN. AND IT IS REALLY FRUSTRATING. I AM REALLY, REALLY SAD. WE HAVE A GREAT GROUP OF VOLUNTEERS BUT WE HAVE A TON OF THEM HERE RIGHT NOW.

EVERYBODY WANTS THE SAME THING. I UNDERSTAND HOW MONEY WORKS AND A UNDERSTAND IT IS TIGHT. BUT YOU SAID IN APRIL WE HAVE 30,000. THEY STARTED GETTING QUOTES, AND THEN EVERYTHING WAS PUT ON HOLD . PLEASE, PLEASE, I YOUR BUDGET MEETINGS, FIND

$30,000. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER?

>> THE NEXT IS NICK LOCKE OF ROWLETT.

>> NICK LOCKE OF ROWLETT. THE SAME POINT THE SHELTER. NOT ONL

[00:45:08]

IS IT DISGUSTING FOR THE DOGS AND CATS, BUT YOUR CITY EMPLOYEES. THEY ARE IN THAT FILTH. THE OUTSIDE KENNELS ARE BEING HELD TOGETHER BY HALLOWEEN DECORATIONS. IT IS UNACCEPTABLE. YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. WE ARE TIRED OF THE INACTION. YOU TREAT YOUR ANIMALS LIKE YOU TREAT YOUR CITIZENS , NOT VERY WELL. THANK YOU.

>> THAT I SPEAKER IS STACY DUPREE OF ROWLETT.

>> GOOD EVENING. I AM A NEW VOLUNTEER -- AN STATE YOUR NAM

AND CITY. >> I AM SORRY. STACY DUPREE OF ROWLETT. I HAVE LIVED IN ROWLET SINCE 1993. I AM A NEW VOLUNTEE AT THE SHELTER. I REMEMBER TELLING MY FAMILY, I WAS SHOCKE WHEN I WENT TO ORIENTATION. I DID NOT FEEL LIKE I WAS IN ROWLETT. I FELT LIKE I WAS IN IBERIA RUNDOWN, POOR PLACE. TH WEEDS ARE VERY TALL, MUDDY, FILTH GOOD IT WAS DISGUSTING. I SEE THE WORKERS WORKING VERY HARD. I SEE A TON OF VOLUNTEERS . WE'RE UP THERE AND SWEATING. WE HAVE TO GO HOME AND TAKE SHOWERS BECAUSE WE ARE VOLUNTEERING OUR TIME BECAUSE THESE ANIMALS NEED MORE THAN W ARE GIVING TO THEM. THANK YOU

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S IT? OKAY.

WE ALSO RECEIVED FOUR PUBLIC INPUT FORMS ONLINE FOR THIS MEETING. -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE TOPIC THOSE WERE ON?

>> IS REGARDING THE ANIMAL SHELTER IN THE SPEAKERS TONIGHT ADDRESS THIS REALLY QUICK. SO UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE ANIMAL SHELTER CONDITIONS AND OPERATIONS. I WILL SAY THA HER COUNTRYMEN, THERE IS SOMETHING SAID ABOUT THE HEARTWORM TREATMENT THAT WAS STOPPED. THE HEARTWORM TREATMEN , EVERYTHING WHAT STAFFERS TOL ME CONTINUED THROUGH THE ANIMAL SHELTERS. IN ADDITION, THERE BEEN SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE OUTER KENNELS. THE CITY COUNCIL BUT THEY DID MAKE AND DECIDE IN APRIL THAT THEY WOULD ALLOCATE $30,000 TO THE OUTER KENNELS. TWO WEEKS AGO WE HAD A BUDGET SESSION IN WHICH COUNCIL WAS MADE AWARE OF SOME BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS THAT ,. WE NEED TO DEPOSIT EVERYTHING FOR A SECOND LOOK AT EVERYTHING FINANCIALLY , AND THEN COME BACK AND DECIDE WHAT TO DO. AND WE ARE HAVING THAT MEETING THURSDAY.

REGARDING THE BUDGET. AND DISCUSSING WHAT CAN CONTINUE AND WHAT WE CANNOT CONTINUE WITH COMMON TERMS OF THE ALLOCATION FROM THE MIDYEAR BUDGET SESSION IN APRIL. SO WE ARE DISCUSSING THAT ON THURSDAY PLEASE ATTEND IF YOU WISH. IT WILL BE AT THE ROWLETT FIRE STATION 2. IT WILL RUN FROM - REMEMBER THE NAME? 8:00 A.M. AGAIN, WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THAT THEY ARE. THE ANIMAL SHELTER IS A PRIORITY FOR THIS COUNCIL. THAT IS WHY WE SUPPORTED PLACING IT ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SHELTER ON THE MAY BOND ELECTION. IT I OVERWHELMING SUPPORTED BY THE CITIZENS. WE APPRECIATE SO MUC OUR VOLUNTEERS . WE REALIZE WE CANNOT DO WHAT WE DO WITHOUT THE VOLUNTEERS. IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. YOU SAVE OUR BUTTS ALL THE TIME. AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT. WE HAVE RECENTLY BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, COUNCI ATTENTION. REGARDING THE CONDITIONS OF THE SHELTER. WE ARE DISAPPOINTED, JUST AS YOU ARE.

WE EXPECT BETTER, WE DEMAND BETTER. WE WILL MAKE SURE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF OUR KENNELS THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THAT ON THURSDAY AND HOW TO DO THAT. WHETHER INSTITUTE THE 30 DOLAN ALLOCATION. OR COME UP WITH ANOTHER PLAN. WE ARE GOING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT AND WE ARE EXPLORING LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS FOR THE SHELTER AS WELL. SO I APPRECIATE EVERYONE OF YOU FOR BEING HERE AND SPEAKING ON THAT. AND ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT Y'ALL CAN REACH OUT TO COUNCIL INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY. WE ARE HAPPY TO TALK AND UNDERSTAND YOUR

[7. CONSENT AGENDA]

CONCERNS AND COME TO A SOLUTION TOGETHER. AGAIN, I APPRECIATE Y'ALL BEING HERE. SO WE MOVE O TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. THE FOLLOWING FOLLOWING A MOTION OF CITY COUNCIL OR CITIZEN REQUEST IDENTITY REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR INTIMATE CONSIDERATION. DOES ANYBODY FRO THE AUDIENCE WAS TO PULL AN ITE

[00:50:01]

FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? SAY NONE, LAURA, READ INTO THE

RECORD. >> 7A APPROVING THE MINUTES.

7B . CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING FINAL WHEN YOU'RE CONTACT THE STRETCH AND FOR BOEING AND OTHE RELATED SERVICES. 7C POINT CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING CONTRACT RENEWALS FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS. 7D POINT CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING A CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL EMPLOYE BENEFITS. 7E. CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING A RESOLUTION TO ADD FUNDS TO AN EXISTING PURCHASE ORDER FOR SIGN REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES. AND 7F CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING A RESOLUTION TO PURCHASE WATER

METERS AND MXUS. >> ENTERTAIN A MOTION ?

>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT ITEMS . I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT ITEMS AS READ INTO THE RECORD BY THE CIT

SECRETARY. >>

>> SECOND . >> A MOTION BY -- AND A SECOND

CALL THE VOTE. >> THEIR EGO. ALL RIGHT. THAT

[8A. Conduct a public hearing and take action to approve an ordinance granting a request on behalf of property owner First United Methodist Church Rowlett for 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 District (FB-UV) 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.]

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM A 8. CONDUCT AN ORDINANCE GRANTING REQUEST ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF ROWLETT FOR A MAJOR WARRANT TO ARTICLE 5.4 11B OF THE FORM-BASED CODE TO ALLOW A MONUMENT SIGN ON PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN THE FOREIGN-BASED URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT AND WROTE 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 .

IT IS THE SITE. THE FRONTAGE ROAD. ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET. IT IS LOCATED WITHIN TH FOREIGN-BASED URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT. THERE IS CURRENTLY A 40 TO QUIT MONUMENT SIGN THAT I ABOUT 45 INCHES AND FEET, 13 FEET FROM THE SIDEWALK. LOCATED ON THE MAIN STREET FRONTAGE. THE FOREIGN-BASED CODE ALLOWS MONUMENT SIDES ALONG STATE HIGHWAY 66 PARKWAY. THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BRUSH TURNPIKE. SO THAT SIGN, THE PROPOSED LOCATION ALONG MAIN STREET IS NOT WITHIN THOSE DISTRICTS. ARE THOSE AREAS, SO THE MAJOR WARRANT IS REQUIRED TO ALREADY BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ORDER FOR THIS NEW SIGN TO BE INSTALLED. SHOUL THIS ITEM BE APPROVED, THE EXISTING SIGN THAT WAS MENTIONE WOULD BE REMOVED. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THEIR MEETING BACK IN JUNE DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS MAJOR WARRANT. THESE ARE SOME OF THE SCIENCE . NOT SOME OF TH SIGN THROUGH THESE ARE THE MONUMENT SIGNS ALONG MAIN STREET. AT THE LEFT, WE HAVE THE PARK SIGN. THAT IS LOCATED MAIN AND CENTENNIAL. IT IS TH ONE HERE AT CITY HALL. LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF MAIN AND SOUTHRIDGE. THIS SIGN IS FIRS BAPTIST CHURCH WHICH IS LOCATE IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH. AND THEN WE HAVE THE MAIN STREET DENTAL CARE CENTER LINE WHICH I 3613 MAIN STREET. BESIDES ALL THREE THE BASECOAT. THAT WAS UNDER DIFFERENT RULES. I WOULD BE FOR THE -- AT 4210 INDUSTRIAL STREET.

THIS IS A 40 SQUARE FOOT MONUMENT DIED , SIX LEADING HEIGHT, 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL BACK IN MARCH OF 2019.

THE EXISTING SIGN FROM THE SIDEWALK, APPROXIMATELY 13 FEET WOULD BE ABOUT 25 FEET TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIGN. THE APPROXIMATE 22 SQUARE FEET LARGER THAN THE EXISTING, EXISTING 64 -- INCHES TALLER THAN THE CURRENT SIDE. AND ON THE LEFT, YOU HAVE THE SCHEMATIC OF WHAT THE SIGN WOUL LOOK LIKE. THEY HAVE THE BRICK FACE AND A FIXED SIGN ANNA CHANGEABLE COPY AREA. MAJOR WARRANTS AGAIN MAY ONLY BE BY

[00:55:02]

THE PLANNING AND ZONING MISSION THEY CONSIDER IT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. THE 1.53 O THE CODE DOES PUT THE FOLLOWIN CONSIDERATIONS FORWARD FOR THE APPROVAL OR DENIAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE REQUESTED WARRANT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE FORM-BASED CODE AS WELL IS THE WARRANT. THAT WILL RESULT IN IMPROVED THAT WILL BE ATTRACTIVE FOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT AND THIRDLY, THE WARRANT WOULD NOT PREVENT THE REALIZATION OF THE OVERALL INTENT AT THE DISTRICT.

I WOULD ALSO STIPULATE THAT TH FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH BUILDING DOES ALSO PROCEED TO THE FOREIGN-BASED CODE. THAT REQUIRES FOR BUILDINGS TO BE SE CLOSER TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. TH ROW THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN 18 AN 26 FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE CURVE. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS 85 FEET OR SO FROM THE SIDEWALK. HAVING THIS BUILDING AND THIS SITE HAS BEEN DECIDED.

THE SITE WAS NOTIFIED FOR THIS REQUEST. NOTICES WERE SENT BAC . THERE WERE 15 NOTICES SENT THEN NOTICES WITHIN 200 FEET.

AND THERE WERE 500 FOOT NOTICES AND 11 OF THOSE AND THERE WERE NO RESPONSES RECEIVED. TO ALLO THIS MONUMENT SIGN WITH THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING ORNAMENTS SIGN ALONG THE MAIN STREET FRONTAGE. I ALSO KNOW THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CHURCH ARE HERE THIS EVENING. ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE

ANY. >> COUNCIL, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THEY DO OTHER BRIEF PRESENTATION. I D NOT KNOW. I BELIEVE THEY WILL SHARE THAT WITH YOU.

>> MY NAME IS MARK COLBY. I AM UNITING THE FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH. I'M ON THE TRUSTEE COMMITTEE. WE ALSO HAVE OUR PASTOR WHO IS HERE. WE ALSO HAVE OUR TRUSTEE AND CHAIRPERSON . WE COME TO YOU T ASK PERMISSION OF APPROVAL TO UPGRADE THE MONUMENT LINE WE HAVE HAD FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

WE WILL REMOVE THE OLD TYPING THE NEW MESSAGE WILL HOPEFULLY BE OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. WE UNDERSTAND THE SIGN RESTRICTIONS. THE MESSAGE SIGN AND WE ABIDE BY THOSE. WE THIN A NEW SIGN WOULD BE GOOD. IT WILL LOOK A LOT BETTER THAN OUR CURRENT SIGN. I WILL HAPPY TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> WE ARE USING A VENDOR OUT OF MESQUITE, TEXAS. WE SOLICITED QUOTES FROM TWO VENDORS WOULD ONE WAS OUT OF ROWLETT AND ONE WAS -- AND WE CHOSE BETWEEN THOSE TWO VENDORS BASED ON THE

QUALITY OF THE SIGNS >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? THANK YOU, SIR.

BASICALLY ANOTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. OH, THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER. HEARING. FOR THAT, I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. STATE

YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE >> ALL RIGHT. THING DONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

COUNCILMEMBER? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAJOR WARRANT TO ALLOW A MONUMENT LIN WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN ALONG FRONTAGE BE REMOVED IN FRONT OF THE FIRST UNITED METHODIST

CHURCH. >> OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBE MIKE BRITTON AND A SECOND BY TIM SCHINDLER. ANY DISCUSSION? CALL THE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT

[8B. Conduct a public hearing and take action to approve an ordinance to: 1) Rezone the subject property from General Commercial/Retail District (C-2) and Planned Development District (PD) for light manufacturing uses to Planned Development (PD) with a base zoning of General Commercial/Retail District (C-2); 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 for property owned by Rocky Liuzzi and Doreen Sue Family Trust, 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.]

OUR NEXT ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION IS ITEM 8B BUT I

[01:00:03]

IS A LOT TO SAY TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICT AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR LIGHT MANUFACTURING USES TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH A BASE OWNING A GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICT , AND TWO. APPROVE A CONCEPT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 70,000 SQUARE-FOO BUILDING. THREE. AMEND THE COPPER AT THE PLANT. FOUR. AMEN THE OFFICIALS OWN A MAC OF THE CITY FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY ROCKY LIUZZI AND DOREEN SUE FAMILY TRUST , LOCATED NORTHWES OF THE CUL-DE-SAC OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE, CONSISTING OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, ROWLETT BUSINESS PARK PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1 , BOYD & KNEGGS BUSINESS PARK REPLAT . IT IS CUT OFF. YOU'LL GET IT. YOU'LL GET IT, RIGHT?

IT IS FINE. ALEX? >> I WILL, JUST TO TAKE UP THE REST OF IT. I BELIEVE EVERYWHER WAS THE BUSINESS PARK REFLECTE IN TRACK 6 OF THE MAP IS AN ABSTRACT CIGNA ALSO DESCRIBED A TRACT 1 TO THE DOREEN SUE FAMILY TRUST . ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ONTO THIS FIRS SLIDE. THIS IS SORT OF AN ORIENTATION OF AFTER ALL OF THAT, WHERE IS THIS LOCATED? W HAVE THE PARKWAY HERE. THIS IS ROWLETT ROAD AND THE FIRST ROWLETT CENTER, AND THIS IS THE SUBSEQUENT TRACT HERE. AS WELL AS THIS ACCESS DRIVE CONNECTING TO THE PARKWAY. THREE PARCELS THAT MAKE UP THIS PROPERTY. THE ZONING IS THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHICH IS ON ENTERPRIS DRIVE OR THE ENTERPRISE DRIVE.

THAT IS THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT LIGHT MANUFACTURING USES. THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE ACCESS UP TO THE PARKWAY. IT IS OWNED WITHIN THE C 2 DISTRICT WITH THE REQUEST HERE IS TO COMBINE THE ZONING AND STAY WITH C 2 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THIS IS THE CONCEPT PLAN WHICH THE APPLICANT WHICH THEY HAVE PROVIDED TO US. I WILL TALK TO WHAT THEY ARE GENERALLY PROPOSING TO DO. WE HAVE HERE 70,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING APPROXIMATELY. IT IS A LITTLE SHY OF THAT. IT IS 43 FEET AT ITS PEAK . AT DOES INCLUDE A PARAPET WALL ON THERE. WE'LL ALSO NOTE THAT WITHIN THE 1025 DISTRICT, BUILDING OF UP TO 90 FEET IS PERMITTED. SO IT WOULD BE LESS MAXIMIZING THE HEIGHT THAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE C2 DISTRICT. THERE IS ALSO ACCESS FROM ENTERPRISE DRIVE. THAT IS THE PRIMARY ACCESS IS DOWN HERE. THIS IS THE CUL-DE-SAC. S THIS IS WHERE THE PRIMARY ACCESS TO THE SITE. AND THE SECONDARY AXIS WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED. THIS EXISTING DRIVE THAT IS THE EXTENSION DRIVE. I IS A SINGLE LIGHT INTERSECTION HERE TO THE PARKWAY. THE SITE HAS 108 PARKING SPACES SITUATE AROUND THE SITE, GENERALLY TO THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTH OF THE STRUCTURE. THERE ARE 10 LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, INTERNAL TO THE SITE.

EIGHT OF THEM ARE GENERALLY, I WOULD SAY, CHARACTERIZED AS SMALLER AND MORE APPROPRIATE FO KENNEL VANS AND BOX TRUCKS. TW OF THEM WILL BE LARGER TO ACCOMMODATE 18 WHEELERS. THERE WOULD LIKELY BE STORM WATER DETENTION ON THIS SITE. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THEY HAVE NOT FULLY DONE THE ANALYSIS AS TO HOW MUCH WOULD BE REQUIRED. PRIMARILY, THE DISCUSSION WOUL BE IF IT WERE TO BE, GOING BAC ON THAT GOOD YOU DO NOT SEE A TYPICAL -- ON THE SITE. AS OF NOW, WHAT THE ENGINEERING TEAM FOR THIS PROJECT WOULD SAY THA EITHER IT BE LOCATED UNDERGROUN OR THEY WOULD DO SOMETHING WITHIN THE DOCK AREA THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR STORM WATER DETENTION TO BE HANDLED THERE.

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN HERE IT IS WITHIN GENERAL PERFORMANCE FOR THE REQUIRED BUFFERING, AS WELL AS THE REQUIRED TREES AND SHRUBS REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED WITHIN THOSE BUFFERS, AS WELL AS THE INTERIOR LANDSCAPING REQUIRED FOR PARKING AREAS AND BUILDINGS. I WOULD ALSO STATE THAT SHOULD BE APPROVED, THOSE WILL BE APPROVED DURING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPROVEMENT. THE BUFFERS THAT

[01:05:01]

WERE MENTIONED, THERE IS AN INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER LOCATED TO THE NORTH. THAT IS THIS HERE. AND THEN TO THE EAST FOR THIS BUFFER HERE. AND THEN TO THE SOUTH AND THE WEST. THOSE ARE COMPATIBLE , COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS. INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER ARE DUE TO LAND USES THAT ARE EITHER DIFFERENT. COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL . OR IN THIS CASE, THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS. SO ANY BUILDING DIFFERENCE OF GREATER THAN 14 FEET DOES TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER. SO THIS BUILDING COMING IN AT 34 FEET IS TALLER THAN THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN THE BLOCKER THAT IS THE REASON WHY THEY ARE PROPOSING THAT WITH THE INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER.

COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS ARE REQUIRED FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE ENABLING TO COMPATIBLE LAMBS. ONE OF THE CHANGES THA ARE BEING PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS IN REGARD TO THE USES THAT ARE PERMITTED ON THIS SET. THE BAS ENDING AGAIN IS THE C2 DISTRICT. THEY MODIFY THE LIST OF USES THAT WILL BE PERMITTED ON THIS PROPERTY TO BE MORE TAILORED TO THE OFFICE WAREHOUSE. MOST OF THE C2 USES UNDER THAT DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE PD DISTRICT. THEY WOULD ALS BE ADDING SPECIFICALLY, TWO USES. THE CONTRACTOR IN AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE USE. THERE WILL BE NO OUTDOOR STORAGE MATERIALS ON THIS SITE. WE WIL FIND THESE PROPOSED USES ARE GENERALLY FITTING IN WITH WHAT IS FOUND IN PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND WEST HERE THOSE ARE MORE COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IN NATURE. AND ALSO THIS PROVIDES , SORRY. A SUITABLE TRANSITION BETWEEN THOSE USES AND THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTH AND THE EAST. WE WILL ALSO NOT THAT ANY REGULATIONS THAT ARE NOT MODIFIED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS AS SET FORWARD IN TH ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND S THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE GOING T BE TALKING ABOUT THOSE . THOSE STANDARDS THAT THEY ARE WISHING TO MODIFY THROUGH THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THE FIRS ONE BEING ON STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 1500 SQUARE FEET OF LIGH INDUSTRIAL OR WAREHOUSE USE FOR THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MODIFY THAT TO GO 1000 FEET OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. I'M SORRY. ON SPACE PER 1000 FEET HERE THAT WOULD RESULT IN A GREATER NUMBE OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES. TH APPLICANT DOES SAY THEY JUSTIFY THIS BECAUSE THEY FOUND THE DEVELOPER FOUND THIS TO WORK WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS THEY HAVE DEVELOPED. WE SUPPORT THIS MODIFICATION. AGAIN, RESULT IN A HIGHER NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES , BUT GIVES THEM FLEXIBILITY SHOULD THE USES CHANGE. MORE RETAIL USE THAT WOULD HAVE MORE CARS, MORE VISITORS, COMING TO THE SITE. I ANY CHANGES RELATED HE WAS BEYOND WHAT IS PROVIDED , THE PARKING AGREEMENT IS NECESSARY WITH NEARBY PROPERTIES. PARKIN LOT BUFFERING. THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING AREA FROM 10 FEET TO GO SIX FEET. TH JUSTIFICATION IS LIKE THE TEMPLATE REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE IS MORE ALIGNED WITH RETAIL USES THAT HAVE MORE PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY. THIS SITE IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO HAVE THA MANY GUEST VISITORS COMING TO THIS SITE . STAFF IS AMENABLE T THIS REQUEST. HOWEVER, WE WOULD REQUEST THERE WOULD BE A CONDITION THAT IT BE INCORPORATED IN THE SPACES THA WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR VEHICLES TO OVERHANG ONTO THE SIDEWALK THA WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE AREA BEING SET ASIDE FOR PEDESTRIANS REGARDING PARKING AS WELL. THE ARE REQUESTING A MODIFICATION T THE SIZE OF THE 90 GROUP THREE PARKING SPACES PARTICULARLY, THOSE REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE TO BE BY 20 FEET. I WOULD ALSO INCLUDE A REQUEST THERE MAKING IS TO PRODUCE THAT TO A NINE FOOT WIDE SPACE WITH 18 FOOT IN DEPTH NT WAS THE LANDSCAPE AREA AS THE OVERHANG. WE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE IF WE APPROVE THIS PROJECT, APPROVED THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE AREA DEVOTED TO PEDESTRIAN AREA, NEA THE BUILDING FROM 10 FEET TO G 68, THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE FURTHE INTO THAT AND WOULD CREATE MOR CONGESTION FOR PEDESTRIANS, AS WIDER AREA DUE TO ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES. THERE IS A MODIFICATION FOR THE FRONT SETBACK. THIS REQUIRES A 50 FOO FRONT SETBACK . APPLICANT IS

[01:10:04]

REQUESTING THAT BE REDUCED TO G 25 FEET FROM THE ENTERPRISE DRIVE CUL-DE-SAC. THE JUSTIFICATION IS IT IS NECESSAR TO ACCOMMODATE THE BUILDING BU WITH HIRELINGS AND PARKING REQUIREMENT. STAFF IS ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THIS CHANGE FOR BETTER UTILIZATION TO THE FULL PROPERTY. TALKING ABOUT THE NEXT THREE MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE IN REGARD TO THE BUILDING AND FACADE.

THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING TYPES. THI IS NOT A TYPICAL COMMERCIAL BUILDING. THIS IS PROPOSED TO BE A CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION.

SET ASIDE FOR SOME WAREHOUSE USES AS WELL. SO THEY ARE REQUESTING SOME MODIFICATIONS WITH STANDARDS FOR THE FIRST ON WOULD BE IN REGARD TO THE BUILDING MATERIALS. IN 2019, STATE LAW CHANGED PROHIBITING US THE EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS THAT GO BEYOND WHAT ARE PERMITTED BY THE BUILDING CODE. HOWEVER, THEY ARE SUGGESTING THAT WITH THIS BUILDING, THEY WILL PROVIDE 20% AND ALL ACTORS WOULD HAVE MASONARY MATERIALS DEFINED AS ACCENT BRICK AND STONE. THAT WILL BE APPLIED TO THE SURFACE OF THE BUILDING. 20,000 SQUARE FEET AND AREA ARE TO APPEAR A SMALLER PARTS . THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS TO REAPPEAR MORE AS A CENTER BUILDING. MAS RATHER THAN SEPARATE BUILDING. WE CAN SEE THEY ARE PROVIDING SOME DIFFERENCE IN DETAIL AND BUILDING MATERIALS, AS WELL AS THE ENTRYWAYS . THEY WILL HAVE SOME DIFFERENTIATIONS. THEY WIL ALSO PROVIDE FACADE RELIEF NO LESS THAN NINE INCHES. WHETHER THE BUILDING WHERE EXTEND OR REASSESS FROM THE FACADE. SO I WILL NOT BE A COMPLETELY FLAT FACADE. AND THIRDLY , THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE CODES THA SAYS ANY BUILDING THAT IS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE STREET O NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, THA IS TALLER THAN 50 FEET, MUST B BROUGHT DOWN TO 35 FEET. THERE IS A SMALL PORTION OF THIS BUILDING WITHIN ENTERPRISE DRIVE, WHERE THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY. THEY WILL KEEP THE BUILDING HEIGHT CONSISTENT AT 34 FEET. YOU CAN SEE THAT IN TH DIAGRAM HERE. IT IS THE GRAY LINE HERE AT THE TOP. IT IS THE PARAPET. THAT IS THE HIGHEST POINT . THIS IS THE EAST ELEVATION. SO THIS WOULD BE FACING TOWARD THE SHOPPING CENTER THAT GOES TOWARD ROWLET ROAD. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY POINT THAT WOULD BE THAT TALL STAFF DOES SUPPORT ALL OF THES REQUESTS DUE TO THE LIMITED EXPOSURE IT WILL HAVE TO THE PUBLIC REALM. JUST ABOUT 80 FEET OR SO ALONG ENTERPRISE DRIVE. THE NEXT ITEM TO DISCUS HERE WILL BE THE VEHICULAR MOVEMENT AROUND THE SITE. THIS IS A DIAGRAM THAT WAS PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT IN THEIR ENGINEERING TEAM. THEY ALSO HAV PROVIDED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PACKET , A PRELIMINARY TRIP ESTIMATION AND VEHICLE SPLIT STUDY. THAT I ALSO INCLUDED IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THE MEETING PACKET. THE PROFILE THEY ARE SEEKING IS NOT TO HAV 18 WHEELER TRAFFIC. HOWEVER, WITH NEARLY ANY BUSINESS THESE DAYS, THERE WILL LIKELY BE SOME 18 WHEELER TRAFFIC COMING TO THIS SITE. THEIR ANALYSIS THEY USE WOULD SUGGEST THERE WOULD B NO MORE THAN 218 WHEELER OR SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILERS COMING TO THE SITE DURING PEAK HOURS. AMR P.M. SO AM HOURS, PEAK HOURS ARE 7 A.M. 2:00 AND 9:00 A.M. 4:00 TO GO 6:00 P.M. ANOTHER ITEM TO CONSIDER HERE WOULD ALSO BE THE DOCKS. THERE ARE ONLY TWO OF THEM TO ACCOMMODATE 18 WHEELERS. THAT IS YET ANOTHE ELEMENT THAT WOULD MAKE THIS SITE LESS DESIRABLE FOR THOSE LARGE VEHICLES TO BE USING ON REGULAR BASIS. OVERALL, THEY ARE PROJECTING THAT ALL OF THE VEHICLES WOULD INCLUDE CARS, TRUCKS, KENNEL TRUCKS, BOX TRUCKS, TO BE 30 TRIPS DURING

[01:15:01]

THE PEAK HOURS ON A DAILY BASIS. AND 210 TRIPS OVERALL THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE FOR ALL THE VEHICLE MIXES. AS WELL AS THE ACCESS DRIVE, UP TO LAKEVIE PARKWAY, THAT WOULD NOT BE PROFOUNDLY IMPACTED.

THAT IS SHOWN HERE IN RED. THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THE PROPERTY NORTH OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE AND WEST OF ROWLETT ROAD . TO WHAT IS LONGBRANCH CREEK. THAT INCLUDES THE ENTIRETY OF THIS SITE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THA LITTLE BIT OF FLOODPLAIN. THAT IS PRIMARILY FEELING LEFT ALON HERE. RETAIL COMMERCIAL OFFICE IS INTENDED FOR PROVISION OF GOODS AND SERVICES , LOCATED ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND PROVIDING RETAIL GOODS AND SERVICES FOR NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS. THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO THE SOUTH OF MXUS , ENTERPRISE DRIVE, THE PURPLE AREA, AS WELL AS WHAT YOU CAN SEE ACROSS THE CREEK HERE IS FOR PROCESSING STORAGE ASSEMBLY MATERIALS , OPERATIONS CONDUCTE ENTIRELY INDOORS , AS WELL AS THESE OPERATIONS DO NOT GENERAT NOISE OVER OTHER HAZARDS, TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITHIN THE INDUSTRY. STAFF BELIEVES THIS PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PATTERN AND THE ADJOINING USES, AS WELL AS BEIN SEPARATED FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL USES. NOTIFICATION FOR THIS PROJECT WAS SENT OUT ON MAY 25TH. THERE WERE 20 NOTICES SET OUT TO PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET. THERE WERE NO RESPONSES RECEIVED IN EITHER FAVOR OR OPPOSITION. THERE WERE 26 NOTICES SENT OUT TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 500 FOOT RADIUS.

THERE WERE TWO NOTICES SENT BAC AN OPPOSITION FROM THE SAME PERSON. THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN WAS WHAT DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WOULD HELP EXASPERATE THE CURRENT CONDITION THAT HAPPENED WITH FLOODING UNDERNEATH THE OVERPASS OF MAIN STREET UNDER THE DARK GRAY LINE. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARD THIS ITEM ON JUNE 13TH. THEY RECOMMENDED 7- APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. FIRST THE ON-SITE STORMWATER DETENTION OR RETENTION REQUIREMENTS SHOULD NOT BE WAIVED. SECONDLY, THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS WITH PARKING SPACES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. THIRD, IT WILL BE UTILIZED FOR ALL PARKING SPACES ABUTTING THE BUILDING. FOURTHE MAXIMUM NUMBER SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER, 18 WHEELER TRUCKS, COMING AND GOING BE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL C2 DISTRICT FOR LIGHT MANUFACTURIN USES TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH THE ZONING OF TH GENERAL RETAIL C2 ZONING DISTRICT. APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT AND TO CONSTRUCT THE 70,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING , MANY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AN AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MA OF THE CITY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. FIRST, THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF THE PARKING SPACE WITHIN THE ROWLETT HELMET CODE THE STOPS BE UTILIZED FOR ALL PARKING SPACES. ABUTTING THE BUILDING. AND THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER AND 18 WHEELER TRUCKS COMING AND GOING SHOULD BE NO MORE THA TWO PER DAY. WITH THAT, I WOUL INTERESTING QUESTIONS BUT I WOULD ALSO NOTE THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING. THEY ALSO

HAVE A PRESENTATION. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> ALEX, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT THE INTENDED USE OF THIS BUILDING WILL BE GONE JUST LIGHT MANUFACTURING?

>> SO THAT IS A BETTER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER

THAT. >> IN THAT CASE , HOW DID STAFF ARRIVE AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF TWO TRUCKS PER DAY IN THEIR STAFF REPORT? SAID THAT THAT WA BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE ANALYSIS FROM THE APPLICANT. THERE WOULD BE NO MORE THAN TWO TRUCKS COMING THROUGH AT PEAK HOURS.

Ú>> SO MY CONCERN WITH THAT IS THAT IS ANOTHER BUSINESS ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. IT IS A FINISHING SHOP YET THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANT BOX TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT COMES IN NOT NECESSARILY -- BUT BOX TRUCK TRAFFIC FOR THAT IS SOMEWHAT OF A CONCERN FOR ME. W HAVE TALKED ABOUT WHEN I THINK

[01:20:01]

OF THAT, I ALSO THINK OF BOX TRUNKS OR KENNEL VANS BUT SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC COMING IN THROUGH PERHAPS , ENTERPRISE.

SO WHEN WE CLARIFY THAT , TWO TRUCKS BITTERLY, IT IS TWO SEMI TRUCKS, BUT WE HAVE NOT PUT A NUMBER FOR A CAP ON THE NUMBER

OF BOX TRUCKS ? >> THAT DID NOT RECOMMEND A CA

ON THE NUMBER OF BOX TRUCKS. >> SO THE INTENT IS TWO SEMI TRUCKS PER DAY. SO WE CAN PUT THAT IN THE CONDITIONS.

>> YES, UNDER PD CONDITIONS. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILMEMBER MIKE BRITTON? >> SO ALL OF THE INGRESS AND EGRESS IS COMING FROM ENTERPRISE DRIVE?

>> NO. THAT BE SOMETHING I WOULD LET THE APPLICANT ADDRESS IT IS BETWEEN THE ACCESS DRIV AND WILL CONNECT.

>> MY CONCERN IS AT ENTERPRISE DRIVE -- THERE IS NO TRAFFIC SIGNAL THERE BUT IF THEY'RE GOING TO COME OUT AND TURN NORT ON ROWLETT, THAT IS ALREADY A BUSY INTERSECTION TOO.

>> YEAH. I'M ALSO ALWAYS GOING TO GET -- WE MET THAT WAS MY

CONCERN. >> A GREAT POINT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER BRIAN GALUARDI?

>> SO I WAS JUST LOOKING. THE ACCESS IS AT THE NORTH TO SERV

THAT PURPOSE? >> AS TO GIVE ACCESS TO THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, CORRECT.

>> AND THIS PIECE IS ACTUALLY MULTIPLE PIECES OF PROPERTY, RIGHT? SO IT IS INTENDED TO SERVE THE -- PART OF THIS PROPERTY. THAT IS WHY IT EXISTS AT ALL, RIGHT?

>> I WOULD NOT MAKE THAT ASSERTION WITH THAT. THE TWO PROPERTIES ARE CONNECTED AND UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP.

>> THEY WERE PLANTED AT THE SAM TIME. WITH THE NORTHERNMOST

PIECE OF THIS PROPERTY. >> I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE.

>> THAT BEING THE CASE, DO YOU KNOW THE WIDTH OF THE ACCESS?

>> FIVE FEET. >> THE WIDTH OF ENTERPRISE

DRIVE? >> I DO NOT RECALL.

>> IT WAS 25 FEET. 20 -- ENTERPRISE DRIVE.

>> IS THERE TRAFFIC CONTROL AT THE TRAFFIC EASEMENT AND

LAKEVIEW PARKWAY? >> YES

>> IS THERE CONTROL AT -- >> NO, THERE IS NOT.

>> OKAY. ANOTHER POINT. SO THI IS ZONING OF C2. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE WHOLESALE WAREHOUSNG, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS GOOD BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING SEM SANDBOX TRUCKS. I THINK THIS OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE FOR THE APPLICANT TO COME UP. I'M SORRY. I WILL, O -- BOTH OF THESE ARE FOR THE APPLICANT. I WILL WAIT UNTIL THEY HAVE A CHANCE FOR THE PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER DEBRA SHINDER TWO RETURNS IN OPPOSITION WERE CONCERNED WITH THE DRAINAGE ISSUES, BASICALLY. I ASSUME THAT IS WHAT THE FIRST CONDITION WAS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS?

>> YES, THERE IS SOME DISCUSSIO FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING THE DESCRIPTION FROM THE CITY ENGINEER REGARDING DRAINAGE. AND THE REQUIREMENT IS THE POS DEVELOPMENT CONDITION MAY NOT INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RUNOFF COMING FROM THE SITE. THE CONCERN THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE COMMISSIONER WHICH IS THE REASON WHY THE CONDITION WAS MISPLACED. IT'S THAT APPLICANT'S HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PRESENT THE ENGINEERIN ANALYSES SO RUNOFF WILL GO TO THE RIGHT. THEY WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHIN THAT THIS APPLICANT WOULD DO. THE APPLICANT STATED THAT WAS NOT THEIR INTENTION AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THEY UNDERSTAND IF REQUIRED, IT WOULD BE PROVIDED. SO THEY WOULD MODIF

THE TRUCK. >> THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH

THAT . >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.

>> ALSO, I NOTICED THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE TRUCKS BE LIMITED TO GO TWO PER DAY. FOUR PER DAY. YOU FEEL THAT IS REASONABLE IF IT IS LIMITED TW TWO PER DAY ?

>> I DO NOT THINK WE NECESSARIL HAVE AN OPINION EITHER WAY. WE

[01:25:02]

KEPT THAT RECOMMENDATION BECAUS THAT IS TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO. W

STAY CONSISTENT BETWEEN THIS. >> ANEMIC, COUNCIL. RDING THE LIMITATION OR THE CONDITION BY STAFF ON LIMITING THE NUMBE OF SEMI TRUCKS ONTO ENTERPRISE DRIVE WAS DELIBERATE. I SAY THA FOR THIS REASON. THERE WERE NONCONFORMING USES TO THE SOUTH WE KNOW WE LOOK AT THIS PD IN TERMS OF LIMITING USES. WE ALSO HAVE TOO MUCH TRUCK BASE. THE NATURE OF THE USE, AGAIN, WHY W ARE RECOMMENDING FOR TO BE IN A COMMERCIAL CATEGORY, THIS IS A SMALL SCALE TYPE OF USE. AND THE PRIMARY TRAFFIC GENERATION FROM THAT USE WOULD BE BOX TRUCKS. AND BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY IDE THAT WAS PRESENTED. BY THE APPLICANT, THERE COMFORTABLE WITH LIMITIN THAT TO QUOTE TWO SEMI TRUCKS AS ARE WE. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILMEMBER ELISE BOWERS. SORRY. THAT IS A LOT OF WORDS.

TWO TRACKS DURING THOSE HOURS BUT DOES THAT MEAN ADDITIONAL TRUCKS CAN COME UP IN THE AFTERNOON GIVE US A MECCA RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TWO TRUCKS FOR THE ENTIRE DAY. IT WOULD BE DURING THE PEAK HOURS. THAT IS WHAT A TYPICAL ITE ANALYSIS IS FOCUSED ON, YES. MAKE SURE ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS CAN GET INTO THE POST OFFICE AN ALL OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS.

THAT DOES CONCERN ME A LITTLE BIT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER BRIAN GALUARDI?

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR PETE A CURIOSITY QUESTION. WE HAVE A TRUCK LIMITATION LIKE THIS ONE ON OTHER PROPERTIES? HOW DO WE

ENFORCE THAT? >> I DO NOT RECALL. THE ONLY PROJECT THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR T THIS WOULD BE THE IS MAKING SURE IS TRUCKS WOULD NOT IDLE ON THE CITY PUBLIC STREETS. THE WOULD ALL BE CONTAINED TO THE SITE .

>> I GUESS I AM CHALLENGING MAKING REQUIREMENTS THAT WE REALLY DO NOT HAVE A MECHANISM TO ENFORCE. I AM NOT SURE.

>> WE WOULD HAVE TO BE OUT THER FROM 12:00 A.M. TO GO -- AND THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO HIRE A TRUCK SURVEY.

>> POINT, YOU HAVE TO RELY ON THE NATURE OF THE USE THAT IS APPROVED. SECONDLY, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS INTERNALLY. AND OBVIOUSLY, WE DO NOT WANT TO BE HAVING COMPLAINTS FROM THE BUSINESSES . OUR GOAL IS TO TRY AND DISPATCH DEFINITELY THE ENFORCEMENT WILL BE A CHALLENGE AGAIN, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO ADOPT PD CONDITIONS OR REGULATIONS THAT LIMIT THESE TYPE OF USE FUNCTIONS. BUT ENFORCEMENT IS DEFINITELY A

CHALLENGE, NO DOUBT . >> I GUESS IF THEY WERE SOMEHOW FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THIS, I A NOT SURE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE POINT WHAT WOULD BE THE PENALTY THAT IS IMPOSE?

>> IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE PD. AGAIN, THE PD CONDITION AND THE STANDARD VIOLATION BASE ON THIS.

>> YES. >> A MAXIMUM FINE OF $2000.

>> I WILL TALK ABOUT IT FROM TH AMENDMENT SOON. BUT I WANT TO GET TO THE APPLICANT. THAT MAY ALLEVIATE THAT CONCERN ABOUT ENFORCEMENT AND DOING IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. I DON'T KNOW. I WILL PRESENTED AND SEE WHERE IT GOES. COUNCILMEMBER ?

>> MOST OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. I AM INTERESTED TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND WHAT BUSINESSES THEY WILL BE PUTTING THERE. THAT WILL MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. THE BUILDINGS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT SET UP FOR LARGE-SCALE DISTRIBUTION. THAT IS A GOOD THING. CERTAINLY , IT WILL HELP LIMIT HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC THROUGH THERE. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO , FROM THE

[01:30:03]

APPLICANTS. YOU HAVE, CURRENTLY CERTAIN COMPANIES SIGNED UP THAT OF HAD AGREED TO BE TENANTS? AND WHAT KIND OF BUSINESSES OR COMPANIES, SPECIFICALLY, ARE YOU LOOKING

FOR TO WORK IN THAT SPACE? >> HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. BEFOR WE GET TO THE APPLICANT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CONSULA STAFF? OKAY. YOU CAN ALL COME FORWARD AND PRESENT YOUR ITEMS HERE. AND THEN WE WILL ASK QUESTIONS TO THE STAFF.

>> TO BACK THAT EVENING, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS -- IN FORT WORTH.

TO MY RIGHT, WE HAVE THE DEVELOPER. MY NAME IS DON LARS. SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT WITH -- DEVELOPMENT . WE ARE BASED IN CALGARY, ALBERTA THREE. -- WE HAVE BEEN ACTIVE IN THE DEVELOPMENT IN CANADA FOR THE LAST THREE PLUS YEARS I MAJOR MARKETS IN CANADA. WE HAV BEEN ACTIVE IN THE U.S. SINCE LATE 2016. WE HAD OUR FIRST INVOLVEMENT IN FORT WORTH LAST YEAR. WE HAVE THREE MORE PROPERTIES CURRENTLY, AND CAN HOPEFULLY, HAVE THIS ONE WITH THE SUCCESSFUL REZONING THIS EVENING AND BE CLOSING ON THIS PROPERTY NEXT WEEK. WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IMMEDIATELY INTO THE ENTITLEMENTS. IF IT IS NOT SOMETHING THE CITY WANTS TO SEE THEN THEY CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR HONESTY ON THAT BUT WE HOP TO GAIN SUCCESS. WE HAVE , AS JESUS MENTIONED, BEN WALLACE I WITH COLLIERS TO ANSWER SOME O YOUR QUESTIONS DEALING WITH POTENTIAL TENANTS FOR THE PROPERTY. PROBABLY THAT IS OF MOST INTEREST TO YOU. AND WE CAN GO THROUGH OUR PRESENTATION WITH SOME IMAGES YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION. BUT WE CAN RUN THROUGH THAT AND ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WE GO.

THIS IS -- >>

>> AGAIN, FOR CLARIFICATION. TH PROPERTY WOULD BE PURCHASING HAS THREE SEPARATE PARCELS. THE MAIN ONES FROM THE -- SITE. IN THAT STRIP OF BLIND IS AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY. FOR CLARIFICATION. THAT IS ALL PUBLIC ALLEY. TO THE WEST.

COMING IN FROM THE WEST. AND THEN EAST-WEST ALLEY. FROM THE LARGE PARCEL. SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY COUPLE OF ACCESS POINT IN THE AREA. THIS IS THE SITE OF THE PROPERTY AS NOTED. GIVE THE SIZE, IT IS NOT INTENDED FO LIARS DISTRIBUTION TYPE USES.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT RECENTLY APPROVED I THE CITY ON LAKEVIEW , THIS IS, I THINK, THIS WOULD BE SMALLER THAN THEIR SMALLEST BUILDING. I IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT SIZE. FOR THAT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. SMALL TO MID TYP PRODUCT. AS HAS BEEN NOTED , I IS NOT INTENDED . A TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION BUILDING WOULD HAV DOCS COMING IN THE ENTIRE REA OF THE BUILDING. WE HAVE LIMITE THAT . THERE ARE DOG YEARS ON THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS ALSO INTENDED TO CREAT ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR THE BUILDING AND TO ALSO HELP WITH THE LOADING AREA FROM OTHER VIEWS. THAT IS PROBABLY A LOT BETTER IMAGE OF THE SITE AS IT STANDS NOW. IF YOU BEEN OUT THERE, YOU KNOW THERE IS KIND O AN INFORMAL KIND OF DRIVEWAY O THE NORTH SIDE AND EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL SORT OF DELINEATE THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY AND ACCESS WIL BE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER COMING DOWN . IT IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

THESE ARE PLACES OF COMMERCE. THIS IS THE IMAGE OF THE CORNERS OF THE BUILDING. THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WE DO ACROSS COUNTIES IN THE U.S.. IT IS FIRST-CLASS INDUSTRIAL. IT IS REGULAR INSTITUTIONAL KIND O CAPITAL INTO OUR DEVELOPMENT AND A FEW DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES WE WORK WITH REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, LARGE TRUSTS, PRIVATE EQUITY, THAT AR LOOKING FOR FIRST-CLASS AAA INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS. SO THAT I OUR MANDATE AND THAT IS WHAT W DO ACROSS CANADA AND THE U.S.

WE HAVE BEEN IN THE BUSINESS FO SEVERAL DECADES. I HAVE BEEN WITH THE COMPANY FOR 10+ YEARS NOW. THIS IS WHAT WE DO. WE CREATE SPACE FOR BUSINESS. I CAN GIVE MORE INSIGHT TO THE

[01:35:04]

TENANT PROFILE. WE WILL HAVE GREAT BUSINESSES IN ROWLETT A PLACE TO GROW WITHIN THE CITY. I MENTIONED THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WHEN I FIRS CAME TO DALLAS THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO NOW. I WAS APPRISED O THE DFW MARKET AND THE -- WITHIN THIS AREA. THAT MEANS AM SURE COMPETING WITH HIS NOSE HAS LOOKING TO LOCATE IN THE BROADER AREA AND TRYING TO KEEP BUSINESSES WITHIN YOUR CITY. WE ARE HOPING TO TAKE THIS HISTORICALLY FOREVER VACANT PROPERTY AND TURN IT INTO PRODUCTIVE USE. AND A PLACE FO BUSINESS. WE PROBABLY COVER TH MOST OF PLANS FOR THE ELEVATION ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD BUT IF YOU WANT TO SEE SOME OF OUR PRODUCTS SOUTH OF THE SPEEDWAY, AND NORTH , THE FIRST IS COMPLETE WITH REBUILDING DEVELOPMENTS. QUITE A BIT BIGGE THAN THIS ONE. ABOUT 80% DONE NOW AND WILL BE FULLY COMPLETE WITHIN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AS W WRAP UP THE DEVELOPMENT . IN TERMS OF OTHER PROJECTS WE HAVE DONE. THE TOP LEFT CORNER, THAT'S A BUILDING COMPLETED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WHEN CHANDLER, JUST OUTSIDE PHOENIX.

THE TOP RIGHT CORNER , THAT'S THE BUILDING WE DID IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, JUST OUTSIDE VANCOUVER. THE BOTTOM LEFT IS PROPERTY DEVELOPED A FEW YEARS AGO IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX. AND THE ONE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS ONE WE FINISHED LAST YEAR IN TH CITY OF LAS VEGAS. SO YOU KIND OF HAVE A SENSE. THIS IS, AGAIN, FIRST-CLASS TYPE OF PRODUCT. VERY MUCH IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE MARKET IS LOOKING FOR FOR THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSES AND PLACES OF COMMERCE. THIS BUILDING WOULD BE SMALLER THAN MOST OF THESE FUNDS. BUT TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE QUALITY OF PRODUCT WE DO IN THE U.S. AND THE ONE OUTSIDE OF VANCOUVER, CANADA. MAYBE I WILL STOP THERE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR WESTERNS RAISED ABOUT TRAFFIC TRUCK TRAFFIC, TYPE OF TENANTS, ACCESS . I CAN ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> ALL RIGHT. I MEAN, EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE ASKING. WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR HERE?

>> BEN WALLACE. YOU NEED MY ADDRESS? SO I WORK AT COLLIERS. I AM VICE PRESIDENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND LEASING. SO I SPENT ALL DAY EVERY DAY TALKING TO USERS AND OWNERS ABOUT THE BUILDINGS OF WHERE OFFICE WAREHOUSES ARE GOING.

AND SO WE TRY TO TAKE A VERY ANALYTICAL APPROACH TO MAKING IT WHAT USERS NEED. ON A DAILY BASIS. AND ALSO THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE ASSETS THEY COME TO. AND SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION RIGHT OFF THE BAT WE DO NOT HAVE A TENANT THAT HAS SIGNED A LEASE. BUT I DO HAVE PROBABLY THE CLOSEST FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE THAT I COULD THINK OF. LEASING A DEVELOPMENT CALLED FIREWALL ON CRIST ROAD JUST OFF OF 78. AND IN MY EXPERIENCE , THE USERS THAT ARE ATTRACTED TO THIS AREA ARE NOT ONES YOU WOULD FIND FURTHER WEST IN THAT AREA.

THAT IS DUE TO A COUPLE DIFFERENT REASONS. USES THAT AR HIGH-TRAFFIC FOCUSED. THEY DO NOT WANT TO USE -- IT IS INEFFICIENT AND MORE EXPENSIVE. AND TWO. YOU ARE NATURALLY GOIN TO BE PULLING FOR MORE OF A TECH PORTAL APPEARED KIND OF OVER AND DOWN RATHER THAN PULLING EAST. IT IS NOT AS EFFICIENT TO GET FROM 65 TO HEA AS IT IS TO COME DOWN. AND SO AS WE WERE DESIGNING THE BUILDING, WE WERE STRATEGIC AND WE MADE SOME SERIOUS CONCESSION FROM WHAT WOULD BE A TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION BUILDING, MEETING THE DOG YEARS WOULD NOT BE THERE. YOU KNOW, AND WHAT THAT DOES . I DID THIS LAST TIME.

ANYWAYS. >>

>> I WAS TRYING TO GET BACK. SORRY. OKAY. SO NORMALLY, WHA YOU SEE IS THE ENTIRE LEFT SID AND THE LINE REDACTORS. IT WOULD HAVE A CIRCULAR FLOOR. THAT WOULD BE COUNTERCLOCKWISE SO THAT TRUCKS CAN COME IN AND THEN THEY COULD BACK UP AND GO TO THE LEFT SHOULDER. THAT IS WHY THE BUILDING GOES THAT WAY.

THOSE DOES HAVE THE PROPER KIND OF TURN RADIUS FOR THE

[01:40:08]

TRUCK TO COME AND IF THEY ARE COMING UP FROM THAT SIDE. BUT ULTIMATELY, IT IS REALLY NOT CONDUCIVE FOR HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC. AND NO USER. SO THERE IS THIS SIDE AND THE CITY DOES NOT WANT TRUCKS THERE. THERE IS THE OTHER SIDE WHICH IS A USER THAT HAS A LOT OF TRUCKS. AND S THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE MAKING US FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE IN THE FACT OF LIKE WANTING TO RESTRICT CERTAIN THINGS. WE TRULY KNOW THAT THESE WOULD JUST BE FILTERED OUT ANYWAY IN THE SURVEY. SO FROM THE TENANTS W ARE PURSUING, IT IS GOING TO BE REALLY CONTRACTOR SUPPLY FOCUSED TYPES OF GROUPS. AND S I'VE REPRESENTED A LOT OF PRODUCT IN THE EMERGING MARKETS MCKINNEY, ROCKWELL , AS THEY AR LEADING OUT. THE VERY FIRST AR THE CONTRACTOR SUPPLIERS TO THE SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO AS YOU SEE TH VERY FIRST TENANTS IN THE MARKET, IT IS MORRIS VILLA, ELLIOTT ELECTRIC, IT IS LIKE AL OF THOSE SUPPLIERS. THIS IS A PERFECT BUILDING. PERFECT FOR THEM. THERE IS AN UNNAMED TENANT THAT LEFT ROWLETT NOT TO LONG AGO. THEY ARE JUST DOWN TH ROAD. I THINK THEY WOULD BE A PRIME SUSPECT FOR THAT. ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE PURSUING. THE ONLY REASON THEY WOULD BRING IN FULL SEMITRUCK WOULD BE TO SUPPLY TH WAREHOUSE. AND AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOES OUT ON BOX TRUCKS OR VANS. SO I RAMBLED. ANY

QUESTIONS? >> COUNCIL? ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT ALEX COMMENTED ON YOUR BEHALF.

AS FAR AS THE DRAINAGE ISSUE GOES, YOU ARE ALL ARE AMENABLE SOME SORT OF UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT WOULD LIMI THE STORMWATER RUNOFF INTO WALNUT CREEK TO THE WEST?

>> YES. >> THE PERSPECTIVE OF WE HAVE NO ISSUE DESIGNING IT. IT WOULD BE -- WHAT WAS IN THE PD TO BEGIN WITH? WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS KIND OF MODIFYING THE RESURFACING THE TENSION ON IT.

AND MATCH THE RELEASE GOING IN TODAY. SO WE WILL HOLD WATER I THE TRUCK DOCK AREA AND RELEAS -- EXISTING TODAY .

>> YEAH, I KNOW A GOOD ENGINEERING TEAM THAT WOULD MAK SURE THAT HAPPENS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE ALL OKAY WITH THAT. THE SECOND QUESTION. IS THIS BUILDING DESIGNED TO BE WHITE BOX ENTERED INTO MULTIPLE LEASABLE SPACES? OR IS IT DESIGNED TO BE ONE CONTINUOUS UNIT LEASED BY ONE SINGLE

TENANT? >> THAT IS ALSO WHAT THE DOG EARS DOES BUT IT LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENT USERS WE CA HAVE. IT CUTS IT IN HALF. REALISTICALLY , FROM A FUNCTIONALITY STANDPOINT, IT IS -- AN OKAY. BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS YOU HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO, WHAT KIND OF EMPLOYMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPECT FROM THIS TYPE OF APPLICATION YOU TALKED ABOUT

WITH A CONTRACTOR SUPPLIER? >> ANY BALLPARK?

>> I WOULD BE SHOOTING FROM TH HIP.

>> OKAY. >> I DO NOT WANT TO BE

MISLEADING. >> THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR YOU OR A QUESTION FOR STAFF. TH NORTH SO TRY THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS. SO WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT IS THERE, THERE IS KIND OF THIS ALLEYWAY THAT CONTINUES NORTH. THAT IS LABELED ON THOS MAPS AS ENTERPRISE DRIVE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS ACTUALLY ENTERPRISE DRIVE OR NOT. WILL THAT REMAIN THERE AND BE NEXT BUILDING? YOU CAN KIND OF SEE I ON THIS MAP. YOU HAVE THE BOLD, DARK LINE IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF THAT .

>> ON EACH OF OUR PROPERTY LINE THIS PLAN SHOWS FROM THE AERIA PHOTO, THAT IS HANDY. IT IS A BIT OF A BROKEN UP DRIVEWAY.

SAME WITH THE PUBLIC ALLEYWAY THAT RUNS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY. IT KEEPS GOING FURTHER TO THE EAST AS WELL.

SO IT WILL CERTAINLY REMAIN. WOULD NOT BE ACCESSING. YOU CAN SEE THE ACCESS POINTS ARE ONLY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER , NORTHWEST. SO WE WOULD NOT BE , PARKING, YOU CANNOT GET FROM THOSE ALLEYWAYS ONTO OUR PROPERTY, OTHER THAN THAT

NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST. >> OKAY. IN TERMS OF BOX TRUCK

[01:45:05]

AND VANS. SINCE WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO LAND BACK THERE ANYWAY LET'S TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND FLOWS FOR THE IDEA THAT MOST OF THE EXITING TRAFFI FROM A BOX TRUCKS, NOT SEMI'S.

TWO A DAY I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT. I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT 30 TO GO 40 BOX TRUCK LEAVING EVERYDAY, DOING WHAT ALREADY EXISTS TO THE SOUTH. WITH THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE THERE , THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANT BOX TRUCK TRAFFIC TOO. HE IS THE IDEA THA THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO EXIT TO THE NORTH AND GO ON LAKEVIEW

PARK WAY? >> SO AS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE PNC MEETING, AND WHAT IS BEEN SAID IS THERE IS ALSO A NOTE TRUCK SIGN ON IT. SO IT WAS TAKEN INTO THE COUNT . I CANNO SAY THE EXACT VERBIAGE, BUT TRUCKS HAPPY WAS THE MOST EFFICIENT PATH TO GET TO WHERE THEY ARE TRYING TO GET .

>> SO THAT IS WHERE MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT COMES INTO EFFECT.

WHERE I WOULD PROPOSE THAT A CONDITION BE ADDED THAT ALL TRUCK TRAFFIC WOULD BE REQUIRE TO ROUTE TO AND FROM THE SECONDARY ACCESS POINT. THAT WOULD BE THE NORTH ACCESS POINT AND THAT SIGNAGE BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY INDICATING THAT.

TRUCK TRAFFIC IS TO ROUTE OUT OF THE SECONDARY ACCESS POINT, LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. SO IT SIGNALIZED WHICH ALLOWS FOR BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW. WHAT WE SE ON ENTERPRISE DRIVE NOW IS TRUCKS THAT HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING OUT IF THEY WANT TO GO NORTHBOUND. AND THEY END UP BLOCKING SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC.

AND ALSO, SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC TRYING TO TURN IN TO COAL ENTERPRISE DRIVE. THEY CANNOT TURN UNTIL A CAR COMES OUT. THA PRESENTS A CHALLENGE. SO NIPPING IT IN THE BUD IT IF WE SAY ALL TRUCK TRAFFIC MUST COM IN AND COME OUT OF THE SECONDAR ACCESS POINT , WHICH IS A TRUCK ROUTE, AS WELL. I THINK THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM. AND ALSO, WOULD TELL YOU, COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MET ON THIS. WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE SAME POINTS THAT TRUCK TRAFFIC REALLY SHOUL BE ONLY ACCESSING THIS DEVELOPMENT VIA THE NORTH ACCESS POINT. I THINK AT THE TIME YOU WERE ALL AMENDABLE TO

THAT AS WELL. >> THAT IS THE MOST LOGICAL

SOLUTION. >> OKAY. THAT WOULD BE MY AMENDMENT AND ADDING THAT CONDITION. COUNCILMEMBER?

>> TWO OTHER QUESTIONS CHANGIN FROM TRUCKS. THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT PARKING SPACES AND LINK THE PARKING SPACES. I THINK YOU GUYS WANTED 18 IN THE CODE SAYS 20. DO YOU GUYS HAVE CONCERN? I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION FROM PNC WHAT'S AGO WITH 20. WHAT DOES THAT DO TO YOUR SITE PLAN? TO PROCEED WITH THE PLAN YOU SE IN FRONT OF YOU. WE HAVE, IN REVIEWING THE CODE, IT COULD B THIS, MAYBE NOT, INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY WITH THE OVERHANG BEING INCLUDED IN THOSE MEASUREMENTS. THAT IS KIND OF WHY THE NINTH 18 WAS CREATED.

WE THOUGHT WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE. OBVIOUSLY, IF WE DID CREATE THE LARGER SPACES WE HAVE LOOKED AT, KIND OF REDUCING THE TRUCK MANEUVERING AREA. WE HAVE CREATED A PLAN THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH I WE NEED TO GO WITH THAT

REQUIREMENT. >> WE HAVE A LOT OF WHITE NOISE BEHIND US WITH THE AIR CONDITIONER RUNNING.

] >> I GUESS REITERATE, WE HAVE A PLAN MOVING FORWARD IF THAT CONDITION WAS PUT UPON US .

IDEALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THIS PLAN. BUT AN ALSO, I AM SENSITIVE HAVING -- FITTING IN MY GARAGE. I'M SENSITIVE TO THE IDEA OF THE SENSE OF BEING WHO WE THINK IT MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, PICKUP TRUCKS, LONG PICKUP TRUCKS WIT TRAILER HITCHES STICKING OUT. THERE IS A PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD SO I WANT TO TEST THE QUESTION IF THE 20 FOOT CREATES UNDUE STRESS ON BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP THE PRODUCT, I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO YOUR ARGUMENT WHY IF IT DOES NOT, THEN I THINK THE 20 FOOT NEEDS TO STAY IN BECAUS OF THAT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? 20 POINT WE WOULD DEFINITELY PREFER 9 BY 18. IT CAN BE DONE.

YOU FOLKS ARE THE DECISION-MAKERS, NOT US. YOUR

[01:50:09]

TYPICAL GARAGE IS 20 FEET DEEP. THE VEHICLES USUALLY, YOU HAVE FOOT ON EITHER END. SO I WOULD BE WILLING TO GO TO GO 19 TO ACCOMMODATE IF IT IS A BIG PROBLEM IN TERMS OF MANEUVERING

IN THE AREA. MAKE SENSE? >> I AM LOOKING FOR NODS AND I

AM NOT SEEING ANY. >> I THINK THE PARKING STOPS ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT CONCERN. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY GO UP TO

>> THAT SEEMS LIKE AN AUDIO THAT IS NOT TAKING. ANOTHER QUESTION? USES. I HAVE NOTED IN THE DISALLOWED USES FOR C2, ON OF THOSE IS A RETAILER OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET. I WAS WONDERING WHY THAT IS THE CASE. AND HAS AN ALLOWANCE FOR UNDER 25,000 BUT THE BUILDING IS 70. WHAT IS THE THOUGHT ABOUT NOT ALLOWING OVER 25? THE REASON I' ASKING IS I KNOW YOU HAVE POTENTIAL TENANTS IN MIND. WE HAVE TO THINK OVER THE 40 OR 50 YEAR LIFESPAN OF THIS BUILDING AND USES AND HOW THAT MIGHT COM

INTO PLAY. >> -- CAN SPEAK TO IT. THAT WA A REQUIREMENT OF STAFF. ALEX?

>> I DO NOT BELIEVE , IT WAS NO OUR PITCH. IT WAS STAFF . TO MAKE IT REALLY CAME DOWN TO SOLIDIFY THIS AS IS PROPOSED T BE A COMMERCE CENTER FOR THE CONTRACTOR IN THE WAREHOUSE AND NOT TO BE A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. BECAUSE THEN, IT COULD JUST COME IN AS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROPOSAL. IT WOULD JUST BE A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. SO THE THOUGHT WA BEHIND THAT TO ALLOW FOR APPROXIMATELY A THIRD OF THE BUILDING TO BE OF RETAIL USE. BUT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING TO BE THE COMMERCE CENTER. THE WAREHOUSE CONTRACTOR OFFICE WAREHOUSE THAT WAS PITCHED .

>> I GUESS I DO NOT REALLY QUIT UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WOULD BE THE CASE IN TERMS OF USAGE . I DO NOT SEE CHANGES TOO MUCH IN THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND THAT KIND OF THING. IN AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE KIND OF USE, YOU WILL GENERATE LESS THAN RETAIL SALES

THAN IF YOU HAD RETAIL SALES . >> THERE IS CERTAINLY THAT.

AGAIN, NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER BY ANY MEANS, BUT A RETAIL USE DOES HAVE ONGOING TRAFFIC. WHETHER A WAREHOUSE OFFICE HAS

PEAKS -- >> A LIQUOR STORE .

>> SO SOMEONE COMES IN LATER AN WANTS TO MOVE TO OVER A 25,00 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER, WHA IS THE PROCESS FOR THAT?

>> AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE DISTRICT. THEY WOULD BE COMING THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING

PROCESS. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> COUNCIL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS ALREADY BASED ON THE CLOSING TIMELINE. DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS FOR ANY SORT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INCENTIVE REQUEST AS PART OF THIS REZONING AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT?

>> NOT ANY REQUESTS THAT I AM AWARE THAT WE CAN ACCESS . IF THERE IS SOMETHING, I WOULD CERTAINLY --

>> JUST ASKING THE QUESTION . SORRY.

>> QUESTIONS? OKAY. THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> PUBLIC HEARING. SORRY. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS PUBLIC HEARING.

WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WAS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, COM UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND RESIDENCE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOW ENTERTAI A MOTION. SOMEBODY HAS GOT TO DO IT.

>> I WILL TAKE A SHOT AT THIS. PROPOSE THAT WE APPROVE THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM GENERAL COMMERCIA RETAIL C2 DISTRICT AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT LOT MANUFACTURING USES TO PLAN DEVELOPING WITH THE BASE ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL C2 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. NO DIMENSIONS OF THE VEHICLE PARKING SPACES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW TO FILMIC CODE, SOFT BE UTILIZED FOR ALL PARKING SPACES ABUTTIN THE BUILDING, AND THE MAXIMUM SPACE OF -- COMING DOWN FROM THE SITE OF ONLY TWO PER DAY. O

[01:55:01]

THE SIGNAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED THAT INDICATES ALL TRUCK ACCESS IS TO BE FROM THE NORTHWEST EXI AND NOT FROM THE SOUTHEAST.

>> THE BACK, FOR CLARIFICATION DID THAT INCLUDE THE AMENDMENT THAT A CONDITION THAT ALL TRUC TRAFFIC BE ROUTED TO THE

NORTHEAST? NOT JUST -- >> YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER JEFF WINGET?

>> YES, I WILL SECOND THAT. >> SO A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRIAN GALUARDI. A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER JEFF

WINGET . >> YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDATION WITH THE STORM WATER DETENTION AND RETENTION

REQUIREMENTS BY PNZ? >> YES.

>> OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER BRIAN GALUARDI SAID HE WOULD ACCEPT THAT . DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?

>> THE MOTION ALSO ACCEPTS THE AMENDMENT.

>> I DO. DISCUSSION? OKAY. I THINK THI IS A GREAT PRODUCT FOR THIS SITE. AGAIN, A FEW MONTHS AGO COUNSELOR REVIEWED AND WENT OVE THIS . AT FIRST, WE WERE KIND O HESITANT AND DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO THINK. VERY CONCERNED WITH THE TRAFFIC AND UTILIZING ENTERPRISE DRIVE. THIS MOTION ADDRESSES THAT . GIVEN THE PROPERTY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE LAYOUT, HOW IT IS BLOCKED O ALL SIDES BY OTHER USES AND THA IT IS NOT VISUAL FROM ANY PUBLIC STREETS , I MEAN, THIS REALLY IS KIND OF THE BEST USE OF THIS SITE. AND FOR THAT, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.

DEPUTY MAYOR? >> JUST A COMMENT FOR STAFF. I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE US TO PAY ATTENTION AS THIS MOVES FORWARD TO WHAT HAPPENS WITH WALNUT CREEK AND WHAT THAT LOOK LIKE. BUT WE MIGHT OR SHOULD O COULD DO AS A CITY TO ABATE AN FLOODING THAT HAPPENS UNDER THE MAIN STREET BRIDGE. WE KNOW IT IS AN ISSUE. WE DO NOT WANTED T GET WORSE. WE WANTED TO GET BETTER. THIS COULD MAKE IT WORSE. BUT WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT VERY CLOSELY SO WE CAN MINIMIZE THOSE CONCERNS AS THEY COME UP. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. CALL THE VOTE.

THAT ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. SORRY. LONG NIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

OUR NEXT ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION IS, STANDBY. ITE

[8C. Conduct a public hearing and take action to approve 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 21.49 acres. The property is situated west of Chiesa Road opposite Vernon Schrade Middle School, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

8C. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN SET FORTH IN THE COVER AT THE PLANT FROM A STATE RESIDENTIAL TO LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR 3 CONTIGUOUS PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 21.49 ACRES FOR THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED WEST OF -- ROAD -- IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS .

>> THANK YOU. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ARE SHOWN HERE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE. THEY ARE PROPERTIES THAT ARE OUTLINED AND THREE CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES , TOTALING ABOUT 21 1/2 ACRES.

THIS REQUEST IS RESTRICTED TO SOLELY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLANS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT IS THE EXISTING CLASSIFICATION TO LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. WE WILL STATED HERE. APPROVAL OF THIS REPORT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY. IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD , THE ALLOWED USES ON THIS SITE THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED TO US THAT SHOULD THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL, IT IS LIKELY THAT THE ZONING REQUEST WOULD BE MADE FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THAT WOUL REFLECT A LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. THE PROCESS FOR AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE DOES NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC PLAN PROCESS LAID OUT AS TO HOW TO AMEND TH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BEYOND THE FILING. FIRST, THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN IS ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY. IN THIS CASE, ROWLETT BEING THE CITY COUNCIL. THERE IS AT LEAST ONE PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED WHERE OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN FOR THE PRESENTATION OF TESTIMONY AND WRITTEN EVIDENCE. THIRD. THE AMENDMENT IS REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING STAFF AND PLANNING AN

[02:00:03]

ZONING COMMISSION. PROCESS AS IT TYPICALLY LAYS OUT IN ROWLETT DOES CONFORM TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE DEALER GC SETS FORWARD. IT IS USUALLY ALL PART OF A REZONING REQUEST.

AS THE PREVIOUS ITEM WE JUST HEARD. THERE ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED BEFORE BOTH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. AND CITY COUNCIL. THERE IS A STAFF REPORT THAT REVIEWS AND ANALYZES THE REQUEST. THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT T MAKE A PRESENTATION. AS WELL A WRITTEN TESTIMONY FORM. SHOUL THE COUNCIL DECIDE THERE IS AN APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT, IT WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE ORDINANCE BEING DOCUMENTED. THE PLAN IN ROWLET IS BASED ON EXISTING LAND-USE CONDITIONS FOR THE GENERAL AREA SO THIS IS A SNIPPET OF OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. IT SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERALLY HERE. THIS LARGER SPECKLED GREEN AREA IS ABOUT 6 1/2 ACRES. THERE ARE 24 PARCELS , INCLUDING THE THREE SUBJECT PARCELS LOCATED WITHIN THAT AREA. ALL THIS AREA IS RIGHT NO IS OWNED SF40. THAT REQUIRES LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE OR 40,000 SQUARE FEET AS A MINIMUM AND A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 2400 SQUARE FEET. THE STATE RESIDENTIAL FOR THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN IS DESCRIBED AS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON LOTS GREATER THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET. THERE IS NOT A MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE STIPULATED IN THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ESTATE RESIDENTIAL. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN IS CONSIDERED TO BE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES EN MASSE BETWEEN 7000 SQUARE FEET AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET IT ON THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WILL CONTAIN LOTS LESS THAN 7000 SQUARE FEET.

ALL THREE OF THOSE ARE INDICATE ON THIS MAP . OF COURSE, THE SUBJECT AREA IS THE STATED RESIDENTIAL. THE YELLOW, THE BUTTERCUP YELLOW, IT IS THE LO DENSITY. AND THEN THE MORE GOLDENROD COLOR IS THE MEDIAN DENSITY. SO TO DISCUSS THE REMAINDER OF THIS TRACTOR AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR STATE RESIDENTIAL. THE 21 PARCELS NO A PART OF THIS REQUEST, 19 OF THOSE PARCELS MEET THE MINIMUM ZONING REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN, THA IS 40,000 SQUARE FEET. 11 OF THESE PROPERTIES HAVE HOMES.

CONSTRUCTED UPON THEM. THEY WER BUILT BETWEEN 1930 AND 1988.

ALL OF THE HOMES ARE LESS THAN 2400 SQUARE FEET. THAT IS LESS THAN THE MINIMUM DRILLING AREA FOR THE ZONING AREA. THE ZONING DISTRICT OF SF40. AGAIN, THAT WOULD STATE THE STATE RESIDENTIAL DOES NOT STIPULATE A MINIMUM HOME REQUIREMENT ON THERE. WHEN STAFF LOOKED AT THIS , WE DETERMINED THIS DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL IS A LONG-STANDING AND WELL-ESTABLISHED THING IN THIS AREA. AGAIN, NOT TYPICALLY HANDLE THIS IN THIS MANNER. W ADAPTED SOME OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE USE IN EVALUATING A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST. ONCE WE RESTRICTED OURSELVES TO. THE SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT, AND SUCH. I WILL GO TO SOME OF THOSE THINGS ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDES FOR THE FIRST CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT IN THE VICINITY. AGAIN, THE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT IS PRIMARILY THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE AREA. THE PATTERN TO THE NORTH AND THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY , THAT COMPRISES THE REMAINDER THIS AREA DESIGNATED FOR A STATE RESIDENTIAL, ARE LARGE LOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.

THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AND EAST ARE THE LOWER DENSITY OF THE LOW-DENSITY AND MEDIUM DENSITY. WHETHER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SUITABLE FOR THE EXISTING CLASSIFICATION AND TH PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION. AGAIN, THE EXISTING CLASSIFICATION AND TENANT FOR LARGE LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES DOES ALIGN WITH EXISTING LAND-USE PATTERN WITHIN THIS AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR

[02:05:02]

STATE RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION OF LOW-DENSITY IS PRIMARILY THE PATTERN TO TH SOUTH AND THE NORTHEAST OF THIS SITE. STRAIGHT TO THE MIDDLE SCHOOL. WHILE NOT ENTIRELY UNSUITABLE, STAFF CONSIDERS IT PIECE MEAL AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AS IT WOULD COMPROMISE THE RESIDENTIA USES ON THOSE PROPERTIES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE HOMES, AS WELL AS THE POTENTIAL FOR SUCH DEVELOPMENT ON THE REMAINING ACREAGE PARCELS THAT DO NOT HAVE HOMES ON THEM. STAFF WOULD SUGGEST A MORE SUITABLE APPROAC WOULD BE TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE AREA , WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE AREA THAT IT IS DESIGNATED FOR STATE RESIDENTIA USE AS WELL AS OTHER PROPERTIE IN THE AREA. SPECIFICALLY, THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF THAT 62 1/2 ACRES. THE SIGNIFICANT AND ADVERSE IMPACTS, TYPICALL, THOSE THINGS THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH AIR WHEN TALKING ABOUT THOSE IMPACTS. THAT WOUL BE DRAINAGE, TRAFFIC , AND WATER, WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE. ANY DEVELOPMENT, OF COURSE, THIS PROPERTY WOULD INCREASE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER . THE STORM WATER RUNOFF TRAFFIC AND IMPACTING WASTEWATER TO THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. THESE TWO CHARTS I HAVE INCLUDED IN HERE , THE ONE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE WAS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE ONE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE , WE ADDED AFTE DISCUSSING THIS WHEN TALKING T THE PRESENTATION. IN FACT, QUIT A TALK A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY FROM WHAT IS SHOWN HERE ON THESE SLIDES. SO THESE TWO CHARTS COME FROM THE 2019 CONFERENCE OF PLAN UPDATE. THAT IS THE MOST RECENT ITERATION OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE LAND. THE LEFT-HAND CHART IS THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS , WHICH YOU CAN SEE THERE. THE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL IS SHOWN TO BE APPROXIMATELY 12% OF THE ENTIR CITY LAND AREA. LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS SHOWN TO BE ABOUT 38.8% OF THE CITY. THE CHART ON THE RIGHT IS ALSO TAKEN FROM THAT. THAT IS THE EXISTING LAND-USE AS OF 2019.

IT'S REFLECTING THAT SINGLE-FAMILY USE OF THE GENERAL, THAT WOULD INCLUDE ALL OF THE STATE RESIDENTIAL, LOW RESIDENTIAL, AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL . CURRENTLY, THAT I ABOUT 39% OF THE CITY. IN 2019 IT WAS 39% OF THE COMMUNITY.

YOU'LL ALSO RECALL, OUR ROWLET PROJECT TO CHANGE AND UPDATE THE ZONING CODE. THERE WAS ANALYSIS DONE DURING THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ASSESSMENT. THAT IS MORE OF AN UPDATE TO THAT. THE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL CURRENTLY IS ABOUT 7 1/2% OF THE CITY'S LAND ARE FOR THAT WOULD INCLUDE PROPERTIES THAT ARE SOLD SINGLE-FAMILY 40 AND SINGLE-FAMILY 20. AND THE LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COMPRISES ABOUT 25% OF THE CITY'S EXISTING LAND-USE FOR THAT WOULD INCLUDE SF 10, NINE AND 8. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. OF COURSE, IF YOU RECALL FROM THE PRESENTATION TWO WEEKS AGO FOR THAT IS ABOUT 30% OF THE CITY IN THERE.

WILL SHOW AGAIN IS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE NOT A WHOLE LOT OF THE CITY THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR A STATE RESIDENTIAL. IN THERE. SO AGAIN, WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT SINGLE-FAMILY, GENERAL, IT IS NOT THE OVER PROLIFERATION OF SINGLE-FAMILY.

WE SUGGEST KEEPING A BALANCE AND ARRAY OF OPTIONS , INCLUDIN THE STATE RESIDENTIAL AND LARG LOT SUBDIVISIONS, AS WELL AS BALANCING THAT WITH ALREADY HAVING A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF KEEPING THEM AT A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF THE CITY THAT CURRENTLY IS USED FOR THE LOWER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS WHAT IS BEING PROJECTED AS LOWE DENSITY. THAT WOULD SUGGEST WE WOULD MOVE ONTO THE NEXT SLIDE HERE. CAREFUL CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN AND REDUCING THAT AMOUNT OF THE STATE RESIDENTIAL TO ENSURE THAT BALANCE GOING FORWARD. THE NEXT CONSIDERATIO IS WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ENSURE THAT FUTURE USES WOULD BE COMPATIBLE IN SCALE. THE PROPERTIES TO TH WEST OF THE NORTH ARE LARGE LOT IN THE FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY NOT DEVELOPED. THEY ARE WELL-SUITED

[02:10:03]

TO THAT BASED UPON THE LOT CONFIGURATION. DESIGNATING THES TRACKS FOR SMALLER LOT SUBDIVISION, WITHOUT A COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF THE ENTIR AREA WOULD COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE DEVELOPED WITH ALL LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL , AS WELL AS THE POTENTIAL ON THOSE VACAN LOTS. ALSO, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD NOT ENSURE THE FUTURE USES WOULD BE COMPATIBLE IN SCALA. I'M TALKING ABOUT LOT SIZE AS WELL. SO AGAIN, YOU HAVE THOSE LARGER ACREAGE SITE AND THERE WOULD BE A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS THAT WOULD BE IN THE RANGE OF SEVEN TO GO 20,000 SQUARE FEET. THE SUPPLY OF LAND AND ECONOMICAL THE RELEVANT LAND OF THE USED DISTRICT TO BE APPLIED BY THE AMENDMENT FOR IN SIMILAR DISTRICTS AND RELATIONSHIP FOR DEMAND. AGAIN, I WOULD NOTE THAT WE HAVE ABOUT 12% OF THE CITY DESIGNATED FOR STATE RESIDENTIAL. THIS WOULD REDUCE THAT AMOUNT BY , I DID NOT DO THE MATH ON THIS. 21 1/2 ACRES ON THAT. AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE DECREASED ON THAT. LOW-DENSITY RESOLUTION IS THE DESIGNATION.

AS WELL AS CURRENT LAND-USE IN THE CITY. IT WOULD INCREASE ALREADY WHAT IS THE PREDOMINANT LAND USE WITHIN THE CITY.

AGAIN, THE DEMAND MIGHT BE HIG CURRENTLY FOR MORE DENSE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT . WE THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE AREA WHEN CONSIDERING AN AMENDMENT TO FUTURE LAND USE PLANS. THERE WAS NOTIFICATION SENT OUT BACK ON MAY 25TH. IT WOULD NOTE IN PARTICULAR WHAT WE SHOW HERE. THIS AREA THAT WE NOTIFIED, WE FOLLOW THE RULES SET FORTH IN OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS WELL A IN STATE LAW FOR ZONING CHANGES BUT WE DID NOT NOTIFY BY MAIL.

THE ENTIRE 62 1/2 ACRES SUBJECT TO, I SAID NOT THE SUBJECT TO.

THE 52 AND HALF ACRES DESIGNATE TO FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. NOT NOTIFIED AS THIS. THERE WAS A SIGN PLACED ON THE PROPERTY.

HOWEVER, IF THEY ARE NOT LOCAL TO THE AREA, THEY WERE NOT AWAR OF THIS REQUEST. SO SAYING ALL OF THAT, THERE WERE TWO NOTICES THAT WERE RECEIVED BACK . TWO OF THE NOTICES RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION IN THE 200 FOOT AREA AND NO NOTICES RECEIVED BACK FROM THE 500 FOOT AREA. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AFTER MEETING ON JUNE 13TH, THEY RECOMMENDED 6-1, APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM STATE RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL OF THI REQUEST TO AMEND FUTURE LAND US PLAN FROM STATE RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. WE BELIEVE THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION IS NOT IN CHARACTER WITH EXISTING LAND-US PATTERN. WE ARE RELUCTANT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PIECEMEAL TO THE AREA AND SUGGEST A MORE APPROPRIATE STE WOULD BE TO DO A COMPLETE REVIE AND CONSULTATION WITH ALL OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS IN CONSIDERATION OF A CHANGE . WITH THAT, I WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. I ALSO WILL NOTE THE APPLICANT IS HERE THI EVENING AND HAS PREPARED A PRESENTATION.

>> LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING, I I COULD?

>> OF COURSE . >> YOU MENTIONED THE COMP PLAN MUST BE AMENDED BY A COUNCIL ORDINANCE. THAT IS NOT CORRECT.

A COMP PLAN MAY BE AMENDED BY A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AFTER PNZ -- THE LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR ON THAT POINT. WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO PREREQUISITE TO AMEND A CONFERENCE A PLAN . WE DO THAT OVER PERIODS OF YEARS BUT WE HAVE COMMITTEES WE CREAT THAT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL AND PNZ. WHEN WE D PIECEMEAL INTO THE COUNSELORS WHEN IT IS EXERCISING THE DISCRETION IN THE CONTEXT OF TH ZONING CHANGE REQUEST RATE OF A ZONING CHANGE MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING COMP PLAN, WE AMEND THE COMP PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE THE ZONING.

HOW MANY APPLICATIONS, ALEX, AR YOU AWARE OF THAT WE HAVE EVER RECEIVED THAT ASK FOR A CHANGE IN THE COMP PLAN, BUT NOT A CORRESPONDING PLAN IN THE ZONING?

IS THE FIRST REQUEST. >> I WILL OFFICE THAT IN MY 16 YEARS HERE IN ROWLETT, THIS IS THE ONLY ONE WE'VE EVER RECEIVE . YOU HAVE A CONCLUSION AS TO WHY THE APPLICANT WOULD WANT TO

DO IT LIKE THIS? >> THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT WITH PREVIOUS FOLKS LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY, THERE HAS BEEN ,

[02:15:03]

WHEN DISCUSSING IT WITH STAFF, IT IS NOT CONFORMING TO THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN. THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE MA RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR SUCH A REASONABLE REQUEST.

>> OF, AS WELL AS WHAT WAS INDICATED. THIS IS WHAT WE DID TO CLARIFY THAT. THEY ALSO STATED THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND EXHIBITS AND PLANS TO DO A PLA

DEVELOPMENT ZONING. >> LET ME SUGGEST SOMETHING .

TELL ME IF I AM OFF BASE. SECTION -- IT TAKES A LOOK AND SAYS I QUOTE, "ZONING REGULATIONS MUST BE -- WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN" WE ARGUE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE I AN APPLICATION IS MADE TO REZON A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THE REZONING APPLICATION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONFERENCE THE PLAN, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO APPROVE IT. WE ALSO HAVE ARGUMENTS FROM DEVELOPERS AND ATTORNEYS THAT CORRESPONDINGLY IF AN APPLICATION FOR REZONING IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONFERENCE THE PLAN, THEN WE HAVE NO DISCRETION TO DENY IT.

DO YOU BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS DOING IT BACKWARDS? ASKING FOR A PIECEMEAL CONFERENCE OF PLAN CHANGE TO SET US UP IN BOXING US IN WHERE THEY WOULD ARGUE THAT WE HAVE NO DISCRETION TO

DENY IT? >> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT MAY BE A POSSIBILITY. AND SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD TAKE

INTO CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU FOR GETTING THERE THAT IS WHERE I AM SURE ALL OF US WERE GOING. COUNCIL, I WILL ASK YOU. DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD HEAR THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION? ARE WE COMFORTABL MAKING A DECISION NOW, GIVEN

WHAT WE KNOW WHO MARK >> YEAH, I DO NOT THINK I NEED TO HEAR THE PRESENTATION. BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ALEX . I DI NOT TAKE THE TIME TO WATCH THE PLANNING AND ZONING VIDEO. I'M CURIOUS IF YOU WERE THERE, IF YOU COULD SUMMARIZE HOW THEY ARRIVED AT A 6-1 RECOMMENDATION TO RECOMMEND APPROVA OF THE

ITEM TO THE COUNCIL. >> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE CONSIDERATION WAS NOT NECESSARILY -- YEAH. I WAS PROBABLY MORE INTENT ON LISTENING THEN, YES.

] >> WHAT DO YOU THINK, COUNCIL? ZONING RECOMMENDATION WAS BASE ON THE FACT THAT, YES, THERE IS AN AMENDMENT TO A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR THEM. BUT THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS THE ZONING APPLICATION.

THAT IS A DISCRETIONARY POINT FOR CITY COUNCIL. I UNDERSTAND THEY FELT THAT MAYBE THEY DID NEED TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESS A COMPREHENSIVE COMPONEN IN TERMS OF THE ZONING

APPLICATION. >> AGAIN, WE ARE CONNECTING TH

DOTS . >> I UNDERSTAND THE REASON. I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.

I DO NOT LIKE BEING BOXED IN TO, YOU KNOW, A DECISION HERE.

AND I FEEL LIKE THIS IS TOTALL THE CAR BEFORE THE HOUSE HORSE I DO NOT KNOW WHAT I'M VOTING ON. I HAVE NO DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. I ONLY KNOW THAT A CHANGE TO THE COMP PLAN IS BEING REQUESTED. NO. NO WE DO NOT DO IT THAT WAY. AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE NEED T KNOW WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON. WHY ARE WE THE PLAN? BECAUSE OF A ZONING CHANGE? WHAT IS IN THAT ZONING CHANGE? WHAT ARE WE VOTING ON, RIGHT? THIS IS, YOU ARE BLINDED COUNCIL HERE. NOT YOU, SORRY. BUT YOU UNDERSTAND

WHAT I AM GOING? >> I UNDERSTAND. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. JACK YES, EXACTLY. COUNCILMEMBER BRIAN

GALUARDI? >> I THINK WE ARE THINKING ALON THE SAME LINES HERE. THIS ENTIR PROCESS SETS A BAD PRECEDENT. I DO NOT THINK WE HAVE SHOULD HAVE EVEN ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION FOR THE CHANGE BUT THINK IT SHOULD'VE BEEN REJECTED. IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PROCESS FOR AMENDING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ON TOP OF THAT, I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE DIRECTION THEY ARE GOING IN TERMS OF HOW THEY WISH TO CHANG THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ON THE PIECEMEAL PLAN. I AGREE WITH THE REVIEW. THIS IS DETERMINING WHAT THE CITY IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTUR AND NOT THE 21 ACRES OF THE CITY AND WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE. SO WHEN WE MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONFERENCE OF, I WILL SAY THAT AGAIN. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE NEED TO CONSIDER THOSE CAREFULLY AND IN WHOLE, AND NOT PIECEMEAL AND IN PART. SO I A

[02:20:02]

DISAPPOINTED IN THE APPLICANT BRINGING THIS. I INTEND TO VOT

AGAINST THIS. EMPHATICALLY. >> DID YOU WANT TO ADDRESS WHETHER THIS QUALIFIED TO BE REVIEWED BY STAFF?

>> IF SOMEONE DOES BRING FORWARD AN ACCUSATION REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT WITHOUT HAVING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AS TO WHY, WE CANNOT JUST DENY IT AND WE CAN ASSESS IT AND LOOK AT IT. THAT IS WHY WE BROUGHT IT FORWARD TO BRING INT THE PROCESS SO THE APPLICANT HA THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL HAD THE ABILITY TO TAKE ACTION ON THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU DENIED.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE CIT ATTORNEY. DAVID, SINCE WE PUT IN THE AGENDA WE ARE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING, I REQUIRED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING?

>> HOLD ON. HOLD ON. THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE BOUND TO DO IT.

WE DO NOT HAVE TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING. YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REJECT THE APPLICATION AS WELL.

>> COUNCILMEMBER ELISE BOWERS?

>> THIS IS FOR STAFF. WHENEVER WE DO FOR A CONFERENCE OF PLAN

UPDATE? >> HOPEFULLY TO INITIATE THAT FISCAL YEAR 2024, IF WE ARE ABLE TO.

>> THANK YOU. >> Y'ALL HEARD MY SUGGESTION I THAT WE GO FORWARD AND ENTERTAI A MOTION FOR DENIAL . OR APPROVAL. I WILL DO THAT NOW. MAYOR?

>> I MOVE WE DENY THE APPLICANT 'REQUEST TO MOVE AND AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS SET FORTH IN THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN FROM THE STATE RESIDENTIAL TO CITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THREE PARCELS WITH ABOUT 21.49 ACRE -- IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT,

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS . >> THE MOTION BY THE MAYOR AND A SECOND BY -- TO DENY. ANY DISCUSSION? SEE NONE, CALL THE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY FOR THE DENIAL OF

[8D. Consider action to approve a resolution adopting Articles of Amendment for amended and restated articles of incorporation of the Rowlett Housing Finance Corporation.]

8C. THE NEXT ITEM FOR INDIVIDUA CONSIDERATION. ITEM 8D POINT CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ARTICLES A MINUTE FOR AMENDED AND RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF TH ROWLETT HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. TWO ITEMS OF COUNCIL WANTED THIS PLACED ON INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

COUNCILMEMBER BRIAN GALUARDI AN COUNCILMEMBER -- I ASSUME ONE O YOU WILL BE PRESENTING THIS ITEM? PLEASE, IF YOU WISH TO.

I HAVE BEEN ON THIS SIDE. THAN YOU FOR HEARING THIS. YOU ALL KNOW THE BACKGROUND OF THIS REQUEST. THIS PRESENTATION REALLY IS FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING AND WHY WE ARE DOIN IT. THIS IS TO CONSIDER AN ACTION TO APPROVE THE ARTICLES OF RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION FOR THE FINANCE CORPORATION THAT I BEEN PROMPTED BY SOME CHANGES MOST RECENTLY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. YOU ARE GOING TO MANAGE THAT FOR ME? THANK YOU. SO THE MISSION OF THE FINANCE CORPORATION IS TO PROMOTE HOMEOWNERSHIP AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR RANGE OF HOUSING OPTIONS WITHIN THE CITY , PARTICULARLY IN THE AFFORDABL HOUSING AREA. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE GOVERNING AUTHORIT IS FOR THIS START WITH THE STATE LEGISLATURE WITH TEXAS LOCAL CHAPTER 394. THE NEXT LEVEL OF AUTHORITY AS THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION THAT ARE THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY COUNCIL LOT. WITHIN THAT, IT WOULD BE THE BYLAWS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED AND PASSED BY THE FINANCE CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. BRIEF HISTORY. THERE WAS NO ARTICLE INCORPORATION WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2017. THEY WERE AMENDED IN 2019. THAT AMENDMENT WAS REMOVED THE COUNSELOR FROM BOND APPROVAL AUTHORITY. AND MOVE THAT AUTHORITY TO THE BOAR OF DIRECTORS OF THE HOUSING AN FINANCE CORPORATION. JUST RECENTLY, THE ROWLETT HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION BOARD WAS REPLACED BY -- OF COUNCIL. NEX SLIDE, PLEASE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO INCREASE THE TRANSPARENCY AS THE OPERATIONS OF THE ROWLETT FINANCE CORPORATION AND INCREAS