Sep 24, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:10]

>>> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. IT IS 7:00 P.M., SEPTEMBER 24TH. WELCOME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT. THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HERE IN. THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS, OR REALIGN THE SESSION OR CALL EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME. THE PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT, IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITIZENS INPUT FORM ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING. ALL WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AS I SAID, WE HAVE A QUORUM. I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZENS INPUT. AT THIS POINT, COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE , WE WILL CLOSE THE CITIZENS INPUT.

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

OUR CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF APPROVAL OF THE FINAL -- EXCUSE ME, CONSIDERED ACTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 2024 REGULAR MEETING AND TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR -- I'M GOING TO BUTCHER THIS.

LOMIBAO RHEUMATOLOGY ADDITION FINAL PLAT. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO REMOVE AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE ,

THEN MR. HERNANDEZ . >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE

CONSENT AGENDA AS WRITTEN. >> WE HAVE A SECOND? WILLIAMS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? WE WILL CALL THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND. HI, SO WE CAN SEE THEM. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ONTO INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. SOMEBODY ONLY PRINTED OUT PAGE ONE OF THE AGENDA. THAT'S OKAY. ONTO

[4A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by John Ercan Kilicer regarding a Special Use Permit to allow for an enclosed accessory structure with an area greater than 500 square feet on a property zoned Single Family (SF-40). The property is addressed as 3706 Castle Drive. The subject property is approximately 2.4-acre lot and is situated northeast of the intersection of Castle Drive and Merritt Road, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE OUTSIDE THE CHAMBERS. CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER REQUEST BY JOHN REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A CLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH AN AREA GREATER THAN 500 SQUARE FEET ON THE PROPERTY ZONE, SINGLE-FAMILY SF 40. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED 3706 CASTLE DRIVE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ASK APPROXIMATELY A 2.4 ACRE LOT AND IS SITUATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CASTLE DRIVE IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, TEXAS .

>> IT EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I AM HERE TO PRESENT THIS ITEM ONCE AGAIN TONIGHT. I AM NOT GOING TO GO OVER THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO DO SO. BUT I WILL GIVE -- I WILL GIVE UPDATES ON WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, AUGUST 27TH. AS YOU MAY ALL RECALL, WE WERE STILL WAITING FOR THE APPLICANT TO SEE WHAT PROGRESS HE HAD MADE IN REGARDS TO THE PERMITTING OF THE PERGOLA IN THE PAVILION, AND THE CONCRETE ASPHALT. SO THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY HAS BEEN RESOLVED. AND EVERYTHING HAS BEEN APPROVED IN REGARDS TO THAT ITEM. IN TERMS OF THE STRUCTURES, THE PERGOLA AND THE PAVILION, HE IS STILL WORKING WITH THE BUILDING TEAM TO GET HIS ITEMS RESOLVED, THAT IT HAS BEEN A GOOD PROGRESS, AND TONIGHT, WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU IS , YOU KNOW, THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL, OR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, HOWEVER YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE IT , IN REGARDS TO THIS ITEM TONIGHT. BUT IT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE 1200 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE THAT HE IS LOOKING TO HAVE THIS SU P APPROVED FOR. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME?

[00:05:07]

>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? SO WE STILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING . ANY QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? OKAY. WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING THAT HAS BEEN OPENED AND HAS REMAINED OPEN, SO IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENT CONCERNING THIS ITEM? IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

>> HE IS NOT. I BELIEVE HE IS OUT OF TOWN AS OF LAST FRIDAY

WHEN I SPOKE TO HIM. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

I NOTICED WHENEVER WE WENT OUT THERE, THE CONCRETE HAS BEEN POURED FOR THAT DRIVEWAY OVER THE EXISTING ASPHALT. IS THE ASPHALT THAT IS NOT CONCRETE OVER WENT TO BE REMOVED?

>> WILL IT BE REMOVED? FROM CONVERSATION WITH THE BUILDING TEAM, I DON'T THINK IT -- YOU KNOW, THERE WERE -- THERE WAS MUCH CONCERN ABOUT THAT. THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DRIVEWAY WAS CONCRETE.

>> THERE IS NO CONCERN FROM THEM AS FAR AS SHEDDING ANY WATER FROM A PROPERTY ONTO THE PROPERTY NEXT TO IT? IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT HE HAS DONE IS JUST MOVE THE WATER OFF OF IT, LIKE YOU SAID, OFF OF HIS PROPERTY.

>> NONE THAT I'VE HEARD, BUT WHEN IT CAME TO FINALIZING THAT DISAPPROVAL.

>> THAT'S THE ONLY THING IN FRONT OF US IS A 1200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. AND AGAIN, THE ONLY REASON WHY WE KEPT THIS PUBLIC AREA OPEN IS BECAUSE ALL OF THE OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPERTY AND GIVING THE CITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE OWNER TO COMMIT TO COMPLIANCE BEFORE WE ADD

THAT THERE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THE ONLY REQUEST IS FOR THE STRUCTURE . SO NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DRIVEWAY OR ANYTHING. HE'S ASKING IF THE CITY IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE STATUS OF THE CONDITION OF EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE PROPERTY AT THIS POINT. DO WE FEEL THAT ALL THE PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN

RETROACTIVELY UP? >> FOR THE BUILDING. THE 1200

FOOT BUILDING. >> AS FAR AS THE OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, HE IS WORKING WITH BUILDING RIGHT NOW. HE HAS TO CONFORM WITH ALL OF THEIR STANDARDS IN ORDER FOR HIM TO BE APPROVED. SO AS FAR AS THAT GOES, IT IS A BUILDING MATTER . IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING STAFF AND THEIR PERMITTING PROCESS AND INSPECTIONS AND SO ON. BUT FOR TONIGHT, AS FAR AS, WHAT HE IS ASKING FOR, HE IS CONFORMING WITH ALL REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE PLANNING ITEM, WHICH IS , DOES THE GARAGE CONFORM WITH THE LOT COVERAGE, THE HEIGHT, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. HE IS WITHIN THOSE STANDARDS, SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE RECOMMENDING

APPROVAL. YEAH, OF THIS . >> REMIND ME, HAS THERE BEEN ANY WORK FOR THIS BUILDING AT ALL BEFORE HE STARTED?

>> HE DID START SOME OF THE WORK FOR ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS. SO FROM SPEAKING TO THE BUILDING TEAM, I RECOLLECTION IS THAT HE MIGHT HAVE TO TEAR DOWN EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE AND BUILD IT TO WHAT HE IS NOW SUBMITTING BEFORE GETTING ANY OF THIS -- YOU KNOW, AFTER GETTING IN AFFECTED, GETTING APPROVAL. SO HE HAS TO CONFORM WITH ALL OF THEIR, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THEIR STANDARDS.

>> SO WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT THE FOUNDATION FOR THIS

[00:10:02]

STANDARDS? >> THAT'S WHY IT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED. WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE TO DO IS TEAR WHATEVER HE HAS DONE THUS FAR. IF IT'S NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH WHAT OUR CODE REQUIRES. HE WOULD HAVE TO BRING IT -- YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE EVERYTHING UP TO, YOU KNOW, STANDARD.

>> SO ESSENTIALLY, IF THIS PERMIT GETS APPROVED, HE WOULD STOP TO GO THROUGH THE BUILDING PROCESS? BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH -- HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND SUBMIT A BUILDING PERMIT SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS ONE? YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH

IT? >> AND THEY HAVEN'T REVIEWED THE PLANS YET BECAUSE THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS --

>> WHICH, UP TO NOW, THE STEP HAS BEEN TO GET EVERYTHING ELSE IN COMPLIANCE. SO -- I AM -- YOU KNOW, WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, OR TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE . I AM GAME WITH ANYTHING.

>> IF WE WERE TO DO A MOTION TO APPROVE, WITH HER BE A NEED TO DO A CONDITION THAT ANYTHING REGARDING THAT BUILDING HAS TO

BE IN COMPLIANCE? >> NO, BECAUSE IT IS NOW ON THE CITY'S RADAR. HE'LL NEED THE PERMITS AND ALL OF THAT.

>> ANYTHING THAT'S NOT INCLUDED , ALL OF THE OTHER CITY CONDITIONS STILL APPLY. SO WE WOULD STILL REQUIRE THE PERMIT, THE REVIEW, INSPECTIONS, ANYTHING ELSE IT IS MAYBE NOT IN ORMAN'S ON THE PROPERTY -- THIS DOESN'T GRANT ANY APPROVAL OF ANYTHING ELSE.

>> ALL THAT IMPERVIOUS PAVEMENT THAT IS BEING ADDED IS NOT AFFECTING THE DRAINAGE OF THE NEARBY PROPERTIES, AND --

>> BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS SO -- YOU KNOW, IT'S A BIG LOT.

SO HE IS STILL WITHIN THAT . WE ARE ASKING FOR THAT 35%.

>> BUT NOBODY SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT HOW THE WATER IS SHED FROM THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE ASPHALT CONDITION, RIGHT?

>> MY ANSWER IS NO. >> BECAUSE THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY PERMITS SUBMITTED FOR ANY OF THAT WORK THAT WAS COMPLETED. THERE WAS NOT ANYTHING SUBMITTED TO THE CITY

TO REVIEW. >> THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I THINK HOLDING APPROVAL OF THIS IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT KIND OF MOTIVATES THE OWNER TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO BRING THE REST OF THAT PROPERTY WHERE IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE BEFORE WE GO AHEAD AND ADD SOMETHING ELSE INTO THE MIX. IS THE WAY I AM

LOOKING AT THAT. >> IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR US, FOR STAFF TO DOSE PACIFICALLY WHAT FEEDBACK YOU WOULD LIKE US TO GET. MAY BE A REVIEW BY THE CITY ENGINEER OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT THAT SPECIFICALLY SPEAKS TO THE DRAINAGE ON THE PROPERTY , AS FAR AS REVISITING IT IN THE NEXT MEETING. UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC THINGS OUTSIDE OF THAT THAT YOU WANT US TO WORK ON.

>> MR. FRISBY. >> IF I COULD ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITH THE DRAINAGE, THE UNFORTUNATE PART OF THIS IS THAT WE HAVE A CITIZEN WHO HAS TAKEN IT UPON HIMSELF TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY HAS FOR PERMITTING . AND THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS THAT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ENGINEERED PLANS FOR EITHER YOUR SITE IMPROVEMENTS , SUCH AS THE DRAINAGE THAT WAS MENTIONED, OR THE FOUNDATION OF THE BUILDING , YOU ARE REALLY TAKING A RISK . AS LILIANA MENTIONED, IF IT IS NOT CONFORMING TO THE STANDARDS, HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO TEAR THAT DOWN. WHAT PUTS US IN A DIFFICULT POSITION AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND, WE WANT TO TRY TO BE HELPFUL AND GOOD NEIGHBORS, SO TO SPEAK. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE'S RULES THAT NEED TO BE FOLLOWED, AND BY LETTING SOMEBODY OFF THE HOOK TOO EASILY, IT MAY SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS

[00:15:03]

THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? SO -- >> AS I SEE HIM CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THE CITY, I THINK WE CAN GO AHEAD AND CURE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANOTHER

-- >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. IT'S A GOOD WAY TO KEEP HIM MOTIVATED , HOLD HIS FEET TO THE FIRE TO MAKE SURE. AND I APPRECIATE THAT STAFF IS DOING THEIR BEST TO COOPERATE WITH YOU, AND I APPRECIATE THAT THE OWNER HYMNS SELF IS TRYING TO MAKE AMENDS, BUT -- WE GOT TO HOLD FOLKS FEET TO THE FIRE. THESE RULES ARE THERE FOR A REASON, AND IT REALLY COMPLICATES THINGS.

FORTUNATELY, SO FAR, THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY MAJOR COMPLICATION. BUT , AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, IF WE HAVE LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE, OR WE HAVE ANY OTHER ISSUES , PERMITTING ISSUES, OR STANDARDS, ELECTRICAL, DRAINAGE, PLUMBING, R, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED YET, IT IS JUST -- IT IS TRICKY TO LET SOMEONE OFF THE HOOK TOO EASILY. SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL WE SEE THAT EVERYTHING IS PUT TO BED. AND THAT WE ARE BACK ON TRACK.

>> IS ANY MOTION? >> WE CONTINUE, WE NEED TO MAKE

A SPECIFIC DATE AND TIME. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK. I YOUR NEXT MEETING? OR A FUTURE MEETING?

>> WHAT ARE WE AT ABOUT FOUR WEEKS FROM NOW? ALL RIGHT.

WELL, I THINK I WOULD PROPOSE MAKING A MOTION TO POSTPONE -- OR, KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 22ND , JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL EYES ARE DOTTED AND ALL T'S ARE CROSSED, AND THAT THERE ARE NO UNCOVERED NEW ISSUES THAT DON'T GET ADDRESSED BY CITY STAFF OR BY THE OWNER HIMSELF.

>> OKAY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. WOULD -- SO YOU BEEN WORKING WITH THE OWNER. AND WHAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING IS THAT WE WOULD PASS THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT .

DO YOU BELIEVE -- WOULD IT COMPLICATE THINGS FOR YOU IF YOU DID NOT PASS IT? OR IS IT REALLY IRRELEVANT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE AND TRY TO WORK WITH HIM -- IS THERE ANY COMPLICATION THAT YOU WOULD ENCOUNTER I NOT HAVING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT?

>> THERE IS NO COMPLICATION FOR ME. WHEN I LOOK AT THE CODE, I FOLLOW WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS INTENDED, AND IF HE IS, YOU KNOW, IF HE IS CHECKING ALL OF THOSE BOXES FOR ME, THEN -- OR FOR THE PLANNING TEAM, THEN -- THEN USUALLY, YOU KNOW, WE ALSO LOOK AT OTHER THINGS AND OTHER ITEMS. THE MAIN AGENDA ITEMS FOR US ARE THOSE THINGS THAT THE CODE IS TELLING US, AND THAT IS HOW WE BASE OUR RECOMMENDATION.

>> I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS REALLY UP TO THIS BODY TO DECIDE, TO RECOMMEND OR NOT RECOMMEND THAT APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. AS FAR AS RECOMMENDATION, EVERYTHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND CONCERNED IN THE PAST, THEY BEGUN WORKING ON THOSE THINGS AND KIND OF RECTIFYING THOSE THINGS . AS SHE POINTED OUT, THE LOT COVERAGE WIRE MEANT IS NOT EXCEEDING THAT SORT OF THING.

BUT AS FAR AS THE DECISION BY THIS BODY, THAT IS UP TO YOU GUYS TO DECIDE IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF MAKING THAT DECISION OF APPROVING THIS. BUT IT WON'T COMPLICATE OUR WORK.

>> THAT SEEMS LIKE A FAILSAFE ALTERNATIVE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY SURPRISES OR UNKNOWN

COMPLICATIONS. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM OPEN UNTIL 7:00 P.M. ON THE 22ND OF OCTOBER, 2024. DO WE

[00:20:04]

[4B. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request by Mathias Haubert of Bohler Engineering TX, LLC, on behalf of property owner James Schrade of Schrade Land Company LTD, to: 1) rezone the subject property from General Commercial/Retail (C-2) and General Manufacturing (M-2) Districts to a Planned Development (PD) District with a base zoning of General Commercial/Retail (C-2) for restaurant uses with and without drive-throughs, general retail, and light vehicle repair uses; 2) approve conceptual plans; and 3) amend the official Zoning Map of the City. The property is located at the southeast corner of Main Street and Lakeview Parkway and more commonly known as 2801 Main Street and 2700 Lakeview Parkway, consisting of two (2) lots and containing 7.73 acres in the U. Mattusen Survey, Abstract No. 1017, and the Reason Crist Survey No. 225 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas]

COUNTY, TEXAS. WELL? >> I DUNNO IF YOU WANTED TO HEAR FROM YOU FIRST. THAT WAS ONE OF THE LONGER AGENDA ITEMS THAT I THINK THAT YOU HAVE HAD HERE. SO YOU ALL HAVE A PACKET IN FRONT OF YOU. THIS PRESENTATION, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE IT ON THE SCREENS, WERE GOING TO FLIP THROUGH IT SLIDE BY SLIDE HERE. THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE, AS YOU MENTIONED. AT A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C2 COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND A PORTION IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS M 2. THE PLANE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REQUESTED THAT THEY CHANGE THE ZONING TO PD WITH AN UNDERLYING C2 ZONING. ALL OTHER WOULD APPLY TO THE ENTIRE AREA.

THOUGH THERE IS SOME DESIGNATION OF THE SECONDARY DISTRICT THAT WILL GET A LITTLE BIT LATER THAT WOULD ALLOW THE M-TWO USES FOR A PORTION OF THAT.

>> I DO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

>> SHIRT. >> ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS HERE IS A ARE REQUESTING C-2 FOR RESTAURANT USE WITH AND WITHOUT

DRIVE-THROUGH'S. >> IS KIND OF TIED INTO THE PD.

SO WE HAVE IN THE REQUEST TO CHANGE TO THE PD, THERE IS A REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR RESTAURANTS WITH DRIVE-THROUGH.

YOU CAN SEE THE CONCEPT PLAN. IT JUST KIND OF SHOWS SOME SPACES, BUT THEIR PRIMARY GOAL OF THIS IS TO COMBINE THE AREAS TOGETHER INTO ONE DISTRICT, THIS NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF THE ENTIRETY OF IT CAN BE PLAN TOGETHER AND A UNIFORM COHESIVE WAY. THEY ARE ALSO ASKING FOR A FEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE AMENDED FOR THOSE USES. AS YOU MENTIONED, CHAIRMAN, ONE OF THOSE EXCEPTIONS IS TO REALLY ALLOW FOR RESTAURANTS WITH DRIVE-THROUGH, WHICH TYPICALLY WOULD REQUIRE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. THEY ARE ASKING FOR THOSE TO BE ALLOWED THROUGH THE GRANTING OF THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF SUMS CIVIC USERS THAT THEY HAVE IN MIND. AS WELL AS LETTING THEM COME BACK TO THE PROCESS INDIVIDUALLY AT THAT POINT. THEY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED, BECAUSE IT KIND OF DICTATES THE FLOW AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE. THEY ARE ALSO ASKING FOR -- SORRY, THE SLIDES ARE NOT NUMBERED. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SLIDE THAT HAS THE NICE RED OUTLINE OF THE DISTRICT HERE, THERE IS A BLACK LINE THAT IS DRAWN ACROSS HERE THE KIND OF SEPARATE OFF THAT BOTTOM SQUARE, THAT LITTLE OUTCROPPING AT THE BOTTOM. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE CALLING SUBDISTRICT 2 OUT OF THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THAT PIECE AS WELL AS A CUP OR UPPER PORTION ARE CURRENTLY ZONED AS

[00:25:02]

THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO EXPAND THOSE USES INTO THAT PORTION OF LONG LAKEVIEW PARK WAY, BUT JUST INTO THE LOWER PORTION DOWN ALONG MAIN STREET WHERE IT IS ALREADY CURRENTLY ZONED.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW THOSE USES , WHETHER IT MIGHT BE AN AUTO REPAIR FAILITY OR AN AUTO PARTS DOOR OR ANYTHING CURRENTLY ALLOWED. THEY WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THAT ON THE TABLE AS ALLOWABLE USE IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THE NEXT SLIDE OUTLINES, AS WE GENERALLY DO WITH THE PD, ANYWHERE THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING SOME STANDARD THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE, THIS SLIDE OUTLINES THAT RELATED TO PARKING. IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR WHAT MOST PEOPLE COME AND ASK FOR.

THEY ARE ASKING TO BE ALLOWED TO OVER PART OF THE SITE. WE NORMALLY WOULD KIND OF ASK PEOPLE NOT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES, AND IN THIS CASE, BASED ON THE USERS THAT THEY HAVE IN THE CASES THAT THEY'VE USED, OTHER SITES WERE THOSE SIMILAR USERS ARE LOCATED, THEY KNOW THAT THEY NEED ADDITIONAL PARKING BEYOND WHAT WE REQUIRE. SO THIS DOES NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PD, BECAUSE WE DON'T ALLOW OVER 125% OF OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS GENERALLY BY CODE.

WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT THEY GET A VARIANCE TO THAT, OR INCLUDE IT IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. IF YOU LOOK AT EACH ONE OF THOSE SECTIONS, YOU KIND OF SHOW WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING FOR PARKING SPACES VERSUS WHAT THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD REQUIRE FOR THOSE CIVIC USES. THOSE ARE FOR RETAIL RESTAURANT WITH OR WITHOUT DRIVE-THROUGH, AND THEY HAVE KIND OF CALCULATED OUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AS THEY WORKED THROUGH THEIR GENERAL SITE OF ELEMENT. THE NEXT SITE IS THE PROPOSED -- SORRY, THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE PROPOSED BUILDING FACADE THERE.

YOU CAN JUST GET A GENERAL IDEA. OBVIOUSLY, THESE ARE GOING TO VARY BASED ON THE STRUCTURE ON EACH OF THE BUILDINGS AND THE TYPES OF USERS. THIS ENTIRE APPLICATION DOES COMPLY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, IDENTIFIES ALL OF THAT AREA AS RETAIL COMMERCIAL OFFICE, WHICH OUTLINES WITH WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING WITH THE BASED ZONING. WE SENT OUT PUBLIC NOTICES AND HAVE RECEIVED NO RISK WANTS IS IN MAIL OR BY EMAIL IN EITHER OF THE 500 OR THE 200 FOOT RESPONSE AREA. AND THAT IS THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION THAT I HAVE HERE. BUT I DON'T -- COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OR IF YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT NOW, OR LATER . OR DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR ME, FIRST?

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? FROM THE APPLICANT?

>> THAT EVENING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US. I AM MANAGING PARTNER IN HOUSTON, TEXAS. WE ARE A 30 YEAR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY SPECIALIZING IN FIRST-CLASS RETAIL, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, GROCERY STORES, SHOPPING CENTERS, OR NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS LIKE THIS IN AND AROUND THE TEXAS SOUTH UNITED STATES AREA. BRIAN SALICK IS MY VICE PRESIDENT OF DEVELOPMENT WHO IS WITH ME TONIGHT, AND I JUST WANT TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ON THIS PROJECT. WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THIS. WE HAVE A LOT OF INTEREST FROM USERS FROM REALLY JUST ALL DIFFERENT TYPES AND SHAPES OF USERS, RESTAURANTS, SERVICE USERS. AND JUST A REALLY STRONG OUT POURING OF INTEREST IN THE SITE , WITH A LOT OF GREAT CONCEPT THAT AREN'T CURRENTLY HERE IN THE CITY. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S OUR PLAN TO BUILD A FIRST-CLASS CENTER THAT IS ARCHITECTURALLY COHESIVE, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, EASILY ACCESSED , AND FLOWS WELL, AND THAT HAS BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE IN HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE STATE. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT THERE IS MAYBE SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR US, AND I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY OF THOSE.

ANY SORT OF DEVELOPMENT RELATED QUESTIONS. I'M HERE TO HIT ON ANYTHING DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE USES FOR THE SITE ITSELF.

>> WAS A CLEAR ON THE ZONING PORTION WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, TO RETAIN JUST IN THE BOTTOM CORNER?

>> CLEAR TO ME. WE ARE TO US. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE OPPOSING SOMETHING WITH DRIVE-THROUGH'S, IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE CLIENTS THAT ARE INTERESTED FOR THAT SPECIFIC USE?

[00:30:03]

>> YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING -- AND A POST-COVID WORLD, YOU SEE, GENERALLY, A LOT MORE RESTAURANTS THAT ARE REQUIRING DRIVE-THROUGH'S. RESTAURANTS TRADITIONALLY HAVE NOT REQUIRED DRIVE-THROUGH'S AND ARE NOW REQUIRING, OR DESIRING DRIVE IS. CONCEPTS LIKE CHIPOTLE, YOU HAVE HERE, WHO DOESN'T HAVE A DRIVE-THROUGH. WE HAVE SEEN AND RELOCATE POSITIONS TO SITES THAT YOU HAVE A DRIVE-THROUGH, BECAUSE IT ALLOWS FOR THAT. WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF USERS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRING DRIVE-THROUGH'S. YOU KNOW, CONCEPTS LIKE SLIM CHICKENS, P OTTE, THAT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE A HIGH-VOLUME DRIVE-THROUGH, NOR A PICKUP WINDOW. A LOT OF THESE CONCEPTS, YOU ORDER ON THE APP PRIOR TO COMING IN. IT'S MORE OF A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW. BUT YES, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF RESTAURANTS THAT ARE REACHED OUT THEY WOULD ASK FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH, AND THAT'S WHY WE FELT IT WAS BEST TO GET OUT IN FRONT OF THAT AND INSTEAD OF HAVING TO DO THAT EACH TIME.

THERE IS A HUGE OUTPOURING OF GREAT CONCEPTS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN BEING AT THIS SITE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS QUESTION MARK

>> A COUPLE OF FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS. IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING OVER PARKING . AS A RESULT OF THAT, IS THAT CAUSING YOU TO HAVE SMALLER BUILDING FOOTPRINTS? OR ARE YOU PROPOSING A SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPING? IT'S A ZERO-SUM, SO CAN YOU PLEASE TELL US WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE?

>> I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOU, BUT WE ARE NOT PROPOSING LESS LANDSCAPING. UNFORTUNATELY, IT JUST COMES BACK TO HAVING TO HAVE A SMALLER BUILDING. AND WE'VE HAD TO ADJUST FOUR OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE DESIRES OF THESE TENANTS RELATED TO THEIR PEAK HOUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

I CAN GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. IS A BREAKFAST CONCEPT, A NATIONAL BREAKFAST CONCEPT. AND DURING THEIR PEAK HOURS, IN THEIR LEASE, THEY ARE ASKING US TO PARK THIS BUILDING AT 20 SPACES PER SQUARE FOOT. THAT'S DOUBLE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY. WHAT WE ARE HAVING TO DO IS ACCOMMODATE AND PUT LESS RESTAURANT IN AS A RESULT IN ORDER TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE AND SATISFY THEIR NEEDS. IN AN EFFORT TO GET, YOU KNOW, A RESTAURANT THAT IS GOING TO DO GREAT BUSINESS AND GREAT VOLUMES FOR THE CITY AND BE A GREAT SPOT FOR THE CITIZENS.

>> TO THAT, THEY HAVE -- >> AND YOU SPEAK INTO THE

MICROPHONE, PLEASE? >> THEY'VE AGREED TO REDUCE THEIR PARKING AND WHAT THEY SAY THEIR STANDARD IS TO WORK WITH THE CITY OF ROWLETT . SO WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR 24,000 ACROSS

THE BOARD FOR RESTAURANTS. >> HAS ANY THOUGHT BEEN GIVEN, LIKE YOU SAID, TO THE BREAKFAST CONCEPT? RUSH HOUR DURING BREAKFAST? IT DOESN'T DO THAT DURING LUNCH AND DINNER ? IS IT A LARGE PLACE, OR A DINNER PLACE?

>> YOU KNOW, THAT IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD. WE'VE HAD AMPLE PARKING ON EACH PARCEL THAT WE SHOW THAT THEY BOUGHT OFF ON AND IS ACCOMMODATING THEIR USES. SO WE LIKE TO KEEP EACH PARCEL AS ITS OWN SORT OF STANDALONE, YOU KNOW, PARCEL.

AND IN PART, SO CONTAINING. BECAUSE AS YOU MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY, LET'S JUST CROSS PARK IT. IT BEGINS TO GENERATE ARGUMENTS, YOU KNOW -- CHICK-FIL-A WOULD BE ON THE HARD CORNER . THEY ARE GOING TO PARK WHEREVER THEY WANT BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO DO $6 MILLION IN SALES, AND

THAT BECOMES A PROBLEM . >> ACROSS THE STREET?

>> EXACTLY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE SPOTS TO ACCOMMODATE THIS?

>> NO, THAT'S GOOD TO BE THE STANDARD PARKING SPACE.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, IF THERE WAS NOT TO BE OVER PARKING, THE ACTUAL BUILDINGS HERE WOULD BE LARGER?

>> RIGHT. >> IS THERE ANY -- BUSINESSES FAIL OVER TIME, OR THEY MOVE. IS THERE ANY DOWNSIDE IN THE LONG TERM TO HAVING A SMALLER FOOTPRINT THAN YOU MIGHT HAVE

OTHERWISE? >> YOU KNOW, WE ARE SEEING ACTUAL USERS WITHIN THE RESTAURANTS AND WITHIN THE BUSINESSES GET MORE AUTOMATED. WE ARE SEEING MOST CONCEPTS REDUCE THEIR FOOTPRINT. THIS ACTUALLY ENDS UP WORKING WELL FOR US AND FOR THEM. RENT HAS GOTTEN HIGHER TO KEEP OCCUPANCY COST DOWN LOWER. A LOT OF THESE CONCEPTS HAVE CHOSEN TO REDUCE

[00:35:02]

THEIR FOOTPRINT. >> IT'S ACTUALLY A TREND.

>> IT IS. IT IS A TREND. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY, THOUGH.

AND THIS IS JUST , I GUESS, EDUCATION ON MY PART. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME THAT I LOOK AT A BLANKET SUP WITHOUT KNOWING ANY OF THE SPECIFICS . OF THE DRIVE-THROUGH. SO THE QUESTION IS, IS THE CITY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT?

>> SO I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A POLICY DECISION RECOMMENDATION TO YOU ON WHETHER YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I WOULD SAY THAT A LOT OF TIMES, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE FOR WHY A PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWED OR WHAT THE PURPOSE IS, IT IS OFTEN TO OPERATE A MIX OF USES, AND SOME OF THEM, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY IT'S VERY COMMON THAT THERE ARE USES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THAT DISTRICT THAT ARE -- THAT MAY NOT BE NORMALLY INCLUDED WITH THE OTHER USES THAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN THE DISTRICT. YOU MIGHT HAVE, LIKE THEY PROPOSED, RETAIL WITH, YOU KNOW, ONE THAT NORMALLY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED EITHER AT ALL OR WITHOUT AN SU P . AND THEY ARE KIND OF INCLUDED AS SOMETHING THAT YOU GRANT BY RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT ABNORMAL FOR THIS PROCESS TO BE DONE THIS WAY, I WOULD SAY.

>> WITH THE OVERARCHING REQUIREMENT IS TO PROVIDE A HIGHER QUALITY PRODUCT TO THE CITIZENS OF ROWLETT . AND I'M NOT REALLY SEEING ANYTHING HIGHER-QUALITY ABOUT SEVEN DRIVE-THROUGH'S, OR HOWEVER MANY.

>> THE SITE PLAN ACTUALLY SHOWS THREE.

>> IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THE BUILDING TYPES, I KNOW

IT'S REALLY SMALL. >> I SEE RIGHT NOW THERE ARE THREE. BUT IF WE APPROVE THIS AS IT STANDS WITH A BLANKET SUP, THEN YOU COULD HAVE FOUR OR FIVE MORE IF YOU WANT.

>> IT ALSO HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN. THEY CAN'T COME BACK IN WITH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONCEPT PLAN WITHOUT COMING BACK BEFORE THIS BODY AND THE CITY COUNCIL.

THERE WERE THREE SEPARATE STANDALONE BUILDINGS, BUT THEY ALSO DID HAVE A DRIVE-THROUGH LANE ON ONE OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS AS WELL, LIKE THEY MENTIONED FOR THAT PICKUP LANE.

>> OKAY. SO IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THIS CONCEPT PLAN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO US? BUT THEN IF THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, OH, YEAH, WE WANT TO PUT THREE DRIVE-THROUGH'S AND THEIR -- WE COULD DISAPPROVE THAT PLAN? JUST HAVE TO TALK

THROUGH THIS. >> SURE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. JUST FOR MY INFORMATION. THE CITY'S CODE -- THIS IS NOT AN INSIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS . THE ADDITIONS DOUBLE. LIKE 60 VERSUS 30. IS

THERE SOMETHING -- >> I'M SORRY, RELATED TO THE

PARKING SPACES? >> THEY ARE ASKING FOR 60 WHEN THE TOTAL IS 30. AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? SEEMS LIKE A REALLY BIG DIFFERENCE. WE LOOK TO YOU GUYS TO GUIDE US ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION, AND WHEN I SEE DOUBLE --

>> THEY DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT DOESN'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO OVER PARK THE SITE. KIND OF A NEWER MOVEMENT, A NEWER APPROACH TO PLANNING TO CONSIDER A PARKING MAXIMUM INSTEAD OF JUST THE MINIMUMS. ROWLETT HAS THAT SPECIFIC TO THE FORM-BASED CODE REQUIREMENT AND HAVE APPROACHED THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT DOES NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO OVER PARK A SITE WITHOUT -- SORRY. WITHOUT THE VARIANCE BEING GRANTED FOR THAT REASON. AND THAT IS IN AND OUT OF BASE CODE. THERE'S A REALLY TOUGH KIND OF APPROACH TO NOT HAVING TOO MUCH, AND THESE C-2 DISTRICTS THE PARKING PERMIT APPLIES. I THINK THAT IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL PARKING, I DO THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME CONGESTION ISSUES FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE SITE BASED ON THE TENTATIVE USERS THEY HAVE DISCUSSED. I DON'T KNOW A LOT OF DEVELOPERS THAT JUST WANT TO PAY FOR MORE CONCRETE THAT THEY DON'T NEED, SO I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF THOUGHT THAT HAS GONE INTO THE APPROPRIATE NUMBERS BASIS.

[00:40:03]

>> I'M SURE THAT IS TRUE. AND YOU KNOW, THE FLIPSIDE OF THAT, THOUGH, WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS SURFACE. SO AGAIN, THIS RUNS RIGHT OFF INTO A LOT NEXT TO IT THAT IS ALREADY FAIRLY ACTIVE DURING THE RAINING SEASON. MR. FRISBY MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO

SAY ABOUT THAT. >> I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET OUR CITY ENGINEER TO JOIN US TONIGHT, BUT I KNOW THEY'VE HAD SOME ISSUES RELATIVE TO DRAINAGE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE SITE, AND THEY'VE ALREADY HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS AND GOTTEN A KIND OF BLESSING A PREAPPROVAL IF YOU WILL ON THEIR TENTATIVE PLANS FOR THE DRAINAGE ON THE SITE. THEY DON'T HAVE THE CIVIL PLANS DESIGNED YET, SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TOO EARLY TO REALLY SPEAK TO THAT, BUT THEY HAVE , I KNOW, TAKEN THAT INTO CONCERN VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS.

>> ONE OTHER QUESTION. WITH REGARD TO THE PARKING ON THE VEHICLE REPAIR AREA, IS A NUMBER OF SPACES CURRENTLY

ALLOCATED? OR PROPOSED? >> THE PARKING THAT IS PROPOSED THERE I DON'T BELIEVE CHANGES FROM WHAT THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT WOULD WIRE. THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANY

EXCEPTION OF THAT. >> I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THAT VEHICLE -- THE VEHICLE REPAIR AREA CURRENTLY IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING ALREADY ON SITE CURRENTLY. IS THAT

RIGHT? OKAY. >> ISN'T GOING TO BE A VEHICLE

REPAIR ? OR AUTOMOBILE PARTS? >> AT LEAST AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE IS NOT A HARD DECISION ON THAT. AT THIS POINT, THEY ARE JUST ASKING FOR THE LATITUDE. WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN

THAT M-2 DISTRICT. >> I MIGHT BE THINKING ABOUT -- THERE IS LIKE A STORAGE AREA BEHIND THAT, TOO.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE TRAFFIC FLOW. HOW IS THE TRAFFIC GOING TO FLOW THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT?

>> SO ON THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET, THERE ARE ENTRANCE AND EXITS BOTH TO LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AND TWO ON MAIN STREET TO TRY TO PROVIDE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT AVENUES SO THAT EVERYTHING DOESN'T Q IN THE SAME LOCATION FOR PEOPLE TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE SITE. AS FAR AS THE TRAFFIC FLOW, I MEAN, THEY HAVE PROVIDED ALL THE APPROPRIATE -- THEY ARE NOT ASKING ANY CHANGES FOR THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AISLE WITH OR THE TRAFFIC LOW WHERE THE FIRE LANES OR ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT. SO THEY HAVE, I BELIEVE THEY HAVE FOUND A WAY THAT THEY CAN WORK WITHIN THE SITE THAT -- THERE IS NOT LIKE A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THE CARS HAVE TO TRAVEL THIS WAY. IT'S TWO WAY TRAFFIC WITH A FIRE LANE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT THROUGHOUT THE SITE. OR DID YOU HAVE -- I'M SORRY IF I DIDN'T ANSWER YOUR

QUESTION. >> OKAY.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AGAIN. SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP. MAIN STREET IS NOT A WIDE STREET. IT'S IN BAD REPAIR, IT IS NOT -- IS THERE ANY PLANS FOR THE CITY TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT WITH THIS?

>> THERE IS A REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION ON MAIN STREET THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED WITH THEM AS WELL THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR PART OF THIS. AS PART OF THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS. OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, ARE WE INTENDING TO MAKE SPECIFIC

IMPROVEMENTS ON THE STREET? >> ARE YOU THINK THE APPLICANT MIGHT WANT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ON MAIN STREET ?

>> THAT IS NOT BEEN PART OF THE CONVERSATION TODAY, NO.

>> THERE WAS A COUPLE OF SMILES BACK THERE.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE, BECAUSE THAT STREET IS NOT EASY TO GET UP AND DOWN. THE TRAFFIC PILES UP ON IT NOW. AND NOW YOU ARE ADDING ALL THIS RETAIL, SO IT'S GOING TO BE EVEN WORSE.

BUT IT IS CONSIDERATION. >> ON MAIN STREET -- I CAN'T SPEAK 20 IMPROVEMENTS ON MAIN STREET, SORRY.

>> WAS ANY DISCUSSION AS FAR AS THE LEFT TURN FROM WESTBOUND 66TH INTO THIS AREA? IS THERE ANY -- WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AS FAR AS POSSIBLY A SIGNAL LIGHT THERE, OR ANYTHING TO THAT NATURE? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S BASICALLY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE TREAT FROM THE CHICK-FIL-A.

>> WE HAD REQUEST TO MAYBE INSTALL SOME SIGNAGE IF WE NEED TO, IF WE FIND THAT THERE IS A LEFT TURN THERE THAT IS NOT WORKING, IT IS QUEUING UP TOO MUCH, OR SOMETHING.

>> IF WE APPROVE THIS PD, IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH A TRAFFIC

STOP. >> I KNOW THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THE TRIP SUMMARY. I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S AT LEAST UNDERWAY.

[00:45:08]

>> I'M SORRY, WHAT? >> TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

>> AND YOU REPEAT THE ANSWER INTO THE MICROPHONE?

>> YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE TRIP SUMMARY EARLY IN THE PROCESS JUST TO GET AN IDEA OF WHERE WE NEEDED TO GET ANY ADJUSTMENTS, BUT THEY HAVE JUST NOW COMPLETED THE FULL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND SENT IT OVER TO HER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR A REVIEW. SO ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF THAT

-- >> WAS ANYTHING SHOCKING?

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF?

>> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. BACK TO MAIN STREET, WOULD -- WOULD YOU PLEASE -- I KNOW THAT THE CITY ENGINEER IS NOT HERE TODAY. BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE ULTIMATELY ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IN TERMS OF THE PRIORITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO MAIN STREET.

>> WE COULD DEFINITELY FOLLOW UP WITH THAT INFORMATION AND HAVE IT READY. WE CAN JUST EMAIL THAT OUT TO YOU. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE ARE ANY DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ON MAIN STREET, I WILL CERTAINLY LOOK AT IT AND GET IT OUT TO YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> I LIKE THE CONCEPT, AND I LIKE THEIR FORESIGHT , BECAUSE PARKING IS AN ISSUE IN LOTS OF PLACES. SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> OKAY . I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> CHAIRMAN, I'M SORRY. DID YOU OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS YET? THANK YOU. IT STILL OPEN FROM THE LAST ITEM.

>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME, I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ? SEEING NONE , WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO IMPROVE THE PROPOSED PLAN

DEVELOPMENT AS PRESENTED. >> EXCELLENT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISS WILLIAMS TO APPROVE . WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> I'M GOING TO GO WITH MR. RYAN AS SECONDING. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY.

CALL TO VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND .

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.