[Board of Adjustment -- Regular Meeting] [00:00:13] >>. GOOD . AT THIS TIME, IT IS 6:31 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9TH AND WE WILL NOW CALL THE CITY OF ROWLETT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING TO ORDER. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551071 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 HERE IN. THE CITY OF ROWLETT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, REASSESS, REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION OR CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. I DID WANT TO ADVISE ON THE PROCESS OF PUBLIC AND IT. IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITIZENS INPUT FORM ON THE CITY WEBSITE BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING. ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. IN PERSON COMMENT, REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. WE WILL START WITH CITIZENS INPUT. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OFFER A THREE-MINUTE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENTS THAT WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE BOARD DURING CITIZENS INPUT. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WISHING TO PROVIDE CITIZENS INPUT AT THIS TIME? NO? VERY GOOD. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, THE CONSENT AGENDA. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024. DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> MR. CHAIR. >> IT SHOWS THAT I ABSTAINED FROM A VOTE. I DID NOT ABSTAIN AND I WOULD LIKED THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. I THINK TECHNICALLY THE ABSTAIN IS THE ONLY OPTION FOR THE BOARD BUT WE DO NEED TO CLARIFY. AGREED APPEARED VERY GOOD. OKAY. WE WILL MAKE THOSE CHANGES AND THEN BE ABLE TO SIGN THEM AND APPROVE THEM. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER NEEDS FOR CHANGE? DO WE HAVE A MOTION WITH THE REQUESTED CHANGE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, AS CHANGED? >> I MOVE WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS CHANGED. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT, LET'S VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THE VOTE PASSES. AT THIS TIME, WE MOVED TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. FOR AN INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, CONSIDER AND ACT ON A REQUEST FOR REHEARING FROM DAVID PREJEAN , ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS DAVID AND TERESA L GEORGE FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 77-302.B.1.D(9)(G) OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REDUCE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATI ON ANTENNAS FROM 41.25 FEET TO 29.35 FEET ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF PROPERTIES OWNED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, DAVID AND TERESA L GEORGE DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7901 AT THE INTERSECTION OF MARTHA LANE AND SCHRADE ROAD. PART OF THE RR ABSTRACT 1416 S A & M G ABSTRACT. >> DUE TO OWNING STOCK IN SOME OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED, I MUST STEP DOWN. >> VERY GOOD, THANK YOU. FOR CLARIFICATION, IN PREPARATION FOR A VOTE, BECAUSE WE ARE DOWN TO FOUR MEMBERS, IT WILL REQUIRE A UNANIMOUS VOTE FROM THE REMAINING BOARD MEMBERS. >> SO, IN ORDER -- CAN YOU HEAR ME A LITTLE BETTER NOW? I'M JUST GOING TO DO A QUICK INTRODUCTION AS THIS IS REALLY JUST THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WHERE THEY MAKE THEIR OWN CASE FOR WHETHER YOU SHOULD CONSIDER A REHEARING. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT A FEW THINGS. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COMES UP EVERY DAY. I WANTED TO REFRESH SOME MEMORIES, FOR THOSE WHO MAYBE HAVEN'T READ THIS SECTION RECENTLY. THE CODE DOES REQUIRE THAT IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING A REQUEST FOR REHEARING, THAT YOU CAN VOTE TO APPROVE THAT REHEARING ONLY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. ONE IS IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL ERROR IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. THE SECOND IS IF YOU ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU TOOK ACTION ON SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO [00:05:02] PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, VICE VERSA. THE THIRD IS IF THE ORIGINAL ACTION WAS BASED ON A MISUNDERSTANDING, FRAUD, OR MISINTERPRETATION. THE APPLICANT, IN THEIR LETTER, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, AND THE REQUEST FOR REHEARING, KIND OF PRESENTED THEY BELIEVE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME MISCOMMUNICATION OR MISINTERPRETATIONS AND THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY MAY BE ABLE TO CLARIFY SOME ITEMS GOING FORWARD. I DID WANT TO SPECIFICALLY COME UP HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF VOTES FOR AN INDIVIDUAL APPROVAL ON ITEMS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WHEN YOU ARE TAKING ACTION ON A VARIANCE REQUEST OR AN APPEAL FROM A STAFF POSITION IN TERMS OF SOME DECISION A BUILDING OFFICIAL ME THAT YOU WOULD BE CONSIDERING OVERTURNING, THAT DOES REQUIRE FOUR SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN OUR CODE APPEARED IN THE SECTION RELATED TO REHEARING'S, IT DOES ONLY SPECIFY A MAJORITY VOTE. YOU WOULD ONLY NEED A MAJORITY VOTE, WHICH AT THIS POINT, WOULD BE THREE OUT OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO MOVE IT FORWARD TO A FUTURE HEARING DATE. IF YOU WERE TO CONSIDER REHEARING THE CASE FOR THE SAME FOUR MEMBER VOTE WOULD APPLY AT THAT TIME. >> SINCE THAT IS KIND OF DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU ARE NORMALLY USED TO, I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT HERE. >> TO CLARIFY, TONIGHT IS JUST ASKING FOR A REHEARING AND NOT ACTUALLY CONDUCTING THE REHEARING? >> THAT IS CORRECT. IF YOU WERE TO WANT TO CREATE A REHEARING, AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE WOULD STILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDE THIS PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES IN ADVANCE OF GRANTING AN ADVANCE OF HOLDING AND CONDUCTING THE HEARING. THIS ITEM TONIGHT IS JUST FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ADDITIONAL HEARING. IN THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME. THEY DO HAVE A PRESENTATION. >> IS ANY BOARD MEMBER HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE TURN IT OVER? NO, OKAY, THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MASON GRIFFIN. I WAS AT AT 4108 SPYGLASS DRIVE. I WANT TO THANK THE BOARD FOR COMING HERE TODAY. I KNOW YOU ARE PROBABLY GETTING SICK OF LOOKING AT THE FACE. WE THINK WE HAVE A LEGITIMATE, PARDON ME, I SHOULD TURN THIS OFF. A CONCERN TO RAISE. AS YOUR PACKET SUGGESTS, WE APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH AND APPEARED IN FRONT OF HIS BODY SEEKING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AND WERE DENIED BY A VOTE OF 3-1. AS , EXCUSE ME, THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS INDICATED, WE CAN REQUEST A REHEARING IF THE ORIGINAL DECISION WAS BASED UPON A MISUNDERSTANDING. AS YOU MAY RECALL, THE BOARD EXPRESSED CONCERNS OVER THE ACTUAL NEED TO REPLACE THE EXISTING TOWERS WITH A SINGLE TOWER THAT PROVIDES SERVICE TO THE PENINSULA. THE CONCERNS AND STRONG TECHNICAL ISSUES WE WERE PREPARED TO ADDRESS UNTIL IT COVID-19 DIAGNOSIS PREVENTED THE TECHNICAL EXPERT FROM APPEARING. HE WAS DIAGNOSED ABOUT 3:00 THAT AFTERNOON AND WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO PIVOT. FRANKLY, THAT NIGHT, I LACK THE BACKGROUND AND TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING TO ADDRESS THOSE TYPES OF CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS. SO, THE REQUEST FOR A REHEARING IS BASED ON THE CONCEPT THAT OUR TECHNICAL EXPERT, OUR RF ENGINEER IS HERE TONIGHT AND WILL BE AVAILABLE ON NOVEMBER 13TH, NEXT TIME THIS BOARD WOULD MEET TO ADDRESS THE TECHNICAL CONCERNS. WE ARE REQUESTING THIS REHEARING BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING RELATED TO THE RADIOFREQUENCY GOAL BEHIND THE OPPOSED REPLACEMENT TOWERS. THE IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL USERS OF THE WIRELESS NETWORK AND WHETHER THE LACK OF A TOWER IN THE AREA, AT ALL, SINCE THE TWO WILL BE REMOVED, WILL IMPACT THE ABILITY TO TEXT OR MAKE OR SUSTAIN CALLS, ESPECIALLY 911 CALLS. I WAS REMINDED AS I WAS AT HOME BRIEFLY THIS AFTERNOON, WATCHING THE WEATHER CHANNEL, AND PRAYING FOR THE FOLKS IN FLORIDA, THAT DURING WEATHER EVENTS AND OTHER TYPES OF OCCURRENCES LIKE A TORNADO OR THE HURRICANE, THIS TYPE OF COMMUNICATION AND ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE AND TEXT AND PHONE CALLS IS JUST ESSENTIAL TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT A WEATHER APP OR BE ABLE TO GET INFORMATION OTHERWISE IS JUST ESSENTIAL. I AM GOING TO STEP ASIDE RIGHT NOW AND INTRODUCE BOBBY WELLS, WHO IS AN RF ENGINEER AT AT&T FOR 25 YEARS AND HE IS HERE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS AND PROVIDE SOME CLARITY ON THIS POINT THAT WE FEEL WERE MISUNDERSTOOD AT THE LAST MEETING. >> HOW ARE YOU DOING. NICE TO MEET YOU, I AND BOBBY WELLS. I WORK FOR AT&T, FOR 25 YEARS. I HAVE BEEN DOING RADIO FREQUENCY FOR 28 TOTAL FOR DIFFERENT COMPANIES, ERICSSON AND AT&T AFTER THAT. AS FAR AS I WATCHED THE HEARING LAST TIME. IT JUST KIND OF WANTED TO TRY TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERN THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A TOWER THAT WAS [00:10:03] THERE. IT WAS ON TOP OF THE WATER TOWER BEFORE. IT IS NOT A TEMPORARY SITE. IF WE REMOVE THIS TERROR, WE WILL BE REMOVING THE DOMINANT SERVICE THAT IS PROVIDING THE CELLULAR SERVICE FOR THIS PENINSULA. BACK IN THE DAY, DO CHANNEL PLANNING TO TRY TO GET AROUND INTERFERENCE. TODAY, SINCE LT LAUNCHED IN 2000 AND-2010, EVERY BIT OF YOUR SPECTRUM IS PUT INTO EVERY SECTOR OR AND RECITE. WHEN YOU ARE WATCHING TV, YOU HAVE CHANNEL 8, CHANNEL 11, FOUR, FIVE, THOSE ARE ON A DIFFERENT CHANNEL AND THEY CAN OVERLAP EACH OTHER. THERE IS A SEPARATION IN SPECTRUM. WITH OURS, YOU KNOW, IT IS ALL THE SAME SPECTRUM OUT OF THE SAME CHANNELS. ALL THE SAME CHANNELS OF THE SAME SECTORS AT EVERY SITE. WE RELY ON A LITTLE BIT OF TECHNOLOGY, A WHOLE LOT OF TECHNOLOGY BUT ALSO DOMINANCE. YOU CAN'T OVERCOME JUST THE PURE DOMINANCE OF THAT SIGNAL, BEING ABLE TO WHAT WE CALL A SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO. I HAVE SOME PLOTS. CAN WE CYCLE THROUGH TO, I CAN? OKAY. I AM NO EXPERT AT SPEAKING IN FRONT OF PEOPLE. I'M GOING TO TRY TO HELP OUT ALL I CAN. JUST THE ARROW? OKAY. SO, I JUST KIND OF WANT TO TOUCH ON THE SIGNAL LEVELS. THIS IS A SIGNAL LEVEL PLOT WHERE I HAD MOVED THE WEEK SIGNAL 108 OR JUST WEEK SIGNAL LEVEL TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA. ANYWHERE YOU GO TO SEE A COLOR, THOSE ARE HOMES AND AREAS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED JUST ON SIGNAL STRENGTH ALONE. WE ARE DOWN AS DIRTY AS YOU CAN GET AS FAR AS SIGNAL LEVEL GOES. THEN, IT IS NOT JUST, IT IS NOT JUST A SIGNAL LEVEL. IT IS ALSO INTERFERENCE. WHEN WE REMOVE THE SITE, WE ARE RELYING ON THE SITES THAT ARE THREE, FOUR MILES AWAY TO GET INTO THE SERVICE. YOU GOT ALL THESE SITES THAT ARE EQUAL STRENGTH AND WHEN YOU GET IN THERE WITH ABOUT 1 TO 2 TO 3 DB EQUAL OF EACH OTHER, IT CREATES A CARD, IT IS HARD FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THEM CLEAN, SO TO SPEAK. WE USE MODULATION SCHEMES. WE USE RESOURCE BLOCKS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SIGNAL TO TRY AND PROTECT IT. THE WEAKER THE SIGNAL, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE MODULATION SCHEME. YOU'VE GOT A SET OF RESOURCE BLOCKS. DEPENDING ON THE CHANNELS, ABOUT 50 RESOURCE BLOCKS FOR US, YOU END UP HAVING TO TAKE THOSE. INSTEAD OF MAYBE AVERY USER GETS THREE RESOURCE BLOCKS, AND YOU GET A LOT OF USE, A LOT OF THROUGHPUT, WE HAVE TO GIVE 10 TO 12 TO 22 TRY TO REPEAT THE SAME SIGNAL OVER AND OVER. THAT IS HOW WE PROTECT THE INTERFERENCE AND TRY TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE AT LEAST A TECH SIGNAL. I'M GOING TO GO REALLY QUICK TO THE INTERFERENCE TO SHOW YOU. THIS IS A DOMINANCE JUST TO LET YOU SEE WHAT IS REALLY DOMINANT. I WANTED TO POINT OF THE INTERFERENCE. I'M SORRY, THIS WAS THE SIGNAL TO INTERFERENCE RATIO. THIS IS THE SINR. IT WOULD BE REAL DARK RED, ORANGE, GREEN. I REMOVED ANYTHING THAT IS A NEGATIVE 10 DB WERE WEAKER. YOU CAN SEE HOW LARGE AN AREA IS AFFECTED BY PURE INTERFERENCE. SO, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE A CALL, YOU WILL GET THE MUTING. IT WILL PROBABLY DROP. AT SOME POINT WE HAVE ALL BEEN ON A CALL WHEN YOU ARE TALKING TO SOMEBODY, CAN YOU REPEAT YOURSELF, REPEAT YOURSELF? HELLO? THOSE ARE BANDWIDTH, TO PLACE A CALL. WE CAN DO A LOT OF PROTECTION AND TRY TO GET THROUGH THERE. THE SAME WITH AN SMS MESSAGE. YOU CAN PROBABLY SEND A TEXT, TRY IT TWICE, IT MIGHT FAIL. COULD GET IT IN THESE AREAS. IF YOU ARE OUT IN YOUR CAR, OR EVEN OUT WALKING AND YOU GET A NOTIFICATION ON YOUR PHONE THAT YOUR SECURITY CAMERAS WENT OFF AND YOU WANT TO LOOK AND SEE WHO IS AT YOUR HOUSE, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH CLEAN SIGNAL TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE THAT WE PROVIDE TODAY TO THIS TOWER TO LET SOMEBODY LOOK AT THEIR SECURITY CAMERAS, TO SEE WHO IS IN THEIR BACKYARD. STREAM MOVIES. I KNOW THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO BUT EVERYBODY DOES. HE BROUGHT UP A POINT. DURING BAD WEATHER TIMES, YOU WANT TO PULL UP THE RADAR, YOU WANT TO SEE THE RADAR ALIVE. THOSE TYPES OF SERVICES, THEY REALLY REQUIRE A REALLY GOOD MODULATION SCHEME . THEY REQUIRE A LOT OF DOMINANCE. WE CAN'T WASTE THOSE RESOURCE BLOCKS BEING ABLE TO REPEAT THE SIGNAL, REPEAT THE SIGNAL TO TRY TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN GET THAT SERVICE AT YOUR HOUSE. TO DO THAT, IT REQUIRES GOOD, CLEAN SIGNAL. WITHOUT THIS SITE HERE, WE ARE JUST GOING TO WIND UP WITH A LITTLE BIT OF, A WHOLE BUNCH OF SOUP FROM ALL THE SURROUNDING SITES THAT ARE REALLY GOING TO REDUCE THE SERVICES. I AM NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND TELL YOU YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO MAKE A CALL ANYWHERE. I'M PRETTY SURE YOU WILL. I CAN'T GUARANTEE IT. WE DID DRIVE TESTING THOSE SIGNAL LEVELS. THOSE ARE PREDICTION [00:15:02] PLANTS BASED ON OUR TOOLS BUT THEY ARE NOT 100% ACCURATE. 98.9, 95% . THERE'S DIFFERENT THINGS THAT CAN AFFECT THE LOAD, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ON THE SUBSTRATE. IT ALSO AFFECTS THE QUALITY OF THE SITES AND THE INTERFERENCE AND THAT KIND OF STUFF. WE JUST REALLY WANTED TO TRY AND DRIVE HOME THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT EVERYBODY EXPECTS TODAY. IT IS NOT JUST THE STREAMING THE MOVIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IT IS THINGS THAT WE RELY ON. WHEN I GET A NOTIFICATION, I WANT TO SEE WHO IS AT MY HOUSE. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO WATCH THE WEATHER, WHETHER THERE IS A STORM TORNADO MOVING THROUGH, THAT KIND OF THING. WE JUST KIND OF FELT LIKE MAYBE THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE COULD PROVIDE WITHOUT THIS SITE VERSUS WHAT, IN REALISTIC, I THOUGHT WE REALLY COULD PROVIDE WITHOUT THIS SITE. WE ARE NOT ASKING TO PLACE A SITE THAT ISN'T HERE. THE SITE WAS ALWAYS THERE ON THE WATER TOWER. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO BOLSTER OUR NETWORK IN THE SENSE OF ADDING SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THERE TODAY. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE. UNIVERSAL FOR ANYONE THAT IS IN CLOSE TO THE AREA, WE ARE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE CAN PROVIDE THE SERVICE THAT THEY EXPECTED THAT THEY NEED AND POSSIBLY COULD REALLY USE AS FAR AS I DON'T WANT TO SAY LIFE-SAVING BUT ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN. YOU COME THROUGH WITH A TORNADO, IT KNOCKS OUT POWER . OUR SITES HAVE TO WORK ON BATTERIES FOR A WHILE. YOU HAVE FIRSESPONDERS. IT CAN BECOME AT SOME POINT IN LIFE, IT MIGHT BE A LIFE OR DEATH SITUATION FOR SOMEBODY. WE JUST HATE TO REMOVE THE SITE AND RUIN THE COVERAGE AND EXECUTION OF THE SERVICE THAT PEOPLE COME TO KNOW TODAY. ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER? TRY TO ANSWER? YES SIR. >> THE -10 DBS, I WOULD EXPECT GOOD SERVICE DOWN IN 18, 20 LEVELS. >> WITH NO INTERFERENCE, IT COULD BE. TODAY, A GOOD ANALOGY, IN WEST TEXAS SOMEWHERE, YOU JUST HAVE ONE SITE AND THE OTHER SITES ARE 10, 12 MILES APART, YOU CAN'T. YOU CAN GET DOWN TO NEGATIVE 122. >> 22 IS WHEN YOU START WORRYING ABOUT THINGS. START DOING THINGS TO GET THE SERVICE TO WORK. THIS MAP WHERE ALL THE GRAY IS SHOWING, THIS IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT MAP THAN WE HAD IN SEPTEMBER. THOSE MAPS HAVE CHANGED. IS THIS MAP ONLY THE RF THAT OR TYLER WOULD BE DELIVERING? IT IS NOT COUNTING THE OTHER TOWERS. THE QUESTION >> IT IS ALL OF OUR TOWERS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANYONE ELSE'S SERVICE HAS BEEN >> THERE IS A WATER TOWER JUST TO THE SOUTH OF WHERE THIS TOWER WAS TO BE REPLACED. THAT WHATEVER BEFORE IS ON CITY PROPERTY ON THE CITY WATER TANK. THERE IS A CITY WATER PROPERTY WITH THE CITY WATER TOWER JUST A MILE AND HALF TO THE SOUTH OF THERE . ABOUT A MILE AND HALF TO TWO HOURS TO THE NORTH ON 66, THERE ARE THREE TOWERS ON TOP OF POWERLINES ON 66. SO, THIS JUST HAPPENS TO SIT IN THE CENTER OF A 20 HALF-MILE GAP FROM 66 TO WHERE THE EXISTING WATER TOWER IS STILL AT. >> WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THOSE ARE VERIZON OR T-MOBILE. >> YOU WANT THE SERVICE ON YOUR TOWER, THIS IS THE VERTICAL BRIDGES TOWER, CORRECT? >> THAT IS WHO WOULD OWN THIS TOWER. WE DO NOT OWN TOWERS. >> YOU ARE NOT ON THE 66 TOWERS AND YOU ARE NOT ON THE WATER TANK? >> NOT IN THIS AREA. OUR CLOSEST TOUR TO THE SOUTH WILL BE RIGHT AT THE HIGHWAY, RIGHT THERE ON THE GAS STATION WHEN YOU EXIT ON THE NORTH SIDE. WE CONVERTED THAT A FOUR SECTOR FROM A THREE SECTOR TO TRY TO GET BETTER SERVICE. TO THE NORTH, WHEN YOU GET ALL THE WAY UP TO 66, I CUT IT OFF THIS MAP. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ONE THAT WOULD CHILL IT BETTER. IT IS JUST TO THE NORTH OF 66 AND TO THE EAST. THEN TO THE WEST, YOU HAVE TO GO ACROSS THE LAKE TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LAKE. THIS IS ALL THE POWERS WE HAVE. WE DON'T ONLY SHOWERS. THIS IS ALL THE TOWERS WE HAVE. I'M SORRY. >> WE GOT OUT OF THAT, TRY TO SELL THEM. >> DRIVING AROUND, I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE, THERE'S TO BE AND 10:00 IS ON 66, TWO NORTH AT 66, ONE SLIGHTLY SOUTH OF DALROCK BY THE MCDONALD'S ON 66. THEN TO THIS PART OF TOWN, THERE IS ONE RIGHT ACROSS FROM WHERE WE ARE STANDING. IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU ARE WANTING TO GO IN, WE HAVE THE BRAND-NEW RF TOWER FOR OUR POLICE AND FIRE IS SITTING THERE. JUST LIKE OUR OLD POWER ACROSS HERE HAS ANTENNAS ON IT, THE CITY TOWER COULD HAVE AN TENETS ON IT. I MEAN, I'VE GOT MY OPINION AND WE WILL LEAVE THE REST TO THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. [00:20:02] THERE IS AMPLE PLACE THAT AT&T, VERIZON, T-MOBILE COULD LEASE ANTENNA SPACE FOR BESIDES HAVING AN ANTENNA IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. THAT IS A >> WE DO SIDEC. WHEN WE ASK FOR A SITE AND WE DRAW A SEARCH RING IN THIS AREA, THEY WILL PULL OUT THE CANDIDATES THEY CAN FIND. THEY WILL BRING THIS BACK TO US AND WE WILL RANK THEM. IN THIS PART OF THE CASE, I DON'T REMEMBER ANY RECEIVING AGREED CANDIDATES. >> I COULD SPEAK TO THAT, TO THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY. >> IF I HAD COME ACROSS SOMETHING PRESENTED TO ME, I WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANYTHING I CAN GET. LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS COME TO AN ARGUMENT. I WANT TO FIND A SOLUTION. I WOULD. I WILL LET HIM SPEAK TO THE OTHER PROPERTY. THANK YOU. >> YOU WERE THE ONE WHO HAD COVID-19? LOVE YOU ARE UP. I SPENT 25 DAYS IN THE ICU WITH COVID MYSELF. >> IS MAKING ITS ROUNDS RECENTLY AGAIN. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATED. >> I CAN SPEAK TO THE CONCERN ABOUT GOING ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY. THAT IS A GREAT SUGGESTION AND A GREAT IDEA. IN FACT, THE APPLICANT HAS SPENT, I BELIEVE IT IS SEVEN YEARS, WORKING WITH DIFFERENT POSSIBLE CANDIDATES ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE PROPERTY THAT MAY LEAD TO THE NORTH, TWO DIFFERENT FIRE STATIONS AND BLUEBONNET PARK. FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, THE CITY HAS DECLINED TO, DESPITE THE APPLICANT MEETING EVERY REQUEST AND REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY HAS ASKED FOR, THE CITY HAS DECLINED TO ENTER INTO A LEASE WITH THE APPLICANT. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY. THE CITY HAS ANTENNAS ON THE CITY TOWER JUST AROUND THE CORNER HERE AND ON THE WATER TANK JUST A MILE AND HALF OR SO SOUTH OF WHERE THIS WAS TO BE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. >> IT IS A GREAT QUESTION AND THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER THAT BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR DECISION. THOSE COULD BE LEGACY LEASES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR SOME TIME. THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A PHILOSOPHICAL CHANGE ABOUT THE APPROACH. I DON'T KNOW. THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. CERTAINLY -- >> THE REVENUE FROM LEASING ON A TOWER WOULD BE, I GUESS, ONE LAST THING I HAVE AND THEN I WILL BE QUIET. THERE ARE THREE LESS TRAILERS AT A TRAILER PARK THAT USED TO BE IN THE FOOTPRINT WHERE THIS NEW TOWER IS REQUESTED TO GO TO. THOSE HOMES, THOSE TRAILERS, MOBILE HOMES, THEY ARE GONE. THEY USED TO SIT THERE. FOR THE TOWER TO HAVE ITS FALL RADIUS, THOSE TRAILERS ARE NOW GONE. IS THAT THE REASON FOR THAT? >> NO. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE REASON IS FOR WHITE AS TRAILERS ARE GONE. >> LOOK AT A PICTURE FROM TORNADO TIME, SEVERAL TRAILERS GOT TAKEN OUT IN THE TORNADO AND THEY HAVE ALL BEEN REPLACED EXCEPT FOR YOU LOOK AT THE CURRENT PICTURE, THE THREE THAT SIT WHERE THE ANTENNA WANTS TO GO NOW, THOSE PEOPLE HAD MOBILE HOMES NOW, HAVE NO OPTION FOR A MOBILE HOME ANYMORE. I THOUGHT INITIALLY IT MUST'VE BEEN THE COULDN'T BE PUT BACK BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MEET CODE BECAUSE OF THE TORNADO AND CODE WOULDN'T LET THEM PUT IT BACK. YOU LOOK AT THE TORNADO PICTURES, A LOT OF THE TRAILERS WERE DESTROYED, THEY HAVE BEEN REPLACED. LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT TOOK AWAY THE LAND SLICE FOR OTHER USE IN THE MOBILE HOME PARK. >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THAT IS. I KNOW THE TEMPORARY TOWERS HAVE BEEN UP FOR ALMOST A DECADE NOW. >> THE TORNADO WAS ONLY EIGHT YEARS AGO. I APPRECIATE IT. THANKS. >> I THINK THE TORNADO WAS DECEMBER OF 2015. THE TEMPORARY TOWERS CAME SHORTLY THEREAFTER. JUST SHY OF A DECADE. MY APOLOGIES. THAT MIGHT BE WHY THE MOBILE HOMES WEREN'T REPLACED, BECAUSE THE TEMPORARY TOWERS WENT UP IN THE PLACE. >> I WOULD GUESS, MYSELF AND THIS BOARD, I HAVE WORK TO DO WITH FINDING OUT WHY THE CITY IS NOT COOPERATIVE WITH LETTING ANTENNAS BE PLACED ON EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT ALREADY HAVE AN TENETS. IT SEEMS SORT OF ODD. THANK YOU. >> WE AGREE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WE CAN ADDRESS? THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT IS REALLY TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING AT THE LAST MEETING THAT, YES SIR. >> I'M SORRY. I FORGOT THAT ON MY NOTES RIGHT HERE. NO, I DID NOT MISUNDERSTAND. OKAY, THANK YOU. >> SURE. WITH THAT WE COULD PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION AND MORE CLARITY TO CLEAR UP SOME OF THE CONCERNS, ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED AT THE LAST MEETING. SO -- >> BEFORE WE REQUEST A VOTE, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY CONVERSATION OR QUESTIONS THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WITH THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A MOTION . DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? >> EXCUSE ME, WHAT ARE WE VOTING ON? >> WHAT ARE WE VOTING ON? SO, IT IS A REQUEST TO REHEAR THE CASE BASED ON POTENTIAL CONFUSION. IT IS UP TO US TO [00:25:06] DETERMINE IF WE WANT TO REHEAR THE CASE. >> IN THAT CASE, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR THE REHEARING. >> CAN I HAVE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND THE MOTION. >> AT THIS TIME, WE VOTE. DO I NEED TO? OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT, AT THIS TIME, THE VOTE PASSES 4-0 TO 1 STEP ASIDE. IT THIS TIME, THE REQUEST PASSES. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL MOVE ON TO INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, ITEM 4B.. I WILL PUT MY GLASSES BACK ON SO I CAN MEET. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A VARIANCE REQUEST BY PROPERTY OWNER SCOTT SOWER TO ALLOW GARAGE SERVICE DOORS TO FACE SINGLETON STREET . WELCOME BACK. NUMBER TWO, INCREASE THE FENCE HEIGHT FROM 36 INCHES TO 96 INCHES ALONG SINGLETON STREET AND LAWING LANE. AND, THREE, EXCLUDE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS IN THE OVERSIZED PARKING AREA AND FOUR PERMIT ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES EXCEEDING THE ALLOWED 125%. THE APPROXIMATELY 2.03 ACRE PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED AT 2601 LAWING LANE AND IS DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, BLOCKED A HIGH POINT INDUSTRIAL PARK IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> JUST SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS. IT IS A SINGLETON STREET M1 USE FOR ZONING. IT IS 2.03 ACRES . THERE ARE FOUR REQUESTS THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR TONIGHT. THE FIRST IS THE GARAGE SERVICE DOOR TO FACE SINGLETON STREET. THE SECOND IS THE FENCE HEIGHT ALONG THE FRONT , TO INCREASE FROM 36 INCHES TO 96. THE THIRD IS LANDSCAPE ISLANDS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE OVERSIZED PARKING AREA AND THE FOURTH IS FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING, EXCEEDING THE 125% PARKING LIMIT. SO, FOR THE FIRST REQUEST, IT IS SECTION 7507, WHICH PROHIBITS GARAGE DOORS FACING A PUBLIC STREET, BASED ON THE RENDERINGS. THE NORTH ELEVATION, WHICH WOULD BE FRONTING SINGLETON STREET, WOULD HAVE TWO GARAGE BAYS TOWARD THE LEFT AS SHOWN ON THE BOTTOM PICTURE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ALLOW THEM AND THEIR JUSTIFICATION IS THAT IT WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY FOR THE TRUCKS AND TRAILERS THAT WILL BE ON-SITE. THE SECOND REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE LIMIT OF DEFENSE HEIGHTS FROM 36 INCHES TO 96 INCHES FROM WHAT IS CONSIDERED HERE, IF YOU LOOK ON LAWING LANE AND SINGLETON STREET, RIGHT AT THE HIGHLIGHT IS WHERE THE FENCE WOULD BE. WITHIN THIS M1 ZONING DISTRICT, THE FRONT SETBACK IS 50 FEET. APPROXIMATELY WHERE THEY ARE ASKING TO HAVE THE FENCE RAISED WOULD BE 50 FEET FROM THE FRONT AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS REQUEST IS ENHANCED SECURITY FOR THE SITE, PARTICULARLY AT NIGHT WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE PEOPLE THERE. IN TERMS OF THE LANDSCAPE.. THAT IS SECTION 77 504. THE LANDSCAPE DOES REQUIRE FOR EVERY 12 PARKING SPACES, YOU TYPICALLY HAVE A PARKING ISLAND THAT KIND OF BRINGS SOME LANDSCAPE INTO THE AREA. THESE PARKING STALLS ARE A LITTLE OVERSIZED AND IT IS MOSTLY DUE TO THE DIFFERENT TRUCKS FOR THEIR EQUIPMENT AND REALLY, THEIR JUSTIFICATION IS SINCE THEY WILL HAVE THE TRUCKS THEREFORE MANEUVERING, THIS IS NOT INTENDED FOR SITTERS OR EMPLOYEES IN THIS AREA. WE CAN MAKE IT MORE FEASIBLE AND THEY WOULD LIKE MORE LANDSCAPING IN THIS AREA. THE LAST IS FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING. SECTION 77-506. THIS LIMITS PARKING 225% OF THE MAXIMUM [00:30:02] REQUIREMENT. BASED ON WHAT THEY ARE WRITING, THIS SHOULD BE 65 SPACES. THERE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 283%. THEY DO HAVE PARKING, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY FOR PEOPLE THAT COME ON-SITE BUT I THINK MORE THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK MORE TO IT BUT I BELIEVE IT IS FOR THE EMPLOYEES THAT THEY WILL HAVE. THEY ARE LOOKING TO HAVE ALL THE PARKING ON-SITE AND NOT GOING OUT INTO THE STREETS. THE JUSTIFICATION, REALLY, IS THAT FOR EMPLOYEES AND FOR BUSINESS OPERATION. JUST SOME REMINDERS FOR THE VARIANCES. WHAT IT IS'S DEVIATIONS TO THE ZONING CODE THAT WOULD BASICALLY, THEIR JUSTIFICATION WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME TYPE OF HARDSHIP. A VARIANCE SHALL NOT BE GRANTED IF CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE SPIRIT OF THE REGULATIONS MUST BE OBSERVED. AND, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE . SO, JUST SOME CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE BOARD MAY RECOMMEND MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND THE FINAL ACTION MAY NOT MIRROR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. WE DID PROVIDE NOTIFICATION TO THE SURROUNDING AREA WITHIN THE 200 FEET. WE PROVIDED EIGHT NOTICES AND WITHIN THE 500 FEET, THERE WERE 37 NOTICES SENT OUT. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING IN FAVOR OR AGAINST IT AS WELL. SO, FOR THE BOARD , THE ACTION YOU CAN TAKE TONIGHT IS EITHER APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, OR RECOMMEND FOR DENIAL AS WELL. I AM OPEN TO QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS A PRESENTATION. >> DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? HAD. >> ON THE CHAIN-LINK FENCE, WILL THAT BE, IS THE FENCE GOING TO BE CHAIN-LINK WERE POLICE AND FIRE CAN SEE THROUGH THE FENCE OR IS IT A SOLID BLOCK? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WILL BE WROUGHT IRON. THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION WHERE THEY WILL SHOW AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. >> SO, POLICE AND FIRE CAN SEE THROUGH IT? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> YES, NUMBER ONE. BEFORE WE GET STARTED, BACK TO THE PLANNING SECRETARY, I'M SORRY . I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOUR POSITION ACTUALLY IS, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN SCROLL ON THE SCREEN AND SEE EVERYTHING? >> INDIVIDUALLY? >> IF I WANT TO SEE THE ENTIRE PACKET THAT THEY SUBMITTED. >> NOT IN PRESENTATION. IT WOULD BE UNDER DOCUMENTS. >> THERE'S NOTHING UNDER DOCUMENTS. >> WHAT I'M SEEING IS NOT THE PACKET THAT WAS SENT OUT. >> EVEN ON THE HOME PANEL, THE ONLY THING WE HAVE ACCESS TO IS THE AGENDA, NOT THE WHOLE PACKAGE. YEAH, SO IF YOU GO BACK TO -- >> GO TO THE CITY WEBSITE. OKAY. GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PAGE . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. PACKETS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THERE WE GO. YES. SO, I DO HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE THE APPLICANT COMES UP. JUST, WHAT IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE? THAT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THEY WANTED THE DOORS SO THAT THEY COULD FLOW VEHICLES THROUGH, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY? >> IT IS MORE APPROPRIATE THE APPLICANT SPEAKS. I KNOW IT IS MORE OF A LANDSCAPING COMPANY BUT IN TERMS OF OPERATION, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER HOW THAT WOULD WORK. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE TRUCKS WOULD GO IN AND BASICALLY THEY [00:35:02] WOULD GET EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO PUT, THEY COULD GO THROUGH THE SITE AND UNLOAD AND DO THAT. >> IT IS BASICALLY A PULL THROUGH. ALL RIGHT. >> ANYONE ELSE, ANY QUESTIONS? >> I WOULD SAY I DID DRIVELINE TODAY. MY CONCERN WAS THAT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE AND BLOCK TRAFFIC VISION AND IT IS A ROUNDED ROAD SO THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS NO PROBLEM. >> I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. ONE, I DID NOT SEE THE CITY'S RECOMMENDED STATEMENT, USUALLY YOU GIVE WHAT IS THE OPINION OF THE CITY IS AND -- >> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. SO, IN TERMS OF ON VARIANCES, THIS IS ACROSS THE BOARD HERE AND GOING FORWARD WITH PLANNING AND ZONING MISSION ON ZONING REQUEST, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT SEEM TO BE A POLICY DECISION, GOING FORWARD, WE WILL GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION WE THINK WE CAN THAT IS RELEVANT BUT WE ARE GOING TO NOT OFFER A RECOMMENDATION ON APPROVAL OR DENIAL BECAUSE IT IS THE ROLE OF THIS BOARD, OR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL, TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS. HE WILL CONTINUE TO SEE THE PROCESS WHERE WE GIVE YOU APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY. THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES WHERE WE MAY FEEL THERE IS A SAFETY ISSUE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE INVOLVED. WE WILL SHARE THOSE WITH YOU. FOR THESE SORTS OF THINGS, WHERE IT IS AN AESTHETIC THING OR IS STRONGLY DO WE FEEL THAT THE CODE IS SERVING THE INTENT HERE, WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AND YOU ARE MAKING THAT DETERMINATION, THOSE ARE NOT GOING TO RECEIVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF ON APPROVAL OR DENIAL. TO THAT EFFECT, THERE IS NOTHING EGREGIOUS WE SAW ON THE APPLICATION ON THIS. IT IS NOT THAT WE ARE JUST NOT WANTING TO RECOMMEND ARE JUST LEAVING THAT DECISION UP TO YOU GOING FORWARD. THAT WILL BE ON ANY OF THESE CASES. >> SECOND QUESTION IS MORE PROBABLY AT THE ROOT OF THE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS, THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. WHY IN AN INDUSTRIAL PARK WOULD WE NOT WANT GARAGE DOORS FACING A PUBLIC STREET? THAT IS WHAT BUILDINGS ARE BACK THERE. JUST CURIOUS IF THE CITY IS UNDERSTANDING WHY THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT OR DID THAT END UP BEING A BLANKET THROUGH THE WHOLE CITY? >> IT IS THE WHOLE CITY, JUST WHAT IS IN THE CODE. WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CODE. ALL RIGHT. >> THIS IS A STATEMENT FOR THE BOARD. ON THAT STREET, SINGLETON, I REALLY AM GLAD THAT YOU ARE PUTTING IN EXTRA PARKING SPACES BECAUSE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET IS MISERABLE. CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF IT. YOU CAN, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE PARKING SPACES THAT YOU WANT, JUST GET THE CARS OFF THE STREET. >> OKAY. >> MY NAME IS COLT GRAY FIFTH, I LIVE AT 6517 REDSTONE COURT IN ARLINGTON. I AM HERE REPRESENTING SCOTT SOWER ON THIS PROJECT. I SUPPOSE I WILL RUN THROUGH IT AGAIN REALLY QUICKLY. THE PROPERTY IS AT 2601 LAWING LANE AND IS THE HEADQUARTERS FOR DND COMMERCIAL ENTITY MANAGEMENT . IT HAS SINCE BEEN REZONED TO M1 , LIGHT MANUFACTURING. WE HAVE FOUR TOTAL VARIANCES REQUESTED. THE FIRST ONE FOR THE GARAGE DOORS, THE SECOND ONE FOR THE INCREASE OF FENCE HEIGHT. THE THIRD ONE FOR THE DECREASE OF THE LANDSCAPE WORKING ON AND THE FOURTH ONE FOR THE INCREASED TOTAL PARKING ON THE SITE. SO, FOR THE FIRST REQUEST , YOU BROUGHT IT UP EARLIER BUT THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL AREA. MANY OF THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS ALREADY TO HAVE GARAGE DOORS FACING OUTWARD INTO THE STREET. WE DO HAVE THOSE PULL-THROUGH LANES THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE USING FOR LOADING, UNLOADING THE VEHICLES AS WELL AS SERVICING THEM. HAVING GARAGE DOORS IS NECESSARY FOR THEM FLOW AND FUNCTION OF EVERYTHING ON THE SITE. AS WELL, WE ARE GOING TO BE USING THE VEGETATION ON SITE AS WELL AS THE EIGHT FOOT TALL ORNAMENTAL IRON FENCE TO HELP SCREEN THESE DOORS SO THEY WON'T BE QUITE SO VISIBLE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THOSE ARE JUST SOME SCREENSHOTS SHOWING [00:40:01] THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. HERE IS A LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWING THE VEGETATION THAT WOULD BE PLANTED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE OF LAWING LANE AND SINGLETON STREET. THE INCREASED INSIGHT , SO, AS I SORT OF, WE ARE PROPOSING THAT IS IS INCREASED TO 96 INCHES ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE TO HELP INCREASE THE SECURITY OVERNIGHT BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE OUR VEHICLES, OR MATERIALS FOR THIS BUILDING WILL BE STORED, JUST OUTDOORS. TO PREVENT ANYONE FROM ACCESSING THAT DURING THE NIGHT OR EVENT PEOPLE FROM GETTING IN DURING THE DAY AND GETTING A HOLD OF THINGS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T. THERE IS A RENDERING JUST SHOWING WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. FOR THE SAID PARKING ISLANDS, THE AYE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES 12 SPACES. THE DIAGRAM ON THE RIGHT SHOWS WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE LOCATED. THOSE TWO ISLANDS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ARE THE ONES REQUESTING THAT WE NOT INCLUDE . THIS IS JUST DONE SO THAT THE CENTRAL AREA CAN BE USED FOR THE MANEUVERING AND PARKING AND STORAGE OF THE WORK VEHICLES AND ANY MATERIALS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED FOR THE OPERATIONS OF THE BUSINESS. AND, FOR OUR FINAL REQUEST IS THE SITE OVER PARKING. PER ROWLETT'S CODE, WE ARE PERMITTED 24 SPACES. WE ARE COMPOSING A TOTAL OF 65 SPACES ON SITE. SO, WITHOUT THE VARIANCE BEING APPROVED, WE WOULD BE LIMITED TO THOSE SPOTS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PLANE THAT ARE NOT HIGHLIGHTED. THE ONES HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ALONG THE TOP ARE TO BE USED FOR EMPLOYEES THAT ARE COMMUTING TO WORK EVERY DAY AND THE CENTRAL ORANGE SPACE, AS WE DISCUSSED, IS FOR THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND OTHER MATERIALS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD THAT WE CAN ANSWER? >> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> I HAVE A FEW. OKAY. SO, WHAT TYPE OF VEHICLES, I ASSUME YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TRUCK AND TRAILERS. >> YES, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TRUCKS AND TRAILERS AS WELL AS ZERO TURN MOWERS THAT WILL BE STORED. YES. >> WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT BIG 18 WHEELERS OR ANYTHING OF SUCH SIZE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PICKUP TRUCKS AND FLATBED TRAILERS BASICALLY. >> BASICALLY F-150, F-250 FORD TRUCKS, NOTHING OVERSIZED. >> RIGHT. SO, I CERTAINLY LAUDED YOU FOR INCREASING THE PARKING SPACES AND WANTING TO PUT IT INSIDE, LIKE A COUPLE OF MY COHORTS HERE, THE PARKING IS ATROCIOUS OUT OF THERE SO I APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT. IN LIEU OF TAKING OUT THE ISLANDS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANT TO DO THAT, THAT MAKES SENSE, ACTUALLY, BUT, IN YOUR LANDSCAPING PLAN, ARE YOU DOING ANY BERMS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OR IS IT JUST STRAIGHT LIKE YOUR PICTURE SHOWS OF A WROUGHT IRON FENCE PUT IN? >> WE WILL HAVE THE IRON FENCE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AS WELL AS THERE'S GOING TO BE PLANTING ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AS WELL. I DON'T, THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE ANY SORT OF BIRMINGHAM, THOUGH. >> ALL RIGHT, SO, I WANT THE POLICE AND FIRE TOBE ABLE TO SEE IN AND I THINK YOU DO TO, FOR SAFETY PURPOSES , YOU DON'T WANT ANYBODY JUMPING A FENCE OR CLIMBING YOUR FENCE OR WHATEVER TO GET TO ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT, AT THE SAME TIME YOUR NEIGHBOR TO THE BACK, FOR COMMERCIAL AREA, HAS SOME LANDSCAPING UP AGAINST THE BUILDING. THEY'VE GOT SOME NICE LANDSCAPING THAT IS IN FOR THAT TYPE OF BUILDING. IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN MAYBE BEEFED UP A LITTLE BIT YOUR LANDSCAPING THERE? YOU ARE TAKING SOME OUT, CAN YOU STICK IT UP NEAR THE FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE? >> ALONG THE LINES OF LAWING LANE IN SINGLETON STREET? >> SINGLETON STREET OR IN THE CURVE, EITHER ONE . >> WE COULD DEFINITELY INCREASE THE LANDSCAPING IN THOSE AREAS. >> YOU ARE A LANDSCAPING COMPANY, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU [00:45:07] KNOW, YOU WANT IT TO LOOK GOOD. WE WANT IT TO LOOK GOOD OUT THERE AS WELL. >> OF COURSE. WE CAN DEFINITELY INCREASE VEGETATION. >> ALL RIGHT, THAT'S IT, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD. >> THIS IS PRIMARILY, MAYBE MORE TOWARD THE CITY. ANY DRAINAGE ISSUES YOU SEE BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED PAVEMENT OR MORE ENCLOSED ASPHALT THAN OPEN GROUND? MAYBE MORE FOR THE CITY TO ADDRESS? >> IT HAS TO BE DESIGNED INTO THEIR SYSTEM FOR THE SITE. ALL OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA HAS TO BE CALCULATED. THAT WILL BE PART OF THEIR FINAL UTILITIES DESIGN. >> I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE REVIEWED THROUGH CIVIL. >> THAT IS ALL, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. JOSH. >> FOR MYSELF, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS WHEN THE VARIANCE TO REMOVE THE PARKING ISLANDS FOR THE VEGETATION BETWEEN THE PARKING SPACES, DID YOU ALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY TYPE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND TRY TO ACCUMULATE THAT INTO OTHER AREAS WHERE YOU WERE TO PUT IN A PARKING AND OR LANDSCAPING AROUND THE PERIMETER, SO THAT WAY THE BUT HE WASN'T LOSING ANY TYPE OF POTENTIAL SHADE FROM SHRUBS AND TREES, IT WAS JUST A CHANGE FROM WHERE IT WAS REQUIRED TO A DIFFERENT PLACE? >> SORRY. I'M SCOTT SOWER. I AM AN ARCHITECT, I'M NOT THE OWNER. THE OWNER IS DONNIE WATTS AND DONNIE WATTS OWNS DND LANDSCAPING. THE BIRMINGHAM, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO BIRMINGHAM. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN REPRESENTS, IT FAR EXCEEDS WHAT IS REQUIRED BY ROWLETT AND WE WANT TO, YES, WE WANT TO ENHANCE THE LANDSCAPE WHEREVER WE CAN. IT IS THE CALLING CARD, IT IS WHAT THEY DO. IT MAKES SENSE THAT THEY WOULD WANT A LUSH, BEAUTIFUL PERIMETER TO HIGHLIGHT THEIR LANDSCAPING COMPANY. BIRMINGHAM, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO. WE CAN MANIPULATE THE SITE THEY DO ALL SORTS OF CREATIVE THINGS. THE MENTAL IRON FENCE WILL BE A CUSTOM-BUILT FENCE AND IT WILL BE DONE BY D&D LANDSCAPE . DID I RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION? >> NOT QUITE. MY QUESTION WAS MORE SO WHEN YOU PUT THESE ISLANDS IN, TYPICALLY THE REGULATIONS AND EVERYTHING, THERE IS A CERTAIN SIZE. CALCULATING THE SIZE THAT WAS REQUIRED FOR THESE, PART OF THE VARIANCE TO REQUEST THAT FMP REQUIRED, DID YOU ALL TRY TO BASICALLY MITIGATE THE LOSS OF THE ACTUAL LAND THAT WOULD NOT BE PAVED BY HAVING THAT AREA ACCOUNTED FOR SOMEPLACE ELSE, JUST NOT END? >> WE DID. WE ENHANCED THE LANDSCAPING AROUND THE ENTRY TO THE FACILITY. WE HAVE LANDSCAPING AGAINST THE EAST SIDE OF THE FACILITY. THEN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TURN WHERE SINGLETON BECOMES LAWING LANE, THE TREE SPACING THERE IS ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE CITY REQUIRES. SO, THERE'S TWICE AS MANY TREES IN THAT ZONE AS THE CITY REQUIRES. SO, WE HAVE, WE HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT. WE HAVE MADE SURE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD RESPONSIBLY. >> A GOOD. AND THEN SORT OF THE SECONDARY QUESTION THAT I HAVE, I AM ASSUMING THAT THE FINAL PLANS FOR THIS SITE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH CITY PERMITTING AND APPROVAL YET, CORRECT? >> YES, THIS IS THE PRECURSOR TO ALL OF THAT. WE HAVE TO GET PAST THIS. WE NEED AN APPROVAL HERE TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT FOR PERMIT AND MOVE THIS PROJECT FORWARD. >> I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THAT. AT THIS TIME, I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. >> ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> AT THIS TIME, WE NEED TO OPEN UP THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE, ANYONE RECEIVED ANYTHING ONLINE, ANYONE IN PERSON LIKE TO SPEAK? ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT? ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THE BOARD, ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE REQUEST? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE WE DO A MOTION, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, PLEASE. [00:50:02] >> OKAY. >> SINCE THEY ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE LANDSCAPING, AND SINCE THEY STILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE CITY FOR THAT, HOW IS IT THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS TAKEN CARE OF TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY PUT SOME EXTRA LANDSCAPING IN OR WHATEVER TO TAKE FOR WHAT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO TAKE OUT IN THE ISLANDS? >> I THINK IT WOULD COME IN AT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THAT IS WHERE WE WILL GET THOSE CALCULATIONS. I'M NOT SURE, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NUMBER . >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST, SO, IN THE CURRENT, WHAT YOU SEE IN THE LANDSCAPE AND THAT IS PRESENTED HERE, IT IS JUST A DRAFT, WE HAVE NOT REVIEWED A LANDSCAPE PLAN OR PROVE ANYTHING BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS CONTINGENT UPON THE VARIANCE BEING APPROVED BEFORE WOMEN FORWARD WITH FURTHER STEPS. I THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND IF YOU ARE ASKING FOR THE APPLICANT TO DO ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE CODE, BUT ADDITIONAL OR HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL YOU ARE LOOKING FOR? I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE ASKING FOR THEM TO KIND OF INDICATE ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS OF WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN A PLANTAR ISLAND, JUST IN OTHER AREAS, THEY PROBABLY HAVE ALREADY EXCEEDED THAT IN WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING HERE. THIS IS NOT ANYTHING THAT IS FIRM OR CONCRETE AND LIQUID, IF THERE'S NOT SOME CONTINGENCY OR SOMETHING TIED TO YOUR MOTION FOR APPROVAL HERE TO REQUIRED ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING, THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT ANYTHING TO THAT LEVEL OF LANDSCAPING, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THAT IS WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO. YOU WOULD NEED TO BE A LITTLE SPECIFIC IN YOUR MOTION ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT IS THREE ADDITIONAL TREES AND SIX ADDITIONAL SHRUBS, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SOMETHING SPECIFIC ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE CODE WOULD CALL FOR. >> TECHNICALLY WHAT THEY SHOWED WAS IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS TECHNICALLY REQUIRED. REALISTICALLY, THEY COULD'VE JUST PUT A TREE IN ONE OF THOSE YELLOW BOXES AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLAINANT. >> WHAT I WANT TO DO, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND STAFF, IS TO MAKE SURE WE GRANT THESE. IT DOES GET CARRIED OVER. I APPRECIATE WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, IN THE PAST, WE HAVE HAD APPLICANTS PROMISE THINGS AND WHEN IT GETS TO APPROVAL, THEY GET AN EXCEPTION, WHEN IT GETS TO AN APPROVAL, IT GETS LEFT OUT AND IT REVERTS BACK JUST TO WHAT IS REQUIRED. AND, WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS WE ARE ALL TOGETHER AND WHEN THEY GO BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING AND SAID OKAY, THIS IS IT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SHOW MORE THAN JUST THE MINIMAL. >> I GUESS CAN WE CLARIFY WORKFLOW? THE EXCEPTIONS THAT WE GRANT HERE, DO THEY GO BACK TO THE CITY AND TO EACH OF THE APPROVAL BOARDS TO SEE WHAT WAS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED? IS IT JUST A LINK YES OR NO? >> IF YOU ARE GRANTING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE LANDSCAPING, WHEN WE GO TO REVIEW THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, WE WOULD LOOK AT THE VARIANCE GRANTED WITH THAT TO SAY IT DOESN'T MEET CODE BUT THEY DID RECEIVE A VARIANCE ON THIS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE GARAGE BAYS FACING THE STREET, WHEN WE ARE DOING THE BUILDING PLAN, THE PLAN EXAMINER MIGHT SAY THIS DOESN'T MEET CODE ABOUT FOR THIS VARIANCE THAT IS IN PLACE. SO, IF THERE IS A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AS PART OF GRANTING THE VARIANCE, WE ARE APPROVING THIS VARIANCE BUT WITH THE CONDITION OF AN INCREASE OF 5% OF LANDSCAPING, WHATEVER YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE . THEN, THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED, ALONG WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WHEN WE ARE REVIEWING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT THAT TIME. SO, WE WOUL MAKE SURE THAT, I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD GO TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BUT WE WOULD, INTERNALLY WHEN WE REVIEW THE SITE PLAN, ENSURE THAT IT COMPLIES WITH WHATEVER CONDITIONS YOU HAVE PLACED ON IT AT THIS TIME. >> TO THE APPLICANT, CAN YOU STEP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? I'M NOT PUSHING FOR A BERM. THAT WOULD BE NICE. I'M NOT GOING TO PUSH FOR THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE LANDSCAING, YOU SAID IT IS IN EXCESS. WHAT SHE JUST SAID, A PERCENTAGE ABOVE WHAT THE MINIMAL REQUIREMENT IS, DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT YOUR PRESENTATION SHOWS VERSUS WHAT THE MINIMUM IS THAT YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO? >> I WOULD THINK IT IS 20 TO 25% GREATER THAN WHAT IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY THE CITY. IF WE WANTED TO, IF YOU ALL WOULD WANT TO TIE THE APPROVAL TO THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE FOR ANYBODY. >> IF WE SAID 25%, DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, BOTH OF [00:55:07] YOU ON? >> I FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WHAT IS PRESENTED ON THE SCREEN IS 25% GREATER THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE CITY AND WE COULD COMPLY WITH THAT. THAT IS WHAT WE INTEND TO DO. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION. SORRY ABOUT THAT. A SUGGESTION OF NOT A PERCENTAGE BUT BASED ON AN ACTUAL NUMBER, THAT NUMBER BEING THAT OF THE ISLAND AREA LOST FROM THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROPERTIES APPROVAL BASED ON THE MINIMUMS THAT THE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED, PLUS THE AREA OF THE ISLAND LOSS. THEREFORE, THE MINIMUM NUMBER IS X +1 IS WHAT THE LOSS AREA IS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BUT DIDN'T GET THE VARIANCE APPROVAL, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE MINIMUM PLUS THE AREA LOST. >> THAT IS COMPLICATED. HE COULD HAVE SHOWN INSTEAD OF THE ISLAND, HE COULD HAVE SHOWN TO TREES AND THAT WOULD HAVE COMPLIED. TECHNICALLY THE PARKING SPACES WERE 15 SPACES WITHIN A TREE OR LANDSCAPE BUFFER. >> OKAY. >> I THINK A PERCENTAGE MIGHT GET US THERE. IF WE ARE JUST TALKING OPENLY TO GET WHERE WE ARE HOPING THAT WE REPLACE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN, WE MIGHT ACTUALLY GET MORE THAN THE PERCENTAGE REQUESTED. IS THAT A REASONABLE THING? >> FINE WITH ME. >> GOOD, ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT, JOSH? OKAY. >> DO YOU WANT TO QUALIFY THAT IT IS REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED HERE, THEY CAN USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE THAT THEY USE MOVING FORWARD? >> SURE. >> IN THE PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT. THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN. >> I WILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE THINGS. >> AS PRESENTED TONIGHT? WE WOULD JUST USE THIS GOING FORWARD IS KIND OF THE EXAMPLE? >> MR. CHAIR, I WENT MAKE A MOTION TO ALLOW THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED ON 1 TO 11 GARAGE SERVICE DOORS TO FACE SINGLETON STREET . TWO, INCREASE THE FENCE HEIGHT FROM 36 INCHES TO 96 INCHES ALONG SINGLETON STREET AND LAWING LANE . THREE TO EXCLUDE THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS IN THE OVERSIZED PARKING AREA, WITH A PROVISO THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, AS PRESENTED IN THE PRESENTATION, BY THE APPLICANT, BE USED AS A FOOTPRINT FOR UP TO 25% IN EXCESS OF WHAT THE CITY MINIMUMS LANDSCAPING FOR THE PROJECT. AND FOUR, PERMIT ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES EXCEEDING THE ALLOWED 125%. >> OKAY, DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. LET'S VOTE. >> IT'S A RACE. OKAY. LET'S VOTE. ALL RIGHT. VOTES ARE DONE. THE MOTION CARRIES. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I MOVED TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS OF THE MOST EXCITING, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT. GREAT. THANK YOU ALL. >> I WAS GOING TO TRY TO GET A QUESTION BEFORE WE GET A DRINK, IN REGARD TO THE MINUTES THAT WE APPROVED, IT SHOWED AT THE END OF THOSE MINUTES THAT LAST MEETING, THERE WAS A VARIANCE REQUEST THAT WAS REQUESTED TO BE POSTPONED TO THIS MEETING. IT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT? >> I SHOULD HAVE STARTED THE MEETING WITH THAT. YOU WERE TOLD LAST MEETING THAT WOULD COME FORWARD. THERE WERE TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS PLANNED FOR THIS MEETING THAT NOTICES DID GO OUT FOR SO PEOPLE WERE INFORMED ABOUT THEM, BOTH AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN IT WAS POSTPONED AND OTHER NOTICES. BOTH OF THOSE VARIANCE REQUESTS, AFTER LOOKING INTO IT, ACTUALLY HAD UNDERLINING ZONING OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. IF THEY HAD AN EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY, THEN A VARIANCE WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR THEM TO RECEIVE SOME RELIEF FROM THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING. WHEN THE REGULATIONS ARE CLEARLY SPECIFIED WITHIN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, THEN THE AVENUE FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A CHANGE, THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT A VARIANCE, IT IS, IN FACT, AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. IF THEY CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD, WE ARE GOING TO WORK WITH THEM ON TRANSITIONING FROM A VARIANCE REQUEST OVER TO A, WHAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE A [01:00:02] ZONING CHANGE TO AMEND THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIALLY CHANGE THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THAT WILL NOT BE COMING FORWARD TO YOU AT THIS POINT. IT WILL GO TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FOR A PLANNING DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT ON ANY OF THE CASES IN WHICH THEY ARE TRYING TO REQUEST A VARIANCE. >> WHAT I REQUESTED TO BE PART OF THE MEETING PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT SO IT CAN BE RECORDED TO CLARIFY THE NOTES THAT WE APPROVED? OKAY. WE ARE REALLY ADJOURNED THIS TIME? I GUESS WE SHOULD VOTE. MOTION TO ADJOURN. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN VOTE. >> AYE. YES. ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE AGREES. THIS IS THE MOST EXCITING TIME. THANK * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.