Jan 28, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:05]

>> GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE TUESDAY, OF THE ROWLETT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 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 REGULAR SESSION OR CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT .

PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT, IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE PUBLIC INPUT FORM ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING. ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING . FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE BE DOOR OF CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. WE HAVE A QUORUM, AT 7:01. WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE MEETING UP TO CITIZENS' INPUT. THEY ARE ALL PUBLIC HEARING SO WE WILL LET YOU TALK DURING THAT TIME PERIOD AND I APPRECIATE NOT HAVING TO HEAR IT TWICE. SO, IF THERE IS ANYBODY HERE WHO HAS AN INPUT ON A GENERAL ITEM, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO COME FORWARD AND TALK TO US. SEEING AND HEARING NONE. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

ANY DISCUSSION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? NO, LET'S CALL THE BOAT. IT PASSES WITH A 5-0, 2 ABSTENTIONS. MOVING ON TO 4,

[4A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Shaivali Desai, Bridge Tower GP to 1) Rezone the subject property from Single-Family Residential (SF-40) District to Planned Development (PD) District with a base zoning of Single-Family Residential (SF-5) District, 2) Approve Conceptual Plans; and 3) Amend the official Zoning Map of the City. These tracts are located northeast of the intersection of Dexham Road and Miller Road , also described as a tract of land situated in the William Turner Survey, Abstract Number 1481, Dallas County, Texas, being the remainder of that tract of land conveyed to Alma Ann Murphy according to the document filed of record in Document No. 69028-937 Deed Records Dallas County, Texas (D.R.D.C.T.) and all of that 16.3781 acre tract of land conveyed to Gerald D. Murphy, Jr. and wife Cynthia A. Murphy according to the document filed of record in Document No. 2002144-6171 (D.R.D.C.T.) in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

MR. MARTIN? >> BACKGROUND ON THIS SITE, IT IS APPROXIMATELY 20.40 ACRES, IT IS NORTHEAST OF EXIM AND MILLER ROAD. IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED OF SINGLE-FAMILY SF-40. IS THE REQUEST TO CHANGE FROM SF-42 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF FIVE DISTRICT. FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND AMEND THE ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT. SO GOING INTO THE SITE, TO SOME BRIEF THINGS ABOUT IT, IN YOUR

[00:05:02]

TOWARDS THE NORTH IN THAT GREEN AREA THERE, THEY ARE PROPOSING A TRAIL TO GO ALONG FROM DEXHAM ROAD TO UNIVERSITY DRIVE. THEY ARE PROPOSING 87 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THREE OPEN-SPACE SPOTS.

THEY ARE DISTRIBUTING WITH THREE TYPES OF LOTS, THERE ARE 40 LOTS WHICH WOULD BE 6500 SQUARE FEET, 27 LOTS AT 6000 AND 12 LOTS AT 5750 SQUARE FEET. IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THEY DID MAKE SOME DEVIATIONS JUST FROM THE SF-FIVE STANDARD. TO POINT OUT THE DIMENSIONS INCLUDE LARGER LOT SIZES THAN WHAT THE SF-FIVE ASKS FOR. THEY ASKED FOR GREATER SETBACKS, AND REDUCED LOT COVERAGE ON THE LOTS. SPECIFIC DEVIATIONS FROM THE CODE ARE AS FOLLOWS, ONE IS THAT THEY ARE NOT PROVIDING ALLEYS AND ALLEYWAYS IS BEING REQUESTED. TWO IS THE FRONTLOADED CAR GARAGES, THREE IS REDUCTION IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM 60, REQUIRED AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR 50 FEET. THE BLOCKED LIEN, EXCEEDING WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED AT 1200.

NUMBER FIVE AND SIX HAVE TO DEAL WITH PRIMARY ENTRY LANSKY.

TOWARDS THE SOUTH IT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH TO MEET THE STANDARDS AND HAVE THE INTO SOME MORE INFORMATION, JUST TO TALK ABOUT THE ZONING AROUND THE AREA, TO THE WEST YOU HAVE THE THE SOUTH YOU HAVE SF-40, TO THE EAST YOU HAVE A PD WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO BE AT 7000 SQUARE FEET. INTO THE NORTH YOU HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND WHEN I DID SOME RESEARCH ON THOSE, THEY ARE APPROXIMATELY 10,000 TO 18,000 SQUARE-FOOT LOTS. IN TERMS OF SQUARE FUTURE LAND-USE PLANS, WE HAVE DESIGNATIONS FOR FUTURE LAND-USE, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, SMALLER THAN 7000 SQUARE FEET, AND IN TERMS OF THE SURROUNDING LAND USES, TO THE WEST WE HAVE OPEN-SPACE AND FLOOD PLANE. AND TO THE SOUTH WE HAVE A STATE RESIDENTIAL, TO THE EAST WE HAVE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THE NORTH WOULD BE A STATE RESIDENTIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD FALL UNDER THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SOME MORE INFORMATION, WE DID PROVIDE NOTIFICATION AND PROVIDED WITHIN THE 200 SQUARE FEET, WE PROVIDED 49TH LETTERS. WITHIN 500 WE PROVIDED 140. WE DID RECEIVE ONE IN OPPOSITION IN THE 200, AND TWO IN FAVOR. SHOWING IN THE GREEN ARE WITHIN THE PROPERTY. THEN WE RECEIVED SIX IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 500 SQUARE FEET AND ALSO PROVIDED THIS EXHIBIT TO SHOW WHERE WE DID RECEIVE OPPOSITION FROM, FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. WE RECEIVED ABOUT 24 LETTERS AS WELL AS OPPOSITION OF TRAFFIC, JUST DEVELOPMENT ITSELF. AND I DID PROVIDE TO THAT AS WELL. IN TERMS OF THE RECOMMENDATION, THE GOVERNMENT BODY MAY APPROVE OR DENY THE REQUEST. I AM OPEN TO QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? OR DO WE WANT TO WAIT UNTIL --

] MR. HERNANDEZ. >> THANK YOU. ONLY QUESTION, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT THE HOUSES, PROPERTIES AROUND CLYDESDALE AND PALOMINO, WHAT THEY ARE SET AS?

>> TO THE RIGHT? OUT OF THIS EXHIBIT, TO THE NORTH? THOSE ARE ZONED AS SF-40. ALL THE GREEN AREA GOING UPWARDS, ALL OF THAT

AREA IS SF-40. >> THANK YOU. THAT IS THE

[00:10:06]

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? OKAY. IF YOU WOULD

PUSH YOUR RTS BUTTON. >>

>>

>> WHAT ARE THE LOT SIZES TO THE EAST IN RIDGECREST?

>> THOSE, THEY ARE PD AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WOULD BE 7000

SQUARE FEET. >> OKAY. AND DID THEY EXPLAIN, MAYBE THEY WILL SEE IN THE PRESENTATION WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO. RIDGECREST HAS ALLEYS, THAT BACKS UP TO IT.

WITH THE LOTS THAT BACK UP TO RIDGECREST THEN STILL HAVE FRONT

ENTRY. I GUESS? >> FRONT ENTRY INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. YOU SEE HERE THEY WOULD HAVE THE STREET FRONT IN FRONT OF THEM. AS OF NOW FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THERE WOULD BE NO ALLEYS, THAT IS ONE REQUEST FOR THE ALLEYWAY RAVER. EIGHT

ALLEYWAY WAIVER. >> I WILL LEAVE IT TO THEM TO

EXPLAIN. >> WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING. I KNOW WHAT THE EXISTING IS. AND WHAT WOULD THE -- MAYBE I MISSED IT, WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY BE?

>> 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> IN RESIDENTIAL STREETS?

>> TYPICAL OF RESIDENTIAL, 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> OKAY. AND THEN THE DRIVEWAYS ON THE FRONT ENTRIES, ARE THEY ALL STREET IN, J SWING, DID THEY SAY?

>> THAT IS OF THE REQUEST, THEY WERE ASKING FOR THE FRONTLOADED.

THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE DEVIATION AS WELL.

>> IT REQUIRES A J SWING? >> L SWING OR J SWING. GUESS.

THAT IS THE DEVIATION. >> MR. CRAWLEY, FOR YOUR INFORMATION, IF YOU GET A PRESENTATION ON YOUR SCREEN, IT WILL OPEN THE PACKAGE AND SHOW THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION.

>> I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE. SORRY. BUT I, THEY WILL DO J SWING OR

THEY WON'T DO J SWING? >> THEY WILL NOT DO THAT

UPFRONT. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? OKAY. APPLICANT. HAS A PRESENTATION.

>> AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS SHAIVALI DESAI AND I AM FROM BRIDGED OUR HOMES, WE ARE THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROJECT.

THE SLIDE SHOWS THE EXISTING CONDITION THAT MARTIN, I DON'T REALLY DESCRIBE, IT IS LAND ON DEXHAM ROAD AND BACKING UP TO RIDGECREST. ON THE EAST. THE PD WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 7000 SQUARE FEET. AND SOUTHEAST THERE IS A PD WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. TO THE NORTH WE HAVE THE CREEK AND ABOVE IT IS A SF-40 ZONE. BASED ON OUR CONCEPT PLAN WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS 87 LOTS. THEY ARE VARYING INCISES , MORE THAN HALF , MORE THAN 50% OF LOTS ARE 6500 SQUARE FOOT PLUS, ABOUT 27 ARE 6000 SQUARE FOOT PLUS, AND 12 OF THEM ARE 5750 SQUARE FOOT PLUS.

OUT OF THE 48 LOTS, WHICH ARE MORE THAN 6500 SQUARE FEET, 12 OF THOSE ARE MORE THAN 7000 SQUARE FEET. WE ARE ALSO DIVIDING, AS YOU CAN SEE IN GREEN, THAT IS ABOUT THREE ACRES OF OPEN SPACE. WHICH IS KIND OF ACTING AS A BUFFER TO THE NORTH.

[00:15:04]

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE COMPARISON BETWEEN WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING VERSUS SF-5 AND SF-7. MOST STANDARDS ARE CLOSER TO SF-SEVEN ZONING. WHETHER IT IS THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, REAR YARD SET BACK, THE FLOOR AREA OF THE LOT COVERAGE, BUT THE BIG ONE IS THE MAXIMUM DENSITY. MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED BY SF-5 IS EIGHT UNITS AND ACRE, SF-7 IS 4.2. WE ARE PROPOSING 4.2, EVEN LESS THAN SF-10 ZONING STANDARDS. SOME OF THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE SIDE IS THAT IT FULFILLS THE NEED OF HOUSING TO SUPPORT GROWING POPULATION OF ROWLETT. THE ROWLETT POPULATION GROWTH HAS BEEN ABOUT 8.6% SINCE 2020. AND THIS IS PER THE ROWLETT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT ALSO MENTIONS THE HOUSING AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS OBSERVED IN DALLAS COUNTY THROUGH THE U.S.

CENSUS , THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF ABOUT 1200 NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN ROWLETT. ALSO I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT AS PER THE ROWLETT OF PRESERVING AND PROTECTING EXISTING TREES AND VEGETATION.

AND WE ARE ALSO PROVIDING THE TRAIL CONNECTION, WHICH CONNECTS FROM DEXHAM ROAD ALL THE WAY TO UNIVERSITY CIRCLE ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE. APPROXIMATELY 15% OF THE SITE, ABOUT 3.1 ACRES IS GREEN SPACE WITH NATURAL PRESERVE AND PRESERVATION OF TREES, ALLOWING NATURAL BUFFER BETWEEN OUR PROJECT AND PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH. THE TRAIL ALONG THE CREEK, AS I MENTIONED, CONNECTING DEXHAM ROAD TO UNIVERSITY CIRCLE, WHICH WILL PROMOTE WALK ABILITY AND HEALTHY LIFESTYLE. THE APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF THE TRAIL IS ABOUT 1750 LINEAR FEET. IT IS ALSO GOING TO HAVE AN ARBOR WITH SEATING AREA AT TRAILHEAD, AND SOME MORE FEATURES ON THE SITE IS IT IS PROVIDING HOUSING, COMPATIBLE TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS IN RIDGECREST, TO THE EAST. AND MANNERS OF MILLER TO THE SOUTHEAST. IT ALSO PROVIDES CONNECTION TO UNIVERSITY CIRCLE, WHICH HELPS WITH THE TRAFFIC FLOW. WE WILL ALSO PROVIDE THE SIDEWALK ALONG UNIVERSITY CIRCLE FRONTAGE, CURRENTLY MISSING A PIECE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY, WE ARE REQUESTING TO OWNED BY THE CITY TO HAVE THE SECONDARY ACCIDENT WE WILL BE PROVIDING SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THAT PROPERTY. WHICH THEN WILL CONNECT THE TWO EXISTING SIDEWALKS ON UNIVERSITY CIRCLE.

THE CONNECTION IS MISSING. WE WILL PROVIDE THE CONNECTION.

WHICH WILL CREATE THE CONTINUOUS SIDEWALK. AND THE ARCHITECTURE STYLE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS CRAFTSMAN AND MODERN FARMHOUSE WITH USABLE MATERIAL LIKE

[00:20:02]

QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT . THIS IS GOING TO BE GOOD. I BELIEVE THIS IS MR. CRAWLEY.

>> YES, YOU MENTIONED 3.1 ACRES IN OPEN SPACE, HOW MUCH OF THAT

IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN? >> ACTUALLY NONE OF THAT IS IN FLOODPLAIN. FLOODPLAIN IS ACROSS THE STREET. ON DEXHAM ROAD.

>> AND HAVE YOU TALK TO THE CITY ABOUT PURCHASING THE TWO TRACKS?

>> YES, WE HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE CITY MANAGERS OFFICE

REGARDING PURCHASING THE PARCEL. >> OKAY.

>> WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT HERE. THESE ARE THE COUNCILMAN'S POSITIONS COMING UP AND NOT THE P&Z.

>> FOR THE MOTION, WHEN THEY MOVED TO SPEAK

>> SO WHERE IS COUNCILMAN BROWN SITTING ON THE DAIS? ] THAT DOES NOT WORK FOR ME. I DON'T THINK. IT DOES NOT SHOW UP HERE. POLLARD. THERE WE GO. MR. POLLARD. OKAY. THAT IS A GOOD WORKAROUND. THANK YOU. MR. POLLARD.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAVE ONE ENTRANCE AND EXIT OUT ONTO DEXHAM ROAD. YOU HAVE ONE ON THE BACKSIDE ON UNIVERSITY CIRCLE. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY SO WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF

THE STREET OF UNIVERSITY CIRCLE? >> ARE YOU ASKING UNIVERSITY CIRCLE ITSELF OR THE ENTRANCE WE ARE GOING TO CREATE?

>> OKAY, NO, WHAT IS UNIVERSITY CIRCLE? YOU ARE GOING TO MOVE A LOT OF VEHICLES OUT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU HAVE GOT WHAT? 81. 87. TIMES TWO. THAT GIVES YOU 174 POTENTIAL VEHICLES. TWO PER HOUSEHOLD. SO YOU WILL MOVE THOSE OUT. ON DEXHAM ROAD. AND YOU WILL MOVE THEM OUT THROUGH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.

RIGHT? SO WHAT, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WITH OF UNIVERSITY CIRCLE

IS? >> NO I DO NOT KNOW THE WIDTH OF THE UNIVERSITY CIRCLE. BUT I DO KNOW WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS A

50 FOOT. >> THE REASON I AM ASKING IS UNIVERSITY OR RIDGECREST IS AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD. IT HAS, SOMETIMES IT HAS MORE NARROW STREETS. COMPARED TO THE NEWER ONES. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. SO ARE YOU DOING ANY CHANGES TO DEXHAM

ROAD? >> KNOW WE ARE NOT. WE HAVE BEEN IN A CONVERSATION WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND WHAT WAS MENTIONED IS IN REGARDS TO DEXHAM ROAD, I THINK IN THE FUTURE MAYBE THEY WANT TO WIDEN IT . BUT THEY DO NOT JUST WANT TO DO PIECEMEAL. IT MAY BE MORE KIND OF LIKE PROVIDING MITIGATION FEES IN A CITY FUND WHEN THEY DECIDE TO WIDEN THE DEXHAM ROAD. THAT IS WHAT THEY WILL BE UTILIZING. WE WERE NOT ASKED TO DO ANYTHING ON DEXHAM ROAD.

>> OKAY, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY HOMES ARE ON THE ROAD FROM THE RAILROAD TRACK TO THE NORTH, ON THE WAY TO DEXHAM ROAD. I BELIEVE I COUNTED 67 LOTS AND THERE ARE FOUR OTHER HOUSES ON THE EAST SIDE AND THREE ON THE WEST SIDE. SO A TOTAL OF 74 HOMES AND THEN YOU ARE GOING TO MORE THAN DOUBLE THAT. RIGHT?

>> ALSO WE HAVE DONE THE TRAFFIC MEMO FOR THE SITE. MARTIN, I DON'T, HAVE YOU INCLUDED THE TRAFFIC MEMO THAT WAS INCLUDED? BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE , WE HAVE CONSULTED WITH THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER, ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE CITY. THE TRAFFIC MEMO WAS PROVIDED. THE NUMBER OF VEHICLE TRIP , I DO

[00:25:01]

CALCULATED. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

>> MISS WILSON. >> SO, SINCE YOU MADE THE STATEMENT, WHAT WAS THE TRAFFIC COUNT? WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL

COUNT? >> SHE WAS ASKING BECAUSE IT IS

NOT -- >> WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL COUNT? IT

WAS NOT INCLUDED. >> IT WAS BASED ON I THINK THE

STUDY GUIDE, A TS STUDY GUIDE. >> WE ARE LOOKING INTO IT.

>> OH, OKAY. >> I AM MORE CONCERNED WITH TRAFFIC MOVING OUT OF THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD OF OF UNIVERSITY AND INTO THE NEWER NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET ONTO DEXHAM ROAD. I THINK THAT IS WHERE PRIMARY PEOPLE WILL GO.

>> HOLD ON A SECOND MR. CRAWLEY. THIS IS TO ACTIVATE YOUR MICROPHONE AND EVERYBODY CAN HEAR YOU.

>> I BELIEVE UNIVERSITY IS 31 FEET OF PAYMENT. IT WAS DESIGNED AS A COLLECTOR THROUGH THAT SUBDIVISION.

>> AND I THINK WHAT -- >> THE OTHER STREETS WERE PROBABLY 27 BACK TO BACK BECAUSE IT HAS ALLEYS. AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS RIGHT THERE ON UNIVERSITY IS WHERE THE BIG DRAINAGE, THERE IS A BIG DRAINAGE STRUCTURE THERE.

>> THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE WILL BE PRESERVED IN THAT LOT, THE

LOCATION WHERE IT IS. >> CHAIR? JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE DID LOOK INTO IT AND IT LOOKS LIKE UNIVERSITY CIRCLE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ABOUT 54.2.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT VARIES BETWEEN 26 AND A LITTLE OVER 30.

MAY BE UP TO 33, 34. THAT IS AERIAL AND IT MAY NOT BE EXACT.

>> THE PAVEMENT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS 31, AND 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, I AM HEARING NONE AT THIS TIME. WE WILL GO AHEAD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MYRON WATKINS. >> AND CAN YOU PRONOUNCE THE SECOND PERSON, THE PERSON ON DECK I SHOULD SAY.

>> NICOLE FOSTER. >> THANK YOU. PLEASE STATE YOUR

NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. >> MYRON WATKINS, 4317 DEXHAM ROAD, ROWLETT, TEXAS. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MYRON WATKINS. I RESIDE IN ROWLETT, NORTH AND WEST OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE, THE HORSE FARM WITH A LARGE OUTDOOR ARENA. TO THE SOUTH OF THE HOUSE. I AM HERE TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION FOR THE MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT AT DEXHAM ROAD. I HAVE TWO MAIN REASONS FOR OPPOSING THE ZONING ACTION. ONE, ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE. DEXHAM ROAD IS NOT EQUIPPED TO HANDLE INCREASE OF TRAFFIC RESULTING FROM 87 ADDITIONAL HOMES GENERATING APPROXIMATELY 800 DAILY TRIPS. I AM HAPPY TO PROVIDE THE CALCULATION SUPPORTING THE FIGURE. MOREOVER, THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MUST CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF A 301 HOMES BEING DEVELOPED CURRENTLY AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE CORNER OF MILLER ROAD AND CENTERVILLE ROAD. THE NEW COMMUNITY WILL LIKELY ACCESS MILLER AND DEXHAM ROAD TO ACCESS HIGHWAY 66, TO INCREASE TRAFFIC VOLUME. THEY ALREADY HAVE THE PROPOSED MEDIAN CUT TO TURN LEFT. DEXHAM ROAD IS ALREADY BURDENED WITH SPEEDING VEHICLES AND ACCIDENTS. I COMMEND THE CHIEF BREADING SAFETY, ADDING SIGNIFICANT FIELD TRAVEL AGENT WILL CREATE CHALLENGES. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, THE NEW ME 20 ACRES SAINT OF STORM WATER WITH SOME RUNOFF PASSING UNDER DEXHAM ROAD. UNDER THE NEW PROPOSAL THERE IS NO PLAN FOR A RETENTION PLAN OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT. THEREFORE, THE STORM WATER WILL RESULT IN FLOODING OVER DEXHAM ROAD AND IN THE NEARBY PROPERTY, ALREADY A FLOODPLAIN AREA. WHICH IS OUR PASTOR, HORSE

[00:30:03]

>> PURPOSES OF TRYING TO MOVE THIS ALONG AND LETTING EVERYBODY HAVE THEIR SAY, PLEASE HOLD OFF ON YOUR CLAPPING.

>> GOOD EVENING. NICOLE FOSTER, WIFE OF MYRON WATKINS, HOME OWNER ON DEXHAM ROAD. I AM HERE TO PROPOSE MY OPPOSITION. DEXHAM ROAD IS A SMALL AND WINDING ROAD. MY INSTRUCTORS TEACH LESSONS ON THE ROAD WITH SMALL CHILDREN. CARS GO BY ALL THE TIME HONKING AND CREATING CHAOS. ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 800 TRIPS WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL. WE ARE ALREADY, IF WE FACTOR IN THE APARTMENTS GOING IN ON MILLER ROAD AND CENTERVILLE, THEY COULD ADD ADDITIONAL 3600 VEHICLES UP AND DOWN OUR ROAD POTENTIALLY. I SAY THAT TO SAY MY HUSBAND HAS TALKED ABOUT THE STORM WATER AND WE TOLD ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, BUT THE BIGGER THING IS THAT THE DENSE RENTAL COMMUNITIES, LET'S BE CLEAR, THAT IS WHAT THE GROUP SPECIALIZES IN, IT WILL ATTRACT SHORT-TERM TENANTS RATHER THAN LONG-TERM RESIDENTS. IT HARMS NEIGHBORHOOD -- FURTHER DEGRADING THE APPEARANCE AND DESIRABILITY OF THE AREA.

UNFORTUNATELY WE DO NOT HAVE TO LOOK FAR, AS I SAID CENTERVILLE AND MARYLAND ARE, LOOK WHAT HAPPENED. THEY CLEARED 30 ACRES OF LAND IN THE OF DISPLACED WILDLIFE, INCREASED RUNOFF, AND WORSE ORDERS FROM THE RUNOFF TREATMENT PLANT. DEXHAM ROAD IS AT A TIPPING POINT IN ADDING THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT WILL SET A PRECEDENCE FOR HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS THAT WILL ERODE OUR CHARACTER AND LIVABILITY. WE ARE NOT PROPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT, I AM A REALTOR AND UNDERSTAND IT IS NECESSARY. OUR TAX APPRAISAL TWO YEARS AGO WAS $80,000 FOR ONE ACRE ON OUR HOUSE. LAST YEAR IT WAS UP TO 150 FOR THAT SAME ACRE. THE TAX ASSESSORS UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF OUR STREET. CONSIDERING THE VALUE, LARGER FOR PURCHASE HOMES WOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH THE LISTING CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND PRESERVE OUR UNIQUENESS.

DIVISION OF ROWLETT, A WELL-PLANNED COMMUNITY WITH LAKESIDE SETTING, QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS, DISTINCTIVE AMENITIES, DIVERSE EMPLOYMENT AND CULTURAL TERM. THIS DEVELOPMENT THREATENS TO UNDO THAT. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENY THE REQUEST. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT. AGAIN, IF WE WANT TO WORK THROUGH EVERYBODY PLEASE HOLD OFF ON YOUR CLAPPING.

>> BETTY LITTLEJOHN. AND ON DECK, LARRY PERKINS.

>> HELLO, MY NAME IS BETTY LITTLEJOHN. I LIVE AT DEXHAM ROAD AND EVERYTHING THEY ARE SAYING ABOUT TRAFFIC IS IN MY FRONT YARD. I CANNOT GET MY MAIL SAFELY. THE OTHER PROBLEM IS , NICOLE BROUGHT UP, THIS COMPANY, AS WE RESEARCH IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WANT TO HAVE RENTAL PROPERTIES . THEY DO NOT HAVE A REPUTATION THAT , LET'S SAY THERE IS A LOT OF NEGATIVE REPUTATION BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY HANDLE THE MANAGEMENT OF THEIR PROPERTIES. THE DISRUPTION OF OUR WILDLIFE IS EVIDENT. THIS LAST YEAR I HAD A BOBCAT THAT CAME AND MADE RESIDENCE AT MY HOUSE TO HAVE HER BABIES. I THINK SHE WAS TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM WHAT WAS GOING ON ACROSS THE ROAD. BUT ANYWAY, I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR Y'ALL, AS NICOLE SAID, I AM A REAL ESTATE BROKER AND I AM NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT BUT WE NEED LARGER HOMES. LARGER LOTS. TO STAY WITHIN WHAT OUR AREA HAS BEEN ZONED, THE SF-40. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO DENY

[00:35:01]

THIS REQUEST. >> THANK YOU.

>> LARRY PERKINS. I RESIDE ON DEXHAM ROAD AND HAVE BEEN THERE OVER 25 YEARS. WHEN WE MOVED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CHANGING NOW ARE THERE ORIGINALLY. AND BECAUSE OF THAT WE LOOKED AT THIS AS KIND OF A DEVELOPMENT . AND I REALIZE THAT THIS IS A BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY BUT WHAT OF THE REASON WE HAVE BIG PIECES OF PROPERTY IS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE BUILT THERE TO STAY, SAVE THAT TYPE OF LIVING FOR THEM. TRAFFIC IS CRAZY ON DEXHAM ROAD. I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU GUYS EVER WANT TO COME BY THERE DURING RUSH HOUR. COME WATCH. WE HAVE REGULAR RACERS THAT COME DOWN THERE AND IF THEY PUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN, WHERE THEY ARE TALKING PUTTING IT IN, YOU WILL SEE A MASSIVE INCREASE IN ACCIDENTS. I ALSO EXPECT TO SEE A HUGE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE TO COME OUT OF THE OLD NEIGHBORHOOD AND INTO THIS WAY.

WHICH WILL CAUSE MULTIPLE PROBLEMS. MY GUESS IS THEY WILL HAVE A PARKING LOT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE WE HAVE ON DEXHAM ROAD A LOT OF TIMES. I DO NOT THINK THAT DEXHAM ROAD IS A PLACE FOR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. AND I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF Y'ALL WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. AND DENIED THIS

REQUEST . >> THANK YOU. NEXT?

>> DIANE PERKINS. AND BRIAN BARTLEY.

>> HELLO. I AM DIANE PERKINS AND I LIVE ON DEXHAM ROAD. I TOO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT. MINE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THAT MY CONCERN GOES THAT I DID NOT HEAR ANYTHING IN THE PROPOSAL THAT WOULD UPGRADE THE SEWAGE OR WATERLINES ALONG DEXHAM ROAD. THE WASTE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE TO GO INTO THE EXISTING SEWAGE LINE ALONG DEXHAM ROAD. ANYBODY ALONG DEXHAM ROAD WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW IT IS NOT THE SEWAGE PLANT WE SMELL, IT IS THE PIPES AND DRAINAGE ALONG FROM THE CITY'S LINE. A COUPLE YEARS AGO WE WERE HERE FOR A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT, SAME TYPE OF THING.

THE CITY ASSURED US THAT IN FACT THE SEWER LINE WAS GREAT, FABULOUS. AND YET LATER THAT SAME YEAR THEY WERE BACKING UP TRUCKS AND PUMPING OUT RAW SEWAGE FROM THE CREEK THERE WHERE THE LINE HAD COLLAPSED. THE LINE HAS BEEN REPLACED BUT NOT ALL OF THE LINES ALONG DEXHAM ROAD WERE REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME. I HAVE A CONCERN, YOU ARE ADDING 90 HOMES, DOUBLING THE NUMBER OF HOMES IN THE AREA. WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR LAND IN 1996 WE DELIBERATELY BOUGHT INTO AN AREA THAT HAD LARGE LOTS.

CHANGING THE ZONING NOW IS A LITTLE LIKE YANKING THE RUG FROM UNDER OUR FEET. THAT SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WAS UNWILLING TO DO WHEN PEOPLE OPPOSED THE NORTH SHORE DEVELOPMENT AND WAREHOUSE IS. BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS WOULD SUE. IT IS KIND OF THE REVERSE IN THE SITUATION. WE BOUGHT OUR HOMES WITH SF-40 IN THIS AREA AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT STAY. WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE US SURROUNDED. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT JUST SOUTH OF THE DEVELOPMENT THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL 18 1/2 ACRES THAT COULD BE BOUGHT UP LIKE THIS ONE WAS , THE SMALLER HOMES REMOVED OFF OF IT AND ANOTHER 90 HOMES BE PUT IN. POTENTIALLY HERE YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT 90 HOMES, YOU ARE LOOKING AT DOUBLE THAT. NOW THAT IS RADICAL BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP IT ONCE THIS SF-5 ZONING IS APPROVED. I ASK YOU DO NOT APPROVE THAT AT THIS TIME.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT? >> WHO IS UP?

>> BRENT BRAWLEY. BEN GREGORY CRAIG.

>> THIS REMINDS ME OF THE LAST TIME I WAS IN FRONT OF A JURY OF MY PEERS AND IT DID NOT WORK OUT WELL. I AM HOPING TONIGHT WE WILL CHANGE THAT. I LIVE AT 35 YEARS WERE SO. VOICING THE SAME CONCERNS YOU HAVE HEARD.

NUMBER ONE, I JUST FOUND OUT THIS EVENING THAT THIS WILL POSSIBLY BE RENTAL PROPERTY. COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THIS AREA WE LIVE IN. HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS WILL DRIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SEE WHAT IT IS LIKE AND SEE HOW NARROW DEXHAM ROAD IS AND HOW HORRIBLE AND 15 HIS CONDITION WISE. ESPECIALLY NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACTS NORTH OF 66. WE HAD TO BATTLE

[00:40:03]

>> THANK YOU. >> GREGORY CRAIG. AND ON DECK

MARK -- >> MY NAME IS GREGORY CRAIG AND I LIVE AT 1914 STALLION CIRCLE. BRENT IS MY NEIGHBOR. I HAVE BEEN THERE 35 YEARS IN JULY AND HE HAS BEEN THERE AT LEAST 36 OR 37. HOURS IS AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THERE AT LEAST 25 YEARS. I AM HERE TO STRONGLY AND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE THIS VERY STRONGLY. WE HAVE 70 LOTS, CLOSE TO 40 ACRES, THEY WANT TO PUT 87 LOTS ON 20 ACRES. DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE? I MEAN I HAVE HALF THE SIZE OF LAND AND THEY WANT TO PUT 17 MORE HOUSES. IT APPEARS THAT IS ABOUT 35% , HALF FOR ABOUT 35% OF WHAT WE HAVE. IF THEY BUILD THIS, THEY DID NOT SHOW IT BUT HOW MANY MATURE TREES ARE OUT THERE? OKAY? ALL OF THE ONES ON THE SELL SIDE ARE GOING TO BE NEXT. I MEAN WE KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT WHEN THEY COME IN DEVELOPMENT WISE, YOU KNOW THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE GREEN SPACE AND KEEPING THIS TRAIL AND CONNECT AND WHATEVER. YOU KNOW? THEY OUGHT TO TAKE THEIR PLAN AND PROJECT IT RIGHT ON OUR PLOT OF OUR TRACTS AND YOU CAN SEE.

THEY DID NOT SHOW THE SIZE OF THEIR LOTS COMPARED TO OURS BUT THEY ARE MINUSCULE. OKAY? OUR PROPERTY VALUES WILL REALLY GET DAMAGED. YOU KNOW IT. ALL RIGHT? THEY TALK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS THAT IS TOTALLY WRONG ABOUT THE SITUATION. INTO EVEN THINK FOR A MOMENT THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE THIS IS A RENTAL PROPERTY IS JUST, LIKE RENT SAID, YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO THAT AND DON'T WANT THAT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE SERVED THE CITY OF ROWLETT AS A VOLUNTEER FOR MANY YEARS. I WAS THREE YEARS ON PLANNING AND ZONING, A COUPLE YEARS IN PARKS AND REC, I HAVE MY MASTERS IN 2020, I ALSO CAUGHT COURSES ON LAND DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES. I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS WRONG FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD . I

[00:45:01]

>>

>> MARK -- AND ON DECK BRETT WILLIAMS.

>>

AND START AGAIN. >> OKAY. YOU GOT THAT, RIGHT? MY NAME IS MARK -- AND I AM AT 1613 PALOMINO DRIVE. I HAVE BEEN THERE 29 YEARS. THIS IS REGARDING 4A. WHISPERING SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT. THAT NAME I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. BUT ANYWAY. I AM EXTREMELY DISTURBED BY THE PROPOSED ZONING. WE PURCHASED OUR PROPERTY IN PART BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT SF-40 ZONING, WHICH REFLECTS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS AN ESTATE RESIDENTIAL EMPATHIZING LARGER LOTS, OPEN SPACES, AND A RURAL CHARACTER, WHICH WAS PRESERVED FOR THIS AREA. FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, CHANGING ZONES FROM SF-40, THE HIGHEST, TO THE LOWEST, SF-5, DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ACCOMMODATE LOWER QUALITY HOMES THAT ARE BEING LEASED. THIS WOULD PRODUCE AN EXTREME DENSELY POPULATED NEIGHBORHOOD TOO CLOSE TO DEXHAM ROAD ESTATES, HAVING AN IMPACT ON OUR PROPERTY VALUES. TRAFFIC ALONG DEXHAM ROAD, WHICH SOMEBODY ALREADY MENTIONED, HAS ALREADY INCREASED TO ADDING 87 HOMES, THE GARLAND DEVELOPMENT UNDER DEVELOPMENT AT CENTERVILLE AND MILLER, WOULD INCREASE THE TRAFFIC AND REQUIRE TRAFFIC LIGHTS, WHICH NO ONE WANTS.

THERE'S ALSO POTENTIAL OF CRIME AND REMOVAL OF TREES DUE TO THE DENSITY. THE REZONING IS TOO DENSE AND THE DEVELOPER IS DEVIATING TOO MUCH FROM THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS. BASED ON WHAT I UNDERSTAND THIS DEVELOPER LEASES HOMES AND CHARGES MAINTENANCE FEES AND HAVE MANY REVIEWS WHICH ARE NOT FAVORABLE REGARDING MAINTAINING THEIR PROPERTIES. THEY ARE NOT ACCREDITED BY THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU. I OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE 16 ACRES DUE TO THESE CONCERNS. THESE ARE NOT THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ROWLETT NEEDS FOR THIS LOCATION.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THIS PROPOSAL. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> BRETT WILLIAMS. ON DECK,

MEDIA -- >> MY NAME IS BRETT WILLIAMS, I HAVE LIVED IN THIS HOME FOR 24 YEARS. PRIOR TO THAT I LIVE TWO BLOCKS FROM HERE. FOR 21 YEARS. I AM A 45 YEAR RESIDENT OF ROWLETT. I AM CURRENTLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOA, CONCERNING VOICE FOR MYSELF AND RESIDENTS. WIFE WOULD YOU -- AT EXPENSE AND HAPPINESS AND SATISFACTION OF THE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE LIVED IN DEXHAM ESTATES FOR AS LONG AS 45 YEARS. WE HAVE RAISED OUR FAMILIES HERE, PAID OUR TAXES HERE, COMMITTED TO SUSTAINABLE GROWTH FOR THE CITY. WHY WOULD YOU NOT THINK OF US FIRST? WHY SHOULDN'T WE BE THE PRIORITY? DEXHAM ROAD BETWEEN MILLER AND THE RAILROAD TRACK IS ONE OF THE FEW COUNTRYSIDE LIVING AREAS REMAINING IN ROWLETT. WHEN WE MOVED INTO DEXHAM ESTATES WE KNEW THAT WE WERE BUYING QUALITY, LARGE LOTS, CUSTOM HOMES, A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. WE LOVE THE IDEA OF THE IDYLLIC NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH REPRESENTED COUNTRYSIDE LIVING IN A TOWN.

MOST OF THE CALM AND PEACE COMES THAT WE ARE AT THE EDGE OF ROWLETT CREEK AND BETWEEN TWO HORSE FARMS. IN MANY WAYS IT IS PERFECT AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. WE BOUGHT KNOWING THAT THE ENTIRE AREA WAS OWNED SF-40 SO THAT WHEN DEVELOPMENT CAME IT WOULD BE THE SAME DEVELOPMENT WE BOUGHT INTO. AND THE STANDARDS AND THE QUALITY WOULD BE THE SAME. BUT NOW THEY ARE ASKING TO

[00:50:04]

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES LOT SIZES RANGING FROM 5750 TO 6500 SQUARE FEET. WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATES FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTENT TO PRESERVE LARGER ESTATE LOTS IN THE AREA. THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE SUGGESTS PROPOSED LOT SIZES -- ENVISIONED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

NUMBER SEVEN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF-40, FURLOUGHS ENTITY RESIDENTIAL, THIS DOES NOT REFLECT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATED AS THE STATE RESIDENTIAL, PROCESSING LARGE LOTS, OPEN SPACES, RURAL CHARACTER. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCED THE SMALLER SIZE OF, SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATING FROM THE THINGS ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VISION.

>> MR. WILLIAMS HER TIME IS UP. THANK YOU.

>> -- FOLLOWED BY --

>> REASONS I MOVED HERE SIX YEARS AGO IS BECAUSE I WAS AWAY FROM THE CITY. I WORKED IN THE CITY. AND ALL I WANTED TO SEE WAS A PLACE I COULD BE AWAY FROM THE CITY. THIS IS A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE. WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO CHANGE IT? I LIVE ON ONE AND HALF ACRES, IT IS NICE. I DON'T WANT TO BE CLOSED ANY HOUSE. I LIVE TWO PROPERTIES AWAY FROM IT AND IT WILL JUST RUIN MY LIFE THERE. YES, THE TRAFFIC IS TREMENDOUS. THE STUDIES THEY SAY ABOUT THE TRAFFIC THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME THEY TOOK IT . IT IS DEPENDING ON THE DAY AND NIGHT, IT IS DIFFERENT. SO IT IS WHAT, IT IS NOT WHATEVER THIS IS. AGAIN, ALL I WANT TO SAY IS PLEASE, DENY THIS. I REALLY LOVE THIS PLACE. PLEASE

DO NOT CHANGE IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> -- FOLLOWED BY JENNIFER RIVERA.

>> I ACTUALLY LIVE IN RIDGECREST. AT 2209 -- CIRCLE.

THE PROPOSAL OF THE SUBDIVISION GOING IN WILL AFFECT ME BY THE TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING TO BE COMING IN THROUGH DEXHAM ROAD.

EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC GOING IN AND OUT OF DEXHAM ROAD. BUT IF YOU TAKE A LOOK IN THE AFTERNOONS, ALL OF THAT TRAFFIC KITZMILLER, BACKS UP, YOU SEE COUNTLESS PEOPLE ALMOST WRECKING BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC THERE. WITH THE OTHER PROPERTY GOING IN AND THE OTHER PROPERTY IN GARLAND AS WELL, IT WILL JUST BE DOUBLE THE IMPACT. THEY BUILT THE SUBDIVISION GOING IN AND IT WILL CUT THROUGH AND HIT RIDGECREST. I MEAN EVERYBODY WILL BE CUTTING THROUGH AND GOING INTO TRY TO MISS THE STOP SIGN. THERE IS NO LIGHT. IT IS A STOP SIGN. YOU HAVE TO SIT THERE FOREVER TO TRY TO GET THROUGH. YOU KNOW? UNIVERSTY IS GOING TO BE PACKED. THERE IS TIMES WHERE THERE IS ONE CAR PARKED ON EACH SIDE AND YOU COULD BARELY GET A VEHICLE THROUGH. YOU ARE ASKING FOR MORE TRAFFIC TO GO THROUGH THERE? YOU KNOW, AND ALSO WITH THE CONSTRUCTION GOING, THE TRUCKS THAT ARE GOING TO BE GOING IN FOR THE SUBDIVISION, DEXHAM ROAD RIGHT NOW PROBABLY CANNOT HANDLE IT. WE SEE THE CONSTRUCTION THAT HAPPENS BY THE SIDE WHERE THE TRUCKS COME IN AND OUT. WE HAVE POTHOLES. WE HAVE EVERYTHING THERE ON TRAFFIC , IT WILL BE

[00:55:06]

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> HELLO, MY NAME IS ALAN RIVERA, I ALSO LIVE ON CORTLAND CIRCLE, THE RIDGECREST COMMUNITY. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT A FEW, COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE TIME TO THINK ABOUT BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY TYPES OF DECISIONS. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU GUYS DID SEND OUT SOME NOTICES TO SOME OF THE RESIDENTS. HOWEVER, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW THEY ARE GOING TO CUT INTO THE RIDGECREST COMMUNITY. I PERSONALLY, WHERE I LIVE, I AM ONE ROAD OVER FROM WHERE THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN. I DID NOT GET A NOTICE. I WAS NOTIFIED BECAUSE I HAD OTHER PEOPLE AROUND ME IN THE RIDGECREST COMMUNITY, THE FIVE OR SIX OR MAYBE 10 THAT ACTUALLY DID GET A NOTICE. AND TONIGHT YOU ARE PROPOSING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CUT INTO OUR RIDGECREST COMMUNITY AND THEY ARE GOING TO USE UNIVERSITY AS A CUT THROUGH, THROUGH THE BACK OF OUR COMMUNITY. ALL THE WAY UP TO ROWLETT ROAD. BEFORE THIS COULD EVEN BE CONSIDERED I DO FEEL THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO CUT INTO OUR LITTLE RESIDENTIAL AREA, WHERE THE STREETS, IN THE THAT CORNER WHERE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT CUTTING INTO, I DROP MY DAUGHTER OFF AT A STOP EVERY MORNING. I CAN BARELY GET MY CAR THROUGH THE ROAD BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC LINED UP THERE ON UNIVERSITY CIRCLE. I INVITE EACH OF YOU, BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY TYPE OF DECISION TO PLEASE COME TO UNIVERSITY CIRCLE, SEE HOW IT IS, SEE IF YOUR CAR CAN FIT THROUGH THERE. AND THEY ARE PROPOSING HOW MANY? 48÷2. AND THEY WILL COME THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY. I THINK OTHER CITIZENS AND HOMEOWNERS IN THE RIDGECREST COMMUNITY SHOULD GET NOTICES BEFORE A DECISION IS MADE. SO THEY TOO CAN HAVE INPUT , KNOWING NOW WHAT I HAVE HEARD TONIGHT, THAT THIS WILL BE A CUT THROUGH. THANK YOU. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS.

>> THANK YOU. >> THAT IS IT.

>> WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? I WANTED THANK EVERYBODY FOR NOT CLAPPING AND INTERRUPTING SO THAT WE COULD GET THROUGH THAT. I APPRECIATE IT. SO, AT THIS -- SO AT THIS TIME WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? THE FIRST THING I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK TO THE STAND BECAUSE I HAVE A QUESTION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM ADDRESS. AND I NOTICED ON A LOT OF THE MAIL-IN ITEMS THAT WERE GIVEN TO US PRIOR TO THE MEETING AS WELL, A COUPLE OF FOLKS THAT STOOD UP AND TALKED THIS EVENING, THE BUSINESS MODEL THAT YOUR COMPANY HAS, COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME?

>> ACTUALLY, FIRST OF ALL THESE ARE GOING TO BE INDIVIDUALLY PLANTED LOTS. AND WE ARE PLANNING ON SELLING THEM. THE WEBSITE EVERYBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THAT IS BRIDGE TOWER PROPERTIES, THAT COMPANY HAS BOUGHT THE MODELS, HAS FOR RENT AND FOR SALE HOMES, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS WILL JUST BE A RENTAL COMMUNITY. THEY DO BOTH KINDS OF HOME. WE ARE DOING THIS AS INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED LOTS TO SELL.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, MR. CRAWLEY.

>> DID YOU REACH OUT TO SPEAK TO THE DEXHAM ESTATES PEOPLE? DID

YOU HAVE A MEETING OR ANYTHING? >> WE HAVE NOT.

>> IS THERE A REASON WHY? OR EVEN THE RIDGECREST PEOPLE NEXT-DOOR? YOU ARE PUTTING TRAFFIC INTO RIDGECREST BUT YOU

DID NOT MEET WITH THEM? >> NO, THE TRAFFIC REPORT THAT

WE HAD DONE, NO, WE DID NOT. >> YOU ARE CUTTING INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU DID NOT MEET WITH DEXHAM ESTATES EITHER?

>> WE DID NOT. >>

>> MISS WILSON? >> IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HOMEOWNERS THAT TRAFFIC WOULD BE AN ISSUE.

SO, I THINK THE QUESTION HE ASKED ANSWERED MY QUESTION. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU GUYS PROBABLY COULD HAVE GOTTEN

[01:00:02]

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONERS, COMMENTS. OH. MR. POLLARD.

>> I HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THIS. A LOT. FIRST OF ALL, DEXHAM ROAD DOES NOT HAVE ANY CUT THROUGH STREETS FROM MILLER ALL THE WAY TO 66. WHERE YOU CAN EXIT IT. SO WHEN THERE IS TRAIN TRACK PROBLEMS, AND THE ARMS ARE DOWN AND YOU CANNOT GET THROUGH AND YOU HAVE TO TURN AROUND, YOU CANNOT GO ANYWHERE ELSE. YOU HAVE A FIRE DOWN THERE, I REMEMBER YEARS AGO IN THE INDUSTRIALLY AREA, JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACK, THEY SHUT IT DOWN AND YOU COULD NOT GET THROUGH. I GO THROUGH QUITE OFTEN BECAUSE IF I'M GOING TO HOME DEPOT IT IS EASIER TO GO DOWN DEXHAM ROAD AND THEN GO UP 66 AND GO THERE.

SO I AM UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD QUITE A BIT. SO THERE IS, WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO IS THEN FINED WHEN THERE IS A BACKUP FROM MILLER ROAD BACKING UP OF SOUTH DOWN TRAFFIC, I AM AFRAID THAT YOU ARE INVITING PEOPLE, I WILL BE THE FIRST TO RAISE MY HAND AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I AM ONE OF THE ONES THAT MIGHT DO THAT.

CUT THROUGH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, COME OUT ON UNIVERSITY, TO CIRCUMVENT AND THEN GO DOWN ALONG MILLER ROAD AND THEN GO BACK TO MY HOUSE. AND THAT IS NOT BUILT TO DO THAT. I THINK WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS PUTTING TRAFFIC ALSO ON DEXHAM ROAD THAT BACKS UP GOING DOWN TO MILLER. IT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. I WAS ON THIS BODY BACK IN 1995 AND THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE, THIS WAS A FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED ROAD.

RECOGNIZING THAT THERE WERE PROBLEMS, I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION ON TRAFFIC LIGHTS. THE CITY DID NOT HAVE MONEY AND TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT THAT TIME WERE $75,000. NOW THEY ARE WAY MORE THAN THAT AND I DO NOT SEE THE APPLICANT WHO IS DOUBLING THE NUMBER OF HOMES, OVER DOUBLING THE HOMES THAT IS ALREADY THERE, DOING ANYTHING TO ALLEVIATE OR HELP TRAFFIC CONGESTION. I THINK THEY ARE LOOKING AT, OH GEEZ, THE TRAFFIC STUDY SAYS WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO WARRANT DOING THAT. SO IT WILL BE DUMPED ON THE TAXPAYERS TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM. I THINK THERE IS A VALIDITY TO THE ACREAGE THAT IS JUST SOUTH OF THIS DOWN TO MILLER ROAD. THAT IF WE APPROVE THIS OR EVEN IF IT IS APPEALED TO COUNCIL AND THEY APPROVE IT, THAT YOU SET A PRECEDENT FOR THAT STUFF, THAT SIZED LOTS, AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE THE PEOPLE SELLING AND THAT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MILLER.

YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME SAYING NO TO THAT. SO I THINK WE ARE GOING TO CREATE ONE HELLUVA PROBLEM. I REMEMBER WITH LOTS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, PAST THE HORSE STABLES, THEY WANTED TO COME IN WITH PUTTING IN A LOT OF LOTS AND SAID IT WOULD NEVER BUILD FOR PEOPLE TO GO IN BY THOSE LOTS, THE ACREAGE LOTS, GOING BACK TO ROWLETT CREEK. WELL, THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS BUILT WAS DOWN BY THE RAILROAD TRACK. NOW THERE IS A NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR. SO THEY CAN BUILD FOR ACREAGE. YES, IT IS NOT A PLETHORA OF HOUSES, PEOPLE ARE NOT BEATING EACH OTHER'S DOORS TO DO THAT. BUT IT CAN AND THERE IS SOME DEMAND FOR THAT. SO I AM NOT FOR THIS IN ANY SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION. AND I WILL SAY ONE OTHER THING, I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO PUT DRAINAGE THAT IS NOT ON THAT ACREAGE, NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SOAK WATER ANYMORE. IT IS GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE. A POOR GUY IN THE HORSE STABLES, I HAVE BEEN DOWN THERE WHEN -- AND I DO NOT KNOW IF THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE TONIGHT IS THE ONE THAT OWNED

[01:05:03]

>> MR. CRAWLEY. >> SO, STANLEY, I HAVE TO SAY I WAS CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING AND ZONING WITH THAT CAME DOWN ACROSS DEXHAM ROAD. I THINK WE DENIED IT BECAUSE IT WAS JUST A REACH, A REACH. AND THIS IS A BIGGER REACH, I THINK. THIS PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED. IT DOES. I AM SURE. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU DID NOT TALK TO ANY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS.

YOU KNOW, THE DEXHAM ESTATES PEOPLE ARE THE SAME ZONING YOU HAVE AND THEY HAVE BIG HOUSES, BIG LOTS, THEY ARE THE ONES AFFECTED THE MOST. THEN YOU ADD IN THE CUT THROUGH AT UNIVERSITY AND RIDGECREST WILL BE AFFECTED TO. I THINK THAT THERE IS A WINNING ZONING CASE, THIS IS NOT IT. I THINK IT IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN OUR 40,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS IN 5000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

MAYBE HALF-ACRE LOTS ARE 25,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. A GOOD DESIGN OF BUFFERING BETWEEN THE DEXHAM ESTATES TO THE NORTH AND PROBABLY TO THE RIDGECREST, AND FIGURE OUT MAYBE ANOTHER WAY TO NOT GO THROUGH UNIVERSITY. I WROTE DOWN DRAINAGE, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THAT STANLEY, THAT PIECE OF PIPE THAT COMES OUT THERE, I RECALL A 60 FOOT PIECE OF PIPE. IT HAS DRAGON TEETH HEADWALLS, THEY ARE AS BIG AS TOMBSTONES TO SLOW DOWN THE FLOW COMING OUT OF THERE. IT JUST POURS OUT OF THERE. BY CHANCE I DEVELOPED THAT SUBDIVISION BACK, WELL, A LONG TIME AGO. IN THE 80S. IN THE 80S. SO I REALLY THINK THAT IF YOU HAD TAKEN THE EFFORT, AND MAYBE THERE IS NOT A COMPROMISE WITH THE DEXHAM ESTATES PEOPLE. I THINK THEY ARE WILLING TO LISTEN. AND I THINK THAT WITH THE RIGHT DEVELOPMENT THEY WOULD HAVE HOPEFULLY WORKED WITH YOU. OR MAYBE NOT COME DOWN HERE AND BEEN IN MOSS, -- IN MOSS -- IN MASS. I THINK THIS IS IN THE FAR EXTREME. I AM PRODEVELOPMENT. I AM PRO-GOOD DEVELOPMENT. THIS, AT THIS LOCATION IS JUST TOO MUCH OF AN ASK. IT NEEDS TO BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN WHERE YOU ARE AND WHERE THE NEIGHBORS ARE. IT MAY BE 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AND A GOOD DESIGN. BUT IT IS NOT THIS DEVELOPMENT. I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS.

>> THANK YOU. MR. TUCKER?

>>

>> THERE WE GO. LISTEN TO THIS. I READ THIS BEFORE THE MEETING.

I HAVE LISTENED, I HAVE LOOKED AT THE SPECIFICATIONS THAT THESE PEOPLE PUT OUT FOR THIS EDITION. WE HAVE GOT THE TRAFFIC ISSUES TO DEAL WITH. IF THEY DID GO IN THE STREETS ARE GOING TO BE TOO SMALL. THE HOUSES, WE KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO, I PERSONALLY HAVING GONE THROUGH THIS HAVING OWNED PROPERTY IN A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS, ACROSS THE STREET, MY PROPERTY WITH TERRIBLE. WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN TO YOU FOLKS. SO I

PERSONALLY CANNOT SUPPORT THIS. >> YES, SIR. MR. WILLIAMS DID

YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? >> I AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. THE CITY INVEST A LOT OF RESOURCES IN DEVELOPING THE COMPETENCE OF PLAN. FURTHERMORE, THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE 77-103, ONCE THE CITY TO COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I HEAR ALL OF YOU OUT THERE. THIS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE ESTATE CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THEREFORE I WILL DENY THE REQUEST.

>> ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE COMMENTS? OKAY. WELL, THIS WILL BE HARD FOR ME TO ADD ANYTHING TO THERE, HOWEVER, I THINK THAT

[01:10:11]

COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANYONE ELSE WANT -- OKAY JUST SO EVERYBODY IS CLEAR , UNANIMOUS VOTE BY US REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE SUPER MAJORITY TO OVERTURN IT. IF THERE IS A MOTION I AM WILLING TO ENTERTAIN THAT. AT THIS TIME.

>> MR. POLLARD. I KNOW YOU ARE TIRING.

>> I MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST. >> AND WE HAVE MR. TUCKER, SECONDING THE MOTION. SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DISAPPROVE THE REQUEST. AND IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. WE WILL CAL THE

VOTE. >> CHAIR, I NEED CLARIFICATION.

SOMETHING ELSE IS SHOWING ON MY SCREEN. SO WHO MOTION FIRST?

THANK YOU. >> I AM SORRY. MR. POLLARD. AND

THEN MR. TUCKER SECONDED IT. >> THANK YOU.

>> ARE YOU READY? LET'S CALL THE VOTE. OH. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE TECH NICOLE PROBLEMS. -- TECHNICAL PROBLEMS. IT WAS PROBABLY THE MAYOR PRO TEM BEING IN THIS SEAT.

SO WE, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DISAPPROVE THE REQUEST .

>> WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO A BOAT BY HAND. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DISAPPROVE THE REQUEST. A YES HERE WOULD BE A KNOW THERE. OKAY? BY A SHOW OF HANDS, ALL IN FAVOR OF DISAPPROVAL? IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

>> YOU. WE HAVE A LONG AGENDA, SO, MOVING ON TO ITEM 4B. CONDUCT A

[4B. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on a request by David Prejean, on behalf of property owners David E. and Teresa L. George, for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a telecommunication tower on property zoned Single-Family Residential (SF-9) District. The subject property is located at 7901 Schrade Road, approximately 230 feet northwest of the intersection of Martha Lane and Schrade Road, being part of the S A & M G RR Abstract 1416 Page 765, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE ITEM 4B. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND

[01:15:08]

WE CANNOT CLOSE THE DOOR BUT YOU CAN ASK THEM --

>> THE BACKGROUND ON THEM, THE SUBJECT SITE IS SINGLE-FAMILY 9, APPROXIMATELY 2.65 ACRES, IT DOES FRONT ON MARTHA LANE, ALTHOUGH IT HAS THE SCHRADE ROAD ADDRESS. SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS, ESSENTIALLY IN 1994 THERE WAS AN APPROVAL . THE AERIAL VIEW ON THE RIGHT IS FROM A 2015, AT THAT TIME THE WATER TOWER UP TO THE NORTH WERE WE HAVE THE CITY PROPERTY, THAT IS WHERE THEY ORIGINALLY WERE AT. THEN THERE WAS THE TORNADO IN DECEMBER OF 2015 WHICH THEN THEY WENT AHEAD AND PUT TEMPORARY INAUDIBLE ] ON WHEELS NEARBY TO ALLEVIATE BRINGING DOWN THE TOWERS ON THE SITE. AND THEN SOME MORE HISTORY, THEY DID GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON NOVEMBER 1320 24, THEY DID APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE SETBACK REDUCTION FROM 41.25 FEET, TO 29.35 FEET, ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. SO THE REQUEST IS FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW IT ON THE SF-9.

ALLOWING TOWERS AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL'S BUT WITH A SINGLE USE PERMIT. AND THEN ON THE LEFT IT IS A RENDERING OF WHAT THE TOWER WOULD BE, 75 FOOT TOWER. AND YOU HAVE THE BREAKPOINT ON THE LEFT SIDE TOO. SO IN TERMS OF THE SITE PLAN, THIS WOULD BE LOCATED ON THAT PROPERTY TOWARDS THE NORTH. ESSENTIALLY WITHIN THE BLUE AREA WOULD BE WHAT THEY WOULD BE COVERING ON THE ACTUAL SITE. THE RED CIRCLE AROUND IT, BASED ON THE BREAK POINT, I BELIEVE IT IS ABOUT 41.35 FEET.

IF IT WERE TO THE BREAKPOINT STANDARD, TO GIVE YOU THAT, TO SHOW YOU THAT IF IT WERE TO BREAK THAT IS THE RADIUS THAT WERE BE PROVIDED.

ESSENTIALLY THAT IS WHAT THE REQUEST IS, WE DID NOT -- WE'VE RECEIVED TWO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION WITHIN 200 FEET AND NOT ANY LETTERS WITHIN 500 SQUARE FEET. YOU MAY APPROVE THE CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUEST. I AM OPEN FOR QUESTION. THE APPLICANT IS HERE WITH A PRESENTATION AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR

STAFF AT THIS TIME? MR. POLLARD? >> OKAY, SO WHAT HAS CHANGED, IF ANY, FROM THE TIME THAT THIS WEEK BEFORE BOARD OF

ADJUSTMENTS? >> I KNOW ORIGINALLY THE FIRST TIME THERE IT WAS PROPOSED FOR THE 90 FOOT TOWER. AT THAT TIME IT WAS KIND OF SHOWING WHERE THE BREAKPOINT WOULD GO ON SOME OF THOSE STRUCTURES. BUT ESSENTIALLY IT WAS CHANGED AS THEY REDUCED IT. AND THE BREAKPOINT IS A LOWER POINT

BECAUSE OF THE SMALLER TOWER. >> OKAY, BUT THE BOARD OF

ADJUSTMENTS -- >> YES, BUT THERE IS, THE, GO AHEAD AND LET US KNOW. HOLD ON. I'M GETTING THERE.

>> SO I HAVE RECEIVED THIS QUESTION EARLIER TODAY AS WELL AND WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE COMMISSION. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ONLY APPROVED A VARIANCE RELATED TO THE FALL ZONE AND THAT DID NOT IN ANYWAY REQUIRE YOU OR TRIGGER YOU TO ANY SORT OF AUTOMATIC APPROVAL. THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE STAFF BY THIS BODY AND THE COUNCIL. WHAT WAS

[01:20:03]

INFRINGEMENT INTO THE PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU.

>> HOLD ON. GO. >> THANK YOU. THE LAST PART OF THAT, YEAH, THE ISSUE OF THE PORTION OF THAT IS WAY DIFFERENT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF ANYTHING HAD CHANGED OUT OF WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HURT. SOMETHING ELSE MAY HAVE SEEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OR GONE BACK AND REVIEWED THAT OR WHATEVER. SO TO CUT THE MINUTIA THERE IS NOTHING CHANGING EXCEPT THE

>> MISS WILSON. >> HOW MUCH RADIATION DOES THE

TOWER EMIT? >> THAT WHEN. HE IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>> I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT IS SOMETHING IN OUR PURVIEW TOO.

>> RIGHT, I COULD NOT EVEN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME?

>> DID YOU EVEN COME UP? DID YOU PUSH RTS? GO AHEAD AND GIVE IT A

TRY. >> COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE WHERE YOU SHOWED THE TWO PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION. YOU , I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU SAID WHERE THE TWO PEOPLE WERE.

>> I DID NOT INCLUDED IN THOSE, IT WAS WITHIN 200 FEET. WITHIN THOSE 200 FEET. I DID NOT PUT THOSE ON THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE

SIMILAR TO THE OTHER SIDE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME. APPLICANT, DOES THE APPLICANT, THANK YOU, SIR. DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO

PROVIDE A PRESENTATION? >> YES, SIR, THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MESELSON GRIFFIN AND I RESIDE IN DALLAS, TEXAS. REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ABILITY TO HANDLE THE CITIZENS AND THEIR CONCERNS AND THAT THE COMMISSION RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY. HOPEFULLY THIS IS NOT THE REACH THAT THAT ITEM WAS. STAFF HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB AT SUMMARIZING THE HISTORY OF THE TOWER. TO ADD A LITTLE COLOR TO THAT, FOR FIVE YEARS BEGINNING IN 2019 , VERTICAL BRIDGE, THE APPLICANT, AND AT&T SOUGHT TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO FIND A SUITABLE LOCATION TO BUILD A REPLACEMENT TOWER ON CITY PROPERTY. FOR FIVE YEARS THE CITY AND VERTICAL BRIDGE DISCUSSED TWO SEPARATE LOCATIONS, A PLACE IN BLUEBONNET PARK AND THE ORIGINAL LOCATION.

FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS AND THE CITY'S PREROGATIVE, NONE OF THE LOCATIONS WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY. VERTICAL BRIDGE PROVIDED BE INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE CITY AND AGREED TO ANY ACCOMMODATIONS BUT ULTIMATELY THE CITY DECIDED FOR THEIR REASONS NOT TO LEASE SPACE ON CITY PRETTY. TO VERTICAL BRIDGE.

>> JUST, SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I JUST NEED SOMEBODY TO GO BACK AND OPEN THE DOOR. IT IS AN OPEN MEETING, PUBLIC MEETING, WE HAVE TO KEEP THE DOOR OPEN. OAKLEY THEY'RE NOT MAKING TOO MUCH NOISE. YOU COULD ASK THEM TO BE QUIET IF THAT IS THE CASE. THANK

YOU. >> AFTER EXHAUSTING ALL OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE CITY WE HAVE A COVERAGE PROBLEM THAT I WILL GET TO IN A MOMENT, THE CITY WAS FORCED TO LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVES. THEY FOUND A PROPERTY OWNER REMEDIALLY TO THE SOUTH OF THE LOCATION OF THE ORIGINAL WATER TANK. THEY WERE WILLING TO LEASE SPACE. FORTUNATELY WAS THE SAME FOLKS THAT WERE LEASING SPACE FOR TEMPORARY TOWERS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN THERE ABOUT SEVEN YEARS. NOTHING LIKE A SEVEN YEAR TEMPORARY SOLUTION. RIGHT? THOSE TOWERS ARE UNSIGHTLY. THOSE TOWERS NEED TO BE REMOVED. FRANKLY, THE TOWERS CANNOT ACCOMMODATE STRUCTURALLY THE NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT IS COMING ON. SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS REPLACE THE TOWERS WITH A STRUCTURE THAT PHYSICALLY CAN'T ACCOMMODATE NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND PROVIDE THE SERVICE THAT EVERYONE AT LEAST SINCE THE MID-90S HAS BECOME

[01:25:01]

AGAIN, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THE FALL ZONE, IT ONLY COMES UP WITH THE TOWER FAILS AND FALLS. WE HAVE AN ENGINEER LETTER THAT STATES IT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO LAST UP TO 105 MILE-PER-HOUR WINDS. IF YOU PULL UP YOUR CHART IT IS SOMEWHERE WE ARE TALKING CATASTROPHIC CONDITIONS. THAT IS THE POINT THAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE TOWER TO FAIL. IN TERMS OF THE COVERAGE AND CAPACITY ISSUE, THIS IS UNIQUE. USUALLY WE ARE IN FRONT OF BODIES LOOKING AT AN EMPTY PIECE OF LAND IN TRYING TO BUILD A NEW TOWER. IN THIS CASE A TOWER OF SOME KIND OR ANOTHER, THE WATER TANK OR CELL TOWERS, THE TEMPORARY TOWERS, HAVE BEEN IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY SINCE AT LEAST 1985. AS FAR AS I COULD FIND THE WATER TOWER BEING THERE. ALTHOUGH I AM SURE IT PREDATED THAT. FOR 40 YEARS THIS AREA HAS HAD SOME TYPE OF STRUCTURE, EITHER 150 FOOT WATER TANK OR THE TEMPORARY POLLS THAT SIT THERE NOW. RATHER THAN BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE WHAT WE ARE DOING IS TRYING TO REPLACE THE TWO TEMPORARY TOWERS WHICH THE CITY HAS INDICATED WE MUST REMOVE. WITH ONE CLEAN MONOPOLE THAT CAN PROVIDE THE SERVICE THAT HAS EXISTED IN THIS AREA FOR A LONG TIME. YOUR PACKING IN JUST A MOMENT WILL HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM AT&T TO WALK YOU THROUGH THIS. YOUR PROPERTY PACKET SHOULD RECEIVE -- IT IS THE CURRENT AND IF THE PROPOSAL IS DENIED, THE RESULTS OF NOT HAVING THE TOWER IN THIS AREA.

THE LOCATION PROVIDES COVERAGE FOR THE WIDTH OF THE AREA. AND THE DENIAL WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE COVERAGE AND CAPACITY, ESPECIALLY HOMES, COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, CARS. THIS WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DROPPED AND FAILED CALLS FOR THESE RESIDENTS, INCLUDING 911 CALLS. WE SPOKE WITH HANNAH CAESAR, WITH THE ROWLETT EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. SHE CONFIRMED THAT 80% OF EMERGENCY CALLS MADE TO THE ROWLETT EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT ARE MADE FROM CELL PHONE CALLS. I WILL HAVE BOBBY WELLS FROM AT&T COME UP AND DISCUSS SOME OF THE SPECIFICS REGARDING COVERAGE. THEN I WILL COME BACK UP IN A MOMENT AND CONCLUDE THE PRESENTATION.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> HOW ARE YOU DOING? I AM BOBBY WELLS AND IVES AND I HAVE WORKED WITH AT&T FOR ABOUT 25 YEARS. AS HE SAID WE ARE TRYING TO NOT BUILD A NEW TOWER BUT TRYING TO PREVENT THE LOSS OF COVERAGE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE OR ALREADY HAD FROM THE WATER TOWER PREVIOUSLY. GOING THROUGH THE SLIDES HERE, WHICH BUT GOES TO THE NEXT, SO I KNOW?

>> THE MIDDLE? OH. THANK YOU. ON THE RIGHT WOULD BE WITH THE TOWER AND THE LEFT WOULD BE WITHOUT. THIS IS SIGNAL LEVEL PLOT. YOU CAN SEE WHEN YOU GET TO THE LIGHT BLUES , THE GREEN, THE LIGHT-COLORED GREENS, THAT IS WHEN YOU START TO HAVE PROBLEMS. SIGNAL LEVEL DOES NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY THOUGH. YOU COULD HAVE SIGNALED THAT WILL OVERLAP EACH OTHER AND LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE A FAIRLY STRONG SIGNAL BUT YOU ALSO NEED A CLEAN SIGNAL, ESPECIALLY WITH TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY. WE RELY ON HIGH-SPEED DATA FOR ALMOST EVERYTHING. FOR CHECKING YOUR CAMERAS, AT THE HOME, IF YOUR DOORBELL RINGS. TRYING TO ENTERTAIN THE KIDS WITH MOVIES IN YOUR CAR. A LITTLE OF EVERYTHING. TO GET THOSE SPEEDS WE NEED A CLEAN SIGNAL AS WELL.

I WILL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS KIND OF SHOWS A CLOSE UP DETAILED COVERAGE OF WHERE WE WOULD LOSE COVERAGE. PROBABLY EVEN OUTSIDE FOR ANY KIND OF VIDEO, CHECKING CAMERAS,

[01:30:01]

YOU SEE MUCH GREATER HOLES AND LOSS OF COVERAGE HERE. YOU COULD PROBABLY SEND A TEXT MESSAGE IF YOU ARE OUTSIDE. YOU COULD PROBABLY EVEN MAKE A PHONE CALL. THOSE SERVICES DO NOT REQUIRE THE PROTECTION. LET ME SEE. THE MODULATION OF SCHEMES, THE HIRED DATA RATE THAT YOU NEED FOR VIDEO. AND SERVICES LIKE THAT.

WE ARE THE FIRST PROVIDER FOR MANY COUNTIES . I WAS THINKING OF SOME APPLICATIONS THEY USE, THEY MAY HAVE A HELICOPTER IN THE AIR AND THEY MIGHT BE USING NIGHT VISION OR INFRARED ENDING WIL TRANSMIT THAT DOWN TO PEOPLE ON THE GROUND SO THEY CAN SEE WHERE THEY ARE GOING. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF HIGH-SPEED DATA APPLICATIONS WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE TO PROVIDE GREAT SERVICE AND NOT HURT WHAT WE HAVE THERE. SO THIS WOULD SHOW HOW LARGE OF AN AREA WE WIND UP OPENING UP HERE WITHOUT THAT QUALITY OF THAT SITE THAT WILL BE MISSING WHEN I TURN IT OFF.

AND THIS ONE HERE WAS A DOMINANCE. WE THINK OF DOMINANCE IF HE YOU HAVE EVERY TOWER USING 100% OF OUR SPECTRUM. IF I HAVE CHANNEL 8 AND CHANNEL 4 SITTING NEXT TO EACH OTHER BUT TRYING TO TRANSMIT ON THE SAME CHANNEL, YOU WOULD NOT GET ANYTHING. THEY GET THE LUXURY OF CHANNEL PLANNING OR DIFFERENT CHANNELS, WHICH WE DON'T. EVERY SITE, EVERY TOWER, EVERY SECTOR USS THE SAME CHANNEL. WE NEED TO MANAGE THAT BITE INTERFERENCE, CODING, WE REALLY , IT IS A MUCH MORE SENSITIVE THING THAN TODAY'S NETWORK. TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE INTERFERENCE AND HAVE A GOOD DOMINANCE TO OVERPOWER THE INTERFERING SIGNAL FROM ANOTHER SITE. SO THE ONE ON THE LEFT WOULD SHOW THE GREENS AND YELLOWS OF WHERE I LOSE THAT DOMINANT SERVICE. THE ONE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS WHERE WE HAVE TWO TEMPORARY SITES NOW. GOING TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS COVERAGE BY FOOTPRINT OR TRANSMITTER.

SHOWS YOU ON THE LEFT THE PROPOSED SITE. I AM SORRY I DID NOT KEEP THEM ON THE SAME SIDE. THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS THE ONE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE REPLACING WHAT IS ALWAYS THERE.

THAN THE ONE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THE SIGNALS AT THE TOWER THAT SHOW UP IN THAT AREA AND TRYING TO SERVE THE SAME AREA. THEY LOSE DOMINANCE THAT YOU HAVE AT THE SITE THAT WAS RIGHT ON TOP.

THIS WAS JUST A USAGE MAP, COLOR-CODED AND KIND OF HARD TO SEE FROM HERE. THE RED AND YELLOW, THE HIRED DATA USAGE.

THIS WAS A NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS, DIFFERENT TYPES SHOWING WHERE THE TRAFFIC IS. SOME ON THE STREETS AND SOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IS KIND OF THE SAME THING. IT IS THE DOWNLINK VOLUME OR THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC BEING SERVED DOWNLINK.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT HOTSPOTS BUT ON THE PENINSULA THAT HOTSPOTS IT'S RIGHT THERE IN WILL TAKE UP AFFABLY 30 TO 40% OF TRAFFIC IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PENINSULA. IF WE REMOVE THE SITE, YOU COULD PROBABLY MAKE A PHONE CALL, SEND A TEXT MESSAGE, BUT THE HIGHER-QUALITY SERVICES WE WILL LOSE. IT WILL BE HARD TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE FOR THE COMMUNITY. TO LET YOUR KIDS WATCH A MOVIE, TO ENTERTAIN THEM AT THE BALLPARK, TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, REMOTELY ACCESSING YOUR HOME. IF YOU WANT TO CHECK ON YOUR KID, CHECK YOUR LOCKS, LOCK YOUR LOCKS, DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT. THINGS WITH HIGHER DATA RATES WILL SUFFER WITHOUT A TOWER TO SERVICE THE AREA AND CREATE DOMINANCE OF GOOD, STRONG QUALITY SIGNAL. AND THAT IS REALLY ALL I HAD ON THIS PRESENTATION. IT KIND OF GOES INTO WHERE THE TOWER IS AND THAT

KIND OF THING. >> I AM SORRY. I FORGOT WHAT YOUR LAST NAME IS. MR. WELLS, I THINK MISS WILLIAMS HAS A

QUESTION. >> SURE.

[01:35:04]

>> HOW MUCH RADIATION DOES THE TOWER EMIT?

>>

>> I ASK BECAUSE WE HAD A FEW RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION TO YOUR REQUEST. BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCERNS OVER THE RADIATION.

>>

>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE TECHNICAL GUY? NO? THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THERE ARE NO STRUCTURES IN THAT SETBACK. STRUCTURES OF ANY KIND.

INAUDIBLE ] MOST IMPORTANTLY TO REMOVE RESPONDING TO THE CRITERIA

>> IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT THE CITY WILL DO WITH THIS PROPERTY.

INAUDIBLE ] REALLY WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE REMOVAL OF THIS

[01:40:19]

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? MR.

HERNANDEZ? >> I AM JUST CURIOUS. COULD THE TOWER NOT BE BUILT A LITTLE FURTHER NORTH IN THE AREA THAT

IS BEING PROPOSED? >> IS AT THE TOP.

ZONE FALLS WITHIN THE FROM THAT. WE ARE RIGHT ON THE EDGE , YEAH, THE FALLS ZONE FALLS JUST ENTIRELY WITHIN THE SETBACK. AND REALLY WE ARE ON THE NORTHERN END OF THIS PROPERTY. WE WANTED TO KEEP IT AS CENTERED AS WE COULD. HEIGHT IS EVERYTHING WITH THE TOWERS.

YOU WANTED TO GET THEM AS HIGH AS YOU CAN. WE REDUCED THE TOWER FROM THE HEIGHT ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO 75 FEET. IT IS A CHALLENGE TO MAKE THE TOWER SHORTER, WHICH IS WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO TO MOVE IT FURTHER NORTH. AT&T CURRENTLY HAS AN INSTALLATION THERE, T-MOBILE WILL BE THE SECOND TENANT, THEY HAVE THE SECOND TEMPORARY POLL THERE. AND THEN THERE IS SPACE FOR A THIRD CARRIER AND WE ALL KNOW THAT WILL BE VERIZON. SO TO GET ALL THREE MAJOR CARRIERS ON THERE WE NEED THE TOWER TO BE A CERTAIN HEIGHT. IF YOU GO TOO LOW IT BECOMES USELESS TO HIS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE STACK. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> YES, T-MOBILE. THEY ARE NOT HERE TONIGHT BUT THEY WILL BE THE -- WE WILL MAKE THEM SECOND BECAUSE THEY DID NOT COME HERE TONIGHT.

MAKE THEM SECOND ON THE TOWER. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE

WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> SHEILA --

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SHEILA AND I LIVE AT 7901 SCHRADE ROAD. I HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE MARCH OF 2013. I WANT TO REITERATE THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A PERMANENT TOWER. YOU KNOW THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE TORNADO, THE TORNADO TOOK IT DOWN, THE WATER TOWER. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. WE HAD GOOD SERVICE BEFORE THAT. SURFACE WAS PERFECT, NO GRIPES. BUT ONCE THE TORNADO CAME AND FOR WEEKS PAST THAT, UNTIL THE TEMPORARY TOWER CAME IN, DROPPED CALLS, YOU COULD GET A CALL AND MIGHT NOT GET A CALL, YOU KNOW? THE SAME THING, THESE GENTLEMEN WERE TALKING ABOUT, THE SERVICE. I ALWAYS SAY WE ARE IN A DEAD ZONE. YOU KNOW? I CANNOT GET SERVICE AND HAVE TO GO DOWN THE STREET TO GET SERVICE. THAT IT WAS FIXED, WHEN THEY PUT THE TEMPORARY TRUCKS IN THERE, WE GOT GOOD SERVICE. IF THAT GOES AWAY THEN WE HAVE GOT ISSUES. AS YOU ALL KNOW OUR CELL PHONES ARE OUR LIFELINE. IN TODAY'S WORLD. THAT IS OUR LIFELINE. IF SOMETHING HAPPENS WE NEED, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, AN AMBULANCE, SOMETHING. WITHOUT THE PERMANENT TOWER, WHO IS TO SAY THE CALLS WILL GO THROUGH? YOU GET THE CALL TO GO THROUGH AND IT IS DROPPED. NO ONE WANTS THAT. I MEAN EVEN TODAY, WHEN WE WERE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD SOMETIMES WE GET IN THE DEAD ZONE. I WILL CALL YOU BACK. WHATEVER. SO OUR PHONES BEING OUR LIFELINE LIKE THEY ARE, THAT IS A BIG RISK. WE NEED RESPONDERS, WE NEED THEM. I JUST WANT TO SAY PLEASE, DON'T TAKE THAT AWAY FROM US. IF I NEED TO CALL FOR HELP I CANNOT GET HELP, THEY CANNOT HELP ME. SO I JUST WANT YOU TO TO CONSIDER HAVING THIS PERMANENT. NOT JUST FOR THE PEOPLE HERE.

LIKE THE MEN SAID IT WILL SERVE A LOT OF PEOPLE. SO I APPRECIATE

YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? HEARING NONE. NO MORE PEOPLE. HEARING FROM NO MORE.

[01:45:04]

ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? CONCERNS. HEARING NONE. AND I

WILL OPEN TO A MOTION. >> STILL DOMINANT AND BE THE FIRST ONE OUT THERE. ALL RIGHT. SO I WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT SO THAT ANYBODY WHO IS LISTENING OR ANYBODY THAT LOOKS A THE MINUTES, THEY WILL KNOW. I WAS ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WHEN THIS CAME FORWARD THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND I RECUSED MYSELF. AT THE TIME, I OWNED AT&T STOCK, I DIVESTED MYSELF OFF OF ALL OF IT BEFORE THE LAST MEETING. SO I DID NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THEN AND DO NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOW. ACCORDING TO UNDERSTAND HAVING BEEN AROUND THE MATERIAL FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, AND AGAIN THIS IS DIFFERENT. BEING AN ISSUE INAUDIBLE ] SHOOT, THERE HAS BEEN A TIME WHERE LIKE YOU SAID FOR A LONG TIME, I REMEMBER WHEN WE MOVED HERE IN 1989. AND EVEN WHEN I CAME HOME FROM THE P&Z FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE CITY PRESSED FOR US TO PUT ANY CELL TOWERS THAT CAME ON EITHER WATER TOWERS OR HIGH POLES, THE BIG TRANSPORT POLES, THE LINES GOING DOWN 66. THEY DID NOT WANT A PLETHORA EVERYWHERE ELSE. SO THAT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. AND THIS IS THE GENERAL AREA. I DO NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT GOING BACK

IN THAT GENERAL AREA. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, NOT SEEING ANY, I WILL OPEN FOR A MOTION.

MS. WILLIAMS. I AM SORRY. YOU NEED TO GO AND TALK, ASK OUR ATTORNEY. THERE IS A THRESHOLD. FOR THE AMOUNT.

ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. >> I OWN AT&T STOCKS SO I WANT

TO SEE IF I NEED TO ABSTAIN. >> ANYBODY HOLDS $25,000 IN STOCK IN ANY OF THE NAMED VENDORS.

THAT WOULD BE EASIEST. OKAY. >> WILL, WHAT STOCK DO YOU -- OKAY. SO NOBODY HAS TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM THIS. THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM MS. WILLIAMS --

>> SECONDS IT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I AM SORRY. MISS

WILSON. YOU ARE WELCOME. >> THANK YOU.

>> SEEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION. WE WILL CALL THE VOTE. AND THAT PASSES 7-0. THANK YOU.

>> AT THIS TIME I AM GOING TO TAKE LIBERTIES TO REALIGN THE

[4E. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding amendments to Chapter 77-900 “Nonconformities” of the Rowlett Development Code, by amending Section 77-908 “Illegal Nonconformities to provide a limited exception for certain accessory structures. (Part 1 of 2)]

>> COREY. OH. I AM SORRY. >> I ALSO HAVE MICHAEL KING

[01:50:06]

IT IS STILL IN REVIEW. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THERE IS NOT A FINAL DRAFT YET OF THIS ORDINANCE. I THINK THAT WE STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AND SO THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THE FOLLOWING AT CITY COUNCIL. MR. KING ALSO HAS READ THE ORDINANCE AND PROVIDED FEEDBACK IN TERMS OF INTERPRETATION AND ITEMS THAT WE COULD USE SOME CLARITY ON.

>> THANK YOU. MR. KING? >> GOOD EVENING. I AM MICHAEL KING, THE PLAN EXAMINER, BUILDING SAFETY DEPARTMENT. MORE THAN ANYTHING I AM HERE TO ANSWER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ON THE BUILDING CODES, RESIDENTIAL CODES. WE HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN THE BUILDING CODE.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE SPECIFIES BUILDING MATERIALS , WAYS THAT WE CAN RESOLVE THESE NONCONFORMITIES. OUR STAFF TAKES ISSUE WITH THAT. WE ALSO HAVE SOME ISSUE WITH HOW WE INTERPRET THE ORDINANCE ALTOGETHER. SO WITH THAT I AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> CRAWLEY. MR. POLLARD, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> YES, SECTION 1, CHAPTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT COLD, CHAPTER 70 7B, AND I AM NOT SURE HOW TO IDENTIFY THIS SO YOU CAN QUICKLY FIND IT. IT IS CHAPTER 77-900, SECTION 77-908, THE LEGAL , THE ILLEGAL NONCONFORMITIES. B. DO YOU SEE THAT? GO DOWN TO B 1, 1B. THE STRUCTURE IS LESS THAN 250 SQUARE FEET, MADE OF WEATHER RESISTANT MATERIAL. WAS OR IS THE CURRENT READING OF THAT 200

SQUARE FEET ? >> THE CURRENT READING OF IT IS

YES, 200 SQUARE FEET. >> WHY THE CHANGE TO 250.

>> I AM NOT AWARE. I DID NOT DRAFT THIS. I AM NOT AWARE OF

WHY IT CHANGED. >> OKAY.

>> COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> IF I COULD ADD SOME CONTEXT.

>> PLEASE. >> THANK YOU. FIRST THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE HAD A LONG NIGHT ALREADY AND A NIGHT STILL GOING. I WAS NOT EXPECTING THIS TO GET PUMPED UP SO I APPRECIATE YOUR FLEXIBILITY. SO THE PRIMARY REASON BEHIND THIS PARTICULAR ITEM BEING PRESENTED IS THAT THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THE CITY HAD A POLICY IN PLACE REGARDING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. AND THE SIZE IN WHICH THEY COULE TYPE OF THING. THERE WAS NOT A PERMIT REQUIREMENT THAT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND POTENTIALLY EXPANDED AT SOME POINT THROUGH THIS TIME PERIOD. DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO PERMIT REQUIREMENT. THEY MAY HAVE CALLED THE CITY AND BEEN TOLD THERE IS NO PERMIT REQUIREMENT TO DO THIS PARTICULAR EXPANSION OR CONSTRUCTION. WHAT THAT HAS RESULTED IN IS A NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT WERE WITHOUT OBTAINING A PERMIT OR LEADING TO UNINTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS LIKE BUILDING

[01:55:01]

EVENING. >> SO THAT ME MAKE SURE THAT I HEARD YOU WHILE I WAS TRYING TO READ SOMETHING ELSE. I AM NOT IGNORING YOU BUT YOU SAY IT WILL BE COMING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL

JUNE 4TH? >> NO, THIS WOULD GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY FOUR. AT THE NEXT MEETING.

>> IF THERE BE ACTION HERE TO APPROVE OR DENY LIKE ANY OTHER ZONING OR MAP CHANGE, IT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL

DISPOSITION. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE COUCIL PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS AND ATTEMPTED TO WORK TOWARDS A RESOLUTION BACK IN JUNE OF 2024.

THEN SUBSEQUENTLY NOVEMBER OF 2024. NOW WE ARE HERE TODAY IS A

CONTINUATION OF THOSE EFFORTS. >> THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE MAYOR? MR. POLLARD.

>> ANY OTHER MAJOR CHANGES, EXCEPT THE 200 TO 250 SQUARE

FOOT? >> I WOULD NEED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND YOUR DEFINITION OF MAJOR. THIS ORDINATE -- ORDINANCE IN AND OF ITSELF IS UNPRECEDENTED. THERE IS NONE LIKE IT IN THE BOOKS. I'M SURE YOU COULD ASK FOR ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY HERE THIS EVENING. PERHAPS THE INS AND OUTS OF HOW THIS DIFFERS FROM ANY OTHER ORDINANCE THAT WE WOULD EVER PASS. BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT IT ALLOWS FOR, IT IS EFFECTIVELY MAKING ANY STRUCTURES , MAKING THE ABILITY TO APPLY FOR ANY STRUCTURES THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED DURING THE TIME PERIOD. KIND OF UNDER THE INADVERTENT PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO APPLY AND BE RETROACTIVELY CONFORMING.

>> CAN YOU GIVE ME INSIGHT WHY IT WENT FROM 200 TO 250.

>> I BELIEVE TO ALLOW LEEWAY FOR CERTAIN STRUCTURES THAT WERE EXPANDED DURING THAT TIME. AGAIN WITHOUT KNOWING THE NATURE OF OUR REGULATIONS, AGAIN THERE ARE RESIDENTS THAT DID THIS UNINTENTIONALLY. PERHAPS THEY HAD A SHED OR BUILT A SHED OR EXPANDED A SHED AND IT WAS DURING THIS TIME PERIOD RESULTING IN THAT HAPPENING.

>> I AM STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED. ESSENTIALLY WHEN I READ IT IT LOOKS LIKE I COULD'VE IGNORED THE BUILDING CODES, IGNORED THE SET BACKS, IGNORE YOU. AND THE CITY REQUIREMENTS OR ANYTHING. I COULD BUILD WHAT I WANTED TO AND IF I GO AHEAD AND PUT IN A PERMIT RIGHT NOW, SOMEONE COULD COME OUT AND LOOK AT IT AND APPROVE IT OR MAKE IT QUOTE UNQUOTE IN PERFORMANCE. EVEN THOUGH IT IS RIGHT ON TOP OF MY NEIGHBOR AND HE IS MIFFED ABOUT

IT. >> THAT CERTAINLY COULD BE AN INSTANCE. THE ORDINANCE BEING PROPOSED DOES REQUIRE. THAT IS ONE OF THE PIECES THAT ARE BEING WORKED OUT. KIND OF WHAT THE APPROVAL PROCESS MIGHT LOOK LIKE. IDEALLY THIS WOULD REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL ACTION. THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO NECESSARILY

[02:00:02]

>> YES, GO AHEAD. >> DO YOU KNOW IF YOU CHANGE THIS ORDINANCE AND WE WENT WITH , WHAT SAY WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US NOW. WHAT -- WOULD THAT CHANGE ANY DECISIONS MADE IN THE

PAST? >> I WOULD DEFER TO THE ATTORNEY ON THAT. IT SOUNDS QUITE TECHNICAL AND LEGAL. THIS IS TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE WRITTEN LEAVE, NOT TO AUTOMATICALLY BE GRANTED RELIEF. I WOULD DEFER TO THE CITY

ATTORNEY ON THAT MATTER. >> SO THERE IS A SECTION SPECIFICALLY STATES IT WOULD BE GIVING PROACTIVE APPROVAL AND NOT RETROACTIVE APPROVAL. IF SOMETHING WAS DEEMED TO BE, IN THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN NOW, IF SOMEONE WAS ILLEGALLY NONCONFORMING AND PROVIDE RECEIVE VIOLATION NOTICE IN THE PAST, THIS -- I THINK THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN THAT GOING FORWARD FROM SOME POINT IN TIME ONCE APPROVAL IS GRANTED IT WOULD BE LEGALLY NONCONFORMING RATHER THAN ILLEGALLY NONCONFORMING.

THAT IS MY INTERPRETATION. CITY ATTORNEY MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT STANCE ON THIS. THAT IS HOW I READ THIS IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

>> I WOULD PREFER TO ADVISE THIS BODY ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ON

THIS MATTER. >> OKAY. WE WILL ADJOURN. NOT ADJOURN. I WANT TO SUSPEND THE CURRENT MEETING. AND CONVENE IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, CLOSE CONFERENCE ROOM.

>> YOU ARE JUST RECESSING. >> THERE YOU GO. RECESSING. THAT WAS THE WORD I WANTED. RECESSING. AT THIS TIME LET'S RECESS OUR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. AND WE WILL BE BACK.

>> OKAY. RIGHT HERE. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT. OKAY.

IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER DONE THIS. THIS IS KIND OF COOL.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

>> WE HAVE CONCLUDED OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE WILL

[4E. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding amendments to Chapter 77-900 “Nonconformities” of the Rowlett Development Code, by amending Section 77-908 “Illegal Nonconformities to provide a limited exception for certain accessory structures. (Part 2 of 2)]

>> NO COMMENTS? NO CONCERNS. GO AHEAD, ONE OF YOU TWO.

LAUGHTER ] MR. POLLARD. >> I GUESS THE BIGGEST CONCERN IN READING THIS THAT I HAVE IS THE TITLE. OF THIS. THE ILLEGAL NONCONFORMITY. OR, YOU ALREADY HAVE, THE SUBDIVISION FOR INSTANCE, IF IT COMES IN AND THE CITY ANNEXES AND THEY ARE NOT BUILT TO CODE, IT IS NONCONFORMING. AND THEN YOU HAVE WHAT I GUESS MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN HAVE A

[02:05:05]

MAKE SENSE TO ME. >> MR. CRAWLEY.

>> I AM WITH STANLEY ON THAT. WE WERE PERPLEXED IN OUR OFFICE AND WE DO A LOT OF PLANNING WORK WITH -- LEGAL NONCONFORMING, YOU ARE EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG, YOU ARE EITHER CONFORMING OR NONCONFORMING, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE TERM " ILLEGAL NONCONFORMITY." BUT THAT IS JUST LANGUAGE STUFF. I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IS IN THE DRAFT, AND WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON A NONFINAL PRODUCT. I WOULD EQUATE THAT TO HERE IS A ZONING CASE BUT WE ARE NOT REALLY SURE WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR. IF YOU NEED TO PROVE SOMETHING. I THINK WE NEED TO SEE SOMETHING IN A LESS DRAFT FORM OR A MORE PRECISE DRAFT FORM OR SOMETHING. YOU KNOW IT WILL BE IN A DRAFT FORM OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE WE CAN MAKE CHANGE IN THE CITY COUNCIL CAN MAKE CHANGES. BUT I JUST, I WANT TO THANK THE ATTORNEY FOR DOING A LOT OF GOOD AT EXPLAINING. I WAS LOST. AND I UNDERSTAND CODES AND I WAS SORT OF LOST ON THIS. I REALLY, I REALLY THINK IT IS IN A DRAFT FORM THAT NEEDS TO BE FLESHED OUT BEFORE THIS BODY

SHOULD VOTE ON IT. >> I CONCUR WITH MR. CRAWLEY AND MR. POLLARD AND I THINK AS THE STANDS NOW IT JUST REALLY OPENS US UP TO SOME PROBLEMS IN THE WORDING. AND HOW IT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED WOULD BE KIND OF HARD TO UNDERSTAND, IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND IN THE MANNER OF WHICH IT IS RIGHT NOW. SO, I AM NOT, I AM THINKING THAT WE NEED SOMETHING MORE. COMMISSIONERS, ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MATTER. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK? OKAY. BEEN AT THIS TIME WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM. MR.

CRAWLEY? >>

>> YES. YOU ARE MAKING THE MOTION.

>> I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE STAFF WOULD LIKE AS A --

>> IS TWO WEEKS FROM NOW?

>> I THINK IT IS THE 12TH. >> 25.

>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THE ITEM UNTIL FEBRUARY 25, 2025.

>> THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL FEBRUARY 25. MR. HERNANDEZ SECONDS THE MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. CALLED THE VOTE.

AND THAT PASSES 7-0, TO TABLE THE ITEM.

[4C. Conduct a hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on a request by property owner Jasper Chan, for the approval of warrants to increase the side yard fence along Castle Drive and Edna Place from 4 feet to 6 feet and replace the wrought iron with wood, on a property Zoned Form-Based New Neighborhood (FB-NN) District. The approximately 0.255 lot is located about 1500 southwest of Merritt Road and Castle Drive, addressed as 8922 Edna Place also described as Merritt Village Lot 2, Block E. Reason Crist Survey, Abstract No.225 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

>> THANK YOU. MOVING ONTO ITEM 4C. CONDUCT A HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY PROPERTY OWNER JASPER CHAN, FOR THE APPROVAL OF WARRANTS TO INCREASE THE SIDE YARD FENCE ALONG CASTLE DRIVE AND EDNA PLACE FROM 4 FEET TO 6 FEET AND REPLACE THE WROUGHT IRON WITH WOOD, ON A PROPERTY ZONED FORM-BASED NEW NEIGHBORHOOD, FB-NN, DISTRICT.

THE APPROXIMATELY 0.255 LOT IS LOCATED ABOUT 1500 SOUTHWEST OF MERRITT ROAD AND CASTLE DRIVE, ADDRESSED AS 8922 EDNA PLACE ALSO DESCRIBED AS MERRITT VILLAGE LOT 2, BLOCK E. REASON CRIST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 225 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

[02:10:08]

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS LILYANA MOREJON AND I AM HERE TO REPRESENT THE ITEM TONIGHT. THE REQUEST IN QUESTION IS LOCATED OUT AT A PROPERTY ZONED IN THE SUBDIVISION MENTIONED IN THE TITLE IS WITHIN THE MERRITT VILLAGE. THE LOT IS ABOUT 2.5 ACRES AND IS PLATTED. HEARD THE MERRITT VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THIS IS AN ESTATE LOT, ABOUT 7200 SQUARE FEET. IT IS A CORNER LOT SEPARATED BY A LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE. AND CASTLE DRIVE IS THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ADJACENT TO IT. WITHIN THE APPROVED MERRITT VILLAGE LANDSCAPE PLAN , WHAT WE NOTICE IS THERE IS AN APPROVED FOUR FOOT METAL FENCE .

IT IS SCREENED WITH TREES AND SHRUBS IN BETWEEN CASTLE DRIVE AND PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT TONIGHT IS TO CONSTRUCT A SIX FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE BEHIND THE EXISTING SIX FOOT METAL FENCE ALONG CASTLE DRIVE OR REPLACE IT OVERALL. IF YOU LOOK TO REPLACE THE FENCE HE WILL HAVE TO GET IT APPROVED BY THE HOA BECAUSE THE FENCE TECHNICALLY DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM. AND AGAIN, HE IS ALSO REQUESTING A SIX FOOT WOODEN FENCE FACING EDNA PLACE. THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED A FRONT YARD FENCE BECAUSE IT IS BEHIND THE FACADE OF THE PROPERTY. WE CONSIDER IT A SIDE YARD. THE SAME CONDITIONS APPLY HERE. WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE STANDARDS OF AN ESTATE LOT, WE LOOK AT ARTICLE 24 .H.

>> WE HAD TO TAKE STANDARDS FROM FENCES ALONG A SIDE STREET AND FRONT YARD, WHICH WE HIGHLIGHT ON THE NEXT SLIDE. ESSENTIALLY HE -- GOING FROM ANY TYPE OF METAL PICKET FENCE OR WOODEN PICKET FENCE TO AN ALLWOOD SIX FOOT FENCE, AND THE HEIGHT FROM FOUR FEET TO SIX FEET. AND THE STANDARDS ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE SLIDE HERE. I CAN GO OVER THEM IF YOU WOULD LIKE. IN MORE DETAIL. AND AGAIN, WHEN YOU ARE CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF ANYTHING PERTAINING TO WARRANTS IN THE CODE, WE ARE ASKING FOR THINGS RELATED TO THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE CODE, FROM WHAT THE DISTRICT CALLS FOR THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE FORM-BASED CODE. DOES THE PROJECT MEET THE ATTRACTIVENESS AND ANYTHING RELATED TO WALK ABILITY AND OPEN SPACE THAT CALLS FOR THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT? DOES IT REALIZE THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE FORM-BASED CODE AND NEW NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT? THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CONSIDER WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING TO APPROVE OR DENY THE PROJECT.

YOU AS A GOVERNING BODY MAY APPROVE, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY THE WARRANT. THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION AND I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT WAS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT FOR PERSONAL REASONS BUT I AM SURE I CAN ANSWER MOST OF THEM.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. HERNANDEZ.

>> IS THE PURPOSE BECAUSE THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE, IT IS BROKEN OR HAS ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED?

>> PRIMARILY PRIVACY ISSUES. IF YOU DROVE BY THE PROPERTY YOU CAN SEE HIS BACKYARD IS WIDE OPEN. IS A HIGH TRAFFIC STREET SO I THINK HIS MAIN CONCERN IS THE PRIVACY AND MAKING SURE THAT

IT IS SAFER HIS FAMILY. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE HE IS GOING TO HAVE A BATTLE WITH THE HOA ANYWAY.

>> YES.

QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE A COMMENT IF I CAN

THROW THIS . >> GREAT PRESENTATION. IN FORM-BASED IS KIND OF HARD TO UNDERSTAND, AT LEAST FOR ME.

INAUDIBLE ] I AGREE THOUGH, I THINK IT REALLY IS PRIVACY, CASTLE DRIVE IS SITTING RIGHT THERE. YEAH, YOU KNOW, IT ALMOST IS LIKE IF THERE IS AN EXCEPTION THAT YOU CAN PUT IN FORM-BASED BUT REALLY CAN'T, YOU MIGHT WANT TO SAY NEXT TO COLLECTORS WE UNDERSTAND.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF CARS GOING BY. I THINK IT IS A GOOD REQUEST AND A GOOD PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.

[02:15:04]

>> A QUESTION I HAVE IS, YOU SAY THIS LOT IS NOT CONSIDERED A CORNER LOT AND THE FENCE IS BEYOND OR YOU KNOW, BEHIND THE FRONT SETBACK. THAT IS A SIDE YARD. AND YOU KNOW, HIS NEIGHBORS HAVE WHAT? SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE IS. SO WHY DOES HE HAVE TO PUT IN A WARRANT FOR THIS?

>> I AM SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION. YOU ARE SAYING FOR HIS ASK OF THE SITE , THE SIDE YARD ON EDNA PLACE?

>> I AM WONDERING WHY THIS IS HERE AND WHY IS HE NOT ALLOWED

TO PUT UP A WOODEN FENCE? >> THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW AN ENTIRE WOODEN FENCE ALONG THE SIDE STREET.

>> BECAUSE OF THE SIDE STREET ISSUE, EVEN THOUGH HE IS NOT A

CORNER LOT. >> HE IS A CORNER LOT BUT IT IS

FACING -- >> I THOUGHT BECAUSE IN THE FORM-BASED HE HAS THE AMENITY AREA IN THE PLANNING AND ALL THAT STUFF, HE DOES NOT MEET THE CORNER LOT ISSUE. SO THAT IS THE REASON WHY? OKAY. YEAH. I UNDERSTAND NOW. COMMISSIONERS, COMMENTS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE WARRANT REQUESTED FOR THE

FENCE. >> NOW, I■ HAVE TO ASK THIS BECAUSE IT MAY BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. ARE WE MAKING A MOTION TO HAVE HIM ALLOW HIM TO BUILD THE WOODEN FENCE ADJACENT TO THE WROUGHT IRON? OR TO BUILD THE WOODEN FENCE AND REMOVE THE WROUGHT IRON?

>> YANKS UP THE WROUGHT IRON THAT IS THE HOA.

>> I AM TRYING TO KEEP HIM OUT OF TROUBLE. OKAY? THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE. DO YOU KNOW IF HE -- I KNOW THAT HIS NEIGHBORS HAVE THE WROUGHT IRON AND THEN THE WOODEN NEXT TO IT. AS HE AMENDABLE TO PUTTING THAT FENCE THERE? DOES HE WANT TO TAKE OUT

THE WROUGHT IRON? >> TO HIM, AS LONG AS HE CAN HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE FOR PRIVACY, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER IT -- HE CAN REPLACE IT AND HAVE JUST THE WOODEN FENCE

OR HAVE IT ADJACENT TO IT. >> SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION? OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAVE IT THAT WAY.

>> SO IF THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE WARRANT THEN IT IS BASICALLY LEFT UP TO THE HOA AS TO WHAT HE HAS TO DO FINAL.

RIGHT. >> IF IT IS JUST TO ADD THE FENCE NEXT , RIGHT BY THE EXISTING FENCE, THEN HE DOES NOT GO TO THE HOA. IT IS HIS PROPERTY AND HE IS BUILDING THE

FENCE WITHIN HIS PROPERTY. >> WELL, UNFORTUNATELY THE ITEM SAYS AND REPLACE THE WROUGHT IRON WITH WOOD. THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING. WE MAY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND AMEND THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE INSTALLATION OF THE WOOD FENCE.

>>

>> THE CLARIFICATION WOULD BE THE MOTION TO EITHER REPLACE OR PLACE ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING WROUGHT IRON FENCE.

>> YES, I THINK SO. SO TO KIND OF RESTATE THE MOTION, TO APPROVE THE WARRANT TO EITHER BUILD THE FENCE ALONGSIDE THE EXISTING WROUGHT IRON FENCE, OR TO REPLACE . EITHER/OR.

>> OKAY, NOW SO IF WE GO AHEAD AND ASK THIS, HOW DOES THE HOA JUSTIFY SAYING NO, YOU CANNOT PULL UP OUR WROUGHT IRON FENCE ?

>>

[02:20:08]

>>

>> THAT IS RIGHT. WE HAD THE TOURNEY -- WE HAVE THE ATTORNEY

SITTING RIGHT HERE. >> I AM TRYING TO LOOK UP THE CODE TO LOOK AT IT. BUT GO AHEAD.

>> RIGHT. SO THE QUESTION IS, AT LEAST FROM MY STANDPOINT IS, DO WE FEEL THE WORDING HERE THAT SAYS EDNA PLACE FROM FOUR FOOT TO SIX FOOT, AND REPLACE, REPLACE THE WROUGHT IRON WITH WOOD ON THE PROPERTY ZONE FORM-BASED NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO GRANT SOMEBODY TO REPLACE OR REMOVE A FENCE THAT BELONGS TO SOMEBODY ELSE. THAT IS WHY --

>> THAT IS CORRECT. WHAT ARE YOU DOING , WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS

INAUDIBLE ] >> TO INSTALL THE WOODEN FENCE ADJACENT TO THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE. IS WHAT I AM SAYING. NOW IF THE HOA WANTS TO GO BACK AND PULL THE WROUGHT IRON AND THAT IS FINE. BUT I DO NOT WANT THE HOA COMING BACK TO US AND SAYING

WELL, YOU TOLD HIM YOU COULD. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD YOU SAY IN THE MOTION THAT EITHER/OR WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE HOA.

>> WE ARE BETTER OFF ONLY DEALING WITH THE WOODEN FENCE.

>> OKAY. SO TO RESTATE THE MOTION ONE MORE TIME.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES, MS. WILLIAMS.

>> DOES THE HOA ALLOW THE WOODEN FENCE?

>> LOOK AT THE PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO HIM, THEY HAVE IT.

>> I SEE THAT BUT HIS PROPERTY. >>

>> SO RESTATE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE WARRANT TO INSTALL HE WOODEN FENCE. PERIOD. SIX FOOT WOODEN FENCE.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE WARRANT TO ADD A SIX FOOT WOOD FENCE ON THE PROPERTY, FORM-BASED NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. AND MR. CRAWLEY WILL SECOND IT. ANY COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE AND WE WILL CALL THE VOTE.

>> AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE ARE THINKING AS ONE. I AM

SORRY. WHAT DID YOU SAY? >>

[4D. Conduct a hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on a request by Muhammed Younus, BM Real Estate Holding Company, on behalf of property owner Inga Hugues, Rowlett for Jesus LLC, for approval of a Development Plan with Warrants for the development of a Montessori School and 10 Townhomes on a property zoned Form-Based Urban Neighborhood (FB-UN) District. The approximately 3.26-acre site is located west of Merritt Road approximately 1000 feet south of the President George Bush Turnpike, addressed as 9849 Merritt Road also described as Hughes Addition Lot 1, Block B in the R. Copeland Survey, Abstract No.229 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

>> GOOD, RIGHT, I AM SAYING WE ARE AGREEING. OKAY. MOVING ONTO 4D. CONDUCT A HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY MUHAMMED YOUNUS, BM REAL ESTATE HOLDING COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER INGA HUGUES, ROWLETT FOR JESUS LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH WARRANTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND 10 TOWNHOMES ON A PROPERTY ZONED FORM-BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, FB-UN, DISTRICT. THE APPROXIMATELY 3.26-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED WEST OF MERRITT ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET SOUTH OF THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE, ADDRESSED AS 9849 MERRITT ROAD ALSO DESCRIBED AS HUGHES ADDITION LOT 1, BLOCK B IN THE R. COPELAND SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 229 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, I AM LILYANA MOREJON AND ALSO HERE TO PRESENT THIS ITEM. GROUND INFORMATION, MOST OF YOU HAVE HEARD OF THIS PROJECT BEFORE. WE HEARD IT, I PRESENTED IT TO YOU ALL DECEMBER 10TH OF LAST YEAR. YOU ALL AS A COMMISSION DECIDED TO TABLE THIS ITEM BECAUSE YOU REQUESTED MORE OF A COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC STUDY AND ALSO MORE DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE WARRANT REQUEST. ON JANUARY 10TH I CAME BACK TO YOU ALL AND

[02:25:02]

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SITE IN GENERAL, WE KNOW THAT WITHIN THIS AREA WE ARE LOOKING AT AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER, ABOUT 85 ACRES, THE INTENT OF THE SITE , AS YOU READ THROUGH THE STAFF REPORT, IT IS PRIMARILY OFFICE, LARGE SCALE OFFICE PARK CORPORATE CAMPUS. IT IS SERVING AS THE CITY'S MAJOR SURVEY HUB.

YOU ALSO HAVE THE RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES. YOU HAVE RETAIL, ENTERTAINMENT, PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND RESIDENTIAL TO SUPPORT THE AREA. WHICH IS WHAT YOU WILL BE HEARING TONIGHT. AND THEN THE FEATURES THAT YOU WILL SEE ARE THE PEDESTRIAN DESIGN, WIDE SIDEWALKS, BENCHES, SHADED TREES, AND SUCH. NOW THE ZONING FOR THE SPECIFIC SITE IS A FORM-BASED ERMINE NEIGHBORHOOD.

-- URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 3.26 ACRES AND YOU ARE LOOKING AT THEM, THE PROPERTY FRONTING MERRITT ROAD.

YOU WILL HAVE THAT MERRITT CIRCLE THAT IS NO LONGER PROPOSED CONNECTION TO THE SITE. SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY YOU HAVE A CITY OF ROWLETT PROPERTY WITH WATER TOWERS. THERE ARE EASEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY, HOWEVER AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY ON MY PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF THEY CAN RESOLVE BEFORE REPRESENTING BEFORE YOU ALL AND I WILL HAVE THEM SPEAK TO WHAT HAS BEEN FORMALIZED SINCE THEN. YOU HAVE A 30 FOOT NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, 20 FOOT SANITARY EASEMENT, PROPOSE TO BE RELOCATED TO AT THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND A 25 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE 27 FOOT COMMUNICATION TOWER SOUTH OF THE LOT. THE DEVELOPMENT, THE PROPOSAL IS FOR ABOUT A 1400 SQUARE FOOT MONTESSORI SCHOOL, ABOUT 10 UPSCALE TOWNHOMES RANGING FROM 1500 SQUARE FEET TO 2600 SQUARE LOTS. AGAIN IN TOTAL YOU HAVE THREE PARKING SPACES, YOU HAVE THREE ACCENTS POINTS, COMING TO AND FROM MERRITT ROAD. THE REQUEST IS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE 1400 SQUARE FOOT MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND THE MULTIPLE WARRANTS THAT WILL GO THROUGH. I WILL WALK THROUGH THE WARRANT QUICKLY AND YOU CAN ASK ME ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE. FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE BUILDINGS, MIXED SHOPPING, MIXED USE, TOWNHOMES, CASITAS, THE APPLICANT IS NOT ABLE TO MEET THE REQUEST BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LOT. THERE IS ALSO, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WARRANT FOR THE SITE, REDUCING IT FROM 10 TO 15, TO FIVE FEET. WE ARE LOOKING TO TOWNHOMES FRONTING MERRITT ROAD, A REDUCTION OF 90 FEET TO A MINIMUM OF 81, MAXIMUM OF 88 FEET. SO WE CANNOT CONSIDER THEM NEW CONDITION. AND I CAN GO OVER WHAT THAT IS AS WELL AT THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. PERTAINING TO OPEN SPACE, ALTHOUGH THEY DO MEET THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT, THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND THE TOWNHOMES DO NOT NECESSARILY MEET THE CONDITION

[02:30:03]

AGAIN, THE CODE CONSIDERS DIFFERENT ASKS, CONSIDERS IN TERMS OF REQUESTS, CERTAIN THINGS PERTAINING TO THE FORM-BASED CODE AND SPECIFIC DISTRICT IT LIVES IN. AS I MENTIONED IN MY PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, A LOT OF IT CALLS OUT FOR WALK ABILITY, OPEN SPACE, ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE AREA, DOESN'T MEET THE STANDARDS? THIS IS WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU. THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. YOU MAY APPROVE OR DENY THE WARRANT. AND I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE AND HAS A PRESENTATION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM.

>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ESTHER HERNANDEZ.

>> JUST CURIOUS, GOING FROM FOUR ACCESS POINTS DOWN TO THREE,

DOES THAT MEET FIRE CODE? >> THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY

FIRE. >> BUT NOT REVIEWED WHEN IT WAS

FOUR ACCESS POINTS. RIGHT? >> MR. COOPER DID.

>> WITH THE THREE? >> BUT I WILL DOUBLE CHECK WITH

HIM. THE NEW, THE NEW, -- >> OKAY.

>>

>> I AM SORRY. >>

>> MR. KING, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE FIRE CODE OR THE THREE ACCESSES VERSUS THE FOUR.

>> MICHAEL KING, PLANNING EXAMINER, THREE ACCESS POINT IS MORE THAN SUITABLE FOR THIS SITE.

>> MR. CRAWLEY. DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT, QUESTION? YEAH. MR.

POLLARD. >> SO, HOW MANY MAJOR WARNS ARE

THEY REQUESTING? >> THEY ARE NOW REQUESTING

EIGHT. >> AND HOW MANY MINOR?

>> MAJOR WARRANTS. MY APOLOGIES, I BELIEVE IT IS FIVE MAJOR, SIX MAJOR AND TWO MINOR.

THREE. >> AND THREE MINOR. SO THERE WAS A MAJOR WAR THAT THEY DROPPED. EXPLAINED TO ME IF YOU COULD, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE APARTMENT AND THE TOWNHOME.

>> ASIDE FROM THE TYPE OF BUILD, IT IS THE WAY THE PROPERTIES WILL BE PLATTED. THESE TOWNHOMES WILL BE PLATTED INDIVIDUALLY, THAT MEANS THEY HAVE TO MEET, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, DIFFERENT

FIRE AND BUILDING STANDARDS. >> OKAY, IF THEY ARE ALL ROSE IN

[02:35:07]

>> BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE FIRE RATED WALL BETWEEN EACH DWELLING UNIT AND YOU OWN THE DWELLING UNIT.

>> SO IT IS MORE LIKE A CONDO? >> THEY ARE SEPARATE PLATTED PLOTS THAT CAN BE SOLD TO AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER, RATHER THAN ONE OWNER. AND I THINK MR. KING CAN SPEAK TO THE CONNECTIVITY

BETWEEN THE UNITS. >> AS FAR AS CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE CONDO AND A TOWNHOME, A CONDO WILL HAVE A SHARED WALL THAT IF THE BUILDING, IF ONE BUILDING FALLS DOWN, OR ONE CONDO FALLS DOWN, THE WALL GOES WITH IT AND THAT IS ATTACHED. IN A TOWNHOUSE THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE WALLS NEXT TO EACH OTHER, BACK TO BACK. IF ONE BUILDING GOES DOWN THE OTHER IS

SUPPOSED TO STAY UP. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO GIVE US A PRESENTATION?

>> I KEEP GOING THE WRONG WAY. THERE WE GO. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. I KNOW IT IS LATE. AND YOU HAVE BEEN HERE LONG. BUT I ESPECIALLY WANT TO THANK ALL THOSE PRESENT IN THE LAST MEETING. NOT ONLY FOR THE KINDNESS BUT THE GUIDANCE YOU HAVE PROVIDED. AND WE HAVE TRIED TO RAISE OUR STANDARDS OF PRESENTATION IN THE DESIGN TO THE EXPECTATION. SO AS LILIANA SAID, MR. ADRIAN, TRAFFIC ENGINEER HERE TODAY, HE HAS ALREADY ADVISED FROM THE COMMENCE FROM THE START, BUT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE TODAY. SO, STARTING WITH THE GENERAL VIEW OF THE SITE, THE FIRST PHOTOGRAPH, THE NUMBER ONE IS WHEN YOU ARE STANDING ON THE SOUTH MOST SITE OF THE SITE AND LOOKING NORTH. THE SITE IS ON YOUR LEFT. IN THE SECOND ONE, YOU GO TO THE NORTH SIDE AND YOU LOOK SOUTHWARDS, THAT IS THE DRAIN EASEMENT IN THE FOREGROUND AND THE WHOLE SITE WHICH SLOPES DOWN FROM THE NORTH, FROM THE SOUTH TO THE NORTH, TOWARDS THIS DRAINAGE EASEMENT. NUMBER THIRD, AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND LOOKING FURTHER NORTHWARDS FROM OUR SITE, AND FINALLY THE FOURTH ONE IS WHEN YOU ARE STANDING ACROSS AND LOOKING AT OUR SITE WITH THE COMMUNICATION TOWER AND WATER FACILITY IN THE BACKGROUND. YOU CAN SEE THE WHOLE SITE GENTLY SLOPES DOWN TOWARDS THE NORTH. SO HAVING SAID THAT, LILYANA HAS ALREADY MENTIONED THE CHALLENGES WHICH ARE INHERENT IN THIS SITE. IN THE NORTH-SOUTH DIRECTION IS THE EASEMENT AND IT IS 20 FEET WIDE. SORRY, 30 FEET WIDE. IN THE PURPLE, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, IS A 30 FOOT EASEMENT, WHICH GIVES ACCESS TO THE COMMUNICATION TOWER, AT THE SOUTHWEST POINT OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT GOES THROUGH THE ACCESS EASEMENT AND TURNS TOWARDS THE -- WHICH IS SHOWN AS THE GRAY ONE. AND THEN FINALLY, THE FALL ZONE OF THE COMMUNICATION TOWER, AND THEN FINALLY, AS I MENTIONED ON THE NORTH SIDE THERE IS THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN THE DARK BLUE LINE SHOWS THE FLOODS I PLUGGED LINE. EIGHT FLOOD LINE.

[02:40:04]

>> IT WOULD'VE BEEN A SIMILAR PROJECT IS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT SIDE. IT IS SERVICED BY THE FRONT ENTRANCE WHAT IS POSSIBLE AND THE REST WOULD BE OPEN SPACE BUT WE STARTED WORKING WITH INAUDIBLE ] AND REALIZED IT WAS AN ON BASE CODE, IT REQUIRES AT LEAST THREE LAND USER SO IF THE BROWN IS THE MONTESSORI, WE WOULD HAVE TO ADD TWO MORE LAND USERS WHICH WOULD BE SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER SO THEY CAN BE ACCESSED. IDEALLY SPEAKING IF POSSIBLE, PROBABLY MONTESSORI TOWNHOMES AND MAYBE A SINGLE-FAMILY AND IN ADDITION TO THAT WE HAD TO CIRCLE AROUND THE ENTRANCE FROM THE BACKSIDE. THE ROAD HAS TO COME FROM THE BACK, NOT THE FRONT. THE FARM-BASED SCHOOL DOESN'T ENCOURAGE -- IT DOES NOT ALLOW ACCESS IN THE FRONT TO GIVE THE FEELING OF A PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED SELLER FOR THE -- FACADES CAN COME TOWARD THE ROAD. THEN ALL EXCESS IS MOVED TO THE BACK, SO THAT IS WHY THE CHALLENGE IS TO PUT THE ROAD IN THE BACK AND EVEN THEN PUT THREE LAND USERS THERE SO WHEN WE TRIED TO DO IT, WE REALIZE THAT PROBABLY WE CAN STILL FIT IN A MONTESSORI BUT MAXIMUM WE CAN PUT FIVE TOWNHOMES, THE RED ONE, AND PROBABLY TWO OR THREE SINGLE-FAMILY IN THAT GREEN BLOCK SO TOGETHER WITH STAFF AND WITH THE OWNER WE DISCUSSED AND REALIZED THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE A FEELING OF COMMUNITY WITH JUST FIVE HOMES IN ONE OR TWO SINGLE-FAMILY SO PROBABLY WE SHOULD REPLICATE FIVE PANELS TO THE OTHER SIDE AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE INSTEAD OF THREE LAND USERS, ALLOW US TO DO TWO LAND USERS AMONG THE MORRIS -- MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND TOWNHOMES.

IT WOULD STILL GIVE THE FEELING OF COMMUNITY WITH 10 TOWNHOMES.

SO I WOULD SAY WE HAVE ENJOYED WORKING SUGGESTIVE, NOT VERY DEFINITIVE SO IT ALLOWS US TO SPRINGBOARD IDEAS AND THE CITY BECOMES COPRODUCERS OF THESE IDEAS AND YOU CAN SPRING THE BOARD THESE IDEAS AND MAKE IT BACK TO YOU SO WE HAVE DEFINITELY ENJOYED . SO, WHEN WE TRY TO SHIFT IT , YOU CAN SAY ADJUSTED , WHAT HAPPENS IS THE MONTESSORI IS ARRANGED THERE WHERE IT SHOULD BE . THE TWO OTHER BUILDINGS WOULD BECOME TOWNHOMES AND ALL THE REST IS SUPPOSED TO BE GREEN. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LEFT WITH BUT THE CHALLENGE I WILL EXPLAIN LATER BUT THAT GIVES US THE POSSIBILITY TO USE ALL THAT AREA WHICH IS IN THE FLATLAND TO KEEP IT AS OPEN SPACE , SO THE POSSIBILITY OF IN OUR IMAGINATION, THE OPEN SPACE KIND OF HUGS THE WHOLE BUILDINGS FROM THE NORTH TOWARD THE WEST AND THE SOUTHWEST. HAVING SAID THAT , IT IS VERY COMPREHENSIVE AND SOMETIMES TOUGH BUT ALL THE GREEN THINGS OTHER ONCE WE ARE ABLE TO SATISFY IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN ON THE RED ONES ARE THE ONES COMING FOR YOU FROM THE WATER AND SOME ARE DEVIATING FROM THE COURT AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO SPECIFIC CODE THEY ASK THAT YOU COME UP WITH A VISION AND PRESENT IT TO THE COMMISSIONERS, SO WE ARE ASKING FOR FIVE TOTAL AID WARRANTS.

FIVE OF THEM ARE MAJOR AND THREE ARE MINOR, SO THE FIRST ONE -- I

[02:45:09]

HAVE 20 PARKING SPACES FOR IT'S WORKING FINE FOR THEM. IF WE GO BACK TO THE SAMPLE FOR

[02:50:05]

[02:55:01]

YOUR HURTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY

QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> MR. CRAWLEY.

>> QUICK QUESTION. MONTESSORI SCHOOLS, IT IS ALWAYS AFTERNOON QUEUE. BEEN DOING IT FOR DECADES. DO YOU FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN NOT HAVE CARS QUEUED ON THE MERRITT ROAD?

>> FIRST OF ALL, GOOD EVENING TO THE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ADRIAN MURPHY WITH LEADERSHIP PRIVATE SURFACES AND I WAS TASKED WITH DOING A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. TO YOUR QUESTION, THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, WE LOOKED AT TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF IT AND ALWAYS WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE SCHOOL SIDE ON THIS IS MORE A DAY CARE/SCHOOL COMPONENT, IT WILL GENERATE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC BUT WE ALWAYS TRY TO SEE IF TRAFFIC HAS TO BE CONTAINED WITHOUT BACKING UP ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WITH CONFIDENCE, THIS IS A SITE WE BELIEVE WILL NOT SPILL BACK.

WE LOOKED AT THE AMOUNT OF PARKING AVAILABLE ON SITE. WE LOOKED AT HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE ENTERING ON THE PEAK TIME. WE LOOKED AT THE A.M. PEAK PERIOD WHICH WAS ONE HOUR , 62 VEHICLES WOULD ARRIVE DURING THAT TIME. WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE P.M. PEAK HOUR AND WE SHOW AT LEAST 56 VEHICLES WOULD ENTER DURING THAT HOUR AND SO JUST TO DO A CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE WE SAID OKAY, WHAT IS ALL VEHICLES ARRIVE IN A 30 MINUTE WINDOW IN THE MORNING. WILL THERE BE AMPLE PARKING, WILL THERE BE SPILL BACK AND SO THIS PARTICULAR EXERCISE, THE CIRCULATION I LOOKED AT, LOOKED AT THAT EXACT SCENARIO . NOW, THERE ARE MODEL FACILITIES IN MCKINNEY THAT IS ALREADY OPERATIONAL. THEY PROVIDED SOME THAT WE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT. THERE ARE FOUR DISTINCT TIME PERIODS IN THE MORNING WITH A DROP OFF THEIR LITTLE ONES. THERE ARE ALSO FOUR DISTINCT TIME PERIODS IN THE AFTERNOON WHEN THEY PICK THEM UP AND SO IT IS MORE SPORADIC AND SPREAD OUT OVER A MUCH LONGER TIME PERIOD. LET'S SAY 3 1/2 HOURS IN THE MORNING WHEN THEY'RE ARRIVING. THERE'S ANOTHER WINDOW IN THE AFTERNOON WHEN THEY ARE PICKING UP, 3 1/2 HOURS AND SO WITH THAT SAME REPLICATION, IF WE CAN DO IT IN 30 MINUTES, SURELY IT WILL HELP HAPPEN THEN.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION CONCERNING TRAFFIC. LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET BACK TO THE DOCUMENT THAT I NEED TO LOOK AT TO ASK THIS QUESTION, BUT YOUR TRAFFIC PATTERN INDICATES THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME OFF OF MERRITT ROAD, NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND MERRITT ROAD INTO THE CENTER STREET , WRAPPING THEMSELVES AROUND THE BACK COMING IN AND THEN THROUGH THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING FOR THE DROP OFF OR PICK UP AND THEN BACK OUT TO MERRITT, BUT IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TURN ONLY , ARE YOUR ARROWS.

>> PREVIOUSLY IT WAS

>> I'M SORRY? >> YEAH, OUT OF THE BUILDING OKAY, ONTO -- WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT STREET? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO CALL THAT? STREET B. AND IT APPEARS THAT FROM STREET B , IT IS A RIGHT TURN ONTO MERRITT ROAD ONLY. MY QUESTION IS ANYBODY COMING OUT OF ROWLETT TO DROP THEIR KIDS OFF ON THEIR WAY TO WORK ARE MORE THAN LIKELY GOING TO WANT TO TAKE THAT

[03:00:03]

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. WHICH

-- >> PLEASE.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I ANSWER THE QUESTION TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ARE ASKING. THERE ARE THREE DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE GOING TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK WE RECEIVED A COMMENT FROM STAFF THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE A COUNTERCLOCKWISE DIRECTION AND HOW TRAFFIC WOULD ENTER AND LEAVE THE SITE TO DROP THE TODDLERS OFF AND TO PICK THEM UP.

>> YES. THIS IS COUNTERCLOCKWISE , WHAT I AM ASKING ABOUT IS THEN ON -- RIGHT THERE AT THE INTERSECTION OF STREET B AND MERRITT ROAD, YOU ARE LEAVING THE PROPERTY. YOUR ARROW INDICATES THAT IT IS A RIGHT TURN ONLY . AM I READING THAT

CORRECT, OR IS THAT JUST -- >> YOU CAN -- YEAH. YOU CAN GO LEFT OR RIGHT . THAT IS A MEDIAN OPENING THERE. YOU'RE TALKING

ABOUT THE MIDDLE DRIVEWAY? YEAH. >>

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M WONDERING. AS SOON AS SOMEBODY TRIES TO GO OUT THERE AND TRAFFIC IS NOT ALLOWING THEM TO GO AND SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO TURN IN, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE GOING TO BE STACKING UP IN THE QUEUE AND CREATING A JAM RIGHT THERE . AS COREY MENTIONED, THERE ARE TRAFFIC -- GO AHEAD AND SAY IT YOURSELF

HERE. >> I KNOW THAT THE CITY ENGINEER, WHEN WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY, YOU ARE CORRECT. HE DID REQUEST THE COUNTERCLOCKWISE MOTION AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT QUEUING THROUGH THAT FRONTLINE AND THEN REALLY AROUND THROUGH THE PARKING LOT ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK SO THAT IT DID NOT IMPACT THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS AS MUCH, BUT SPECIFICALLY ON THIS EXIT FROM STREET B OUT ONTO MERRITT, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN RAISED WITH CARS QUEUING THERE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT LEFT TURN AND HIGHER TRAFFIC PERIODS, BUT THEN THE VEHICLES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO EXIT THE LINE FROM THE SCHOOL , SO I THOUGHT THERE WAS FEEDBACK PROVIDED TO POTENTIALLY MAKE THAT BE A RIGHT TURN ONLY LANE THERE AT STREET B TO TURN RIGHT ONTO MERRITT. ANOTHER WAS DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT THEN VEHICLES HAVING TO U-TURN AT SOME POINT TO GO BACK THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION ON MERIT, SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT, AND HOW YOU -- IS THIS THE STUDY THAT YOU ARE PRESENTING HERE WITH THAT REQUIRE ONLY A RIGHT TURN RIGHT THERE?

>> I AM NOT FULLY AWARE OF THAT WHAT I WAS GETTING COMMENTS -- I NEVER GOT AN OFFICIAL COMMENT FROM THE CITY. I WAS GETTING COMMENTS MAY BE SECONDARY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SO EVEN IF YOU MAKE THAT MIDDLE DRIVE RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT, IT SHOULD STILL

FUNCTION. >> I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT

THAT? >> IF YOU MAKE THIS DRIVEWAY -- YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT STREET BI GUESS. IF YOU MAKE THAT A RIGHT OUT ONLY, IT SHOULD STILL WORK. AND THEN YOU'R SAYING THE FLIP SIDE IS IF WE ALLOW TURNS OUT IT'S GOING TO BE SPILL BACK.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANT BACK UP ON THE SITE.

I THINK WE JUST SHOW THAT THERE IS NOT THAT MUCH TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING TO BE COMING OUT SO IT'S NOT GOING TO PRESENT A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE IF YOU HAVE TWO OR THREE CARS QUEUED UP WAITING TO TURN LEFT TO GET OUT. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT AMOUNT OF CONCENTRATION OF VEHICLES THAT WHEN GIVEN TIME.

>> MR. TUCKER. >> SO, I AM LOOKING AT THIS AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HAVING A LANE TURNING OFF TO THE LEFT, SOMEBODY DOING A RIGHT TURN BUT YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMING UP MERRITT ROAD WHO WANT TO TURN LEFT TO GET IN THERE , OR DO THEY HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY UP TO THIS OTHER ENTRANCE, IS THAT THE PLAN? YOU HAVE PEOPLE GOING THREE DIRECTIONS THERE.

>> ALL THESE LOCATIONS ARE ON SIGNALIZED LOCATIONS AND SO THE MOVEMENTS THAT ARE PERMISSIBLE ARE ALLOWED AND SO IT IS LIKE ON ANY ON SIGNALIZED -- UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION. YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE APPROPRIATE TIME THEN YOU CAN TURN. I THINK

[03:05:04]

TURN OUT. >> WELL, I SEE IT AS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM. YOU HAVE TRAFFIC TRYING TO MOVE IN THREE DIRECTIONS .

PEOPLE COMING IN, PEOPLE GOING OUT TRYING TO CROSS OVER EACH OTHER. I SEE AN ISSUE THERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CORRECT IT.

IT IS A QUESTION. >> OKAY, COMMISSIONERS. ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> I AM CONFUSED MYSELF. B. STREET B. DRIVEWAY B, OKAY? I CAN COME. I CAN TURN LEFT OFF OF MERRITT IN THERE. I CAN TURN RIGHT OFF OF MERRITT IN THERE. I AM GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY AROUND, RIGHT, ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND DROP OFF IN THE FRONT . AM I STILL GOOD? OKAY. WHEN I LEAVE, I CAN ONLY

TURN RIGHT? >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY, SO IT IS A RIGHT EXIT ONLY. I CAN ENTER LEFT TO RIGHT FROM THE BUILDING. TO GET ONTO MERRITT OUT OF B, I CAN ONLY TURN RIGHT. I CANNOT TURN LEFT. KNOW? OKAY WILL THEN I HAVE A CONFLICT THERE BECAUSE NOW I JUST CROSSED ALL THOSE PEOPLE.

IF I'M TURNING RIGHT, I'VE GOT NO POINT THERE. YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD EXIT OFF OF WHATEVER THIS IS, C OR SOMETHING DOWN THERE BUT THEN I MISS THE QUEUE UNLESS I DROP OFF

OF THAT. >>

>> YEAH. B, I CAN COME IN LEFT OR RIGHT. I THOUGHT THE SAFEST WAY IS EXIT RIGHT ONLY. MAKE A LEFT ONLY.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU, THE SAFEST WAY.

>> IF I GO LEFT OUT I'VE GOT PEOPLE --

>> BUT TO THE APPLICANT'S POINT, THERE ARE MANY

INTERSECTIONS. >> THERE ARE ALSO MANY INTERSECTIONS THAT DON'T HAVE MONTESSORI SCHOOLS THAT WE CAN CONTROL BY TRAFFIC SAYING RIGHT TURN OUT.

>> I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING.

>> OKAY. NOW I FEEL BETTER. THANK YOU.

>> SO THEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE NEXT BREAK IN THE MEDIAN. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MS. WILLIAMS?

>> WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE EASEMENTS?

>> YES, WE HAVE A PREAPPROVAL LETTER FOR THEM. IT SHOULD BE PART OF THE BOARD WITH THE STAFF. ONCE THE SITE PLAN IS APPROVED WE HAVE TWO PROVIDE THEM THE COMPLETE DRAWINGS SO THEY CAN GIVE US THE FINAL REPORT. FOR THE NEXT DOOR PROPERTY, WE ARE IN TALKS WITH THEM EVER SINCE, SO FIRST BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER THE PROCESS OF APPROVALS, THAT IS WHY THEY DID NOT WANT TO COMMIT ANYTHING BUT NOW THE APPROVALS HAVE BEEN DONE SO EVEN TODAY WE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THEM SO WE ARE HOPING TO HAVE A NOTARIZED DOCUMENT FROM THEM.

>> OKAY, ARE YOU REFERRING TO JPI?

>> YES. >> OKAY, BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT THAT IS IN YOUR

PAYING ALL THE EXPENSES. >> THE SHEET OF THE EXPENSE SHOWS THE EASEMENT AND THAT SHEET WHICH SHOWED THE AMOUNT WE HAVE TO BE AT, IT ALSO SHOWED THE COST OF DRAINING THE EASEMENT . AND THEIR EXPECTATION.

>> BUT, THIS SAYS THEY'RE MAKING NO ASSURANCES, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF PAGE TWO OF YOUR EXHIBIT B.

>> SAY IT AGAIN? WHICH PAGES THAT ON?

>> STARTING ON LINE 2 IT SAYS FURTHERMORE IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED THAT NO ASSURANCES ARE HEREBY MADE , AND NO COMMITMENTS ARE HEREBY GIVEN BY OR ON BEHALF OF JP I THAT ANY EASEMENT AMENDMENTS OR OTHER ACTIONS WILL EVENTUALLY BE

EFFECTIVE. >> THAT IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN. WE STARTED THEM BEFORE THE NOVEMBER MEETING . AT THAT TIME THEY DID NOT WANT TO COMMIT ANYTHING CONCRETE WITH US BUT THEY ARE WILLING AND PRINCIPAL THAT THEY CAN WORK WITH US SO

[03:10:09]

ARE WORKING WITH THEM. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> AND WE UNDERSTAND, STAFF HAS EXPLAINED TO US THAT IF IT DOES NOT HAPPEN, OUR PLAN DOES NOT FIT SO WE HAVE TO CHANGE AT OUR EXPENSE APPLICANTS? THANK YOU, SIR. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

LAST TIME WE TABLED THE ITEM AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS STILL OPEN , SO WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE THAT PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT NOW. IS THERE ANY SPEAKERS?

>> CHAIRPERSON, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

>> ALWAYS GOT TO DO IS CLOSE IT, RIGHT?

>> NOT OPEN OR CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING BUT RATHER JUST CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSIONS. THERE WE GO. THAT BEING SAID, ANY FURTHER

DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM? >> MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> MR. POLLARD. >> I, TOO, FOR THE APPLICANT IN MY PREVIOUS LIFE BEFORE RETIREMENT, I WAS A CASUALTY ADJUSTER FOR MANY YEARS, MEDICATION AND SO FORTH AND I TOO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TRAFFIC FLOW COMING IN AND OUT OF THE FACILITY. ON THE MERRITT ROAD. THAT IS ONE. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THE MAJOR WARRANTS, PARTICULARLY ONE AND SEVEN, AND I JUST -- I APPLAUD THE APPLICANT THAT SOME OF THE WARRANTS ARE, I THINK, GOOD WARRANTS. WIDER STREET ACCESS AND SO FORTH BUT I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THE FORM-BASED CODE WAS OUT ONLY TO HAVE UNITS OF HOUSING BUT ALSO TO HAVE RETAIL OR BUSINESSES IN THEIR AND I GUESS COUNTING THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL AS THE BUSINESS PERCENTAGE OF THAT THAT IS NEEDED, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IS REALLY A BUSINESS IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THE FORM-BASED CODE SO ANYWAY, I HAVE PROBLEMS

WITH THOSE PARTS. >> AND THE OTHER DISCUSSION,

COMMISSIONERS? MR. CRAWLEY. >> I BROUGHT UP WITH THE RIGHT OUT AND STUFF, THE STAFF WANTS IT TO BE RIGHT OUT ON WHAT IS

IT, 2B? >> MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE CITY ENGINEER IN THE CONVERSATION ON THIS IS THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO PROVIDE SPECIFICALLY MAKE THIS CHANGE WOULD MAKE THAT CHANGE BECAUSE WE DID NOT WANT TO DESIGN THE SITE FOR THEM. THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT THE POINT YOU MENTIONED WITH A LEFT TURN IN ON STREET B, LEFT TURN AND RIGHT TURN OUT ON STRAIGHT B, THAT THERE MAY BE SOME QUEUING ISSUES THERE RIGHT WITHIN THEIR SITE. I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THERE TRAFFIC ENGINEER MAY SPEAK TO IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH QUEUING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE SITE BECAUSE IT IS A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE BEFORE YOU GET TO PUBLIC ROADWAY THERE SO THAT IS

[03:15:03]

>> WHEN THEY GET INTO SERIOUS ENGINEERING, BECAUSE THIS IS A SERIOUS ENGINEERING GAP AND WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT CONSTRUCTION PLANS, CAN OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER GO TIME-OUT, GUYS. WE NEED THIS TO BE RIGHT OUT ONLY. IS THAT IN THEIR PURVIEW TO SAY WORK WITH THEM ON THAT OR BECAUSE YOU KNOW, LET'S BE HONEST, THIS IS NOT AN ENGINEERING DRAWING IN THAT SENSE. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET MORE DRAWINGS AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. SO THERE IS ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE I GUESS WITH ENGINEERING.

>> THE CAVEAT TO THAT IS , AS THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, ANY ACCESS STRIVES TO REQUIRE A WARRANT NOT BECAUSE IT IS A DEVIATION BUT JUST BECAUSE EVERY ACCESS DRIVE HAS TO BE APPROVED THROUGH WARRANT, SO IF SOMETHING SHIFTED ON THE DRIVES ENTIRELY THAN THAT WOULD NEED TO COME BACK FOR ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION BUT IN TERMS OF IF THERE IS --

>> THE FUNCTION. THE FUNCTION OF THE DRIVEWAY DOES NOT HAVE TO COME BACK TO US BUT ENGINEERING MAY SAY THIS DOESN'T WORK.

>> RIGHT, THIS IS NOT A CONCEPT PLAN BEING APPROVED AS PART OF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT RIGHT NOW. IT IS JUST THE WARRANTS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED SO YOU WOULD NOT BE LOCKED INTO WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN ON MERRITT ROAD OR THAT SORT OF

THING . >> OKAY, WE ARE TALKING DRIVEWAYS, NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE DRIVEWAY RIGHT NOW. I MEAN LEFT, RIGHT, UP AND DOWN, THAT CASE. OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE , I'M UP FOR A MOTION.

>> CHAIRMAN, BEFORE WE GO TO A MOTION, I HAVE GOT A QUICK QUESTION SINCE I WAS NOT AT YOUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS. THE WAY YOUR AGENDA IS POSTED FOR ITEM 40 -- 4 D SO'S CONDUCT A HEARING. ARE WE NOT CONDUCTING? THEN I GO BACK TO THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND IT APPEARS ON DECEMBER 10TH, COMMISSIONERS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO TABLE THE ITEM FOR REHEARING , SO WAS THAT

HEARING OPENED AND NOT CLOSED? >> THAT WAS MY IMPRESSION.

HOWEVER, I AM BEING TOLD OTHERWISE, SO.

>> WE RECEIVED LEGAL ADVICE THAT THESE DID NOT NEED TO BE TREATED AS HEARINGS FOR WARRANTS BECAUSE THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN DOES

NOT REQUIRE THAT. >> OKAY. JUST MAKING SURE.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. SO NOW I'M READY FOR A MOTION.

WAITING FOR A MOTION . SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE ONE. I'VE GOT ANOTHER HOUR AND 10 MINUTES FOR US TOMORROW.

SO, YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? MR. CRAWLEY, PLEASE.

>> SORRY. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH WARRANTS? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH WARRANTS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MR. HERNANDEZ SECONDS IT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? LET'S CALL THE VOTE THEN. HAS EVERYBODY

VOTED? >> WHY IS IT MY WORKING?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN . ALL IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND FOR APPROVAL. THAT DOES NOT PASS. SO WITH THAT , WE ARE ADJOURNED. OR DO YOU WANT TO

[03:20:01]

ANOTHER MOTION ON THE SUBJECT. >> OH, OKAY. WELL, THAT IS

INTERESTING. >> MY BUTTONS AREN'T WORKING.

>> THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE HAD OUR COUNSEL HERE WITH US AS WELL, SO WE WILL MAKE SURE WE ARE GETTING OUR MONEY'S WORTH. COURTNEY, CAN I RE-ADJOURN? RECONVENE?

>> YOUR FIRST MOTION WAS VOTED ON AND IT FAILED SO YOU CAN TAKE UP THAT ITEM AGAIN IN THE SAME MEETING IS NORMALLY A RULE. SO.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.