Sep 09, 2024 Special City Council

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:10]

>>> GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. WE WILL GET STARTED WITH OUR CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN. THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS OR REALIGN THE WORK SESSION OR CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT.

>> IT IS MONDAY SEPTEMBER 9, 2024, 7:11 P.M. THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT INSIDE THE CITY HALL CHAMBERS. OUR FIRST ITEM TONIGHT IS PUBLIC INPUT. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO MAKE CITIZEN INPUT. COUNCIL CANNOT COMMENT TO ANY OF THE INPUT AT THE SECTION. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK NOT ON THE

[3A. Conduct a public hearing on a request by property owner, Sri Harsha Thotakura, Lakeview Biergarten, LLC to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Plan and Map, as heretofore amended, for an approximately 3.19 acre tract located directly north of the intersection of Lakeview Parkway and Shipp Road, situated in the James Hobbs Abstract 571, City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas, from Planned Development (PD) District with an underlying base zoning of General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District for a food truck park, 2,220 square feet building and a dog park with amenities to Planned Development District Amended-1 (PD-A1) with an underlying base zoning of General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District for a food truck park, 2,220 square feet building and a dog park with amenities.]

I AM GOING TO BUTCHER THAT. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST BY PROPERTY OWNER, SRI HARSHA THOTAKURA, LAKEVIEW BIERGARTEN, LLC TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PLAN AND MAP, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 3.19 ACRE TRACT LOCATED DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AND SHIPP ROAD, SITUATED IN THE JAMES HOBBS ABSTRACT 571, CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PD, DISTRICT WITH AN UNDERLYING BASE ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL/RETAIL, C-2, DISTRICT FOR A FOOD TRUCK PARK, 2,220 SQUARE FEET BUILDING AND A DOG PARK WITH AMENITIES TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDED 1, D-A1, WITH AN UNDERLYING BASE ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL/RETAIL, C-2, DISTRICT FOR A FOOD TRUCK PARK, 2,220 SQUARE FEET BUILDING AND A DOG PARK WITH AMENITIES.

OKAY. >> OKAY. GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING COUNCILMEMBERS , THE ITEM WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BEFORE HAND ON JUNE 4TH, 2024. IT WAS APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS BY CITY COUNCIL. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO COME BACK IN AND MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO AMENDMENTS APPROVED IN THE ORDINANCE. BUT TO PROVIDE A BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERTY, IT IS 3.9 ACRES, IT WAS APPROVED FOR A FOOD TRUCK PARK AND IN A 200,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING, AND A DOG PARK AS WELL. SO, THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS WERE APPROVED WITHIN THE ORDINANCE, 11/24. THE FIRST APPROVED ITEM WAS THE BOUNDARIES SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A BUFFER WITH ONE TREE PER LINEAR FEET. THE NORTH BUFFER WILL HAVE 13 TREES, EIGHT FOOT MASONRY WALL, IN ADDITION TO A WROUGHT IRON FENCE. AND ALSO THE EAST BUFFER WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 11 TREES, A SIX FOOT FENCE. AND EVERGREEN SHRUBS PLANTED ALONG THAT SIDE AS WELL. THE SECOND REQUEST WAS THE DEVELOPER WILL INSTALL THE AUTOMATIC GATE AT THE ENTRANCE. THE THIRD WAS TO PROVIDE A PARTIAL 10 FOOT MASONARY WALL THAT WAS ABOUT 190 FEET IN LENGTH ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. AND WILL HAVE A SIX FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE CONTINUING ALONG THAT AREA.

ALSO, THE DEVELOPER APPLICANT WAS LOOKING TO TXDOT TO ALLOW FOR LEFT TURNS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT , ALLOWING THE OPERATIONS OF FRIDAY AND SATURDAY FROM 9:00 A.M. UNTIL 11:00 P.M. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THESE ITEMS THAT WERE PROVIDED, AND ALSO CAME UP WITH SOME RESOLUTIONS WITH ITEMS THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO MEET. WITH THAT, WHAT THEY ARE PROVIDING NOW IS THEY WILL PROVIDE THE NORTH BUFFER WITH 13 TREES, AND THE EIGHT FOOT MASONARY WALL, THEY WILL INSTALL THE MOTION ACTIVATED CAMERA FOR NIGHTTIME SURVEILLANCE. IF THERE ARE TRESPASSERS THEY WILL LOCO -- THEY WILL CALL THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES. THEY WILL CONTINUE WITH A FOUR FOOT FENCE. ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, ADJACENT TO THEY COVERED. AND THE ACCESS WILL REMAIN AS PROPOSED. THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THE PROPOSED OPERATING HOURS APPROVED IN THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE. HERE BEFORE

[00:05:03]

YOU WILL STILL HAVE THE DOG PARK. YOU WILL HAVE THE MASONARY WALL TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. ALONG WITH THE BUFFER THAT IS REQUIRED. NO, THIS ITEM WAS NOTICE VIA EMAIL IN JULY. ABOUT JULY 13TH. AS OF SEPTEMBER 15TH WE DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 500 FOOT AREA. THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR OF THE 200 FOOT AREA. THIS ITEM DID GO BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING AND THEY MADE A RECOMMENDATION OF 4-1, FOR APPROVAL WITH ONE ADDITIONAL REQUEST, TO MOVE THE DUMPSTER CLOSER TO LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. I WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ELABORATE ON WHY THEY DID NOT MOVE THE DUMPSTER, TO GIVE YOU MORE BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION AS TO WHY THEY FEEL THE DUMPSTER IS SET FOR THAT AREA. WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, RIGHT NOW I WILL GO THROUGH THE LIST OF WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS HERE THAT WILL BE PART OF THE ORDINANCE TODAY. DURING OPERATION HOURS THERE WILL BE A MAXIMUM OF FIVE VEHICLES PARKED ON THE PROPERTY. THERE WILL BE NO MORE THAN , IT WILL BE A MAX OF FIVE. THE BUFFER FOR THE NORTH AND EAST PROPERTY BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE COMPRISED OF THE 15 FOOT WIDTH, WITH ONE TREE BUFFER WITH 13 TREES, AND EIGHT FOOT MASONARY WALL. THIS WILL REMOVE THE THE REQUEST OF THE SIX FOOT WROUGHT IRON WALL TO THE NORTH PROPERTY. THEY WILL CONTINUE WITH PROVIDING THE TREES REQUIRED AND THE EVERGREEN SHRUBS TO MAKE IT OPAQUE LINING. THE PARTIAL 10 FOOT MASONARY WALL, THEY WILL CONTINUE WITH THAT. WHICH WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 195 FEET IN LENGTH. IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY ADJACENT OF PLAY COVERED. THAT WILL CONTINUE ON WITH A FOUR FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE, INSTEAD OF A SIX FOOT NOW AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION, THE DEVELOPER WILL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY STANDARDS PROVIDED FOR CIVIL PLANS, AS IT IS REQUIRED IN THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND THE FOOD TRUCK WILL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM THE REAR YARD AS WELL, TOO NOW, SOME ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED, THE DEVELOPER WILL INSTALL OR INVESTIGATE FOR THE GATE . THAT WILL BE REMOVED. IT WILL BE A CAMERA FOR NIGHTTIME SURVEILLANCE. THE APPLICANT DID TALK WITH TXDOT, THEY RECOMMEND THAT THEY KEEP THE RIGHT IN AND WRITE OUT TRAFFIC. AND THEY ALSO WILL COMPLY WITH THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. IT SHALL BE 9:00 A.M. UNTIL 11:00 P.M. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDING PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH CHANGES REPOSED ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE THAT I WENT THROUGH. AND THIS DOES COMPLETE STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AND ALSO WILL ELABORATE ON THE DUMPSTER LOCATION, AS WELL. I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS

THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A

PRESENTATION? >> THEY DO.

>> COUNCIL DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STEP BEFORE THE APPLICANT IS UP? OR YOU CAN WAIT FOR ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER. OKAY. WE WILL BRING THE APPLICANT UP.

>> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS RUSSELL AND I AM NOT THE APPLICANT.

HERE. I WILL BE RESIGNING ON BEHALF OF OUR APPLICANT. SO TARA REALLY COVERED A LOT. I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND AND COLOR, AS WE HAVE BEEN WITH THIS WITH PLANNING & ZONING, AND NOW YOU GUYS. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO NOT LEAVE ANYTHING UNCOVERED. SO, THE REQUESTED CHANGES HERE, OUR 10 FOOT MASONRY WALL THAT WILL BLOCK OUR LIFT STATION, IT WILL STAY IN PLACE BUT WE WILL BRING THE SIX FOOT FENCE TO A 10 FOOT FENCE, TO HAVE THE LAKE VIEW OF THAT PROPERTY, THE MORE PANORAMIC LAKEVIEW FROM THE PARK. REGARDING OUR INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFERS, TO THE

[00:10:06]

AND WE FEEL WITH THAT HUGE 50 FOOT OFFER, ALONG WITH THE EIGHT FOOT MASONARY WALL, THAT SHOULD BE SIGNIFICANT. FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION AND FOR BUILDING CODES, AND FOR EVERYTHING, IN THAT REGARD. THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF MY PORTION. I WILL REMAIN HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS, ARE WE GOOD TO GO TO AN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY. LET ME GET BACK TO THIS. IT IS 7:25 P.M., WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 3A. I DO NOT HAVE ANY ITEMS, DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON 3A? OKAY. AND YOU SAID WE RECEIVED ONE EMAIL, SEVERAL WEEKS AGO. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE IS NOBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, THEN IT IS 7:25 P.M.

AND WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCIL, YOU SAW THE TWO RECITATIONS. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT?

[00:15:07]

>> YOU KNOW YOU ARE IN DISCUSSION MODE.

>> I AM NOT SUPPOSED TO BE. >> I DIDN'T THINK.

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER?

>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE. THE CAMERAS THAT YOU ARE PUTTING IN, INSTEAD OF THE GATE, OR THOSE GOING TO BE MONITORED 24/7? IF SO, BY WHOM?

>> SURVEYED AND MONITORED AND MOTION ACTIVATED.

>> MOTION ACTIVATED. AND MONITORED BY A TEAM.

>> OKAY, YOU SAID THAT THE AUTHORITIES WOULD BE NOTIFIED.

AN AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATION ON MOTION DETECTION? OKAY. THERE WILL BE, SO I DIDN'T WANT THE POLICE TO BE OKAY, GREAT, THANK YOU. THE FOUR FOOT FENCE, INSTEAD OF SIX FOOT, CAN YOU SHOW ME ON THE MAP EXACTLY, OR THE DIAGRAM, EXACTLY WHERE THAT

IS? >> IF YOU PUT ME ON SLIDE TWO.

YES, MA'AM. SO, THAT FOUR FOOT FENCE, THAT IS GOING TO BE RIGHT HERE, ALONG THE , YES, WHERE LAKEVIEW IS.

>> OKAY, AND THIS IS A WROUGHT IRON FENCE. SO YOU MENTIONED YOU DID NOT WANT TO DO THE SIX FOOT FENCE BECAUSE OF THE VIEW.

I LIVE ON THE LAKEFRONT AND I HAVE A SIX FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE, YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THE FENCE. MY CONCERN IS SECURITY.

IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO GO OVER A SIX FOOT FENCE, THEN A FOUR FOOT FENCE. ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY SET ON HAVING THE FOUR FOOT

FENCE, INSTEAD OF SIX? >> YES, IT IS BETTER TO HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE FOR THE AESTHETICS PURPOSES. AND LIKE WE MENTIONED, WE HAVE THE SECURITY CAMERA WITH MOTION ACTIVATED IN A TEAM WATCHING BEHIND THE SCREEN. SO WITH THAT AND WITH THE MOTION ACTIVATED CAMERAS, LIKE I THINK WE SHOULD

BE WELL SECURED. >> AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY SET ON DOING FOUR FOOT AND NOT THE SIX? IS THAT THE ANSWER?

>> YES, WE WANTED TO HAVE THE FOUR.

>> RIGHT, BUT IF COUNCIL SAID WELL WE WILL APPROVE THIS WITH EVERYTHING EXCEPT WE WANT YOU TO HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE, WOULD

YOU BE AMENABLE TO THAT? >> YEAH . LAUGH -- RAP

>> JUST ASKING. JUST ASKING. NOTHING THEY WILL. JUST ASKING.

AND YOU SAID THAT THEY COULD NOT ACCESS INSIDE THE GATE WITH THE OPTICON. IF THERE WAS A DISTURBANCE. WERE YOU TOLD THAT THE POLICE ARE NOT ABLE TO, DO NOT HAVE THE OPTICON? TO OPEN

THE GATE. >>

>> HE IS NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT. THE POLICE HAVE OPTICON

IN ROWLETT. >> DO THEY? OKAY. GOODNESS. I WISH I KNEW, I REMEMBER THE STATEMENT BEING THAT WITH THE GATE IT WOULD CREATE AN OBSTACLE FOR SAFETY TEAMS TO GET IN THERE. IF THERE WERE ANY KIND OF --

>> DO YOU KNOW WHO SAID THAT?

>> AFTER OUR LAST MEETING, AND I DON'T.

>> ON STAFF? >> I THINK THE FIRE MARSHAL, WE WERE DISCUSSING WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL.

>> IT WAS -- >> IT WAS RIGHT HERE, IT WAS IN

OUR MEETING, I BELIEVE. >> IN THE COUNCIL MEETING OR

THE P&Z? >> IT WAS ACTUALLY NOT A COMMENT FROM TD, IT CAME UP IN CONVERSATION ABOUT THE HINDRANCE THAT WE MAY SEE IF THERE WAS A GATE IN PLACE. IT WAS NOT DUE TO DISTURBANCE BUT JUST IF THERE WAS NOT A GATE THEN IT WOULD ALLOW PD TO HAVE MORE EASY ACCESS FOR ROUTINE PATROLS. NOT RESPONDING TO EMERGENCY. THEY WOULD NOT COME IN WITH LIGHTS WITH A ROUTINE PATROL.

>> THAT MAKE SENSE. >> SHE IS EXACTLY RIGHT. SORRY.

>> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET? >> THANK YOU BOTH, FOR THE PRESENTATION, STAFF, AND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT, AS SHE SAID. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER MADE A GREAT POINT ABOUT THE FOUR FOOT FENCE. I THINK THE CONCERN IS NOT PEOPLE COMING ONTO THE ARE PRETTY, PEOPLE MAY BE PARKING

[00:20:01]

COMMENT ON THAT? >> THE CURRENT SITUATION, THERE IS CURRENTLY NO PROPERTY LIKE IT . PEOPLE CAN ACCESS FOR THE LAST WHATEVER YEARS. PEOPLE CAN ACCESS STRAIGHT UP. WITH THIS FOUR FOOT FENCE WE ADD A LITTLE MORE SECURITY. IT WOULD BE MORE SECURE THAN HOW IT WAS RIGHT NOW.

>> AND WE DO HAVE THE EIGHT FOOT MASONRY WALL TO THE REAR OF THE HOMES. THE ONLY THING THAT IS THERE IS REALLY THE DECLINE TO THE LAKE. ON THAT WESTSIDE. SO, IF --

>> I THINK THAT IS THE CONCERN. IF IT IS SOMEWHAT OF A DMZ, IF YOU WILL, WHERE PEOPLE MAKE THEIR WAY UP AND DOWN THE LAKESHORE WITHOUT REGARD TO WHOSE PROPERTY THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE, OR WHOSE PROPERTY IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE NEIGHBORING.

>> THIS WILL BE FULLY FENCED. >> TO ME THE SIX FOOT FENCE MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE. SO THAT IS WHERE I LAND ON THAT SIDE OF THE EQUATION. WITH THE SIX FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE. LET'S MOVE ON. WITH REGARD TO THE DUMPSTER, YOU KNOW I AM LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN MAP. I KIND OF DISAGREE THAT THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE FOR IT. IT SEEMS LIKE THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WOULD OFFER AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR A GARBAGE COLLECTION TRUCK TO BE ABLE TO PULL IN, GOES OUT ON, AND IF A COUPLE PARKING SPACES WERE ELIMINATED IN A DUMPSTER WAS SITUATED THERE, I THINK IT WOULD BE FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO MAKE IT WORK. THAT IS NOT A QUESTION, THAT IS MORE OF A COMET. I AM JUST CLARIFYING SOMETHING YOU SAID. THE LAST THING, ON THE SLIDE, THERE WAS THAT YOU WOULD MAINTAIN THE RIGHT IN AND WRITE OUT ACCESS TO THE SITE.

>> THAT IS WHAT TXDOT LANDED ON. TXDOT RECOMMENDED NOT TO MODIFY THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE MEDIAN DUE TO IMPACTS.

>> SO TXDOT WILL WANT THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE ONLY WRITE IN AND WRITE OUT MOVEMENTS, HOW DO YOU PLAN ON DOING THAT?

>> THERE IS A RAISED MEDIAN. RIGHT HERE IN THE WAY THAT IT IS DESIGNED. YOU CAN ONLY COME IN FROM THE RIGHT AND WHEN YOU EXIT YOU COME OUT FROM THE RIGHT.

>> IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY SORT OF MERGE LANE TO BE THERE? MAYBE THEY ARE MERGING ONTO A SHOULDER. NO, THEY ARE

NOT. >> NO, TXDOT --

>> ONE ALLOW FOR THAT? THAT WAS A CONCERN RAISED DURING THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING WE HELD. INDIVIDUALS WHO PULL OUT FROM THAT STREET THERE. AB IT IS MARK, I DON'T REMEMBER THE NAME. THEY HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING THE CARS. AND THEN YOU ALL ARE BEYOND A SMALL CURVE. IT MIGHT MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR CARS ALREADY GOING UPWARDS OF SEVEN MILES AN HOUR , POTENTIALLY ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE THREE LINES OF TRAFFIC.

>> WE PRESENTED THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, THE GENERATION REPORT, THE SIGHTLINES STUDIES, EVERYTHING TXDOT HAS, THEY CAME BACK WITH NO, THEY APPROVED THIS. AND WE WENT TO THEM IN AN EFFORT FROM OUR LAST MEETING. THAT IS JUST THE FINAL EMAIL.

THAT I SENT. TRUST ME, WE WENT BACK AND FORTH. AND STEPHEN REDID SEVERAL SITE PLANS BASED ON YOUR SUGGESTIONS. AND THAT

IS WHERE TXDOT LANDED. >> GREAT. THANK YOU.

>> WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE ON THAT. THANK YOU .

>> APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION. AND ALSO THANK YOU FOR LOOKING AT ROWLETT TO INVEST IN. WE WANT TO BE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO COME IN AND SET UP THEIR SHOP. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING ROWLETT. TO MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET'S QUESTION ON THE ENTRY AND EXIT TO THE RIGHT, IS ARE GOING TO BE SIGNAGE PUT UP ON THE EASTBOUND LAKEVIEW PARKWAY SO PEOPLE DON'T TURN LEFT AND TRY TO ENTER FROM THE EASTBOUND GOING ACROSS THE TRAFFIC? SINCE THERE TECHNICALLY WOULD NOT BE IN ENTRYWAY FOR THEM COMING FROM THE EASTBOUND. AM I CORRECT IN

THE ASSUMPTION? >> ALL OF THE SIGNAGE WILL BE

[00:25:03]

>> SO THERE IS PLAN TO HAVE SIGNAGE? TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM TURNING IN THAT LEFT TURN LANE. OKAY. I THINK THAT IS ALL

MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MAYOR

PRO TEM WINGET. >> TO CLARIFY, THE DETAILS WILL BE WORKED OUT? OR THERE ARE PLANS ALREADY FOR SIGNAGE TO BE

PLACED? >> THE DETAILS WILL BE WORKED OUT, PART OF THE PLAN ALL THE DETAILS, MORE WILL BE WORKED

OUT. REFERRING THAT SIGNAGE. >> AT THIS POINT NO DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON SIGNAGE LOCATION.

>> THERE IS NO GUARANTEE. BUT THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSIONS.

>> I THINK THAT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY TXDOT. WHATEVER

SIGNAGE GOES UP. >> DURING THE PLANNING & ZONING MEETING IT DID COME UP MULTIPLE TIMES. BUT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO TXDOT THAT IN ORDER TO DIFFER AND BASICALLY DETER ANYONE FROM MAKING THAT TURN, THAT WE WOULD ASK FOR SIGNAGE TO BE PUT UP THAT SAYS NO LEFT TURN. THAT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ENGINEER OF RECORD WILL DO AS IT GOES THROUGH PERMITTING WITH TXDOT. BUT WE CANNOT TELL TXDOT HOW TO SIGN THE ROADWAY. IT WOULD BE A STRONG RECOMMENDATION FROM NOT WANTING PEOPLE TO USE THE LEFT TURN INAPPROPRIATELY.

>> OF THE COUNCIL, OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF, OR

[3B. Take action on a request by property owner, Sri Harsha Thotakura, Lakeview Biergarten, LLC to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Plan and Map, as heretofore amended, for an approximately 3.19 acre tract located directly north of the intersection of Lakeview Parkway and Shipp Road, situated in the James Hobbs Abstract 571, City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas, from Planned Development (PD) District with an underlying base zoning of General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District for a food truck park, 2,220 square feet building and a dog park with amenities to Planned Development District Amended-1 (PD-A1) with an underlying base zoning of General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District for a food truck park, 2,220 square feet building and a dog park with amenities. ]

>>

>> 3B, THE ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED, AND IT INCORPORATES THE PLANNING & ZONING REQUEST OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE

DUMPSTER. >> SO ANY MOTION ON 3B? IF THEY WERE TO FOLLOW THE APPLICANT'S OF NOT MOVING THE DUMPSTER.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE 3B WITH THE AMENDMENT. UNDERSTOOD.

>> ON THAT NO, THE SECOND TO LAST SLIDE IN TARA'S PRESENTATION THIS EVENING RECAPPED THE CHANGES. THE ORDINANCE DRAFTED DOES INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LOCATION OF THE DUMPSTER MOVING. AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT WERE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THAT WAS PULLED STRAIGHT FROM OUR COVERSHEET. SO I KNOW WHERE THE LANGUAGE CAME FROM.

WE FELT THAT IT LEFT A FEW THINGS VAGUE AND DID NOT REALLY SPEAK TO THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WANTED TO LEAVE IN PLACE. MY HOPE WAS THAT YOU WOULD POTENTIALLY APPROVE OR IF YOU CHOOSE TO APPROVE WITH ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE LISTED HERE, ON THIS SIDE, SO THAT WE CAN RESTATE THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE LEFT IN PLACE. I FELT THAT IT MADE IT FEEL LIKE WE'RE REALLY REMOVING , BUT WE ARE REPLACING WHAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE HERE. AND THAT NOT SPEAK TO ALL THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO LEAVE FROM THE ORIGINAL PD.

>> IS A REQUEST FOR ANYBODY MAKING THE MOTION TO READ THOSE, THE ITEMS ON THE SLIDE VERBATIM?

>> I THINK BY REFERENCE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE MAY BE OTHER CHANGES. I WANTED TO CLEAR WHAT WAS ON THE SIDE WAS THE APPLICANT REQUEST FOR THE CHANGES. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE TO THE SIX FOOT FENCE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WOULD REMOVE THE CHANGE FROM THE SIDE, LEAVE IT AS IS ON NUMBER THREE. I THINK THAT IS UP TO THE ATTORNEY.

>> IS THAT SUFFICIENT? >> THE ORIENT -- THE ORDINANCE INCORPORATES ALL THE INFORMATION ON THE SIDES AND THE PROVISIONS REQUIRED IN THE ORIGINAL ORIENT -- ORDINANCE.

THIS IS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE PRIOR ORDINANCE. IT HAS THAT

WITH THOSE CHANGES. >> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. IT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS REPLACING AND MAY HAVE LEFT IT OUT.

>> RECAPPING, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM, THEN REFERENCING THE SLIDE THAT IS CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF YOU, IF YOU HAVE IT PULLED UP. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO REFERENCE IT? SO, YOU CAN REFERENCE ITEM 3B. AND WHAT ABOUT THE

[00:30:01]

>> SECTION 3 OF THE ORDINANCE IS WHAT? IT INCLUDES ALL OF THE CHANGES. IT DOES INCLUDE THE FOUR FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE.

>> OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? OKAY, SO I HAVE A MOTION HEREBY COUNCILMEMBER DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER, AND I HAVE A SECOND -- I HAVE A MOTION HERE BY COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP.

>> I AM REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. I THINK IT IS A GOOD PROJECT FOR THE CITY. I KNOW THAT THERE IS, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS SENSITIVITY TO THE PEOPLE LIVING CLOSE BY. THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION. HOPEFULLY, ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS ARE BEING MINIMIZED BY THE THINGS THAT I AND DONE. I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WORKED HARD ON THIS. BUT, JUST I THINK THIS IS THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS GOOD FOR THE CITY AND MOVES US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS ENTHUSIASTICALLY , I AM GLAD THEY ARE HERE AND THAT THE PROJECT HOPEFULLY CAN MOVE FORWARD.

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER.

>> I WOULD LIKE A MENTION MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION. TO CHANGE SECTION 3, NUMBER FOUR, TO CHANGE THE FOUR FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE TO A SIX FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE.

>> THERE IS A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION. ON THE FLOOR. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION?

>> YES. >> GO AHEAD.

>> YES, I WILL SECOND THAT AS WELL. I THINK THAT IS ALL I CAN

SAY AT THE MOMENT. >> OKAY. THERE IS A MOTION ON THE MOTION TO AMEND REGARDING THE SIX FOOT FENCE. BRING IT FROM FOUR TO SIX. THE SECOND IS BY MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO THEY MOTION? COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON, DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION? YOU JUST HAVE A

COMMENT? OKAY. GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO REMAIN CONSISTENT. WHEN WE HAD THIS HEARING EARLIER IN THE SUMMER, I WAS OPPOSED TO IT. I BELIEVE THERE WAS PROBABLY MORE PEOPLE HERE THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. JUST DIRECTLY NORTH. IT IS DISAPPOINTING THAT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PACKET THERE WAS ONLY ONE IN OPPOSITION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY ABOUT THAT. BUT I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING HERE TONIGHT THAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD VENUE, I DON'T LIKE THE LOCATION. I THINK IT IS A GREAT LOCATION FOR SOME KIND OF DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING TONIGHT THAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND, NOR DO I THINK IT WOULD SWEETISH THE SENSIBILITIES THAT COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP MENTIONED. I THINK SOME OF THE RESIDENTS DIRECTLY NORTH WOULD HAVE. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL NOT

SUPPORT THIS. >> WILL YOU, OKAY, WE WILL TAKE IT MOTION BY MOTION FIRST. OKAY, ANY OTHER MOTION , DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? COUNCILMEMBER REAVES?

>> I UNDERSTAND THE SIX FOOT AND THE LOGIC AND I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE. BUT, JUST ANOTHER THOUGHT IS IT IS WIDE OPEN SPACE NOW. THERE IS NOT ANY ENCUMBRANCE FOR PEOPLE TO GO TO SOMEONE'S POVERTY AS IT IS. WE WILL HAVE 24 HOUR SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS. AND WHEN YOU ADD A LAKE, WHEN I THINK SIX FOOT VERSUS FOUR FOOT, GRANTED IT IS WROUGHT IRON, YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT, I AM THINKING OF HANGING OUT AND HANGING ON THE FENCE AND LOOKING AT THE LAKE, VERSUS GOING OVER THE FENCE. I DON'T SEE IT AS A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE.

IT IS MORE OF ACCESS TO THE LAKE. THAT IS MY PERSPECTIVE. I AM FOR THE PROJECT AND WILL PASS WITH THE AMENDMENT, IF THE COUNCIL WANTS SIX FOOT. BUT I WANT TO PUT THAT OUT AS A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE TO THINK THROUGH. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD MAKE A MAJOR DIFFERENCE IN THE SAFETY OF NEIGHBORS.

>> TO CLARIFY THIS IS MOTION ON A MOTION, IF YOU DECLINE THIS MOTION THEN THERE STILL RESTS ANOTHER. SO YOU CAN VOTE

[00:35:01]

>> I WILL VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. THAT'S

ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> PLEASE. WE WILL TAKE THIS ONE AT A TIME. AFTER THIS. ANYWAYS. I AGREE COUNCILMEMBER REAVES. I DON'T PERSONALLY WANT TO LOOK AT A LAKE THROUGH JAIL BARS. MY PREFERENCE IS, LIKE YOU SAID, LEANING ON THE GATE. AND LIKE YOU SAID, AS IT STANDS, IT IS WIDE OPEN. WHY NOT CAPITALIZE ON ONE OF THE GREATEST ASSETS THE COMMUNITY HAS AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO ENJOY A VIEW OF THE LAKE. COUNCILMEMBER

SCHUPP, ANOTHER COMMENT? >> I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCILMEMBER REAVES. I DON'T THINK IT IS SIGNIFICANT. AT THIS POINT IT DOES NOT SEEM TO REALLY BE NECESSARY. I GUESS. I THINK THAT MOST OF THE OBJECTIONS THAT A SIX FOOT FENCE MIGHT ADDRESS, I DON'T KNOW THAT I THINK THEY ARE PARTICULARLY COMPELLING REASONS. GIVEN THAT THE SIGHTLINES, THOSE THINGS, FOR THIS PROJECT, THEY ARE IMPORTANT. IS THAT IS SORT OF WHAT THE THING IS ABOUT. I THINK BEING SENSITIVE TO THAT INTO THE PROJECT, THAT MAKE SENSE. SO I DON'T , I WILL NOT SUPPORT THAT MOTION.

>> COUNCILMEMBER BOWERS. >> I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP, REAVES, AND MAYOR MARGOLIS. I WILL NOT SUPPORT

THE AMENDMENT. >> THERE IS A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION. THAT IS TO BRING THE FENCE FACING THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY FROM FOUR FEET TO SIX FEET.

>> WITH THAT WE WILL CALLED A VOTE ON THE MOTION. WE ARE JUST

VOTING ON THE MOTION. >> ON THE AMENDMENT.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE A NORMAL. THIS MOTION DOES NOT ADDRESS THE BASE MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP. THIS IS ON THE FENCE. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION RAISE YOUR HAND. OKAY. SO THE MOTION FAILS. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE BASE MOTION, THAT MOTION AGAIN BY COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP IS TO APPROVE ITEM 3B HAS READ. NOW WE HAVE REQUEST TO SPEAK BY MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET.

>> I WOULD LIKE CLARITY FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH A VOTE ON THIS MOTION WITH REGARD TO THE DUMPSTER. BECAUSE YOU STATED THAT THE ORDINANCE, AS IT IS WRITTEN NOW, EITHER REQUESTS OR REQUIRES THEY MOVE THE DUMPSTER CLOSE TO LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. I AM CURIOUS WHAT THAT TIES THEM TO DO. WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT THERE? IN READING SECTION 4 IT SOUNDS LIKE REQUIRING DEPOSITION CLOSER TO LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. IS AT TWO FEET, 200 FEET? THERE IS NOT MUCH SPECIFICITY THERE YOU , CAN YOU GIVE CLARITY?

>> THAT IS REALLY ALL THE P&Z PROVIDED. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN. SO YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. THERE IS NO SPECIFICITY. IT WILL HAVE TO BE CLOSER TO LAKEVIEW

PARKWAY. THAT IS IT. >> THE CURRENT ITEM 3B AS IT IS READ INCLUDES MOVING THE DUMPSTER. THE DEVELOPER REQUESTED IT STAY WHERE IT IS AT. OKAY. GO AHEAD.

>> IN THAT CASE I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO THE MOTION TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE AND LEAVE THE DUMPSTER WHERE IT IS IN THE SITE PLAN SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION DOWN THE LINE AND WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS HEARD A THIRD TIME.

>> THE MOTION IS TO KEEP THE DUMPER WHERE IT -- THE DUMPSTER WHERE IT IS AT IN THE MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER REAVES?

>> I HAD A COMMENT. >> CAN WE GET A SECOND?

>> COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP. >> SECOND.

>> YOU CAN HIT YOUR BUTTON. NO, YOU HAVE TO HIT YOUR BUTTON.

YOU GO. >> THANK YOU. SO TO MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET, TO YOUR QUESTION, SECTION 4 OF THE ORDINANCE SAYS LISTED IN EXHIBIT C. MAYBE THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN CORRECT ME,

[00:40:03]

>> SECTION 4 SAYS THE SITE CONCEPT PLAN HERE AS EXHIBIT C SHALL BE AND IS HEREBY AMENDED TO REQUIRE PLACEMENT PERMANENT POSITIONING CLOSER TO LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. IT IS THE SECOND HALF

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT. >> OKAY. THERE WAS A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP, AMENDING TO KEEP THE DUMPSTER WHERE IT CURRENTLY IS ON THE SITE PLAN. IF EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT CORRECTLY, IS THERE DISCUSSION BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE? OKAY, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL RIGHT AND THAT MOTION PASSES. 5-2. OKAY, THEN, WE WILL GO TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

OKAY, THE ORIGINAL MOTION NOW IS ITEM 3B, WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT THE DUMPSTER REMAIN IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION AS INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER REAVES. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE BASE MOTION WE HAVE ON THE FLOOR? OKAY. WITH THAT NOW WE CAN USE THE ACTUAL BUTTONS THIS TIME. SO THOSE IN FAVOR HIT YOUR BUTTON. CALLED THE VOTE. OR AGAINST. ABSTAIN.

WHATEVER YOU WANT. THE ITEM PASSES 4-3. ITEM 3B, IT PASSES

[3C. Conduct a public hearing regarding an amendment to the comprehensive zoning ordinance Chapter 77-900 “Nonconformities” at Section 77-902 “Regulations applicable to all nonconformities” of the Rowlett Development Code to allow replacement of existing nonconforming fences located in rear yards of double frontage lots.]

>> ALL RIGHT. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THIS ITEM SHOULD BE MUCH EASIER THAN LAST, I HOPE. THE ORDINANCE UPDATE STEMS FROM PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD REGARDING NONCONFORMING FENCES. LET ME GO BACK HERE.

SO, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, TO RECAP, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE TREATS DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT , WHERE THE BACK AND THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY , THE REAR YARD IS TREATED AS A FRONT YARD, THAT DOES NOT ALLOW SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO TAKE THE REAR FENCE OUT TO REPLACE IT CURRENTLY. THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IT WOULD THEN BE REMOVED . IT IS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE REPLACED. SO THIS IS JUST A GRAPHIC TO SHOW THE DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT HERE. SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY IT MIGHT BE IN PLACE. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT IN PRACTICE, MOST OF OUR DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS ARE IN A ROW OF OTHER DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS. IT MAKE SENSE THAT THE LOT IS TREATED AS A REAR LOT IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS IS A RECENT CASE OF THAT THAT WE HAVE HAD WHERE SOMEBODY WANTED TO REMOVE THE FENCE AND WAS NOT ABLE TO.

AND THEN REPLACED THE SAME FENCE OF A BETTER MATERIAL.

WHEN WE CAME BACK AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS AT THE TIME, THE FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL WAS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE IN WHICH THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS DONE. THAT WOULD ALLOW SOMEBODY TO REPLACE THE FENCE WITHIN THE SAME FOR PRINT OF LIKE OR BETTER MATERIALS. SO NOT TO COME BACK WITH A THREE FOOT FENCE REPLACED WITH AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, BUT WHATEVER THE MATERIAL IS, TO REPLACE WITH BETTER MATERIAL, SIMILAR FOOTPRINTS, AND NOT IN EXCESS OF THE FENCE IT WOULD BE REPLACING. THAT IS MY CONCLUSION AND I RECOMMEND YOU APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED. I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER

QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> LET'S GET THE PUBLIC HEARING OUT-OF-THE-WAY. IT IS 7:55 P.M. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ONLINE FORMS REGARDING ITEM 3C EITHER.

[3D. Take action regarding an amendment to the comprehensive zoning ordinance Chapter 77-900 “Nonconformities” at Section 77-902 “Regulations applicable to all nonconformities” of the Rowlett Development Code to allow replacement of existing nonconforming fences located in rear yards of double frontage lots.]

AND WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 3D. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STEP ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION

[00:45:02]

NONE, CALL THE VOTE. SORRY. >> A MOTION TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. >> CORRECT. SORRY.

ALL RIGHT. AND ITEM 3D CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. WE WILL NOW MOVE

[3E. Conduct a public hearing on a request by Robert Vogtman regarding a Special Use Permit to allow for a Vapor Store on a property zoned General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District. The subject property is situated at 8120 Lakeview Parkway, Suite #200 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

TEXAS. >> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. I WILL BE PRESENTING THIS ITEM TONIGHT.

SO, SOME BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THIS. THE SITE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL C 2, IT IS SUITE 200. AS OF AUGUST THE 2022, THE ORDINANCE WAS ESTABLISHED THAT REQUIRES SIP FOR HIS THIS IS SELLING CIGARETTES, VAPE PRODUCTS, NCBD PRODUCTS. IT DOESN'T SURE THAT THE BUSINESSES ARE IN A SAFE LOCATION AND PROPER REVIEW BY PLANNING & ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL. SOME MORE BACKGROUND, THE OWNER PLANS TO RELOCATE FROM THEIR CURRENT LOCATION AT 83 ONE LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. IT IS NORTH OF THE SITE. AND IT IS PROPOSED TO STORE AND OPERATE AND ESTABLISH A RETAIL STRIP ALONG LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. THERE ARE SIX SIMILAR STORES LOCATED WITHIN A TWO MILE RADIUS OF THE LOCATION. SO IN TERMS OF THE FLOOR PLAN ITSELF, THE SUITE IS 1000 SQUARE FOOT. THE PROPOSED USE IS GENERAL RETAIL IN NATURE. CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS, ONE SPACE PER 300 SQUARE FEET. FOR OUR REQUIREMENT PROVIDED ON THE SITE PLAN, THE PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION ARE MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, 10 A.M. UNTIL 8 P.M., SUNDAY, 10 A.M. UNTIL 6 P.M. IN TERMS OF THE SIP THERE IS CRITERIA, THE FIRST IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REGULATIONS. THE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF COMMERCIAL IN THIS AREA. TWO IS THE ALIGNMENT OF ZONING AND INTENT. THE ZONING IS C-2, AND IT IS CONSISTENT. THREE IS ANY CHANGES PROPOSED FOR SIP. THIS DOES NOT ADDRESS ANY CHANGING CONDITIONS OR TRENDS. FOUR HIS HEALTH, GENERAL SAFETY AND WELFARE. THE BUSINESS PLANS TO OPERATE WITH LIMITED HOURS AND ALSO HAS LIMITED SIGNAGE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE SIDE AS WELL. FIVE IS SUFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. IT IS AN EXISTING SITE. THERE IS EXISTING SERVICES ON SITE. SIX IS THE IMPACT OF THE NEARBY PROPERTY USE. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ANTICIPATED AT NEARBY PROPERTIES. AND SEVEN IS FOR ZONING AND PROPOSED USE THAT DOES ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND THE C-2 DISTRICT ZONING. WE DID PROVIDE THE NOTIFICATION ON JULY 12, 2024. AND AS OF NOW THERE HAS BEEN NO NOTIFICATION THAT WAS BROUGHT BACK IN FAVOR, OR OPPOSED TO THIS USE. SO I DIDN'T GO BEFORE THE P&Z ON JULY 3RD, 2024, AND THEY DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH A 5-0 VOTE. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE STORE, THE ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED COUN NEW BUSINESSES SEEKING TO SELL VAPE NCBD PRODUCTS ARE SITUATED IN A WELL-SUITED PLACE WITH THESE ENTITIES. THE BUSINESS IS IN AN EXISTING ENTITY, JUST LOOKING TO RELOCATE TO THE LOCATION SOUTH OF THE CURRENT ONE. I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR QUESTIONS TOO. THEY DO NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION

TONIGHT. THERE >> QUESTIONS? MAYOR PRO TEM

WINGET. >> HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. WHY ARE YOU MOVING?

>> I WANT TO BE IN A LOCATION THAT IS OWNED LOCALLY. WHERE WE

[00:50:05]

>> 10 OUT OF 10 ANSWER. I WONDERED IF IT WAS A SPACE BEING OR RENT THING BUT YOU JUST WANT TO BE WITH A LOCALLY OWNED BUSINESS LOCATION. ANYTHING WITH THE SIZE AND THE PRODUCT OFFERINGS, SIGNAGE, NO CHANGES PLANNED THERE?

>> I HAVE BEEN, WE HAVE BEEN SCAMMED OUT OF A LOT OF MONEY BY THIS CORPORATION. IT SEEMS AS IF THEY , I FEEL THAT THEY MAY BE DOUBLE CHARGING FOR THE TRIPLE NET. IT JUST FEELS LIKE THAT IS WHAT IS KIND OF PUSHING THIS TO HAPPEN. OTHERWISE WE COULD STAY AND CONTINUE TO PAY.

>> INTERESTING. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWER. I WANTED TO CLARIFY THE REASON BEHIND IT. THIS WAS NOT AN ISSUE WHEN YOU FIRST OPENED YOUR STORE. MANY YEARS AGO. YOU PURCHASED?

>> IN 2022. SO IT WAS OWNED BY A WOMAN WHO MOVED TO THE HOUSTON AREA AND KIND OF LET IT GO. SHE HAD EIGHT STORES AT ONE TIME ENCLOSED SIX BEFORE WE TOOK OVER. AT THIS POINT WHEN WE TOOK OVER SHE WAS BARELY SURVIVING. THE OTHER STORE IN MCKINNEY WAS REALLY THE REASON THAT SHE WAS ABLE TO PAY RENT AT ALL. BECAUSE THE SALES WERE NOT JUSTIFYING THE SPACE. BUT SHE WAS LOCKED INTO THE LEASE. SO WE WERE ABLE TO COME IN AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF PRODUCTS, THE SERVICES, AND

KEEP IT ALIVE. >> THAT IS GREAT . I GO TO CHURCH WITH ONE OF YOUR CUSTOMERS AND HE CAME TO ME AND WAS ASKING LIKE WHY DO THEY NEED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT? THEY DIDN'T WIN THEY OPENED ORIGINALLY. THAT IS TRUE. IT IS UNIQUE IN YOUR CASE BECAUSE YOU ARE RELOCATING, VERSUS BRAND-NEW OPENING A. BUT THE PROLIFERATION IN TOWN OF THESE STORES HAS BEEN AN ISSUE. IN YOUR CASE, IN MY OPINION YOU ARE THE EXCEPTION. YOU ARE A RELOCATION AND NOT WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER A NEW STORE. BUT GIVING THAT WE ARE TIED TO ZONING AND SPECIFIC SITE, THAT NECESSITATES YOU TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH THAT AND FOR DOING

IT. >> I COULD BE INVOLVED IN SOME SORT OF ADJUSTMENT TOO , FOR THE EXISTING BUSINESSES. MAYBE OTHERS WANT TO DO THE SAME. WE WERE HOPING TO MOVE IN MAY. AND THEN MY REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITY , THE DAY HE WAS SUPPOSED TO TELL ME IF THE LAWYER WAS GOING TO MAKE IT , YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO THIS OR NOT, APPARENTLY HE NEVER CALLED ME BACK AND HE LOST HIS JOB THAT DAY. IT WAS JUST LIKE TIMING, EVERYTHING, BUT, YOU KNOW THE UNIVERSE IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT IT WELL AND I AM WHERE I AM SUPPOSED TO BE AND THIS IS THE TIMELINE WE SHOULD BE ON.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK. I AM GLAD KOUNTZE GOT TO HEAR

THAT. >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS LITERALLY NEXT DOOR TO SAMMY. SO WE HAVE THE BALER, WE HAVE AN INSURANCE, INKING, THE DENTIST. THEN YOU. AND THEN A SMOKESHOP. AND THEN SAMMY. THE QUESTION I ASKED MYSELF, I APPRECIATE YOUR LONG-STANDING MERCHANT IN THE TOWN. THAT HAS A LOT OF WEIGHT. THE QUESTION I ASKED MYSELF AS AN SEP, IF YOU CAME HERE NOT BEING A LONG-STANDING MERCHANT, WHAT I THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD BASE FOR THAT TYPE OF SHOP, I WOULD SAY NO. I DON'T PARTICULARLY. I IN NO WAY WANT TO LOWER WHAT YOU DO. YOU ARE A BUSINESSMAN AND YOU RUN A GOOD BUSINESS. I GET THAT. BUT I THINK AS WE TRY TO DEVELOP THE CITY AND DEVELOP THAT CORRIDOR, THERE HAS TO BE SENSITIVITY TO WHERE THINGS ARE BEING PLACED. ULTIMATELY, THIS MAY BE A MISCHARACTERIZATION, I APOLOGIZE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT IS FUELING THIS IS THAT YOU HAVE A CRUMMY LANDLORD.

DAY IT IS ABOUT YOU AND A CRUMMY LANDLORD. AND YOU KNOW, I JUST, AGAIN, I WANT YOU TO KNOW MY THOUGHT PROCESS HERE.

IF YOU WERE COMING TO ME WITH THIS FOR THAT LOCATION, I WOULD KNOW I WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME SUPPORTING IT.

>> I AGREE, I DON'T WANT ANY MORE STORES OPENING UP. WE WERE

[00:55:03]

>> WITH YOUR THOUGHTS ON BUILDING AT THE CORRIDOR, RIGHT NOW WE ARE NEXT TO THE JUJITSU PLACE. EVERY DAY THERE IS A LOT OF KIDS. AND ONE THING THAT , VAPE, SMOKE, HEMP, IT IS DEMONIZED IN THE MEDIA. I UNDERSTAND. BUT WE ARE REALLY FOCUSED ON KEEPING IT OUT OF THEIR HANDS. THERE ARE GOOD ACTORS AND BAD ACTORS AND THERE ARE A LOT OF BAD ACTORS AROUND HERE. AND ALLEN WILL PROVE THAT. WE I.D. AT THE DOOR KIND OF THING. WE REALLY THINK KEEPING IT, LIKE IT WOULD BE BETTER NEXT TO A BAR, THEN NEXT TO A JUJITSU PLACE THAT HAS A LOT OF KIDS EVERYDAY. LOOKING IN. AND I HAVE MY PUPPY, MY DOG COMES WITH ME EVERY DAY. SO THEY LOOK IN ON MY DOG. AND THEY ARE DISTRACTED. YOU KNOW, IT IS JUST , SO --

>> MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET. >> HE MADE THE GREAT OBSERVATION THAT YOU ARE NEXT TO THE JUJITSU PLACE. I AM IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I AM FAMILIAR WITH YOUR CURRENT LOCATION. IT IS A DENTIST, FAMILY MEDICINE PRACTICE, PHYSICAL THERAPY PLACE, AND TWO RESTAURANTS IN THE STRIP. CHEF CHEN, LAKEWOOD CAFE. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF THE SIMILAR LOCATIONS , BUSINESSES IN THE LOCATIONS WE ARE SPEAKING A.

>> I HAVE TROUBLE WITH LOCAL KIDS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND US. RUNNING IN, GRABBING THINGS, RUNNING OUT. I ALMOST HAD THEM ONE TIME BUT THE COPS AROUND HAVE BEEN SUPER SUPPORTIVE AND HELPFUL. WE HAVE TRIED TO BUILD A CASE AND GET MORE INFORMATION. HE CAME AND I WAS ABLE TO GET A PICTURE OF

HIM. >> PLEASE BE CAREFUL.

>> YEAH. SAME GROUP OF KIDS ALWAYS CAUSING TROUBLE.

ANYTHING ELSE COUNCIL? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, WE WILL MOVE TO THE ACTION ITEM. EARLY ON. NO, WE HAVEN'T. IT HAS BEEN THAT LONG ON THIS ITEM. OF RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT. BEFORE I VIOLATED THE LAW. 8:08 P.M. WE WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK? WE DID NOT RECEIVE ONLINE FORMS ON THIS. THERE IS NOBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. 8:08 P.M. WE ARE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

NOW. NOW WE GO TO THE NEXT ITEM. WHICH IS ITEM 3F. I WILL

[3F. Take action on a request by Robert Vogtman regarding a Special Use Permit to allow for a Vapor Store on a property zoned General Commercial/Retail (C-2) District. The subject property is situated at 8120 Lakeview Parkway, Suite #200 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

>> JUST TO CLARIFY THIS'S MOTION TO APPROVE. THE ACTION

ITEM DOES NOT STATE THAT. >> YES. OKAY. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET. SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BOWERS. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. SORRY. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER. I

WAS ABOUT TO JUST MOVE ON. >> YOU ARE ABOUT TO IGNORE ME.

OKAY. I WANTED TO SAY, I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A RELOCATION. THIS WILL NOT ADD TO THE NUMBER OF THESE TYPES OF ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CITY. I WAS VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRED THE SEP TO -- FOR VAPE SHOTS AND CBD STORES AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT ORDINANCE SAYS THAT IN THE PACKET IS TO DELIMIT THE PROLIFERATION AND ENCOURAGE LOCATION IN THE AREAS BEST SUITED. AND IN BOTH CASES, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS RELOCATION, I FEEL AS IF WE ALREADY HAVE 12 IN THE CITY. THAT'S A LOT. WE ALREADY HAVE SIX, APPARENTLY WITHIN THE TWO MILE RADIUS WITHIN THIS LOCATION. I HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME APPROVING THIS REQUEST, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A RELOCATION. AND THAT IS A FACTOR THAT I UNDERSTAND , BUT, FOR THOSE REASONS I AM NOT GOING TO BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF

THIS. >> SEE WHY , THANK YOU

[01:00:05]

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. THEN CALLED THE VOTE .

>> ALL RIGHT, THE ITEM CARRIES 5-2.

[3G. Conduct a public hearing on a request by Andrew Yeoh, Triangle Engineering, on behalf of property owner Jim Dorsey to amend the City of Rowlett Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Plan and Zoning Map for an approximately 2.809 acre parcel comprised of a portion of Lot 3, Block A of Bubbos Addition No. 1 to the City of Rowlett and a portion of a tract of land described by Instrument No. 20070145987, Official Public Records of Dallas County and being commonly known as 1700 Castle Drive from Limited Commercial/Retail (C-1) District to Planned Development (PD) District with a base zoning of Limited Commercial/Retail (C-1).]

>> WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 3G. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST BY ANDREW YEOH, TRIANGLE ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER JIM DORSEY TO AMEND THE CITY OF ROWLETT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, PLAN AND ZONING MAP FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 2.809 ACRE PARCEL COMPRISED OF A PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK A OF BUBBOS ADDITION NUMBER 1 TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND A PORTION OF A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED BY INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20070145987, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY AND BEING COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1700 CASTLE DRIVE FROM LIMITED COMMERCIAL/RETAIL, C-1, DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PD, DISTRICT WITH A BASE ZONING OF LIMITED COMMERCIAL/RETAIL, C-1.

>> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE TO GOING 890 ACRE PROPERTY TO C-ONE UNDERLYING DEVELOPMENT. CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY C-ONE, IT IS CURRENTLY TO THE EAST, EXCUSE ME, THE STORAGE FACILITY IS TO THE WEST, AND TO THE NORTH, THE CITY OF GARLAND BORDERS THIS PROPERTY. INTO THE SOUTH IS AN OIL CHANGE AS WELL AS TO ALLOW LIGHT VEHICLE SERVICE REPAIR AS WELL. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ZONE THE PROPERTY C-1 BASE ZONING.

AND WITH THE REZONING THEY ARE REQUESTING TO HAVE THE PROPOSED USE AS AN AUTOMATIC CAR WASH. THEY PROPOSE CODE MODIFICATIONS AS WELL TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PD. TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON WHAT THE PD INTENDS ARE IS TO ACCOMMODATE THE USES OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INTEGRATE USE STANDARDS AS WELL. WITH THE PD ZONING IF THEY DO NOT COMMENCE WITHIN THE PROPERTY WITHIN TWO YEARS, CITY COUNCIL OR THE DIRECTOR MAY MAKE THE INITIATIVE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAKE IT BACK INTO THE REZONING DISTRICT. SO WE HAVE HERE THE CONCEPT PLAN WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN AUTOMATIC CAR WASH ABOUT 5397 SQUARE FEET WITH 21 VACUUM SPACES AND SIX EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES. AND IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN IT SHOWS WHERE THE LOCATION OF THE AUTOMATIC CAR WASH IS WITH STACKING. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS, WHICH DEVIATE FROM WHERE OUR C-1 CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE. THEY WILL KEEP IN LINE WITH SETBACK OF 50 FEET, MINIMUM SIDE SAID BACK WILL DEVIATE ABOUT FIVE FEET. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS ZERO. THE MINIMUM LOT COVERAGE THEY ARE PROPOSING 80%, AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WHICH IS 36 FEET THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING, BUT IN THE TRENCH ONE -- C-1 ZONING DISTRICT. BUT THEY ARE ALSO PRONE POSING OTHER MODIFICATIONS ALIGNING WITH LANDSCAPING. THEY DO NOT PROPOSE THE SIX FOOT TRANSITIONAL BUFFER. THAT IS IN BETWEEN USES BECAUSE OF RIGHT NOW THEY ARE ADJACENT TO VACANT LAND. AND ADJACENT TO THE NORTH PORTION TO HAVE A ROAD . THEY WILL HAVE A STREET BUFFER THERE. THEY PROPOSE TO HAVE THE FACILITIES WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK . IN OUR CODE IT DOES NOT ALLOW THE VACUUMS TO BE IN THE SET BACK. BUT THEY ARE ALLOWING FOR THE REQUEST. AND

[01:05:06]

>> THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE DO QUESTIONS. ON ITEM 3G, IT IS 8:19 P.M. I HAVE ONE CARD HERE.

IT IS FROM MR. EASTER WOULD. ARE YOU THE APPLICANT?

>> COME ON FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME. AND THE CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR YOUR RECORD. AND THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> OKAY. I AM A RESIDENT OF DALLAS. I HAVE OWNED PROPERTY ON THIS CORNER FOR 20 YEARS. I HAVE REPRESENTED 711 DEVELOPING THE CONVENIENCE STORE ON THE CORNER. I ALSO PURCHASED ANOTHER PIECE OF POVERTY WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THIS LOT NUMBER THREE. IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE SEWER FOR THE 711 STORE ON THE CORNER, I WILL SAY I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS USE FOR THIS PROPERTY. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD USE FOR THE PROPERTY. IS SIMILAR TO A PROPERTY THAT I KNOW OF IN NORTH DALLAS ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MUNFORD DRIVE AND SPRING VALLEY ROAD.

WHICH INCLUDES A CONVENIENCE STORE, A BUSINESS THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE QUICK CAR ON THIS CORNER, IT ALSO INCLUDES A SELF STORAGE FACILITY. IT INCLUDES A CARWASH. AND IT INCLUDES A RETAIL BUILDING. NOW, THE RETAIL ON THIS CORNER OF ROWLETT ROAD AND CASTLE DRIVE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED.

BUT I WAS WITH -- WHO BOUGHT THE LOT NUMBER ONE THAT I HAD OWNERSHIP AT ONE POINT IN TIME IN. AND I ASSISTED HIM IN

[01:10:05]

BUT ANOTHER FELLOW HAS PURCHASED IT. HE INTENDS TO BUILD THAT RETAIL AT THAT LOCATION, WHICH WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THIS PROPERTY THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT ON THE CORNER OF MUNFORD AND SPRING VALLEY. SO THAT IS WHAT I WANTED TO TELL THE CITY COUNCIL. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD USE OF THIS PROPERTY. SO, IF YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS I WILL ANSWER THEM. BUT OTHERWISE I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS CORNER FOR 20 YEARS. I HELPED THE GUY GET IT REZONED AND RE-PLATTED. WHEN I FIRST SAW THE PROPERTY IT WAS 20 ACRES. A FELLOW IN ARKANSAS OWNED IT AND I ASSISTED HIM GETTING IT SEPARATED INTO SIX DIFFERENT LOTS. CITY OF ROWLETT BOUGHT LOT NUMBER SIX FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES AND I BOUGHT LOT NUMBER ONE AND TWO, I PUT THE 7-11 STORE ON LOT NUMBER TWO, AND LOT NUMBER ONE HAS THE QUICK.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOU. RIGHT, ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 3G? ALL RIGHT, THEN IT IS 8:22, AND WE ARE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND COUNCIL, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT ? MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET.

>> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT IF I MAY. I SAW YOU AT THE PLANNING & ZONING, SO I KNOW WHO YOU ARE. IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.

>>

>> THANK YOU. MY QUESTIONS FOR YOU, THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS VERY UNIQUE IN TERMS OF THE TOPOGRAPHIC LAYERING. RIGHT? I AM CURIOUS, HOW CLOSE , BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT TO TELL FROM THE GRAPHIC HERE, HOW CLOSE WILL THE ROADWAY GO TO THE CREEK? AND HOW WILL THAT BE, WHAT WILL BE THE EDGING? WILL THERE BE A RETAINING WALL OR WILL IT NATURALLY CONNECT TO

THE SURFACE? >> PAVING IS CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE CREEK. OBVIOUSLY THE WATER EVALUATION IS BELOW THE CREEK. WHEN WE DO THE DESIGN WE WILL PUT THE RETAINING WALL TO SUPPORT THE SIDE. AND THEN TO PREVENT DISTURBING THE EXISTING

TREES AND THE CREEK AREA. >> WHAT IS THE INTENTION OF DRAINAGE FROM THE SURFACE ITSELF? WILL IT GO TOWARDS CASTLE OR INTO THE CREEK OR ELSEWHERE?

>> THE EXISTING PATTERN IS TO THE CREEK AREA. SO ORIGINALLY WE TALKED TO THE CITY ENGINEER, IT WILL BE TO PROPOSE THE UNDERGROUND RETENTION POND. I RECENTLY TALKED TO THE CITY ENGINEER. HE TOLD US IF WE RUN IT DOWNSTREAM.

THAT WILL BE THE NEXT STEP TO TRY NOT TO DISTURB THE EXISTING

CREEK. >> I WANT TO BE SURE I HEARD YOU RIGHT, THE FIRST STEP IS TO DETERMINE THE ANALYSIS AND THE DOWNSTREAM FLOW PATTERN AND THEN IF IT REQUIRES WE WILL DO

THE UNDERGROUND RETENTION? >> YES, SIR.

>> GOTCHA. THE TREE REMOVAL, TARA, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THERE ARE 46 BEING SAVED, IS THAT CORRECT? AND IS IT 19 BEING REMOVED? 19 PROTECTED TREES?

>> IT SHOULD BE AROUND THERE BUT WE HAVE TO DO A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. THAT WILL COME BEFORE COUNCIL. RIGHT NOW WE ARE PROPOSING THE CONCEPTUAL ONE BUT IT WILL BE PROVIDING MORE DETAIL ON HOW MANY MORE TREES ARE BEING REMOVED. THEY ARE PROPOSING THAT THEY WILL PRESERVE THE 46 TREES.

>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. MY LAST QUESTION IS REALLY ABOUT THE SOUTHEAST BUFFER ON THE SITE. CURRENTLY THE SOUTHEAST EDGE BORDERS THAT FEEL. OR THE EASTERN EDGE. I GUESS. IT CONNECTS WITH THE OTHER EMPTY LOT. RIGHT? SO, I SAW CONCERNS

[01:15:02]

THERE OF ANY TYPE? >> ACTUALLY THAT PIECE OF REPARTEE IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY MR. ESTHERWOOD. SO THAT IS 150 FEET AWAY FROM THE REST OF THAT AREA. WE ARE NOT DIRECTLY

ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENT LOT. >> CITY ATTORNEY, COULD I ASK

ESTHER ESTHERWOOD A QUESTION? >> COULD YOU COME BACK UP? THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU FOR COMING. I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. AND INVESTING IN THIS PROCESS. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS THE BORDER BETWEEN THE SITE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY AND THEN THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTHEAST. AND THAT PROPERTY SITS BETWEEN THERE AND THE ALLEYWAY THAT ORDERS THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. IF THERE IS A FUTURE PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE RETAIL ASPECT, MAYBE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO

PUT A SCREEN WHILE THERE. >> ACTUALLY, THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW, THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, LOT 3.1, IT WAS SPLIT OFF OF LOT THREE. IT IS UNDER CONTRACT TO THIS PARTICULAR USER. TO ACQUIRE THIS PROPERTY. BECAUSE MY PROPERTY HAS AN INGRESS EASEMENT. ACROSS IT, FROM LOT NUMBER THREE. THE DEED IN MY PROPERTY HAS IT, SO THEY ARE ACQUIRING MY PROPERTY SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, I THINK IT DOES. I THINK ON MONT 3.1,

THAT IS GOING TO STAY VACANT. >> THAT IS GOING TO STAY VACANT, UNLESS THEY DECIDE THAT THEY WANTED TO PUT SOMETHING ON

IT. YOU KNOW? >> OKAY. THAT HELPS A LOT. MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT I THINK IS MORE ABOUT IF YOU INTEND TO PUT A SCREENING WHILE BETWEEN LOT 3.1 AND LOT 3. OR WOULD YOU CONSIDER PUTTING THE SCREENING WALL?

>> IN THE FUTURE WE WILL WORK WITH THE CITY TO DISCUSS WITH THE RESIDENTS NEXT-DOOR. TO MAKE THE BEST AND HAVE THE SCREENING WALL BETWEEN THE ALLEYWAY THEY HAVE.

>> SO THERE WILL BE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE AND YOU ARE PLANNING AHEAD FOR THAT BY NOT HAVING THE SCREENING WALL.

>> WE DO NOT HAVE THE PLAN RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO THIS WORK FIRST. AND THEN THE NEXT STEP IS FUTURE PLANS, WE WILL WORK WITH THE CITY TO HAVE THE DESIGN PLAN AND COME

BACK TO PROPOSE TO THE CITY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> I AM GOING TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND THEN ASK A QUESTION AFTER THE STATEMENT. PLAN DEVELOPMENTS AS STATED IN THE CODE ARE INTENDED TO EITHER A, ALLOW INTEGRATIONS OF VARIOUS LAND USES, OR B, ACCOMMODATE THE USE OF STANDARDS AND USES THAT RESULT IN A HIGHER QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT THAT THEN CAN BE ACHIEVED BY OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS. OR C, PERMIT THE -- SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO DEVELOPMENT ALREADY SEEN. AND THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD ESTABLISH AS PART OF THE APPROPRIATE PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHICH MAY CONFORM, ALTER, AND ACCEPT ANY STANDARDS . MY PERSPECTIVE, THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT INTEGRATE VARIOUS LAND USES RESULTING IN A HIGHER QUALITY OR ALTER OR DESIGN STANDARDS. THEREFORE IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE PROPOSED PROJECT MEETS ANY OF THE STATED REQUIREMENTS UNDER TO RECEIVE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENTS ZONING . SO A QUESTION FOR STAFF, IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THAT?

>> OKAY. SO I THINK YOUR INTERPRETATION IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. I WOULD SAY GENERALLY I DO NOT THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO APPROVE A PD SPECIFICALLY TO SUBVERT THE USE CHART TO ALLOW THE USE THAT IS NOT ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THAT IS MY GENERAL

[01:20:04]

>> I AM NOT ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATION BUT JUST WANTED THE FIRST PART OF YOUR STATEMENT. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. COUNCIL, ANYTHING ELSE? QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD.

>> A QUESTION FOR COREY, IF I MAY. SORRY FOR MAKING YOU TO KEEP GET UP AND DOWN. AT ANY POINT DURING THIS PROCESS DID WE COACH THE APPLICANT THAT THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT

APPLICATION FOR A PD. >> WE DID NOT AND THIS WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, WHICH IS HOW IT CAME IN. UNFORTUNATELY, HISTORICALLY THAT IS HOW THE CARWASH IS HAVE COME THROUGH THE CITY HISTORICALLY. SO THERE IS A COUPLE DIFFERENT AVENUES THAT THEY COULD GO ABOUT. I THINK THEY ARE LISTED IN YOUR REPORT.

ZONING CHANGE REQUEST, LOOK FOR ANOTHER LOCATION, THE PD WHICH IS THE ROUTE THEY WENT FOR. ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY IN SOME CITIES WOULD BE THE APPLICANT COULD REQUEST THE TEXT AMENDMENT. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OUTLINED IN OUR ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE PROCESS. WHICH IS WHAT I WOULD HAVE ADVISED THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT TO YOU. TO KIND OF GO DOWN THAT PATHWAY, THAT THEY COULD SAY THAT WE THINK THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE USE WITHIN THE DISTRICT. SO MAYBE YOU COULD LOOK AT IT AND THEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH T■HE SITE PLAN YOU COULD SEE IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, MAYBE THIS IS A USE THAT MAKE SENSE IN THE PROPERTY. WE DON'T HAVE THAT OUTLINE CURRENTLY AND IT IS SOMETHING WE ARE WORKING ON AND OUR MANAGER HAS AN ON THE TOP OF HER LIST. APPLICANTS TO THE OPPORTUNITY. BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY HERE, I DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT I COULD ADVISE THEM TO APPLY FOR ZONING CHANGE AND KNOCK IT INTO A SPOT

ZONING. >> CITY MANAGER. LET ME ADDRESS THAT FURTHER. WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DENY THEM FOR APPLYING FOR THE PD. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, DO WE COUNCIL THEM AGAINST IT NECESSARILY? NO. TECHNICALLY THEY CAN APPLY.

SO WE WENT ENOUGH. AND TO CORY'S POINT, THE IDEAL POINT WOULD BE THE TEXT AMENDMENT BUT THAT IS NOT AN OPTION AVAILABLE

TO US. >> COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP.

>> WHOEVER PUT TOGETHER THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS ITEM THAT WE GOT, THEY DID A GREAT JOB ON IT. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE OF THE PD, AND SOME OF THAT STUFF, IT IS CONFUSING BUT KUDOS TO YOU ALL, YOU DID A GREAT JOB ON THAT. I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MAYOR BROUGHT UP. I DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THAT PROCESS. HOW IT IS NOT IDEAL. I UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT IDEAL. BUT I DO BALANCE THAT AGAINST THE REALITY THAT THE PIECE OF PROPERTY PROPERTY PROBABLY HAS LIMITED APPEAL FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF BUSINESSES. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD USE FOR IT. I THINK IT FITS IN THERE.

IT DOES. AND YOU NOTICE THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF IT. I AM NOT SURPRISED BY IT. IT IS A LONG WAY TO A CARWASH, A GOOD CARWASH, FROM THERE. I THINK IT DOES HELP THE RESIDENTS OF THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE CITY. I THINK IT IS AN ADVANTAGE OF THEM FOR THEM. I LIKE THAT IT INCORPORATES A LARGER VISION. SO THE TECHNICALITIES OF HOW WE GET HERE MAY NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO GENERALLY . AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I THINK IT IS OVERRIDDEN SOMEWHAT BY THE PRACTICALITY OF PUTTING THIS BUSINESS ON THAT PROPERTY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON . >> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP, YOU KIND OF STOLE MY THUNDER BUT THAT IS OKAY. I LOOK AT IT THE SAME WAY. THE REALITY OF WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS FACING CASTLE, IT DOES LEND ITSELF TO SOME PRETTY UNIQUE TYPES OF THINGS. IF IT WAS FACING ROWLETT ROAD, IT MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT SITUATION. BUT IT IS NOT JUST ANOTHER CARWASH.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS REALLY ANY CARWASH UP THERE THAT SERVICE THE NORTHERN PART OF THE COMMUNITY. IF YOU LOOK DIRECTLY ACROSS YOU SEE A BUNCH OF APARTMENTS BEING BUILT. THEY ARE IN GARLIN BUT THEY ARE STRATEGICALLY LOCATED WHERE THEY WILL PROBABLY COME OVER AND SPEND MONEY IN ROWLETT. IT IS A WIN-WIN FOR US TO APPROVE THIS. YOU ARE KIND OF AT THAT JUNCTURE OF ROWLETT, NORTHERN ROWLETT, GARLIN. I THINK IT

[01:25:04]

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER.

>> YES, I AM LOOKING AT THIS VERY GOOD STAFF REPORT. AS COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP SAID. THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH UNDER THE DISCUSSION SAYS WHEN AN APPLICANT APPROACHES THE CITY REGARDING A USE THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE DESIGNATED ZONING DISTRICT, THE APPLICANT HAS MULTIPLE OPTIONS.

THE THIRD ONE IS THEY CAN REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM THE CURRENT ZONE TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH APPROPRIATE BASED ZONING. WHICH IS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WOULD NOT RECOMMEND DOING THIS THIS WAY. AND THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO DO IT. WHICH WE APPARENTLY DON'T HAVE PROVISIONS FOR. IN OUR ORDINANCE IS. BUT, JUST TO VERIFY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO LEGALLY DO IT THIS WAY. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID YES.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. AND I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP AND COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON REGARDING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS. INTEREST LENIENTLY -- INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH WE ARE LOOKING AT SPECIAL USE CARWASHES IN THE MEETING AND THE PURPOSE OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS TO LIMIT OR TO CONTROL THE LOCATIONS AND THE NUMBERS OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS. I THINK IN THIS SITUATION, AS COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON POINTED OUT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CARWASHES WITHIN A TWO MILE RADIUS OF THIS LOCATION. IT IS A LOCATION THAT IS DIFFICULT TO DO OTHER THINGS WITH. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET. >> JUST TO RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENTS, MAYOR, I THINK THEY ARE WELL TAKEN AND I APPRECIATE THE PERSPECTIVE YOU'RE COMING FROM. UNFORTUNATELY, WE AS A CITY, WITHOUT APPS AND A MECHANISM WITH WHICH WE CAN CONSULT WITH A APPLICANT, AND ENCOURAGE THEM IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, IT SEEMS ALMOST UNFAIR TO ME TO NOT CONSIDER THE ITEM ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT MAY NOT CHECK ALL THE BOXES OF BEING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. I THINK FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE I WOULD NOT WANT TO PENALIZE THE APPLICANT BASED ON THOSE GROUNDS. TO THE POINT MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON, I PULLED UP CARWASHES IN THE CLOSEST IS IN GARLAND, AND IN ROWLETT YOU HAVE THE CARNATION OR THE THE WHITE WATER EXPRESS CARWASH ACROSS FROM WALMART ON 66. THIS IS A MIDPOINT BETWEEN EITHER OF THOSE THREE WHICH SERVES A POINT IN THAT AREA.

>> I WANT TO SAY I AGREE THAT THIS IS A GREAT LOCATION FOR A CARWASH. I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THE LOCATION OF THE CARWASH BEING AT THE LOCATION. WHAT I TAKE ISSUE WITH IS TAKING A PRECEDENT AND WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE IS THAT WE BEGIN TO ALLOW FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS EVEN THOUGH THEY DO NOT MEET ANY OF THESE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE SET IN OUR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CODE. UNTIL THE CODE IS AMENDED THESE ARE THE RULES. YES, COUNCIL CAN APPROVE IT IGNORING THE RULES BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HEED THE RULES AS THEY EXIST SO NOT TO CREATE A PRECEDENT WHERE WE ALLOW PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT NEITHER INTEGRATE VARIOUS LAND USES , RESULT IN A HIGHER DEVELOPMENT, OR AMEND DESIGN UNIFORMITY'S ADOPTED UNDER OUR CODE. IN THIS CASE IT DOES NOT MEET ANY , A, B, C, TO QUALIFY. IT IS NOT THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD LOCATION, IT IS THE PRACTICE IN WHICH WE ARE TAKING THIS. OF COURSE I RESPECT MY COLLEAGUES, SUPPORTING THIS ITEM . I ABSOLUTELY DO. THIS IS JUST A DUE PROCESS SITUATION THAT I SEE. IF THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN ADD THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CODE THEN I THINK WE SHOULD GO FOR THAT. BUT UNTIL THEN, RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IS CREATE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR A CARWASH WHICH IS QUITE UNPRECEDENTED. PLAN DEVELOPMENTS ARE FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE , LET'S SAY A WATER VIEW, OR A HOMESTEAD, OR THE NORTH SHORE, OR SAPPHIRE BAY. THAT IS WHERE YOU HAVE THE HIGHER-QUALITY DEVELOPMENTS OR

[01:30:05]

[3H. Take action on a request by Andrew Yeoh, Triangle Engineering, on behalf of property owner Jim Dorsey to amend the City of Rowlett Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Plan and Zoning Map for an approximately 2.809 acre parcel comprised of a portion of Lot 3, Block A of Bubbos Addition No. 1 to the City of Rowlett and a portion of a tract of land described by Instrument No. 20070145987, Official Public Records of Dallas County and being commonly known as 1700 Castle Drive from Limited Commercial/Retail (C-1) District to Planned Development (PD) District with a base zoning of Limited Commercial/Retail (C-1).]

>> CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AT SECTION 77-301 "TABLE OF ALLOWED USES" AT TABLE 3.1-1 AS FOLLOWS, ONE, TO ONLY ALLOW "CAR WASH, SELFSERVICE" AND "CAR WASH, COMMERCIAL" USES IN ZONING DISTRICTS M-1 AND M-2 WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND TWO, TO ONLY ALLOW "VEHICLE SERVICE AND REPAIR, LIGHT" USE IN ZONING DISTRICTS C-1, C-2, AND M-1 WITH A SPECIAL USE

PERMIT. >> IT IS TIMELY FOR THIS ITEM HERE TONIGHT. IT SEEMS. THIS ORDINANCE ALSO WAS ONE THAT WAS ORIGINATED FROM -- I AM NOT SURE THE HISTORY ON THIS BUT I BELIEVE IT CAME FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY ATTORNEY HAD BEGUN DRAFTING THE ORDINANCE. WE CURRENTLY ALLOW CARWASHES BOTH AUTOMATED AND SELF-SERVICE IN M1 AND TWO ZONING DISTRICTS BY RIGHT. THIS WOULD REQUIRE THEM DONE VIA SEP ONLY. AND WE ALLOW LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR IN M-1 AND 2, AND IN C-1 AND C-2. WE WOULD CONTINUE TO ALLOW LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR. THAT WE WOULD ADD THE LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR REQUIREMENT TO THE M-1 DISTRICT TO BRING EVERYBODY UP TO SPEED. WE ORIGINALLY HAD THIS AS A CHANGE FOR LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR TO REQUIRE SEP ACROSS THE BOARD IN ALL DISTRICTS. IN C-1, C-2, M-1, M-2. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE 26 DISTRICT IN THIS, BECAUSE WE ALLOWED HEAVY MOTOR REPAIR AND M-2 BY RIGHT. IT DID NOT MAKE SENSE FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND ALLOWING THE HEAVY AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND THAT DISTRICT. ALSO THE M-2 DISTRICT ALIGNS WITH THE INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT AND BY NATURE OF THE ORDINANCE IS NOW CREATED THAT IT SEEMS THAT WAS THE INTENT TO LOCATE THOSE USES IN THE DISTRICT. ONE OF THE FUN THINGS IN THE NEW LEGISLATIVE SESSION WAS THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE SEND OUT NOTICES TO ANY USES THAT WOULD BECOME NONCONFORMING BY ONE OF OUR ZONING TEXT CHANGES. BY CHANGING THIS FROM ALLOW BY RIGHT, TO ALLOW BY SEP, WE HAD ABOUT 10 LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR USES IN THE M-1 DISTRICT THAT WOULD BECOME LEGALLY NONCONFORMING. RIGHT NOW THEY ARE CONFORMING. WE HAD TO SEND OUT A LETTER TO EACH OF THOSE BUSINESSES TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THIS WAS BEING CONSIDERED.

THE PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION . IT IS A SCARY LETTER AND WE GOT A LOT OF PHONE CALLS AFTERWARD ABOUT THAT IT SAID WE WERE CONSIDERING THEIR ABILITY TO USE THEIR PROPERTY OR BUSINESS FOR THE USE OF WHICH IT WAS BEING USED RIGHT NOW. I WANTED TO INCLUDE THIS SLIDE FOR YOUR REFERENCE AND FOR ANYBODY ELSE WATCHING OR INTERESTED IN THE ITEM AT HOME.

WE DO HAVE A KIND OF ORDINANCE IN PLACE THAT SPEAK TO NONCONFORMING USES AND WHAT HAPPENS IF WE MAKE THESE CHANGES. ALL OF THE BUSINESSES WE HAD TO NOTIFY WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGALLY NONCONFORMING AND WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE THEIR USE RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE A FEW THINGS I COULD TRIGGER THAT TO NOT BE THE CASE IN THE FUTURE.

THE DISCONTINUATION OF USE, THE WAY THAT WE HAVE IT IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW IS DISCONTINUATION OF USE FOR 180 DAYS OR MORE. IF THEY ARE VACANT OR NOT IN USE FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME FOR THAT USE. AND THEY LOSE THE NONCONFORMING STATUS. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO MINOR REPAIRS AND RENOVATIONS BUT NO RENOVATIONS OVER EXCESS OF 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS. THAT TRIGGERS THEM LOSING THE NONCONFORMING STATUS. THE OTHER WAY IT IS OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE WHICH

[01:35:05]

>> COUNCIL, QUESTIONS?

[3I. Conduct a public hearing regarding an amendment to the comprehensive zoning ordinance at Section 77-301 “Table of Allowed Uses” at Table 3.1-1 as follows: (1) to only allow “Car wash, Selfservice” and “Car wash, commercial” uses in Zoning Districts M-1 and M-2 with a Special Use Permit, and (2) to only allow “vehicle service and repair, light” use in Zoning Districts C-1, C-2, and M-1 with a Special Use Permit.]

>> OKAY, IT IS A: 46 P.M. AND I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 3I. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM? CHIEF, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? JOKING. WE DID NOT RECEIVE

[3J. Take action regarding an amendment to the comprehensive zoning ordinance at Section 77-301 “Table of Allowed Uses” at Table 3.1-1 as follows: (1) to only allow “Car wash, Self-service” and “Car wash, commercial” uses in Zoning Districts M-1 and M-2 with a Special Use Permit, and (2) to only allow “vehicle service and repair, light” use in Zoning Districts C-1, C-2, and M-1 with a Special Use Permit. ]

AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 3J. THE ACTION ITEM. BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET MAKES THE MOTION. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER. ANY DISCUSSION? MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET.

>> I WANT TO GO ON RECORD TO APPLAUD YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO US FOR CONSIDERATION. I THINK IT IS LIKELY OVERDUE. I KNOW THAT IT IS A TOUCHY SUBJECT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO OPERATE BUSINESSES AND DO WHAT THEY WANT. THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THAT. THERE IS A PROCESS IN PLACE BY WHICH THEY WOULD GO FORWARD WITH OPENING THAT TYPE OF BUSINESS IN THE FUTURE. SO GIVEN THE NATURE OF SOME THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT, IN TERMS OF OUR ELEMENT AND SPECIFIC LOCATIONS, IN THE CORRIDOR THAT IS HIGHWAY 66, IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS, I JUST WANT TO APPLAUD YOU AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO THE FOREFRONT.

>> THANK YOU. I LIKE TO KEEP MY VEHICLE VERY CLEAN. AND IN ROWLETT, WE HAVE PLENTY OF OPTIONS FOR THAT. DEPUTY MAYOR

PRO TEM SHINDER. >> YES. I AGREE WITH MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET. AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IN THE PACKET ITSELF, IT SAYS AS YOU SEE FROM THE OTHER AGENDA ITEMS. THE ONLY WAY MOST CARWASHES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME FORWARD IN THE CURRENT ZONING IS THROUGH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. I THINK THIS WILL HELP TO AMELIORATE SOME OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE HAD BEFORE. SO I AM REALLY GLAD WE ARE DOING

THIS. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL

RIGHT. AND CITY ATTORNEY. >> AND TO CLARIFY IT IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE.

>> YES, MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE. I WAS NOT CLEAR ON THAT. ALL RIGHT, IF THERE IS NO OTHER DISCUSSION THEN WE WILL CALL THE VOTE. COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON. ALL RIGHT. AND ITEM 3J PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND WITH THAT IT IS

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.