Dec 05, 2023 City Council Meetings

[00:00:05]

. >>> IT IS 7:00 P.M. AND WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT HERE IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

WELCOME ALL OF YOU TO THIS REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL.

MAYOR MARGOLIS IS OUT OF TOWN THIS WEEK ON A WELL DESERVED VACATION AND IF I KNOW HIM HE'S PROBABLY WATCHING US RIGHT NOW RATHER THAN RELAXING LIKE HE SHOULD BUT AS MAYOR PRO-TEM I WILL PRESIDE OVER TO WANT'S MEETING.

AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE THIS 3450E9ING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION.

THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT.

WE WELCOME PUBLIC INPUT. FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS OR ANY TOPIC HERE TONIGHT REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. PLEASE FILL THEM OUT AND GIVE THEM TO THE CITY SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE CITIZENS INPUT ITEM.

THE EXECUTIVE WILL BE HELD AT THE END OF THIS MEETING.

WE BEGIN WITH AN INVOCATION. TIN VOCATION TONIGHT WILL BE GIVEN BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO-TEM JEFF WINGET.

PLEASE STAND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO JOIN US.

>> PLEASE PRAY WITH ME. HEAVENLY FATHER, AS WE JOIN TOGETHER TONIGHT AS A COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE WITH US WE ASK FOR YOUR GRACE AND BLESSING UPON THIS MEETING.

LORD WE ASK THAT YOU GUIDE US, GIVE US DIRECTION, AND THAT YOU FORGIVE ANY OF OUR TRESPASSES. LORD, WE PRAY TO YOU.

WE ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR PRESENCE AND WE ASK THAT YOU BE HERE WITH US THIS EVENING IT'S IN YOUR SON'S NAME THAT WE PRAY, AMEN.

>>> AND NOW PLEASE REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY THE BY SCOUTS OF AMERICA TROUPE 646.

PLEASE COME UP.

. >> AND NOW THE TEXAS PREJUDICE

. >> THANK YOU.

[3A. Presentation of a Proclamation recognizing December 10th as International Human Rights Day and a request to light the downtown water tower in yellow.]

>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT WE'LL HAVE OUR PRESENTATIONS AND THE FIRST PRESENTATION WILL BE A PROCLAMATION WHICH WILL BE P GIVEN BY COUNCIL MEMBER ELISE BOWERS. AND JOINED BY STAFF REPRESENTATIVE TARA BRADLEY AND MEMBERS OF THE RDEIC.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. SO TONIGHT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PROCLAMATION ABOUT THE 2023 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY.

AND THANK YOU GUYS FOR JOBING ME UP HERE.

TARA, YOU LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

[LAUGHTER]. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING

HERE. >> HAPPEN FOY BE HERE.

>> WHEREAS THE CITY OF ROWLETT RECOGNIZES AND PROCLAIMS DECEMBER 10, 2023, AS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND WHEREAS ON DECEMBER 10, 1948, THE U.N.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTEDED THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE FIRST UNIVERSAL STANDARD STATING THAT ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE CERTAIN INHERENT RIGHTS TO BE UNIVERSALLY PROTECTED AND WHEREAS ON DECEMBER 10, 2023, MARKS THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS WHICH ENSHRINES IT WILL RIGHTS EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO AS A HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, LANGUAGE, POLITICAL OR OTHER OPINION NATIONAL OR SOCIAL ORIGIN PROPERTY BIRTH OR OTHER STATUS.

WHEREAS THE CITY OF ROWLETT IS COMMITTED TO CREATING A COMMUNITY THAT IS SAFE AND WELCOMING FOR ALL OF ITS DIVERSE MEMBERS. THEREFORE, I ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND BLAKE MARGOLIS AND ON BEHALF OF THE ROWLETT

[00:05:01]

[APPLAUSE]

[3B. Update from the City Council and Management: Financial Position, Major Projects, Operational Issues, Upcoming Dates of Interest and Items of Community Interest. ]

BY COUNCIL MEMBER SCHUPP. >> HERE'S THE ANNOUNCEMENTS.

EARLY VOTING FOR COUNCIL MEMBER PLACE ONE RUNOFF ELECTION ENDS TODAY, DECEMBER 5TH. ELECTION DAY IS ON SATURDAY DECEMBER 9TH. ELECTION DAY VOTING TAKES PLAITS AT 6602 -- OR AT 4004 MAIN STREET RIGHT BEHIND US IN THE AN LEX AND SEVERAL OTHER SITES THROUGHOUT ROWLETT.

PLEASE CHECK OUR WEBSITE FOR LOCATIONS.

ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS GOES THROUGH DECEMBER 8TH.

VISIT ROWLETT.COM FOR A FULL LIST OF ALL ACTIVITIES.

THE LIBRARY, THE LIBRARY IS SEARCHING FOR TUTORS FOR THEIR GED PROGRAM. IF YOU ARE A HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE OR A GED RECIPIENT AND WOULD LIKE TO VOLUNTEER, SIGN UP AT ROWLETT.COM/VOLUNTEER. KEEP THE KIDS BUSY WITH THE LIBRARY'S WINTER READING PROGRAM.

READERS OF ALL AGES CAN EARN CHANCES TO WIN PRIZES AND GRAND PRIZE ENTRY TICKETS. PICK UP WHY YOU ARE READING LOG AT THE LIBRARY AND WHILE THERE BE SURE TO VISIT THE OUTDOOR STORY WALK POSTED IN THE WINDOWS TO ENJOY AN INTERACTIVE VERSION OF THE POLAR EXPRESS. THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION IS ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS FOR THEIR ARTS AND EDUCATION GRANTS. ARTEDS AND EDUCATION GRANTS ARE AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND CULTURAL ARTS GRANTS ARE AVAILABLE TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. VISIT ROWLETT.COM/ARTS FOR MORE DETAIL AND APPLICATION FORMS. GRANT APPLICATIONS ARE DUE JANUARY 16TH. AND FINALLY FROM PARKS AND RECREATION, THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT WILL BE HOSTING THE SENIOR HOLIDAY LUNCH ON DECEMBER 12TH AT 12:00.

THERE BE FOOD, FUN, AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PROVIDED BY OUR OWN DERRICK CULL PEPPER AND REGISTER IN PERSON OR BY PHONE AT THE ROWLETT COMMUNITY CENTER. THOSE ARE OUR ANNOUNCEMENTS.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SCHUPP.

NOW IT'S TIME FOR OUR WEEKLY PET SPOTLIGHT.

THIS IS LAYLA. LOOK AT THOSE EYES.

LAYLA IS NEW TO THE SHELTER BUT HOPES HER STAY IS SHORT.

SHE'S USED TO BEING IN A HOME AND THE SHELTER IS SCARY FOR HER. SHE'S A SWEET AND HAPPY GIRL WHO LOVES BEING OUTSIDE ON WALKS EXPLORING AND ENJOYING THE FRESH AIR. SHE'S HEART WORM NEGATIVE TO PLEASE COME BY THE SHELTER AND SHOW HER WHAT A TRUE FOREVER HOME IS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MEET LAYLA OR ANY OTHER ANIMALS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STOP BY THE ROWLETT ANIMAL SHELTER OR CALL THEM AT 972-412-6219 OR VISIT AT 4402 INDUSTRIAL STREET ROWLETT, TEXAS.

TUESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY 10:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M.

I ALSO HAVE ANOTHER ANNOUNCEMENT.

LAST FRIDAY NIGHT THE COUNCIL ATENTEDED GISD'S ANNUAL TRIVIA AND TINSEL EVENT WHERE WE COMPETED AGAINST OTHER CITIES.

FOR THE FOURTH YEAR IN A ROW, WE BROUGHT HOME THE SMARTEST CITY AWARD. SO CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF MY FELLOW ROWLETT BRAINIACS BRIGADE AND THIS IS THE AWARD THAT WE WON.

[APPLAUSE]

. >> AND THAT'S NOT ALL.

THE ROWLETT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TEAM WON SECOND PLACE IN THE OVERALL COMPETITION AGAINST AROUND 40 OTHER GROUPS.

ROWLETT ROCKS.

[00:10:02]

[4. CITIZENS’ INPUT ]

>> OKAY. NEXT WE'LL MOVE ON TO CITIZENS INPUT.

DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENT CARDS?

>> OKAY. IF YOU WILL COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>>

BACK. >> OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

OKAY. >> YES.

>> JEREMY SMITH. 6522 LONG GREEN STREET.

ROWLETT, TEXAS. I'M HERE TODAY REGARDING THE ITEM 5B. I KNOW PREVIOUSLY I WAS HERE BEFORE. I MIGHT HAVE CAUSED A LOT OF RUCKUS BUT I WANT YOU GUYS TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER NOT APPROVING THIS ITEM. AND WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS THAT I FEEL LIKE ROWLETT IS ON A DIFFERENT TURN NOW.

WE HAVE NEW CITY COUNCILMEN. WE HAVE NEW STAFF.

IT JUST FEELS SO DIFFERENT ABOUT ROWLETT NOW.

DESPITE MY OPPOSITIONS TO JACKSON-SHAW AND TO THE WAREHOUSES, ONE THING I NEVER DID WAS DOWN PLAY HOW GREAT ROWLETT IS. I ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT HOW GREAT ROWLETT IS. I STILL BELIEVE THAT.

I WANT YOU GUYS THE RECONSIDER THE SITUATION WITH JACKSON-SHAW BECAUSE ONE THING WE NEED TO DO IS STOP WRITING A BLANK CHECK FOR EVERYTHING. LAST TIME I CHECKED, THAT ITEM WAS ABOUT $10 MILLION. RECENTLY, IT'S ABOUT $15 MILLION. WHEN THEY START CONSTRUCTION IT MAY BE 17, $18 MILLION BECAUSE OF INFLATION.

I WANT US TO REALLY THINK HARD ABOUT THAT.

DO WE ACTUALLY NEED THE ROAD EXTENDER? I TRAVEL THAT ROAD EVERY SINGLE DAY TO GO TO WORK AND COME HOME.

AND I PROBABLY SPEND ACT FIVE TO TEN MINUTES IN THERE.

NOW I WILL SAY THIS: YOU GUYS DID A GREAT JOB IN IDENTIFYING SOME WAYS TO SAVE MONEY AND REALLY PRESENT SOMETHING GREAT FOR THE CITY WITH THE IDEA OF PRESENTING EVERYTHING WITH DOWNTOWN AS FAR AS THE POLICE STATION LIBRARY CITY HALL THOSE DIFRNLT THINGS AND THAT WAS ALL THE ABOUT FINDING MONEY IN THE RIGHT PLACE. THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY TO SPEND ON THE MERIT ROAD EXTENDER. I WANT YOU GUYS TO GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE SIT REALLY WORTH SFLIT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPENDING FOR THAT MERIT ROAD EXTENDER.

THAT'S AN OF MONEY TO BE UTILIZED TOWARDS A LOT OF OTHER THINGS IN THE CITY, STREETS, RED LIGHTS, SO MANY OTHER AREAS THAT MONEY COULD BE USED FOR AND I'LL JUST BE HONEST WITH YOU.

I FEEL LIKE JACKSON-SHAW HAS NOT BEEN A GOOD PARTNER.

THEY DID THOSE THREE MEETINGS JUST TO PLEASE YOU GUYS TO TRY TO GET A CONSENSUS BUT THEY STILL DID NOT REALLY LISTEN TO OUR CONCERNS. AND I STILL WALK ADD WAY WITH A BAD TASTE MANY MY MOUTH. SO I REALLY WANT YOU GUYS TO EITHER RECONSIDER TABLING IT UNTIL WE GET THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER ELECTED OR SIMPLY JUST DECLINING IT.

DO NOT ALLOW THAT TO GO THROUGH. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? >> YES.

>> DAVE HALL.

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE AND YOU HAVE

THREE MINUTES. >> STORE. EMPLOYEE PLACED PHONE CALL POSSIBLY TO FENCE STOLEN PROPERTY.

ROWLETT THE TOLD ME I WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR NEW REPLACEMENTS.

I SO IED THE CITY THE PICTURE PHRASE MY SECURITY SYSTEM OF THE CITY EMPLOYEE DRIVING OFF WITH THE -- THE CITY REPLACED THEM BY SPENDING AN ADDITIONAL 1 THOUSAND DOLLARS.

SOMETIME LATER WHILE TALKING WITH A COUNCIL MEMBER THIS SUBJECT CAME UP. THE COUNCIL MEMBER BROUGHT THIS UP WITH THE PRIOR CITY MANAGER. HERE'S THE SUBSEQUENT TEXT BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBER AND ME. EXHIBIT 2.

DAVE THESE WERE NOT STOLEN BUT PICKED UPABLY THE PARK DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE AT THE DIRECTION OF HIS SUPERVISOR WHICH IS THE CALL HE MADE PRIOR TO PUTTING THEM IN HIS TRUCK.

THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY DISCARDED WITH OTHER DEBRIS IN THE BACK OF HIS TRUCK. THE ISSUE WAS HANDLED APPROPRIATELY AND YOU WERE MADE WHOLE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU TWICE SO I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU WOULD TELL ME THEY WERE STOLEN AS YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW MISTAKES HAPPEN AND THIS WAS ONE NOT DESIRABLE BUT CERTAINLY NOT A CRIME.

DAVE'S REPLY EXHIBIT 3. THIS INFORMATION WAS NEVER DISCLOSED TO ME. I HAVE ASKED PARK STAFF AND THE POLICE ABOUT THIS AND THEY IGNORED ME.

YOUR EXPLANATION ABOVE IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE HEARD THIS.

[00:15:02]

HAD THIS INFORMATION BEEN COMMUNICATED TO ME I WOULD NOT HAVE TOLD YOU WHAT I DID. DAVE'S EXHIBIT REPLY 5 MIKE FROM MY SECURITY SYSTEM WAS WITH ME WHEN I TALKED WITH THE POLICE ABOUT THIS AND CAN CONFIRM NOT GOOD WITH DIFFERENT SETS OF FACTS BEING COMMUNICATED. DAVE'S REPLY EXHIBIT 61 OF THE LAST ITEMS HOLDING UP MY CO WAS A REQUEST -- FOR ME TO REPLACE THE MISSING -- THERE'S BEEN A LACK OF RELEVANT COMMUNICATION WITH THIS WHOLE MISSING SITUATION AND HOW IT HAS BEEN HANDLED AND CONTINUES TO BE HANDLED.

SORRY, DAVE. BY NOW YOU'RE PROBABLY SAYING EVERY ROWLETT STAFF MEMBER INVOLVED WITH THIS IS GONE AND YOU ARE STILL HERE. DAVE, YOU WON.

LET'S MOVE FORWARD. MOVING FORWARD THE REPORT REQUIRE THEY BE REMOVE WHEN HAD MY STORE WAS OPEN.

EXHIBIT P. REMOVING THEM EXPOSES THIS TRIP HAZARD LEADING TO SPRAINED OR BROKEN ANKLE.

MUCH OF THE FOOT TRAFFIC ARE PEOPLE CARRYING KAYAKS WHICH HIDE THEM GREATLY INCREASING THE CHANCE OF A SPRAINED OR BLOKEN ANKLE. THIS IS AN IDENTIFIED ADA EXCEPTION THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED BEFORE SOMEBODY GETS HURT.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> RICHARD --

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE TREE MINUTES.

>> MY NAME IS RICHARD PALOWICZ. I LIVE IN ROWLETT BUT ROCK WELL COUNTY. I JUST WANTED TO TALK AGAIN AND KIND OF UPDATE COUNCIL THAT WE WERE OR ARE WITH THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES THAT WE'RE STILL CONDUCTING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT GENERAL LAKE EROSION. THE FIRST THING THAT WE DID IS TO PUT TOGETHER A PETITION AND WE DISTRIBUTED THAT PETITION TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND WHAT HAH LOOKING FOR -- WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS ACTUALLY GETTING PEOPLE NOT JUST FROM THE REGION BUT PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY USING THE LAKE OR USING IT AS A DESTINATION. WE'VE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE 284 SIGNATURES AND I DISTRIBUTED TWO COPIES OF THE PETITION SO PEOPLE COULD GO THROUGH THE SIGNATURES.

A MEETING WAS ALSO HELD VIA ZOOM ON NOVEMBER 1ST OF 2023 TO DISCUSS PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR MITIGATING SHORE LINE EROSION.

THOSE -- THAT INCLUDED SALLY WRIGHT, DIRECTOR OF DALLAS UTILITIES, MEGAN COLLINS, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL, DAVE HALL, ROWLETT CITY MANAGER, DALE JACKSON WHO IS FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL. JIM RANDOLPH PRESIDENT OF OUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT.

THE DEWU DALLAS WATER WATER UTILITIES IS CONVINCED THAT SHORE LINE EROSION MITIGATION IS JUST A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ROWLETT CITY. I DON'T QUITE FEEL THAT WAY.

BUT THEY KIND OF DUMPED IT ON THE CITY OF ROWLETT TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS.

OUR PETITION CONTEND THAT HE HAS THE CITIES OF DALLAS, ROWLETT, ROCK WELL, AND GARLAND AND HEATH ARE JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MITIGATING EROSION SURROUNDING LAKE HUBBARD.

MR. HALL -- I'M SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT TOTALLY.

THE RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE OR COULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY DEVELOPER, RESIDENT, OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER.

. CITY OF ROWLETT IS INVESTIGATING THE ISSUE. I AGREE WITH MR. HALL THAT THE SHORE LINE EROSION IS A COMPLEX PROBLEM AND WILL BE REQUESTING ANOTHER MEETING. THE PURPOSE WILL BE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE CITY'S PROGRESS IN DETERMINING WHAT MIGHT BE DONE OR HOW FUNDING MIGHT BE FOUND TO PROGRESS FOR A STUDY LIKE THAT

[00:20:02]

. >> THANK YOU.

HAVE ANY ONLINE CITIZENS INPUT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

[5. CONSENT AGENDA]

THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER OR CITIZEN MAY REQUEST ITEMS REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ITEM 5 B IS BEING PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. DOES ANYONE WISH TO PULL THE REMAINING ITEM?

>> OKAY. WILL BE CITY SECRETARY PLEASE READ THE REMAINING ITEM

INTO THE RECORD. >> YES.

CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING THE MINUTES.

>> AND I DO HAVE A MOTION?

>> I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.

>> THANK YOU. AND DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I PUSHED THE BUTTON.

AND CALL TO VOTE.

>> OKAY. AND THAT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

[5B. Consider action approving the execution of an Improvement Agreement. ]

>> AND THE NEXT ITEM WILL BE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH IS ITEM 5B.

AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR THAT ITEM.

YES. OKAY. ITEM 5B IS CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, TEXAS AND JACKSON-SHAW COMPANY THAT PROVIDES FOR A SURETY BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,775,900 AS FINANCIAL GUARANTY TO ENSURE AND SECURE TIN STALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE THE LAKE VIEW BUSINESS DISTRICT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

>> MAYOR PRO-TEM AND COUNCIL. THANK YOU.

THIS A -- THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM IS TO CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF ROWLETT AND JACKSON-SHAW COMPANY. THAT AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR A SURETY BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,775,900 AS FINANCIAL GUARANTY TO ENSURE AND SECURE TIN STALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT SERVE THE LAKE VIEW BUSINESS DISTRICT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. ARE SO AS YOU WELL KNOW JACKSON SHAW HAS DEVELOPED IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT.

SIT THE RED PROPERTY THAT IS SHOWN AT RIGHT.

IT IS A LIGHT MANUFACTURING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF THE INTERSECTION OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE AND MERIT ROAD.

IT COMPRISES APPROXIMATELY 171 ACRES.

AND WILL PROVIDE FOR ABOUT 1.6 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT MORE MANUFACTURING AND COMMERCIAL SPACE IN SEVEN BUILDINGS. JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET THIS TO WORK.

BUT THE DARK BROWN STREAK IS MUDDY CREEK.

AND THE LIGHT CURVED TAN STREAK IS GEORGE BUSH.

. SO HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.

BACK IN APRIL OF 2022, THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD DISTRICT WITH UNDERLYING M1 AND C1 DISTRICTS AND THEN IN JULY OF 22, THE STAFF HAS APPROVED A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT SET FORTH BASIC SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN SEPTEMBER OF 22, THE CITY AND JACKSON-SHAW ENTERED INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHICH SET SOME GOALS ON INVESTMENT LEVELS AND ESSENTIALLY EXPRESSED INTENT TO

[00:25:05]

-- REINVESTMENT ZONE. SO IN NOVEMBER OF 2022, THE NUMBER FOUR WAS CREATED COVERING THE NORTH SHORE AREA WHICH INCLUDES THE LAKEVIEW BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THEN IN DECEMBER OF 22, THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE FINALED PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN FOR THAT AND THAT THE SAME MEETING, COUNCIL APPROVED AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, THE BOARD, AND JACKSON-SHAW THAT SET UP SOME BASIC ACCOUNTING AND FUNDING LIMITS APPROVED THE ELIGIBLE PROJECTS AND GRANTED SOME ROADWAY IMPACT FEE WAIVERS.

SO NOW JACKSON-SHAW IS REQUESTING AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. LIT ALLOW US THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INSTALLATION OF THE REQUIRED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE SECURED WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ENABLING JACKSON-SHAW TO SUBMIT AND RECORD A FINAL PLAT AND THEN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO PULL SOME BUILDING PERMITS TO GET ON WITH THE PROCESS OF BUILDING THEIR FACILITIES.

AS YOU MAY -- LET ME GO BACK REAL QUICK.

THE MERRITT ROAD BISECTS THE PROJECT SITE AND JACKSON SHAW IS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING THE MERRITT ROAD INTERCONNECTER, AT LEAST 750 FEET OF THAT PROPOSED ROADWAY. THEY WANT TO CONSTRUCT THAT ROADWAY CONCURRENT CURRENT THE COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION BUILDINGS. HOWEVER TO CONSTRUCT THOSE BUILDINGS, THE PROPERTY MUST BE PLATTED AND PROPERTY CANNOT BE PLATTED UNTIL THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS COMPLETED BY THEM AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. SO THEY HAVE PROPOSED AS A CURE THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITH A FINANCIAL GUARANTEE IN THE FORM OF A SURETY BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF ALMOST $3.8 MILLION WITH THE CITY NAMED AS OBLIGEE. THAT REPRESENTS 100 PEEK OF THE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE -- IT IS AUTHORIZED SUCH AN AGREEMENT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IF THE DEVELOPER DOES DEFAULT THE CITY CAN USE THE BOND THEN TO PERFORM THAT WORK OR HAVE THAT WORK CONTRACTED.

IF CONSTRUCTION EXCEEDS THE BOND PROCEEDS, THE DEVELOPER WILL BE REIMBURSED BY THE CITY AND VICE VERSA IF THE CONSTRUCTION IS UNDER LESS THAN THE BOND PROCEEDS THE CITY WILL REIMBURSE THE DEVELOPER AND THIS IS ALL MEMORIALIZED IN THAT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND JACKSON-SHAW.

THAT AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR THE SURETY BOND, FOR THE PUBLIC PROICHLTS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE FINAL PLAT.

THE BOND WILL THEN BE RELEASED WITHIN 30 DAYS WHEN THEY COMPLETE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND IT WILL ALLOW JACKSON-SHAW TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT AND PULL BUILDING PERMITS.

HOWEVER, IT ALSO STIPULATES THAT FINAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL WE ACTUALLY ACCEPT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, TEXAS AND JACKSON-SHAW COMPANY THAT PROVIDES FOR A SURETY BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,775,900 AS FINANCIAL GUARANTEE TO ENSURE AND SECURE TIN STALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE THE LAKEVIEW BUSINESS DISTRICT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WITH THAT, I WILL FIELD YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS?

>> YEAH. JUST ONE.

ON YOUR TIMELINE, YOU'VE GOT THE TWO YEARS I BELIEVE BACK A COUPLE SO THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS THE PART OF THE MERRITT ROAD INTERCONNECTER THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IS THAT HELD UP BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE FURTHER

ON DOWN THE ROAD OR -- >> NO.

>> YOU DO THAT IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.

>> THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS THAT STUDY IS UNDER -- IS BEING UNDERTAKEN BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL FUNDING THE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. THERE'S NO -- THERE WOULD BE NO FEDERAL FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PIECE OF THAT ROADWAY SO IT

WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THAT. >> MR. COHEN, IF I COULD DISTILL DOWN THE PURPOSE OF THE SURETY BOND.

THE PURPOSE OF IT IS TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO COMPLETE THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF MERRITT ROAD AND THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

[00:30:03]

IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY. WITH THAT BEING THE CASE, WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS ITEM BEING DENIED IN.

>> IT WOULD BE A MORE LINEAR PROJECT WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONSTRUCT THE INFRASTRUCTURE FIRST AND THEN PLAT THE PROPERTY AND THEN PULL THE BUILDING PERMITS TO BUILD THEIR

BUILDINGS. >> IS THERE ANY INDICATION FROM THE DEVELOPER IF THEY'RE WILLING TO GO THAT ROUTE SHOULD THIS

ITEM BE DENY BID COUNCIL? >> I DON'T HAVE THAT

INFORMATION. >> IF NOT THAT'S OKAY. I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO SPEAK FOR THE DEVELOPER.

NOT IN ANY WAY. >> OKAY. BY POTENTIALLY DENYING THIS ITEM, WOULD ANYTHING CHANGE WITH THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY?

>> NO. >> WOULD ANYTHING CHANGE WITH THE -- THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THE NORTH SHORE AREA?

>> NO. >> SO THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD CHANGE REALLY IS THE TIMELINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> AND THE WAY THAT THE ORDER IN

WHICH THINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED. >> EXACTLY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU. >> WELCOME.

>> OKAY. I REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE PULLED FROM THE CONSENT ASTAIN BECAUSE I HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE CONTACT ME ABOUT IT WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED IN APRIL OF 2022, IT WAS QUITE THE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE. AND THIS WAS PRIOR TO ANY OF THE CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE SITTING UP HERE TONIGHT BEING ELECTED TO THE COUNCIL. THERE WERE MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO OPPOSE THIRD DEGREE PROJECT THE ENTIRE PROJECT AND I WAS ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME AND I DID VOTE AGAINST THAT PROJECT. HOWEVER, IT WAS APPROVE BID THE PRIOR COUNCIL AND THAT APPROVAL IS LEGALLY BINDING UPON THE CITY AS DEPUTY MAYOR PRO-TEM WINGET HAS MADE -- HAS SOLICITED FROM STAFF. NOTHING WOULD CHANGE IN REGARD TO THE ZONING OR IN REGARD TO WHAT IS BEING DONE WITH THIS PROPERTY. IF THIS WERE TO BE DENIED.

PART OF THIS AGREEMENT WAS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER AND WASTE WATER UTILITY INFRASTRUCK DURR, THE DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE PAVING INFRASTRUCTURE.

I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT TONIGHT'S ACTION IS ABOUT PROTREKKEDING THE CITY'S -- PROTECTING THE CITY AND CITIZENS INTERESTS TO ENSURE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS FUNDED AS WAS PROMISED. AND THAT'S WHY I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL?

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO-TEM. I'LL ECHO A LOT OF WHAT YOU SAID. THERE'S BEEN NO DOUBT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD UP NORTH HAS HAD SOME FRUSTRATIONS WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. AND MR. SMITH, I HEAR YOU.

I HEAR YOUR FRUSTRATION. ULTIMATELY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS THAT THE DECISION TONIGHT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING WITH WHAT THE DEVELOP HIS OR HER GOING TO DO.

THEY STILL HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BUILD THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

ALL THIS DOES IS AGAIN CHANGE THE TIMELINE OF THINGS.

WITH THAT AND FOR THE SAME REASONS, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF IT. THERE'S I BELIEVE A FEELING AMONGST COUNCIL THAT WE WANT TO BE MORE SELECTIVE WITH THE TYPES OF -- WE WANT TO BE MORE PARTICULAR ABOUT THOSE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS. WE WANT THIS BRING IN THINGS THAT ARE GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITY OVERALL.

BUT AGAIN THE CITY CANNOT REVERSE THIS DECISION THAT WAS MADE. SHOULD COUNCIL DO THAT THERE'S SEVERE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD COME ABOUT AND SO AGAIN MUCH LIKE WE WERE LAST WEEK ESSENTIALLY BOXED INTO A CORNER AND THAT'S FOURNT. BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.

SO I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR STAFF FULL AND ABIDING CONVICTION ASK BECAUSE THE QUESTION WAS BROUGHT UP THAT I THINK IS VALID AND SHOULD BE ANSWERED.

AND THAT IS THE NECESSITY OF THE MERRITT ROAD INTERCONNECTER.

I DO LIVE IN THE NORTHEAST PART OF TOWN AND PERSONALLY THIS IS A PERSONAL REMARK. I FEEL LIKE IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE INTERCONNECTER BE CONSTRUCTED BECAUSE I KNOW THE TRAFFIC FLOW THAT WILL HAPPEN ONCE THE NORTH SHORE IS FURTHER BUILT OUT. BUT IS THAT PART OF A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN?

>> I BELIEVE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO-TEM THAT AT THIS TIME IS.

I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE CONCEPTION OF THAT PROJECT.

BUT -- IN DOING SOME OF THE RESEARCH AND THE INVOLVEMENT THAT I HAVE HAD I HAVE RUN ACROSS SOME DOCUMENTS THAT

[00:35:05]

LATER.

>> ALL RIGHT. THE REQUEST I HAVE MR. HALL WOULD BE THAT WE GIVE MR. SMITH A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF KIND OF THE BACKGROUND OF MERRITT ROAD DALLAS COUNTY'S INVOLVEMENT, WHETHER THERE'S FUNDING INVOLVED THERE AND JUST THOSE PIECES AND PARTS TO HELP PIECE TOGETHER THAT THIS IS NOT JUST --

>> EXACTLY. THE RATIONALE BEHIND THOSE THINGS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON.

>> YEAH. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION THAT'S AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND JACKSON-SHAW COMPANY THAT PROVIDES FOR THE SURETY BOPPED OF 3775900 AS THE FINANCIAL GUARANTEE.

>> AND DO I HAVE A SECOND? CHEESE

. >> I SECOND.

>> OKAY. CALL THE VOTE.

AND THAT PASSES. 5-0.

>> MOVING ON TO ITEM 6:00, THE ITEM SCHEDULED FOR INDIVIDUAL

[6A. Conduct a public hearing and take action on a request by TX Harmony Apartments LLC, for Major Warrants to Article 5.4.11(b) of the Form-Based Code to allow a monument sign and Article 5.4.1 Wall Signs to increase the maximum size from 30 square feet to 137 square feet for a wall sign. The property is zoned Form-Based Urban Village (FB-UV) District and is located at 10001 and 11010 Harmony Hill Lane, south/east of the intersection of Merritt Road and the President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT), being Lot 1, Block B and Lot 1, Block A of Harmony Hill Addition in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUESTY TEXAS HARMONY APARTMENTS LLC FOR MAJOR WARRANTS TO ARTICLE 5.4.11 B OF THE FORM BASED CODE TO ALLOW A MONUMENT SIGN AND ARTICLE 58.4.1 EQUAL SIGNS ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEE CREASE THE MAXIMUM SIZE FROM 30 QUEER FEET TO 137 SQUARE FEET FOR A WALL SIGN.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED FORM BASED URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED AT 10001 AND 11010 HARMONY HILL LANE SOUTHEAST OF -- LOT 1 BLOCK B AND LOT 1 BLOCK A OF HARMONY HILL ADDITION IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

ALEX.

>> THANK YOU. SO THIS SITE IS AGAIN LOCATED AT HARMONY HILL LANE 10001 AND 11010 GENERALLY SOUTH AND EAST OF THE -- THE ZONING IS THE URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT WITHIN OUR FORM BASED CODE LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH SHORE DISTRICT.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THESE REQUESTS FOR THE MAYOR WARRANTS REGARDING SIGNAGE. THIS REQUEST SPECIFICALLY AGAIN IS TWO THINGS TO ALLOW FIRST FOR A MONUMENT SIGN.

MONUMENT SIGNS ARE PERMITTED ONLY AMONG -- LAKEVIEW PARKWAY.

THE TURNPIKE ACCESS ROAD AND THE ROUSING LANES.

THIS THE DOES NOT FALL IN ONE OF THOSE STREETS OR ROADS OR TURNPIKES SO THEREFORE THE MAJOR WARRANT IS REQUIRED TO PERMIT THAT. AND THEN THE SECOND REQUEST IS REGARDING A WALL SIGN THAT WOULD BE IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED UNDER THE FORM BASE CODE WHICH IS 30 SQUARE FEET.

SO TAKING THE MONUMENT SIGN FIRST THIS PROPOSED SIGN IS SHOWN HERE GENERALLY ON THE LEFT.

IT IS THE 40 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.

IT WOULD REPLACE AN EXISTING WAY FINDING SIGN AT THIS GENERALLY AT THIS LOCATION. THE FORM BASED CODE DOES LIMIT THE MONUMENT SIGN TO 50 SQUARE FEET SO THIS IS UNDER THAT MAXIMUM THERE. THE FORM BASED CODE DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH ANY SET BACK OR BUILD TWO LINES REGARDING SIGNS OF THIS KIND. BUT THEY ARE -- IT WOULD BE TEN FEET FROM FAITH LANE AND 14 FEET FROM HARMONY HILL LANE SO THERE WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE IN REGARDING ANY KIND OF SITE VIS BELATED TRIANGLE ISSUES WITH THAT PROPOSED SIGN.

THE PROPOSED WALL SIGN AGAIN SHOWN HERE ON THE LEFT THIS WOULD BE GENERALLY LOCATED ON A BUILDING LOCATED ALONG UNITY DRIVE WHICH DOES GIVE VISIBILITY TO THE MAIN LANES OF THE TURNPIKE. IT IS AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 137 SQUARE FEET. LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 48 FEET ABOVE GRADE ABOVE GROUND TO NOTE THAT THE WALL SIGN PER THE FORM BASED CODE COULD NOT EXCEED 30 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.

FOR REFERENCE SHOULD THIS PROPERTY BE GOVERNED BY THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE THIS SAME SIGN WOULD BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT TO BE 192 SQUARE FEET. FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION

[00:40:06]

SECTION 1.53 OF THE CODE SETS FORTH THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF MAJOR WARRANTS.

FIRST THAT THE MAJOR WARRANT DOES MEET THE GENERAL INTENT OF BOTH FORM BASED CODE AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1.21 AND THE FORM BASED URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT DESCRIBED IN 2.4.1.

THE REQUESTED WARRANT WOULD RESULT IN AN IMPROVED PROJECT WHICH WOULD BE AN ATTRACTIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THE -- AND THAT THE REQUESTED WARRANTS WILL NOT PRESCENT THE REALIZATION OF THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE FORM BASED DISTRICT.

STAFF SUGGEST THAT THESE WARRANTS DO ALLOW WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT, WOULD ASSIST IN WAY FINDING AND ESTABLISHING UNIQUE IDENTITY FOR THIS COMMUNITY. THAT THE PROPOSED SIGNS WOULD FURTHER THE SITE BRANDING THAT THE OWNER DEVELOPER AND OPERATOR IS TRYING TO DEVELOP HERE. AND THEN ALSO THEY'RE CONSISTBILITY WITH THE EXISTING SIGNAGE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND THAT LASTLY THAT THE REQUESTED WARRANTS DO NOT HIND TERRE REALIZATION OF THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE FORM BASED URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT THE SPIRIT AND INTENTION THERE OF.

AND WITH THAT, THE NOTIFICATION THAT WERE SENT OUT NOR IN AUGUST THERE WERE 2 -- I'M SORRY PLEA BARGAIN FOR THE -- 16 SENT AND NONE SENT IN ANY OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR NO RESPONSES RECEIVED THERE. THERE WAS ONE RESPONSE RECEIVED TO THE 500 FOOT COURTESY NOTICE AND THERE WERE 22 OF THOSE SENT OUT. THERE WAS, YOU NOTICE RECEIVE -- ONE NOTICE RECEIVED BACK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE MAJOR WARRANTS TO ALLOW BOTH THE MONUMENT SIGN AND THE INCREASED LARGER SIZE FOR THE WALL SIGN.

AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING.

THEY DO HAVE A PREPARED PRESENTATION IF COUNCIL WISHES TO SEE THAT. AND THEY WOULD BE WELCOME TO GIVE THAT. AND WITH THAT I WILL ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MAY HAVE.

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING WAY FINDING SIGN THAT WOULD BE REPLACED BY THE MONUMENT SIGN?

>> I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE RANGE OF 8 TO 10 SQUARE FEET.

>> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT. I DID DRIVE OUT THERE TODAY JUST TO LOOK AT. SITE AND SEE AND AS FAR AS I COULD TELL I THINK THE SIGNAGE IS COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE, HELPFUL, SOLY BE VOTING FOR THIS.

-- SO I WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS. >> OKAY. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO GIVE HIS OR HER PRESENTATION? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD.

>> GOOD EVENING. I'M KURT HORAK AND SOUTH LAKE, TEXAS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS REQUEST. LET'S SEE HERE.

SO THIS KIND OF SHOWS YOU THE ECONOMISTING WAY FINDING SIGN UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER. AND WHAT WE WOULD -- WE'RE PROPOSING TO REPLACE IT WITH A LARGER MONUMENT SIGN.

IT DOES GIVE SOME AS YOU CAN SEE THE SMALL EXISTING WAY FINDING SIGN IS DIFFICULT TO READ. LOW VISIBILITY.

AND THE PROPOSAL IS -- IT COMPLIES WITH THE NORMAL SIGN ORDINANCE. WE DID NOT TRY TO GO REAL BIG WITH IT. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT SO THAT IT'S INFORMATIONAL THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE COMING INTO HARMONY APARTMENTS WHERE THE LEASING OFFICE IS AND WHERE SOME OF THE BUILDINGS ARE.

>> THIS IS KIND OF A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF THE SITE.

AS YOU COME IN HARMONY HILL LANE YOU WOULD SEE THE MONUMENT SIGN THERE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE AND DIRECTING KIND OF THE WAY FINDING TOWARD THE LEASING OFFICE.

AND THEN YOU CAN SEE ALSO THE MAIN BUILDING SIGN AND THE

PROPOSED LOCATION FOR THAT. >> OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APP SDMANT

. >> -- APPLICANT? THANK YOU.

>> OKAY.

>> I DID HAVE -- THAT PRESENTATION KIND OF CUT OUT ON ME. SO I'M HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY BUT LET'S SEE HERE. JUST ASK FOR WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS

[00:46:21]

OKAY.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. >> NOW DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THIS IS A BACK LOTTED SIGN IS THAT CORRECT?

LIGHTS COME THROUGH THE FINAL? >> LIGHTS COME THROUGH THE

LETTERS. >> ONLY THE LETTERS.

>> THE ACTUAL BACK. >> GOT IT.

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION REGARDING THIS ITEM?

>> PUBLIC HEARING. YES.

I WANT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND ASK IF WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

NOW, COUNCIL, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM?

>> COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE MAJOR WARRANT ARTICLE 5.411 B OF THE FORM BASED CODE TO ALLOW A MONUMENT SIGN AND ARTICLE 5.41 WALL SIGN TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM SFRIEZ 30 SQUARE FEET TO 137 SQUIRE FEET FOR A WALL SIGN.

>> THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION?

>> I WILL SAY WHEN I FIRST READ THIS AND SAW THE INCREASE FROM 30 SQUARE FEET TO 137 SQUARE FEET I THOUGHT THAT IS A REALLY HUGE INCREASE BUT WHEN I SAW THE PICTURES OF WHAT THE SIGNS WOULD LOOK LIKE, I THINK THAT THEY THIS FIT INTO THE AREA -- THEY FIT INTO THE AREA WELL. THEY ARE COMPARABLE TO THE OTHER SIGNS IN THOSE AREAS AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT SOLY BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.

>> CALL THE VOTE.

>> AND THAT PASSES 5-0. DLEEZ THANK YOU.

[6B. Conduct a public hearing and take action on a request by Joe Soliz, regarding an amendment to a Special Use Permit to allow an increase in height and size for an accessory structure in a residential zoning district that is over 500 square feet in size on property zoned Single-Family Residential (SF9) District. The 1.65-acre property is located at 4818 Chiesa Road, southeast of the intersection of Chiesa Road and Pennridge Circle, Lot 1 Block 1 of the Soliz Estate Plat, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

>> WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO 6 B. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY JOE SOLIZ REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT AND SIZE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT THAT IS OVER 500 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF 9 DISTRICT. THE 1.65 ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4818 CHIESA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CHIESA ROAD AND PENNRIDGE CIRCLE.

AND AL WELCOMES. HERE YOU ARE AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT AGAIN. THIS PROPERTY SNOUN RED ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE IS OWNED SINGLE FAMILY NINE REQUIRING A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 9,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 70,000 SQUARE FEET WHICH 3U9S IT ABOUT COMING UPPING ON AN ACRE AND TWO THIRDS IN AN AREA. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ALONG PENNRIDGE, THE STREET THE NORTH AND THEN ALONG ARE COMING IN AT ABOUT 15,000 SQUARE FEET THOSE PROPERTIES UP AND AROUND IN THERE AND THEN LINDSEY THE STREET HERE TO THE SOUTH ARE APPROXIMATELY 8,000 SQUARE FEET GIVE OR TAKE IN AVERAGE.

THIS LOT HAS FERNAGE ON BOTH CHIESA AND PENN RIDGE. SO THE SUP WAS APPROVED

[00:50:01]

AND THIS SECOND REQUEST HERE THORACIC REQUEST BEING CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL THIS EVENING DID HAVE A HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHICH UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

THEY ARE SEEKING TO AMEND THIS SUP THAT WAS APPROVED IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT FROM 12 FEET TO 16 FEET AND THEN THE AREA OF THE BUILDING FROM 1,650 SQUARE

FEET TO 3,187 SQUARE FEET. >> OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE LOT. ALSO THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE THE PAVED AREA THE AS YOU ARE FASHION ON THIS LOT WHICH INCLUDES ALL THE STRUCTURES PLUS THE BUILDING IS APPROXIMATELY 18,872 SQUARE FEET. WHICH IS ABOUT 25% OF THE LOT.

THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE COMES IN AT 2,442 SQUARE FEET AND THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS 3,187 SQUARE FEET.

ONCE AGAIN, TYPICALLY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RAZE SUBORDINATE IN BOTH HEIGHT AND AREA TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

WITH THE NOTIFICATION FOR THIS THERE WERE NOTICES SENT OUT TO 21 PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET WITH NO RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC ON THAT. THERE WERE 40 NOTICES SENT OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET AND THERE WAS ONE NOTICE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. TWO IN FAVOR.

STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL OF THIS AMENDMENT TO THIS SUP ALLOWING FOR INCREASE OF HEIGHT AND SIZE.

THAT DOES -- THE RATIONALE BEHIND THAT IS AGAIN FROM ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT THE CODE REQUIREMENT IS AND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TYPICALLY ARE SUBORDINATE BOTH IN SIZE AND HEIGHT TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE.

HOWEVER, THROUGH THE HEARING PROCESS, THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE THIS FOR AND THE COUNCIL MAY EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD ALSO SAY I'M HAPPEN FOY ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS.

AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING.

HE DOES ALSO HAVE A PRESENTATION.

AND HE WOULD BE GLAD TO ADDRESS YOU THIS EVENING AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU, ALEX. I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

THE HEIGHT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE BUT AM I CORRECT THAT THERE ARE OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES HIGHER THAN THIS PROPOSED ONE? OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

[00:55:12]

>> GOOD EVENING. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FROWARD. SOLIZ. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

I WANT TO MAKE ONE THING WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING JUST IT'S KIND OF MISLEADING.

THE BUILDING ITSELF IS THE 1,640 THE ADDITIONAL CONCRETE THAT WAS POURED AROUND IT FOR THE PORCH AND THE DRIVEWAY, THAT'S WHERE THE 3,000 COMES IN. SO I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO BE MISLED THINKING THAT THE BUILDING ITSELF IS LARGER.

IT'S JUST THE CONCRETE AROUND IT.

THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF CONCRETE IS WHAT WAS ADDED SO THAT'S WHERE THAT COMES IN. AND THE HEIGHT, THE PURPOSE OF THE HEIGHT OF COURSE IS I HAVE A LARGE RV, 35 FOOT CLASS CRV THAT I'M TRYING TO PROTECT AND THAT'S WHY I HAVE TO HAVE A 14 FOOT DOOR IN ORDER TO DRIVE IT INTO THE STRUCTURE SO THAT'S WHERE I NEED THE 16 FEET SO I CAN PUT. 14 FOOT DOOR.

AND IT'S TO HOUSE MY BOAT, JET SKIS, RV.

TO TAKE CARE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE.

SO THAT WAS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF IT.

AND THE PRESENTATION I HAVE IS REALLY JUST SOME SLIDES WITH SOME RENDERINGS TO WHERE YOU COULD ACTUALLY SEE KIND OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE WHEN IT'S BUILT.

THE -- THAT ADDITIONAL CONCRETE THAT WAS POURED AROUND THE SIDES OF IT ONE SIDE OF IT IS FOR THE -- I GUESS I CAN SHOW YOU.

>> SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT STRUCTURE THERE ON MY LEFT THE LONG PART THAT'S A PORCH. THAT'S JUST A PORCH.

THE SHORTER SIDE THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER A LEAN TO THAT'S ACTUALLY WHERE I WOULD BE PARKING MY TRACTOR FOR THE -- THAT I HAVE. THAT'S WHERE THAT WOULD SIT.

IT'S NOT ACTUALLY ENCLOSED THE IT'S OPEN ON BOTH SIDES BUT THE BUILDING -- AND THEN THE PART THAT YOU DON'T SEE IS A COVERED -- THE DRIVEWAY THE ENTRANCE INTO THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY COVERED. SO IT'S A COVERED SPACE BUT THE BUILDING STRUCTURE THE ENCLOSED PART IS THE 1,640 SQUARE FEET.

THESE ARE JUST RAREBITSINGS THAT I TRIED TO THROW TOGETHER SO JUST TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO KIND OF SEE HOW THE COVER IS THERE AT THE FRONT TRYING TO SHOW THANK YOU DOOR.

THE LEAN TO. LIKE I SAID, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR CLEARING UP THAT ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE LOOKING AT AN ALMOST 3200 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE AND I THOUGHT I WANT A GARAGE

LIKE THAT. >> HE SAID THAT AND I WAS LIKE WAIT WAIT WAIT.

THAT'S NOT -- THAT'S NOT GET BIGGER.

IT'S JUST GETTING -- LITTLE BIT TALLER SO I CAN GET THE VEHICLE

INTO IT. >> GOP YOU.

>> AND LOOKING AT EXHIBIT A HERE IN THE FIRST PRESENTATION, IT APPEARS THAT THIS NEW BUILDING WILL BE IN BETWEEN TWO OTHER

BUILDINGS IS THAT CORRECT? >> BETWEEN THE HOUSE.

>> ONE OF THESE IS THE HOUSE. >> THE ONE THAT YOU SNOW THAT RENDERING THERE ON THAT BACK SIDE, THAT'S ANOTHER STRUCTURE

THAT I HAD DONE A FEW YEARS AGO. >> OKAY.

>> THAT'S ANOTHER SHOP. AND THEN THE HOUSE OF COURSE IS UP IN THE FRONT PART. YOU JUST DON'T SEE NIT THE RENDERING.

>> OKAY. >> IT'S ACTUALLY -- THOSE ARE -- DID I GO TOO FAR?

>> OKAY. WELL, I DON'T HAVE THE DRAWING SHOWING THE -- WHERE THAT FENCED UP AREA IS THERE THAT HAS NOTHING IN IT, THAT'S ABOUT WHERE THE HOUSE IS SETTING AND THAT DRIVE IS ALONG THE SIDE

OF THE HOUSE. >> OKAY. GOT YOU.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS?

>> YES. SO I REMEMBER WHEN YOU CAME BACK IN FEBRUARY AND I'M CURIOUS WHAT MADE YOU CONSIDER THE WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN JUST THE FOOTPRINT OF THE ENTIRE SPACE?

>> WELL, BECAUSE I NEED THE HEIGHT IN ORDER TO GET THE RV -- I THINK I REMEMBER YOU WERE THE TWAIN MADE THE COMMENT ABOUT THE

HORSES I THINK. >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. SO YOU'VE SEEN THE RV SITTING THERE ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THAT RV IN ORDER TO GET I GOT TO PROTECT IT. IT'S A VERY EXPENSIVE RV AND WITH ALL THE TREES THAT I HAVE AROUND THE HOUSE, THE SAP AND IT JUST IT'S BAD. SO I JUST NEED TO PROTECT IT AND TO PROTECT IT THAT'S WHY I'M BUILDING THE STRUCTURE.

THERE'S NO ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING.

IT'S JUST A BUILDING FOR ME TO HOUSE THE BOAT, THE RV, THE JET

[01:00:02]

THAT WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF BUILDING THIS BUILDING.

>> PREVIOUSLY IT WAS JUST A RECTANGULAR BUILDING

>> ACTUALLY, IT HAD THE LEAN TO IN THE PORCH WAS ON THERE.

IT WAS JUST MISREAD IN THE FIRST MEETING SO WHEN THEY TOLD ME THAT I NEEDED TO REDO EVERYTHING I JUST HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT I MADE IT A POINT TO POINT THAT OUT THIS TIME.

>> GOT IT. SOT THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING IN TERMS OF THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE BUT THE HEIGHT IS ALSO

INCREASING. >> THE HEIGHT.

>> THE TOTAL -- THE THE WHOLE TIME.G WAS THE HEIGHT-

>> GOT SGLIT IT WAS NOT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

IT WAS THE HEIGHT THAT WAS THE INTERPRETATION BECAUSE WHEN THE PLANS GOT PUSHED THROUGH THE FIRST TIME, IT SHOWED 12 FOOT ON THE PLANS. I DIDN'T CATCH IT.

THEY DIDN'T CATCH IT. THEN WHEN I TOOK THE PLAN NAYS TO GET THEM APPROVED THEY'RE LIKE THIS SAYS YOU NEED 16 BUT THE PLAN SAYS 12 AND I WAS LIKE WHAT DO I NEED TO DO?

YOU GOT TO START OVER. >> OKAY.

>> THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. >> OKAY.

>> THAT MAKES SENSE. >> THANK YOU.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER SCHUPP. >> THIS IS ANOTHER ONE.

THERE'S A LOT GOING ON. >> A LOT.

I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU'RE IN THE -- A CLOSE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD AND I BELIEVE THAT HOMEOWNERS OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT. MY CONCERN IS WITH THE HEIGHT.

THE FOOTPRINT YOU'RE LAND NOT REALLY THAT DOESN'T IMPEDE ON ANYBODY. THE HEIGHT OF 16 FOOT I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON RVS AT THIS TIME JUST DID A QUICK GOOD DEALING SEARCH ON HOW TALL IS AN RV. AND SO THE TALLEST ONE I HAVE IS

13 FEET. >> IT'S JUST UNDER 14 FEET.

>> THAT'S WHY I GOT TO HAVE HAH CLEARANCE TO GET IT IN.

>> YEAH. I DON'T KNOW.

AGAIN BECAUSE OF WHERE IT'S STUATED, THAT HEIGHT IS PROBLEMATIC TO ME. IT JUST -- I MEAN, I THINK IT WILL IMPEDE ON THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT IS YOU'VE GOT HOUSES ALL AROUND THERE.

THAT EXTRA FOUR FEET IS GOING TO BE NOTICED.

>> IT'S NOT ACTUALLY FOUR FEET TALLER THAN THE HOUSE.

THE HOUSE ACTUAL SLUE 14.5 FEET TALL FROM THE GROUND TO THE

PEAK. >> WITH REGARD TO THE HEIGHT, YOU SAID YOUR RV IS ALMOST 14 FEET TALL.

>> CORRECT. >> THE BUILDING IS 16 FEET TALL.

WHAT TYPE OF INGREASE AND EH SCREES DOOR?

>> IT'S A ROLL UP GARAGE DOOR. >> A ROLL UP GARAGE DOOR SO THERE'S GOT TO BE A COUPLE FEET JUST BETWEEN THAT AND THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE THAT MECHANISM.

SO I THINK FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT FITS IN THERE IT'S GOT TO BE AT LEAST 16 FEET TALL JUST FROM THE HEIGHT PERSPECTIVE. IF THAT GIVES YOU SOME PERSPECTIVE.

>> YEAH. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE WHY.

I UNDERSTAND THE WHY. I GUESS MY ISSUE IS SORT OF WHAT ALEX CAME BACK WITH IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF DISAPPROVAL AND IT'S REALLY JUST THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY THE SIZE.

THIS IS GOING TO BE A LARGE STRUCTURE AND IT'S GOING TO BE A TALL STRUCTURE AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A HOUSE.

IT'S GOING TO BE A BUILDING OF SOME TYPE BUT IT'S --

>> WELL, YOU COULD CALL IT -- >> AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT.

[01:05:02]

EQUALLY WEIGHTED IF YOU WILL. >> ALL IT WILL TREES YOU HAVE AROUND WHERE THIS IS TO BE BUILT WILL REMAIN?

>> NO TREES COMING OUT. EVERYTHING IS STILL THERE INTACT

I'M BUILDING AROUND EVERYTHING. >> THE TREES ARE MORE THAN 16

FEET TALL. >> 40 PLUS FEET TALL.

BIG PECAN TREES. THE THING ABOUT THIS CONCRETE IS ALREADY POURED BECAUSE WE GOT APPROVED THAT FIRST TIME AROUND.

AND WE WENT AHEAD AND GOT THE CONCRETE SO ALL MY CONCRETE IS POURED. SO THIS IS KIND OF A SITUATION WHERE IF IT DOESN'T GET PASSED, THEN I HAVE A VERY LARGE CONCRETE PATIO IN MY BACKYARD. SO I'M KIND OF REALLY BEGGING THAT Y'ALL GO MY WAY AND APPROVE THIS FOR ME.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CONTEXT.

THAT HELPS. >> COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON.

>> YES. NOT REALLY A QUESTION JUST A COMMENT. I'M NOT AGAINST RULES AND CODE.

THEY SERVE A PURPOSE. BUT I TEND TO ALWAYS WANT TO DEFER ON THE SIDE OF THE CITIZEN WHEN I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT'S JUST OUT LANDISH. I THINK WE SHOULD DEFER TO THE CITIZEN TO BE ABLE TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE WITHIN REASON. AND I BELIEVE THIS IS A VERY REASONABLE THING. AND I THINK WHAT REALLY CAUGHT MY EYE DIDN'T CATCH MY EYE WHEN I WAS READING THROUGH THE PACKET BUT A LOT OF THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS CONCRETE.

AND SO I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT AT ALL.

AND THE ONE THING WITH ME IS I FORGOT HOW MANY NOTICES WERE SENT OUT BUT THERE WAS ONE OPPOSITION AND THAT IS A TIME IF THIS THING IS GOING TO BE AN EYE SORE OR A DETRIMENT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS THAT'S WHEN YOU SAY I DON'T WANT THIS THERE AND YOU REGISTER THAT COMPLAINT BUT I DON'T SEE THOSE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE CITIZEN ON THIS ONE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. CHEESE

. >> AND DOES ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? AND SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COUNCIL, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY ITEM?

>> I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED.

>> AND A SECOND.

>> I SECOND. >> AND ANY DISCUSSION? I WILL SAY THAT I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON THAT IN GENERAL WHEN THERE'S NOT A GOOD REASON NOT TO, I THE END TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF THE APPLICANT OF THE CITIZEN AND AGREE THAT I LIKE TO SEE THE CITIZEN BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY WITHIN REASON AND AS LONG AS IT'S NOT IMPOSING ON ANYONE ELSE'S AND IN THIS CASE, LOOKING AT THE PICTURES AND LOOKING AT THE LAYOUT AND HEARING ESPECIALLY NOW KNOWING THAT BUILDING IS NOT 3200 SQUARE FEET BUT ARE THAT THE BUILDING STILL THE SAME AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE, LOOK AT THE HEIGHT AND THE FACT THAT THE HOMES AROUND IT ARE TWO STORY HOME CHASE ARE GOING TO BE MUCH HIGHER,LY BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.

>> CALL THE VOTE.

>> AND THAT PASSES 5-0.

[7. MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REQUEST TOPICS TO BE PLACED ON AN AGENDA FOR A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. ANY DELIBERATION OR DECISION SHALL BE LIMITED TO A PROPOSAL TO PLACE TOPIC ON THE AGENDA FOR A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. TAKE ANY NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS ]

[2. EXECUTIVE SESSION]

CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION INVOLVING THE GREENWAY MILLER AND ROWLETT MILLER EMINENT DOMAIN CASE AND PENDING CONDEMNATION MATTERS. WE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.