[4A. Update from the City Council and Management: Financial Position, Major Projects, Operational Issues, Upcoming Dates of Interest and Items of Community Interest. ]

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 4E. UPDATE FROM CITY COUNCIL AND MANAGEMENT, FINANCIAL POSITION, MAJOR PROJECTS, OPERATIONAL ISSUES, UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST AND

ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST. >> WE HAVE FAR FEWER ANNOUNCEMENTS THAN USUAL BUT THEY ARE IMPORTANT. FROM THE SECRETARY'S OFFICE, CITY COUNCIL GENERAL AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS WILL BE HELD MAY 3RD, THE FOLLOWING PERIOD FOR CANDIDATES FOR COUNCIL MEMBER PLACES 2, 4, 6 AND VALENTINE'S DAY, FEBRUARY 14. THE FOLLOWING PERIOD FOR CANDIDATES FOR MAYOR WILL BEGIN FEBRUARY 5TH, AND END ON MARCH THE THIRD. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN RUNNING YOU MAY REQUEST A CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE PACKET FROM THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AT ROWLETT.COM OR COME APPEAR TO REQUEST IN PERSON. ARE

[00:10:11]

YOU LOOKING FOR WAYS TO GET BACK TO THE COMMUNITY BUT NOT READY TO RUN FOR COUNCIL YET? IF SO WE HAVE A SPOT FOR YOU. WE ARE LOOKING FOR COMMITTED RESIDENTS WHO ARE WILLING TO VOLUNTEER A FEW HOURS EACH MONTH. APPLICATIONS ARE ACCEPTED THROUGH FEBRUARY 28 AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR SENIOR ADVISORY BOARD. THE APPLICATIONS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE ONLINE AT ROWLETT.COM.

FROM THE LIBRARY, YOU KNEW THAT FEBRUARY WAS THE MONTH OF LOVE, BUT DID YOU KNOW THAT FEBRUARY IS ALSO LOVE YOUR LIBRARY MONTH? VISIT ROWLETT.COM /LIBRARY TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEWSLETTER AND EXPLORE ALL THE REASONS TO LOVE YOUR PUBLIC LIBRARY. TAKE THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS YOUR DREAM CAREER AND DISCOVER YOUR FULL POTENTIAL AT THE LIBRARY'S JOB START PROGRAM ON SATURDAY , FEBRUARY 15, AT 10:00 A.M. THE SESSION WILL FOCUS ON RESUME BUILDING. ENTER THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION WRITING CONTEST FOR A CHANCE TO WIN $150. ENTRIES ARE DUE FEBRUARY 28, IF YOU ARE A BUDDING BESTSELLER NOVELIST AND VISIT ROWLETT.COM /WRITING. FOR ENTRY FORM AND ADDITIONAL DETAILS. IT IS TIME AGAIN FOR THE ROWLETT THINGS. IF YOU HAVE A BEAUTIFUL VOICE OR HAVE A VOICE THAT YOU THINK WE ALL WANT TO HEAR, SUBMIT YOUR VIDEO AUDITION BY FEBRUARY 28 TO BE SELECTED FOR A CHANCE TO ENTER THE VOCAL COMPETITION ON SATURDAY, MARCH 29 AT ROWLETT HIGH SCHOOL. SOLO AND GROUP ACTS OF ALL AGES ARE WELCOME TO COMPETE FOR CASH PRIZES. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER.

>> WE HAVE TWO PETS, CODE RED IN THE ANIMAL SHELTER. WE NEED THE COMMUNITY'S HELP. FIRST UP IS JULES, THE 67-YEAR-OLD CUTIE IS A MIXED 40 POUND BREED WITH A HEART OF GOLD, A SWEET , AS GENTLE AS THEY COME IN PATIENTLY WAITING FOR THE PERFECT FOREVER HOME. COULD YOU BE THE ONE TO GIVE JULES THE LOVE AND CUDDLES SHE DESERVES? NEXT UP IS ANNA, A SWEET GERMAN SHEPHERD/HUSKY MIX.

LOOKING FOR HER FOREVER HOME WITH ONE GORGEOUS BLUE EYE AND ONE BROWN EYE, SHE CANNOT WAIT TO BRING JOY TO YOUR LIFE. SHE HAS A MEDIUM PLAY LEVEL AND IS GREAT AT SNUGGLING AT THE COUCH, GREAT WITH KIDS AND OTHER DOGS AND READY TO MAKE FRIENDS. IF YOU'RE READY FOR A LOYAL COMPANION, ANNA IS THE PUPPY FOR YOU. TO MEET JULES, ANNA, OR ANY OF THEIR FRIENDS AT THE SHELTER, PLEASE CONTACT ANIMAL SERVICES AT 972-412-6292 OR COME BY THE SHELTER ON INDUSTRIAL STREET FROM 10:00 A.M. UNTIL 5:00 P.M.

TUESDAY UNTIL SATURDAY. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER. YOU MIGHT NOTICE THAT COUNCILMEMBER REAVES DID NOT MENTION THIS WEEK THAT WE ARE IN CODE RED. THERE IS A REASON, WE HAD TWO EMPLOYEES WHO TODAY DROVE TO WISCONSIN TO DELIVER SIX DOGS TO A RESCUE. THAT IS AN INCREDIBLE AND REMARKABLE THING, THANK YOU TO THAT STAFF, OUR STAFF THAT ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING OUT AND ADVOCATING FOR ANIMALS HERE IN THE CITY. THAT IS TREMENDOUS

[5. CITIZENS’ INPUT]

NEWS, WHAT A BLESSING, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER UPDATES? ALL RIGHT, WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 5, CITIZENS' INPUT. AT THIS TIME, COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL DURING THIS TIME. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK THERE ARE CARDS IN THE BACK ORDER OF THE ROOM. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS DAVE HOLT. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STEP TO THE MICROPHONE, STATE YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE AND YOU WILL BE

ALLOWED THREE MINUTES. >> DAVE HOLT, ROWLETT. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE OLD STAFF WITH REGARD TO MY DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR SIX 917 MILLER ROAD.

THE ITEMS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NEW STAFF RESPONSE TO MY JANUARY 21ST, 2025 CITIZENS' INPUT. THE PD FIELD WAS WAIVED ON THE THIRD PD ON JULY 15, 2025, I WROTE CHECK NUMBER 1139 TWO ROWLETT FOR THE FIRST SIX 917 PD. IT WAS NECESSARY TO CHANGE IT TWO MORE TIMES WITH OLD STAFF. OLD STAFF ORDERED THE DOCUMENTS IN MY CONSULTANT PREPARED, SUBMITTED TO OLD STAFF. THESE ARE MATERIAL ITEMS THAT NEGATIVELY IMPACTED ME. OLD STAFF BURIED IT IN THE FINE PRINT. I HAVE THE EMAIL CHAIN

[00:15:05]

DOCUMENTING THIS. ALSO HAD TO STEP IN TWICE UNTIL STAFF TO REMOVE THE ALTERATIONS. THE OLDER DOCUMENTS WAIT TO BOTH THE PNC MEETING AND THE COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCIL WAIVED THE ADDITIONAL FEE SINCE I ALREADY PAID THE FEE. IT IS NOT LIKE I HAVE NOT PAID THE APPROPRIATE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AMOUNT. I HAD TO WRITE OFF $125,000 OF DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES INCURRED THROUGH 12/1 2017. THE WASTE WAS PRIMARILY THE RESULT OF ERRORS, OVERREACHES, ATTEMPTS TO COVER UP. HERE IS THE MATERIAL ITEM LEFT OUT OF THE PD FROM BRIAN VANDERBURG 'S EMAILS. SUBJECT, FOLLOW-UP, SENT TO ME IN THE MAYOR. I QUOTE, THE ACCESS FROM PETAL POINT PARK NEEDS TO BE OFFERED TO DAVE WITH THE CONTINGENCY THAT AT ANY TIME THAT THE CITY DOES NOT ALLOW THE ACCESS THAN THE ACCESS TO DAVE'S BUILDING WITHIN WOULD NEED TO COME FROM MILLER ROAD. NOW YOU OFFER CONFLICTING REASONS TO DENY THE DRIVE TO MILLER ROAD. LET'S GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL COMMITMENT MADE BY THE CITY MANAGER AND MAYOR AND WHICH WERE WITHHELD FROM THE PD FOR COUNCIL APPROVE. YOU MENTIONED SAFETY AND THE ONLY SHARED WITH ME WAS A NEGATIVE RESULT FOR A LINE OF SIGHT. THIS WAS SEALED AN ISSUE WITH DISCLAIMER THAT IT COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON. BYFIELD REPORT WAS BASED ON CURRENT DATA SHOWING THE DRIVE WAS SAFE. THE UNUSUAL ACCOMMODATIONS, THAT IS RIGHT, FOR A KAYAK OPERATION ON A LOT NEXT TO THE DALLAS TAKE LINE THAT WAS OTHERWISE UNDER DEVELOPABLE. YOU CAME TO ME AND ASKED ME TO BUILD ON THIS LOT.

NOW THAT THE ACO IS NEXT TO THE PARK YOU PROVIDE INCREASED PROPERTY TAX, SALES TAX, ECONOMIC AND IF IT'S TO THE RESIDENTS WHICH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT COULD NOT. THE REPORT FAILED TO MAKE IT RELEVANT. I KNOW HOW TO PLAN, EXECUTE AND WRITE ON A FINANCIAL AUDIT AND OPERATIONAL AUDIT. DURING MY

CAREER -- >> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER THIS EVENING IS JUSTIN MARSTON. IF YOU WILL STEP UP IN STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> JUSTIN MARSTON. ROWLETT. I WANTED TO COME APPEARANCE A THANK YOU TO YOUR DEDICATION SERVICE TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE ROWLETT. SIX MONTHS AGO I PRESENTED AND POINTED OUT FLAWS THAT I NOTICED IN OUR CITY'S TREE ORDINANCE. I PROVIDED EXAMPLES OF WHAT A PROTECTED TREE AT THAT TIME LOOKED LIKE, EIGHT INCHES, A LARGE TREE. I ALSO PROVIDED EXAMPLES OF WHAT A 5 1/2 INCH TREE LOOKS LIKE NEC BESIDES THAT THE TREES PROVIDE AS PART OF THE TREE ORDINANCE. I THINK IT OPENED EVERYBODY'S EYES TO THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE WE WERE OVERLOOKING. I APPRECIATE THE RECENT CHANGES IN THE CITY TREE ORDINANCE TO REDUCE THE EXISTING SIZE OF TREES FROM EIGHT INCHES, EXCUSE ME, THE EXISTING SIZE OF A PROTECTED TREE FROM EIGHT INCHES TO SIX INCHES. NOT ONLY DOES IT HAVE IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON PROPOSED AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BUT ALSO SHOWS THAT THE CITY IS SERIOUS ABOUT PROTECTING ITS VALUABLE RESOURCES AND PUSHES DEVELOPERS TO BE MORE CONSCIOUS OF THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND HOPEFULLY PROVIDE MORE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS MOVING FORWARD. OR FACE STIFF NEGATION PENALTIES. I AM SORRY, I DID NOT TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WAS DONE IN THAT ORDINANCE REVIEW BUT ANOTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THE MITIGATION FEES, AND I THINK WERE OUTDATED. WHEN I LOOKED AT THEM. BUT THAT IS ANOTHER THING I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO LOOK FOR MOVING FORWARD. I KNOW WE HAVE MORE WORK TO DO TO IMPROVE ON BUT I WANTED TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE LISTENING AND HEARING OUR VOICES, FROM SEVERAL CITIZENS, AND WE ARE MOVING IN A POSITIVE

DIRECTION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT STAFF HAS SEEN AND WILL RESPOND TO YOUR EMAIL AS WELL THAT YOU SENT

[6. CONSENT AGENDA]

YESTERDAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYMORE CITIZENS' INPUT THIS EVENING? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. A LIST OF ACTION ITEMS THAT CAN BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION. A COUNCILMEMBER OR CITIZEN MAY REQUEST ITEMS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. DO WE HAVE ANY ITEMS WE WISH TO PULL FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? SEEING NONE, SECRETARY, PLEASE READ THE ITEMS

INTO THE RECORD PLAYER >> CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING THE MINUTES, SIX A. ITEM 6 THE, CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING AN

[00:20:05]

PURCHASE OF ONE LOADER. >> THANK YOU. COUNCIL, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED? I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER BRITAIN, SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER REAVES. LET'S CALL THE VOTE. AND THE CONSENT

[7A. Conduct a public hearing on a request by Nick Patel on behalf of property owner Coyle Lakes, LLC for approval of a Tree Removal Permit on a property zoned Planned Development Ordinance No. 001-24. The 11-acre site is located north of Main Street and approximately 1,200 feet west of the President George Bush Turnpike, identified as Block A, Lot 2 of FBC Rowlett Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

AGENDA PASSES BY A VOTE OF 5-1. ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT WE WILL MOVED TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS THIS EVENING. 7A, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST BY NICK PATEL ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER COYLE LAKES, LLC FOR APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ON A PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE NUMBER 001-24. THE 11-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF MAIN STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET WEST OF THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE, IDENTIFIED AS BLOCK A, LOT 2 OF FBC ROWLETT ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS . ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION. I BELIEVE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE . DOES THAT RAISE CONCERN WITH THE AGENDA ITEM CITY ATTORNEY? DO YOU MIND PRESSING YOUR -- THANK YOU. THIS

THOMAS? >> UNFORTUNATELY IT WOULD.

BECAUSE THE NOTICE HAS TO BE PUBLISHED AND WOULD BE

INCORRECT. >> AND JUST TO BE TOTALLY CLEAR, IT IS ON THE EAST SIDE, THE ROWLETT HIGH SCHOOL SIDE, CORRECT? THAT IS EAST OF THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE.

IT WOULD BE ON RISE TO PROCEED WITH THIS ITEM. -- UNWISE TO PROCEED WITH THIS ITEM. DO WE NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION? DO YOU MIND PUSHING YOUR BUTTON AND SING THAT ONE MORE TIME SO IT IS

ON THE RECORD? I AM SORRY. >> IT WOULD NOT DO ANY GOOD TO TAKE ACTION, CONTINUE IT OR OTHERWISE, IT HAS TO BE

RE-NOTICED. >> OKAY, COUNCIL, UNLESS THERE IS ANY OBJECTIONS I WILL SKIP ITEMS 7 A AND 7B, ON THOSE TWO ITEMS. DO WE NEED TO HOLD BE PUBLIC HEARING?

[7C. Conduct a public hearing a request by Brian Hiatt on behalf of property owner Cornerstone Assembly of God for approval of a Tree Removal Permit on a property zoned Single-Family Residential (SF-10) and Limited Office (O-1). The approximately 12.07-acre lot is located at the southwest corner of Cornerstone Drive and Dalrock Road, identified as Block A, Lot 1 of Cornerstone Church Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

>> NO. >> APPRECIATE THE CLARITY. ITEM 7C, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING A REQUEST BY BRIAN HIATT ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER CORNERSTONE ASSEMBLY OF GOD FOR APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ON A PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SF-10, AND LIMITED OFFICE, O-1. THE APPROXIMATELY 12.07-ACRE LOT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CORNERSTONE DRIVE AND DALROCK ROAD, IDENTIFIED AS BLOCK A, LOT 1 OF CORNERSTONE CHURCH ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS .

MAKING THAT PRESENTATION IS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT. >> THIS IS ON A DIFFERENT PROPERTY BUT SAME TYPE OF PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL GO THROUGH THIS ONE. WE ALSO HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT AS WELL. JUST TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE HERE, YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAP ON THE SLIDE HERE THAT THIS IS A PERMIT FOR AN ACTIVE CONSTRUCION ZONE FOR CORNERSTONE CHURCH, AND ONGOING CONSTRUCTION SITE. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY HERE ON THE -- THAT WE RECEIVED TO DATE ON THIS PROJECT. THE FINAL PLOT WAS APPROVED, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED AND THEY BEGAN CONSTRUCTION.

THERE WAS TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PREVIOUSLY ON THE SITE THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2022. THERE WERE SOME TREES THAT WERE DESIGNATED TO BE PRESERVED WHICH WERE THEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND WHICH IS WHY WE ARE BACK BEFORE YOU HERE. THERE'S ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY AN APPLICATION THROUGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR

[00:25:01]

THE SAME SITE FOR RELIEF SOUGHT FOR THE LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS AND OTHER THINGS THAT WAS DENIED AT THE MOST RECENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND THE APPLICANT INDICATED THEY DO NOT INTEND TO SUBMIT AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST. THIS IS THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN SUBMITTED , I KNOW IT IS HARD TO SEE HERE BUT I JUST WANT TO GIVE THE WHOLE PICTURE HERE SO YOU CAN SEE ALL THE DOTS TO THE LEFT SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN ARE TREES THAT ARE REMAINING. THE SMALL AREA THAT IS CIRCLED IN RED THERE, THIS IS A CLOSE-UP VIEW OF THE TREES THAT WERE DESIGNATED TO BE PRESERVED AND THEN EVENTUALLY DAMAGED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OR REMOVED OR ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS CURRENT TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. TO GO THROUGH THE NUMBERS HERE, THESE THREE TREES IN TOTAL ARE 63 INCHES. SO GETTING TO THE CALCULATION A LITTLE LATER, KEEP IN MIND IT IS THREE TREES BUT A TOTAL OF 63 CALIPER INCHES. THERE ARE COTE THAT HAVE APPLIED TO WHERE WE HAVE GOTTEN TODAY. THE FIRST SECTION POINTS TO THE STAFF ABILITY TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF TREES PRIOR TO THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND SINCE THE TREES ARE DISEASED OR DAMAGED, THESE WERE OBVIOUSLY DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION. THERE WAS CONCERN OF FALL RISK. WE DID GO OUT INTO THE TREES BEFORE THEY WERE REMOVED. THAT IS THE FIRST PART. MITIGATED IF IT IS CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. AND THE SECOND REFERENCE HERE, IT INDICATES THE APPLICANT SHOULD REPLACE THE TREES WITHIN SIX MONTHS AT RATIO OF 1 TO 1 CALIPER HER INCH WITH ANY ON OUR TREE LIST. A MINIMUM CALIBER INCH FOR ANY TREES TO BE REPLACED. AT THE BOTTOM HERE THIS IS MORE OF A PROCEDURAL ISSUE, TO ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO WAIVE THE MITIGATION BUT ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO WAIVE THE MITIGATION FEE. IN THIS CASE COUNCIL HAS BEEN ASKED TO CONSIDER THEM ALLOWING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TREE PERMIT THAT WOULD CHARGE A FEE FOR MITIGATION IN LIEU OF PLANTING. AND SUBSEQUENT WAVING OF THE FEE. SO THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE WAIVER OF THE FEE. THIS APPLICANT WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING VOTING 7-0 TWO APPROVED FOR THE REQUEST OF THE REMOVAL BUT DID NOT SUPPORT EITHER THE WAIVER OF TREES OR PLANTINGS. THEY ARE SUPPORTING THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT BUT ONLY IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO COMPLY WITH THE OPTION OF PLANTING TREES AS REQUIRED FOR MITIGATION OF THE FULL INCHES BEING REMOVED WITH THOSE THREE TREES, OR THE FEE IN LIEU OF MITIGATION PLANTING. AND THEN I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. ALSO THE SENIOR PLANNER CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS BETTER THAN I CAN. AND THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION

AS WELL. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? ONE QUESTION IF I MAY. R. DID YOU --

>> I WAS GOING TO ASK HOW MUCH THE FEE WAIVER BEING REQUESTED

IS? IS THAT THE $7665.21? >> YES IT IS, THAT IS THE FULL AMOUNT FOR THE 63 INCHES NOT TO BE REPLANTED.

>> OKAY. THANKS. >> SIMILAR QUESTION WITH REGARD TO IF THEY WERE TO REPLANT. SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS TO HAVE THEM REPLANT OR PAY INTO THE FUND. DOES THE PLAN INCLUDE LANDSCAPING AND DOES THE PLAN INCLUDE TREES AND IT THAT WOULD COUNT TOWARDS THIS? TELL ME HOW

THAT WORKS. >> THE LANDSCAPING PLAN WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY AND INVOLVED ALL OF THE TREES TO BE REMOVED.

EDITION TREES TO BE PLANTED. THESE TREES WERE PART OF REQUIRED TREES TO REMAIN ON THE SITE. SO IF THEY WERE TO BE REMOVED THEN THEY WOULD BE SHORT A COUPLE THINGS, ONE WOULD BE THE NUMBER OF INCHES OF TREES AND TWO, THERE IS SEPARATELY A LANDSCAPE ISLAND REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE PARKING LOT REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANTING. SO THERE NEEDS TO BE A TREE IN THE ISLAND TO MEET THAT SEGMENT OF THE CODE. IN ADDITION TO THE NEED TO REPLACE THE TREES BECAUSE THEY WERE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION.

THERE WERE NOT ACCESS TREES AT THE TIME THAT THESE COULD HAVE BEEN USED IN LIEU OF OR ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT.

>> IN THE TREES IN THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND DO NOT COUNT TOWARD TREE REPLACEMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUIRED SEPARATELY UNDER CODE?

[00:30:01]

>> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND >> AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AND WHAT IT ALLOWS FOR TERMS OF REPLANTING, TAKING OUT X NUMBER OF CALIPER INCHES OF TREES AND REPLACING SOME BACK WITH THE LANDSCAPING PLAN BUT DOES THAT ALSO INCLUDE

THE ISLAND AS WELL? >> 70 ISLAND, THE TREES THAT WERE REMAINING IN THE ISLAND WERE COUNTED TO BE SAVED IN THE CREDIT FOR THAT TIME. SO THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE IS A FULL BREAKDOWN OF THE TOTAL CALIBRATION, 1033, LET ME MAKE SURE I'VE GOT THE RIGHT. THAT IS NOT THE CORRECT NUMBER. SORRY. THE PRESERVATION OF THOSE TREES WAS ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR THOUGH IN THE PREVIOUS TREE REMOVAL CALCULATION OF WHAT NEEDED TO BE PLANTED, ANY ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AT THAT TIME.

>> THANK YOU. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? CAN WE HEAR THE PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT?

>> IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.

>> BRIAN HIATT, ROWLETT, CORNERSTONE ASSEMBLY OF GOD, REGISTERED AGENT. EXCUSE ME. AND OBVIOUSLY THE PASTOR. OF THE CHURCH. I AM ASKING IS I DID TO THE P&Z, THAT THE FEES AND THE TREE REPLACEMENTS BE WAIVED. AND THE REASON I AM ASKING, I HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION FOR YOU. FIRST OF ALL THIS WILL GIVE YOU A GOOD IDEA OF WHAT THE TREE LOOKED LIKE. FOR WHATEVER REASON DURING GRADING, THEY WERE MARKED LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ACCORDING TO CODE. AS YOU SEE THAT IS ABOUT 4 TO 5 FOOT OF THAT ROOT WAS EXPOSED DUE TO THE GRADING. WE CONTACTED OUR FRIEND MATT -- OF FORMER COUNCIL AND HE CAME OUT AND GAVE US A REPORT.

HE SAID -- WE TALKED ABOUT A RETAINING WALL, A LOT OF OPTIONS TRYING TO SAVE THE TREES. BUT HIS REPORT WAS THAT WE SENT THE LETTER IN TWO PLANNING, IN HIS ESTIMATION THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO BE SAVED. SO WE HAD TO TAKE THE NEXT STEPS TO HAVE THEM REMOVED.

I AM APPEALING THE $7600 FEE AT ALL, SO THE PLANNING RECOMMENDED 4 INCH TREES, TO REPLACE THE TREES, THE LANDSCAPING COMPANY THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH , TO REPLACE THE TREES, REPLANTING THE TREES I SHOULD SAY, IT WOULD BE OVER $13,000.

AS OPPOSED TO PAYING THE FEE OF $7600. WHICH P&Z AT THE MEETING DENIED. I THINK IT WAS EGREGIOUS. BUT SAID WE COULD NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE REFORESTATION FEE. BECAUSE THAT WAS OVER $400,000 IN THE FUND AND THE PARKS AND REC NOW IS OVER THAT.

AND THEY HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO PLANT TREES. YOU CAN GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THE TAPE. SO I AM JUST TELLING YOU IT WAS NOT A VERY PLEASANT MEETING FOR ME. OUR CURRENT BUDGET DOES NOT HAVE ROOM TO PAY TO REPLANT . WE HAVE SAVED 130 TREES ON SITE ON THE FIRST GO AROUND. THERE ARE PLENTY OF TREES. WE HAVE DONE OUR BEST TO SAVE WHAT WE CAN AND NOW WE FEEL LIKE WE ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING ON THE -- THEY SHOWED YOU THOSE TREES, WHERE THEY ARE AT. THERE IS THE COST, OUR BUDGET DOES NOT HAVE IT. CITY CODE DOES ALLOW FOR EVERY ONE INCH CALIBER SAVED, THE DEVELOPER RECEIVES A CREDIT FOR ONE TREE THAT DOES NOT NEED TO BE REPLACED. WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE THREE TREES WE STILL HAVE OVER 1200 INCHES OF TREES SAVED ON OUR PROPERTY.

AS I MENTIONED , WE DO NOT HAVE ROOM IN OUR BUDGET, EVERYTHING IS TIGHT. WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME AND I HAVE BEEN UP HERE TOO MANY TIMES. I APOLOGIZE HAVING TO COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT TREES. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT I AM WASTING YOUR TIME BUT YOU HAVE BIGGER FISH TO FRY THAN DEAL WITH US. I

[00:35:05]

WAS HOPING WE COULD SOLVE THIS THROUGH PLANNING. INITIALLY WE WERE. WHEN I FIRST WENT IN I WAS TOLD IT IS THREE TREES AND WILL BE A QUICK PROCESS, IN AND OUT. WHEN I WENT TO THE MEETING AND THREE CAME DOWN AND SAT ACROSS FROM ME I KNEW I WAS IN TROUBLE THEN. EVERYTHING CHANGED. AND NOW YOU HAVE TO PAY THIS, DO THIS, DO THAT. MANY TIMES WHEN WE TALK TO, WHOEVER IT IS AND PLANNING, THROUGH THIS PROCESS, I GET A DIFFERENT ANSWER EVERY TIME. SO THIS TIME, AGAIN, WHEN THE MEETING, THEY CHANGED WHAT IT WAS, EXPLAINED WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN. AND I AM JUST TELLING YOU WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO REPLACE THEM, WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY THE FEE. I HAVE TALKED TO THE CONTRACTOR AND PEOPLE RESPONSIBLY AND INEVITABLY CORNERSTONE ASSEMBLY OF GOD IS HOLDING THE BAG. I AM ASKING YOU TO APPEAL THE TREES AND THE FEE. I HAVE AN IDEA. AND THEN I WILL SHUT UP. IF THE CITY HAS OVER $400,000 IN THE REFORESTATION FUND AND THE CITY PARKS DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE ELSE TO PUT THE TREES, I HAVE AN IDEA. WHY DON'T THE CITY INVEST IN A LOCAL CHURCH AND HELP US PLANT SOME TREES? THAT WOULD SOLVE A PROBLEM FOR BOTH OF US. THANK YOU ALL. I WILL BE BACK IN TWO

WEEKS TO PRAY FOR YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. IF YOU DON'T MIND, STICK AROUND IN CASE THERE ARE QUESTIONS. I HAVE ONE QUESTION RELATED TO THE TREES NOW, ALREADY TAKEN DOWN, CORRECT?

>> YES, THEY CAME OUT , TWO WERE IN FAIR CONDITION WITH WRENCHES FALLING BEFORE THE PROCESS. THERE WAS ONE CONSIDERED GOOD, YOU CAN SEE ON THE REPORT BUT THEY WERE CONTINUING TO DECAY.

WITH SOME STORMS THAT WE'VE HAD THEY REMOVED QUITE A BIT.

>> AT WHAT POINT DID YOU REALIZE THIS WAS AN ISSUE BETWEEN THE GRADING IN THE CONCRETE AND ALL OF THAT?

>> THEY STARTED MOVING DIRT JANUARY OF LAST YEAR. AND THEN WE HAD ALL OF THAT RAIN. I WANT TO SAY IT IS PROBABLY ME OR JUNE WHEN IT WAS REALLY NOTICEABLE. AND THEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LANDSCAPING ARCHITECT WHO CAME OUT WITH MY SITE MANAGER. THEY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE ABOUT WHAT WE COULD DO ABOUT SAVING TREES. WE TALKED ABOUT BUILDING A RETAINING WALL AROUND IT AND WHAT WE COULD DO TO SAVE IT. EVENTUALLY BY THE TIME AUGUST ROLLED AROUND I GOT A HOLD OF MATT AND HE SAID THEY WERE NOT GOING TO. WE DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO BECAUSE WE WANTED TO SAVE THEM. THAT HAS BEEN OUR HEART ALL ALONG. SO I WOULD SAY MAY OR JUNE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN I WANT TO SAY THAT MATT CAME OUT IN AUGUST. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT

THE LETTER. >> THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COUNCILMEMBER REAVES?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE RECITATION. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU SAID THERE WAS NO CONTINGENCY IN THE CONTRACT TO BE LIABLE FOR THE GRADING ISSUE, THE TREES, ALL ABOUT?

>> AT THIS MOMENT, NO, I AM TRYING TO DISCUSS THOSE THINGS.

ONE, I GET SOME DISCUSSION WITHIN THE OTHER WILL NOT RETURN MY CALL OR EMAIL. AND I KNOW THAT THAT DOES NOT HELP, I MEAN THAT -- IF I HAVE TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION THAT IS NOT SOMETHING I WANT TO DO OBVIOUSLY. OH, ALSO, I NOTICED COREY MENTIONED THE ISLAND WHERE THE TREES CAME OUT. OBVIOUSLY WE WILL REPLANT TREES IN THAT PLACE PER CODE. WE JUST HIRED A GUY LAST WEEK TO DO OUR

LANDSCAPING. >> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGAN YAWL TOOK ALL REASONABLE ACTION TO

PROTECT THOSE TREES ? CORRECT? >> YES, THEY WERE WRAPPED IN A PROTECTIVE FENCE AND STAKED. I HAVE A PICTURE OF THAT SUMMER.

YES SIR, IT WAS. >> COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP.

>> THANK YOU PASTOR FOR BEING HERE. YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE OF THE GRADING, THAT BLEW MY MIND. WHERE THE TREES WERE -- WOW! THAT IS PRETTY WILD. YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE DEALS, SOMETIMES COMMON SENSE JUST HAS TO TAKE OVER. IF AN INDIVIDUAL DOES EVERYTHING THEY CAN, PLAY BY THE RULES, SAVING TREES, THIS I LOOK AT THIS AND I SHAKE MY HEAD GOING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEXT STEP WAS GOING TO BE WITH THIS. I MEAN,

[00:40:02]

YOU KNOW, IT IS JUST, I APPRECIATE WHERE YOU ARE AT WITH THIS. BECAUSE YES, FOR ME THIS IS JUST A COMMONSENSE ISSUE. THE TREES WERE OBVIOUSLY DAMAGED, THERE IS A LITANY OF THINGS GOING ON HERE. FOR ME PERSONALLY IT IS A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF MONEY, YOU HAVE MADE EFFORTS. I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR TO GIVE YOU THE

WAIVER. >> I DID NOT INCLUDE THE COST TO TAKE THOSE TREES DOWN EITHER, THAT WAS NOT CHEAP. AND OUT OF MY BUDGET AS WELL. EVERYTHING COMBINED, IF I WAS HELD MY FEET TO THE FIRE AND WHAT THE P&Z SAID, IT WOULD BE OVER $20,000

TO GET EVERYTHING DONE. EASY. >> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD REPLANT THE TREES

IN THE ISLAND? >> WE WOULD MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE FOR CODE ON THE ISLAND. IT IS ABOUT 1000 SQUARE FOOT OR SO, A BIG AREA. OBVIOUSLY WITH THE TREES. THAT WAS ONE REASON TO TRY TO KEEP THEM, THEN THE GRADING. I AM NOT A CONSTRUCTION GUY, I AM A PASTOR. I KNOW COMMON SENSE IS TRUE AND I WENT OUT THERE AND WENT, HOW DID YOU, YOU KNOW, AND THEY WANT ME TO MAKE DECISIONS ON THE FLY. I AM THINKING THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THIS AND MAKE SURE WE COVER ALL BASES BEFORE WE DO SOMETHING. WE INITIATED IT TO THE CITY. SO I MADE SURE P&Z KNEW THAT AND I DO NOT THINK THEY CAUGHT THAT. BUT, ANYWAY, WE WANTED TO TRY TO SAVE IT AND WORK WITH THEM.

>> AND YOU ALSO SAID THAT P&Z SAID YOU COULD NOT PAY MITIGATION FEE INSTEAD OF PLANTING THE TREES BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THE REFORESTATION FUND. IF THE COUNCIL OVERRULED THAT BASICALLY, AND ASKED YOU TO PAY THE MITIGATION FEE, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO THAT?

>> I AM TELLING YOU MY BUDGET IS SO TIGHT, I DO NOT HAVE IT. I HAD A MEETING YESTERDAY MORNING, A MONTHLY MEETING WITH OUR BUILDER AND THEY TOLD ME WHAT WAS IN THE CONTINGENCY FUND AND I ABOUT SLUNK UNDER THE DESK BECAUSE WE HAVE ABOUT 2 TO 3 MONTHS AGO. I AM FIGHTING FOR EVERY DIME RIGHT NOW.

>> THAT IS ALL I HAD. >> COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON.

>> I AM TRYING TO CLARIFY, PASTOR YOU ARE ASKING FOR WAIVER OF FEES, AND IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER TREES THEY WERE ASKING? REPLACEMENT TREES. NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ISLAND.

>> RIGHT, WE WILL PUT THE TREE IN THE ISLAND OR TREES, I THINK PROBABLY TWO IS SUPPOSED TO GO IN THERE. OUR LANDSCAPER CLINT WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT. THERE WILL BE TREES AND PLUS WHEN WE DO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN IT DOES ISLANDS WE HAVE. THEY WILL BE UP TO CODE AND WE WILL BRING THIS UP TO CODE AS WELL.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR STAFF. ONE THING THE APPLICANT MENTIONED WAS THE THIRD BULLET POINT AHEAD OF THIS, ACCORDING TO CITY CODE THEY SHOULD RECEIVE CREDIT FOR EVERY TREE THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REPLACED. AND REMOVAL OF THREE TREES WE STILL HAVE 1200 CREDITS IN THE PROPERTY, SO I AM CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING

VERSUS WHAT STAFF WAS SAYING? >> I ASKED BRITNEY TO COME UP BECAUSE I DID SEE THAT POINT AS WELL. IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE ORIGINAL PLAN, WHEN THE APPROVED IT, WE WILL GET INTO SEMANTICS A LITTLE BUT THE CODE DOES PROVIDE ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR SAVED TREES. THERE IS SOME DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON WHETHER JUST A TREE THAT REMAINS ON SITE IS INDEED A SAVED TREE OR THERE NEEDS TO BE CLEAR ACTION BY RELOCATING PLANTS OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. I REALLY CANNOT SPEAK TO WHAT DETERMINATION WAS MADE AT THAT TIME BUT I THINK THAT THE WAY THE CALCULATION WAS DONE AT THAT TIME THEY DID HAVE MORE INCHES REMAINING ON THE SITE THAN WHAT WAS TO BE REMOVED. WHICH IS HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THE ALKYLATION. WE SAW THE SAME RATE IN PLACE OF A ONE-TO-ONE. SO IF THEY WERE TO COME FORWARD WITH THESE TREES REMOVED IN THE PLAN AT THAT TIME, I DO BELIEVE THEY WOULD AT THE TIME CALCULATE THAT AS A SAVED TREE IN THE SAME WAY THEY DID ON THE SITE AND IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL MITIGATION ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WAS IN THE PLAN. I DO NOT KNOW IF WE WOULD INTERPRET IT THE SAME WAY CURRENTLY BUT I THINK IT SPEAKS TO HOW THEY CALCULATED IT AT THAT TIME.

>> HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU SAY A, WHO IS THEY?

>> I AM NOT SURE. WHATEVER STAFF.

[00:45:02]

>> WE ARE TALKING STAFF AND NOT THE APPLICANT. AND SO WE DID A CALCULATION OF WHAT WAS SAVED, WHATEVER THAT WAS DEFINED AS AT THAT TIME. WE DID THE CALCULATION TO THE COUNSELING MADE THE DECISION AND PRESUMABLY THE APPLICANT SAW THERE WAS AN ALLOWANCE OF CALIBER INCHES SAVED.

>> THE APPLICANT IS THE ONE THAT PREPARES IT AND THEN THE STAFF REVIEWS FOR ACCURACY. BUT THEY DID PREPARE THROUGH THE TREE SURVEY THAT HERE ARE HOW MANY TREES ARE ON THE SITE, HOW MANY INCHES PER TOTAL, AND THEY WERE REMOVING 313.5 CALIBER INCHES AND REMOVING 14 TREES FOR THE ACTUAL CHURCH AND STRUCTURES ON THE SITE. THE REMAINING INCHES FOR THE 116 TREES REMAINING, THEY RECEIVED THAT AS A CREDIT. SO AS YOU SAW IN THE ONE IMAGE THAT WE HAD, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TREES OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION AREA. THEY WERE GIVEN THIS AS A CREDIT FOR SAVED TREES. YES, I DO BELIEVE THAT IF THEY SUBMITTED THREE ADDITIONAL TREE FOR REMOVAL, THE WAY IT WAS CALCULATED BY STAFF AT THE TIME WOULD HAVE REDUCED IT STILL TO ZERO MITIGATION. THEY WOULD HAVE STILL BEEN REQUIRED TO DO SOME PLANTINGS IN THE ISLAND AS THE PASTOR MENTIONED AS WELL TO BRING THE SAME ISLAND STANDARD UP AS ALL THE OTHER ISLANDS IN THE PARKING LOT WERE.

>> IS THIS THE ONLY ISLAND WHERE THE TREES ARE PLANTED BECAUSE IT IS SO LARGE? I SAW OTHER ISLANDS IN THE PHOTO THAT HE PROVIDED.

>> THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL HISTORY IN THE SITE, AND ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN WAS APPROVED FOR THE SITE THAT REDUCED LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. SINCE THEN STAFF HAS COME THROUGH AND ASKED TO AMEND THE PLAN. STAFFED DETERMINED IT WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE PROCESS AND WE CANNOT SPEAK TO WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT TIME. IT IS INTENDED THAT YOU ARE STILL MEETING THE OVERALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SITE BUT BECAUSE OF OVERHEAD POWER LINES OR GRADING ISSUES, YOU CANNOT MEET IT. THE PLAN THE COMPUTER AT THE TIME DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA AND STAFF DID NOT FIND IT TO BE APPROPRIATE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS.

THEY WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR VARIANCES TO ADDRESS THE DISCREPANCY THAT WE FOUND AND IT WAS DENIED. THAT IS BEING HANDLED THROUGH A SEPARATE PROCESS.

>> OKAY I THINK THAT HELPS ANSWER QUESTIONS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT, ITEM 3C IS PUBLIC . WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC AREA AT 7:47 P.M. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FROM THOSE THAT WHICH WISH TO SPEAK

[7D. Discuss and consider action on a request by Brian Hiatt on behalf of property owner Cornerstone Assembly of God for approval of a Tree Removal Permit on a property zoned Single-Family Residential (SF-10) and Limited Office (O-1). The approximately 12.07-acre lot is located at the southwest corner of Cornerstone Drive and Dalrock Road, identified as Block A, Lot 1 of Cornerstone Church Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

OF THE ITEM? SEEING NONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC ITEM AND MOVE ON TO ITEM 7D, THE ACTION ITEM TO ACCOMPANY ITEM 7C. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR COMMENTS . IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON. I WILL ASK THAT YOU RTS

AND STATE THE MOTION. PLEASE. >> MI -- THERE, THIS IS A VERY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE. I AM NOT SURE I HAVE SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS FOR. LET ME GO AHEAD AND WORK THROUGH THE MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BRIAN HIATT ON BEHALF OF CORNERSTONE ASSEMBLY OF GOD WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT.

THAT WE WAIVE THE FEES AND THAT WE ALSO WAIVE THE REPLACEMENT TREES NOTWITHSTANDING THE TREES HAT HE AGREED TO IN THE.

>> COUNCIL, WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SEE A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER SCHUPP. I ALSO ASKED THAT YOU AFFIRMED

THAT. ONE MORE TIME. >> I SECOND.

>> THANK YOU. AND WE HAVE A COMMENT FROM MS. THOMAS.

>> WITH REGARD TO THE MOTION, THAT WOULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS WRITTEN. SECTION TWO SAYS THAT THEY ARE GRANTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND THEN THREE WAVES THE MITIGATION FEE. NO, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. YOUR MOTION WAS

PERFECT. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION WHICH EFFECTIVELY APPROVES THE ITEM AS PRESENTED. THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. IS EVERYONE CLEAR ON THAT? NO AMENDMENT NEEDED BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IS ALREADY IN THE RESOLUTION, TO INCLUDE THE WAIVER. OKAY. SO THAT IS OUR MOTION AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY, I WILL JUST MAKE SOME REMARKS THAT PASTOR HIATT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. THIS HAS CLEARLY BEEN A LITTLE MESS AND I THINK THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS VERY APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH. I CANNOT IMAGINE WALKING UP AND SEEING THAT ISLAND OF DIRT WITH THREE TREES ON IT THAT IS AS TALL AS YOUR

[00:50:01]

PICKUP TRUCK IN THE BACKGROUND AND NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT I AM GOING TO DO. I ALSO REALLY WANT TO COMMEND YOU ON YOUR HONESTY. I THINK IT DEMONSTRATES TREMENDOUS CHARACTER THAT YOU CAME TO THE CITY AM THIS FORWARD AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY COMING BEHIND YOU AND SAYING, WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE TREES? I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND I APPRECIATE YOU COMING TONIGHT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE CALL A VOTE? OKAY, LET'S CALL

[7E. Discuss and consider an action to approve revisions to the City of Rowlett’s Economic Incentive Policy.]

THE VOTE, PLEASE. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES BY A VOTE OF 5-1. ALL RIGHT, WE WILL MOVE TO OUR NEXT ITEM. ITEM 7E, 7E, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AN ACTION TO APPROVE REVISIONS TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT S ECONOMIC INCENTIVE POLICY . MAKING THE PRESENTATION IS BRITTANY FAVRE, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

>> THAT EVENING MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. WE WILL DISCUSS REVISIONS THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST NIGHT TO THE ECONOMIC INCENTIVE POLICY. I APOLOGIES TO THOSE THAT HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE. AS I MENTIONED LAST NIGHT THE CURRENT ECONOMIC INCENTIVE POLICY FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT WAS REVISED IN 2015. SO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF DID A CONFERENCE OF REVIEW OF THAT AND IS BRINGING FORTH THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU BY WAY OF CONTEXT, WE DID NOT DO THIS IN A VACUUM. WE LOOKED AT WHAT OUR PARTNER CITIES WERE DOING, CITIES OF SIMILAR SIZE, SIMILAR REGION AS A BASIS OF PEARSON FOR SOME RECOMMENDATIONS WE ARE BRINGING FORTH TO YOU TONIGHT. YOU CAN SEE THE CITIES ON THE SIDE. SO TO COVER THE HIGH LEVEL CHANGES, I WILL GET INTO SOME OF THESE IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. YOU ALSO HAVE THE 2015 VERSION AND PROPOSED DRAFT AS PART OF YOUR PACKET. OVERALL GENERAL EDITING FOR CLARITY AND STRUCTURE, THERE WAS SOME DUPLICATION OF PARAGRAPHS, THINGS THAT WERE STATED THROUGHOUT THE POLICY. WE CONSOLIDATED THAT JUST TO GIVE THE OVERALL POLICY A CLEANER AND MORE POLISHED APPEARANCE. SOME OF THE BIGGER CHANGES INCLUDE THE CHANGES TO THE TAX ABATEMENT SCHEDULE. I WILL GET INTO THAT MORE. WE ALSO ADDED PROVISIONS ON CLARIFICATION FOR ABATEMENT AND FEE WAIVER REQUIREMENTS, REQUIRING APPLICANTS TO BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. WE REMOVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PARAGRAPH BECAUSE IT WAS REDUNDANT. THAT IS INCLUDED IN GRANT AGREEMENTS OR PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, IT APPEARED TO BE A SEPARATE INCENTIVE BUT WAS NOT. IT WAS FOLDED INTO OTHER THINGS.

AGAIN, JUST GENERAL TIDYING UP OF THE POLICY. WE REMOVED THE GREASE TRAP REBATE AND WE CONSIDER THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEM. I MENTION THAT LAST NIGHT. I WILL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE MORE. WE ALSO TALKED LAST NIGHT ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE NEW PROGRAM, THE DOWNTOWN CORE FACADE GRANT. SO, ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHANGES WAS THE ELIMINATION OF THE TAX ABATEMENT SCHEDULE. THIS WAS DUE IN LARGE PART BECAUSE WE COULD NOT DO ANY OTHER CITIES THAT HAD A LARGE LEVEL OF ABATEMENT AT SPECIFICITY THAT WE DID. I HAVE A CHART ON THE NEXT SLIDE THAT WILL SHOW SOME CITY COMPARISONS. WE WANTED TO AMEND THAT SECTION TO PROVIDE MORE DISCRETION TO CITY COUNCIL AS THEY MADE DECISIONS. WHAT YOU SEE AT THE TOP OF THE SLIDE IS WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAD. IT OUTLINED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF YEARS AND CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF ABATEMENT BASED ON NUMBER OF THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPLICANT. WE HAVE REMOVED THAT AND REPLACED IT WITH A PARAGRAPH DOWN AT THE BOTTOM. THAT INCLUDES A MINIMUM CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF $1 MILLION.

ABATEMENT TERMS NOT TO EXCEED UP TO 10 YEARS. AND IT WILL BE AT THE DISCRETION OF COUNCIL AT WHAT PERCENTAGE. THIS IS IN LINE WITH THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER STANDARDS AND WHAT MANY CITIES ARE DOING. APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

THAT IS NEW AND PUT IN FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES. JUST A SAMPLE OF SOME CITIES WE LOOKED AT, IT IS A LITTLE ALL OVER THE BOARD, ANYWHERE FROM A MINIMUM INVESTMENT OF $20 BILLION IN FARMERS BRANCH, TO DE SOTO, A SIMILAR SIZE CITY TO US WITH A MINIMUM $1 MILLION AND MAXIMUM TO NOT EXCEED 10 YEARS. IN LINE WITH WHAT THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER STANDARDS ARE AND ALLOWS FOR DISCRETION BASED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. MOVING INTO THE GREASE TRAP REBATE, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST NIGHT. IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONTAINED UNDER THE DESTINATION RETAIL RESTAURANT CRITERIA. WHICH PUT A PROVISION ON EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT WANTED TO INSTALL A NEW GREASE TRAP THAT THEY NEEDED TO EXPAND THEIR PROPERTY BY UP TO 50%. AS WE WERE TALKING TO BUSINESSES AS PART OF OUR VRE AND OTHER CONVERSATIONS, WE HAVE BEEN APPROACHED WITH BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, MAYBE TRANSITION FROM A BAKERY TO A RESTAURANT OR IT IS TIME TO UPDATE THEIR GREASE TRAP. THEY WERE HINDERED BY THE PROHIBITION OF THE 50% INCREASE. SO DO SPUR DEVELOPMENT AND

[00:55:04]

INCREASE REDEVELOPMENT WE EXTRAPOLATED THAT FROM UNDERNEATH THE DESTINATION RETAIL RESTAURANT AND MADE IT ITS OWN SEPARATE CRITERIA UP TO $7500 PER PROJECT. WITH A MATCHING GRANT OF 50%. THAT IS A REBATE. THE REQUIREMENTS ARE TO SUBMIT RECEIPTS AND THEN VALIDATE THAT THE WORK WAS DONE.

AGAIN, ONE OF THE ONES WE TALKED ABOUT LAST NIGHT WAS THE DOWNTOWN CORE FACADE GRANT, A NEW PROGRAM WE ARE PROPOSING IS PART OF THE INCENTIVE REVISIONS. THAT IS CONFINED TO THE DOWNTOWN CORE AS DEFINED BY THE DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC PLAN. IT IS A MATCHING GRANT UP TO 50% AND AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5000. FOR BUSINESSES IN DOWNTOWN TO UPGRADE THEIR FACADE. AGAIN, COMPARABLE CITIES, THIS ONE IS A LITTLE ALL OVER THE PLACE. I THINK ARLINGTON WAS SOMETHING UP TO $200,000. WE, BASED ON THE CITIES THAT ARE BASED IN SIMILAR SIZE, SIMILAR DOWNTOWNS, WE CAPPED THE AMOUNT OF $5000. AND THAT IS JUST SOME OF THE HIGH LEVEL CHANGES. AGAIN MOST WITH STRUCTURAL AND JUST GIVING IT AN OVERALL FRESH LOOK. I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REVISIONS WE ARE PROPOSING.

>> QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER REAVES.

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION. ON THE PACKET, ON THE TARGETED INCENTIVES, LET ME GET MY QUESTION HERE. IT LOOKS LIKE FOR SPECIALTY RETAIL ENTERTAINMENT RESTAURANT, SECTION B, PAGE 66 OF THE PACKET WE RECEIVED FRIDAY, IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE CHANGING MAX INCENTIVE FROM 100 K TO 50 K. IS

THAT CORRECT? >> NO, THAT WAS AMOUNT OF TWO.

THE ONLY CHANGES MADE WITH THE TARGETED INCENTIVES ARE MOVING FROM TARGETED AND INTO ALL ONE INCENTIVE FOR CLARIFICATION. WE DID NOT CHANGE THE AMOUNT ON THE SPECIALTY RETAIL RESTAURANT.

>> WE DID NOT LOWER IT? >> NO SIR.

>> ARE THERE ANY UPDATED RECAPTURED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW

POLICY? >> NO SIR, WE DID PUT A STIPULATION IN THE OPENING PARAGRAPH OR GENERAL STATEMENT OF PURPOSE THAT EVERY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT IS DONE ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS DEPENDING ON WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING HIM WHAT THE NEGOTIATION IS FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT.

>> GREAT, THAT IS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. YOU MUST'VE DONE REALLY WELL. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE ITEM. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER TO APPROVE AND WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER REAVES. COMMENTS, DISCUSSION?

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER. >> YES, I JUST WANTED TO SAY I HAVE ALREADY SEEN THIS IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING. AND I REALLY LIKE THE WAY THAT YOU CLARIFY THINGS.

I THINK THE OLD ONE WAS VERY CONFUSING AND NEITHER THE CITY NOR THE APPLICANT REALLY KNEW WHAT IT MEANT. SO YOU HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB AND THAT. I LIKED IT. GOOD ENOUGH.

>> THANK YOU. >> LIKEWISE I WANT TO COMMEND YOU ON THE OVERALL REVISIONS. I HAVE PROBABLY BUGGED THE CITY MANAGER A HANDFUL OF TIMES ABOUT REVISIONS AND WHAT THE PROCESS MIGHT LOOK LIKE BECAUSE OF SOME PAST ECONOMIC INCENTIVES WE APPROVED. SOMEWHERE DONE AFTER THE FACT THAT WERE NOT VERY PLEASANT TO WORK WITH. I AM REALLY GLAD THAT WE ARE NOW LOOKING AT DOING THIS UPFRONT, ASSESSING WHAT THE BUSINESSES WILL BRING TO THE COMMUNITY AND THEN BRINGING A DECISION BASED ON THAT BEFORE CONSTRUCTIONS OR UPGRADES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT CAN HAPPEN. I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE GREASE TRAP THING. I'M GLAD IT IS PULLED OUT SEPARATE. THE COST OF A NEW GREASE TRAP IS SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $5000. WE ALSO HAVE A REQUIREMENT IN THE CITY THAT ANY EXISTING LEASE TRAP REPLACED BE MOVED OUTSIDE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING. I SPOKE TO A BUSINESS AT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AND AS I RECALL HE SAID $30,000 TO RELOCATE HIS GREASE TRAP. I THINK ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP INCENTIVIZE THAT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR OF NOT ONLY COMPLYING WITH CITY CODE BUT AN ENVIRONMENTAL THING AS WELL. GETTING GREASE TRAPS OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING TO HELP INCENTIVIZE THAT GOOD BEHAVIOR, THAT IS AWESOME. I LOVE TO SEE THAT AND HEAR THAT AS WELL. COUNCIL, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, LET'S CALL THE BOAT. AND THAT

[7F. Discuss and consider action to approve a resolution authorizing execution of a shared parking agreement between the City of Rowlett and Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART); authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute all necessary documents to effectuate said agreement; and providing an effective date. ]

PASSES BY A VOTE OF 6-0. THANK YOU. DON'T GO FAR. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 7F, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT, DART, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO EFFECTUATE SAID AGREEMENT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE . AND I THOUGHT MS. FAVRE WAS GOING TO MAKE THAT PRESENTATION BUT IT IS MR. CHARLES --

>> REDEEMING. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEM TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION

[01:00:04]

OF A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND DART. WE COVERED THIS LAST NIGHT SO I WILL BE BRIEF. I HAVE A COUPLE SLIDES AND I AM HERE AND THE DIRECTOR IS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. WE ARE NO STRANGER TO THE PERCEPTION OF PARKING PROBLEMS IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT'S DOWNTOWN. THEY HAVE HINDERED ACCESS TO DOWNTOWN IS THIS IS, IMPEDED NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN DOWNTOWN, AND THEY HAVE HINDERED OUR ATTENDANCE NUMBERS AT SOME LOCAL EVENTS JUST TO ACCESS PARKING.

WHEN WE WERE GOING TO BE PROCESS WE LOOKED FOR AN IDENTIFIABLE SOLUTION THAT WOULD PROVIDE AMPLE PARKING, BE COST-EFFECTIVE AND A VIABLE SOLUTION. THAT LED US TO THE SHARED AGREEMENT WITH DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT, DART. STAFF WORKED DILIGENTLY TO GET THIS DONE AND LIKE YOU HEARD LAST NIGHT WE DID NOT THINK THIS WOULD HAPPEN BUT THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF CITY STAFF AND DART BEING A VERY GOOD PARTNER, THIS WAS ABLE TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU TONIGHT. THIS ALLOWS PUBLIC ACCESS TO OVER 750 PARKING SPACES AT THE DOWNTOWN ROWLETT LIGHT RAIL STATION, INCLUDING 1788 SPACES. IT ALLOWS THE CITY THE ABILITY TO MARKET THOSE SPACES AS AVAILABLE PUBLIC PARKING FOR DOWNTOWN AS WELL.

WHEN WE WERE LOOKING FOR THE COST-EFFECTIVE AND VIABLE SOLUTION , THIS DEFINITELY STOOD OUT TO US. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL COST OF THE CITY IN THE AGREEMENT. IS LOCATED AT ONLY 715 FEET FROM THE DOWNTOWN CORE. FOR REFERENCE, IF YOU PARK MIDRANGE FROM TARGET, WALKED TO THE BACK OF THE STORE AND THEN BACK TO YOUR CAR, THAT IS FAR MORE DISTANCE THAN YOU WOULD WALK FROM THE STATION INTO THE DOWNTOWN CORE. THIS ALSO ALLEVIATES PARKING BARRIERS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS. OUR RECOMMENDED ACTION TONIGHT IS TO MOVE TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND THE DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT. ANY

QUESTIONS? >> COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON?

>> I JUST WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPEND KUDOS TO THE CITY MANAGER, BRITTANY, CHARLES, AND WHOEVER ELSE WORKED ON THIS. THIS IS A MAJOR WIN FOR OUR CITY. TO GET DART TO ALLOW US TO UTILIZE ALL OF THOSE 750 PARKING SPOTS. THAT WILL GO A LONG WAY AS WE WORK TOWARDS REVITALIZING OUR DOWNTOWN AREA.

AS WE HAVE MORE VENUES, WE CERTAINLY WILL HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO PARK. SO, HATS OFF.

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER.

>> YES, I ECHOED THAT. I THINK NOT ONLY DOES THIS GIVE US THE PRACTICAL BENEFIT OF HAVING THE PARKING SPACES, BUT IT IS ALSO INDICATIVE TO ME TO THE IMPROVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND DART. WHICH HAS BEEN A LITTLE STRAINED AT TIMES IN THE RECENT PAST. SO KUDOS AGAIN FOR BEING ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION. IS THE USE OF THESE SPACE IS LIMITED IN ANY WAY AS TO THE HOURS OR THE TIME? IS THIS 24 HOURS A DAY?

>> 24 HOURS A DAY, YES MA'AM. >> I NOTICED IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, 66.105, THERE IS AN ORDINANCE THERE THAT MAKES IT AN OFFENSE TO PARK IN THE DART LOTS BETWEEN 5:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M., I THINK IT IS. SO MY QUESTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WE WOULD NEED TO CHANGE THAT. OKAY. AND I AM ALL FOR CHANGING IT. THANKS.

>> COUNCILMEMBER REAVES. >> YES, THANK YOU TO THE CITY MANAGER AND I ECHOED THOSE COMMENTS I WANT TO PUBLICLY THANK THE DART LEADERSHIP. IT IS BIG OF THEM TO DO THIS. AND MARK ENOCH , THE REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DART BOARD, I WANTED TO THANK HIM AS WELL. I KNOW THAT HE HAD A HANDEDNESS. THANKS TO

ALL INVOLVED. >> COUNCILMEMBER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON. AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BOWERS. ANY DISCUSSION? WELL DONE. LET'S CALL THE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY,

[MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REQUEST TOPICS TO BE PLACED ON AN AGENDA FOR A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. ANY DELIBERATION OR DECISION SHALL BE LIMITED TO A PROPOSAL TO PLACE TOPIC ON THE AGENDA FOR A SUBSEQUENT MEETING.]

6-0. ALL RIGHT, WE WILL MOVE ONTO THE LAST PART OF THE AGENDA. MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REQUEST TOPICS TO BE PLACED ON AN AGENDA FOR A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. ANY DELIBERATION OR DECISION SHALL BE LIMITED TO A PROPOSAL TO PLACE TOPIC ON THE AGENDA FOR A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. DEPUTY MAYOR

PRO TEM SHINDER. >> I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS ANY

[01:05:01]

WORK SESSION, AMENITIES AND FEE REDUCTIONS FOR OUR SENIOR

CITIZENS. >> COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON?

>> I WANT TO SECOND THAT. >> VERY WELL. WILL THAT BE A CONSIDERATION OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE? SORRY.

>> I BELIEVE THOSE FEES WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THERE. RCC FEES. AND

SUCH. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY REALLY IT IS HER ITEM AND WE SUPPORT WHATEVER SHE NEEDS.

>> OKAY. WITH THAT,

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Feb 04, 2025 City Council Meetings

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item