Feb 25, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission

[00:00:17]

FEBRUARY 25, 2025. I AM SORRY. I AM NOT READY. THERE WE GO. AS AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN . THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS OR REALIGN THE 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 COMMENT, REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. WE HAVE A QUORUM, WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT CITIZENS' INPUT. AT THIS TIME, THREE-MINUTE COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION DURING CITIZENS INPUT . DO WE HAVE

ANY? >> NO CITIZENS' INPUT.

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

>> HAVING NONE, WE WILL) LET THEM. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION. A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER OR A CITIZEN MAY REQUEST ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WE HAVE 3A, CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2025, REGULAR MEETING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT. FOR MERRITT PARK. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO REMOVE AN ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. POLLARD. >> I WAS GOING TO TRY TO MAKE A MOTION BUT I WAS ABLE TO ONLY SECOND IT.

>> MISS WILLIAMS, YOU NEED TO PUSH THE RTS. PUSH YOUR RTS.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. SECONDED BY MR. POLLARD.

YES, SIR. >> ON THE FINAL PLAT. THIS IS, I REALIZE THAT THIS WAS -- IF IT MEETS THE STATE REQUIREMENTS, IT IS NOTHING BUT A DONE DEAL. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT ON THIS. THAT I DO NOT LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THIS COME BACK TO US . WITH WHAT I HAVE READ, I AM NOT SURE THAT I LIKE WHAT WE

ARE DOING HERE. >> CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT?

>> NO, OF THE EVIDENTLY IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE. SO I WILL OBVIOUSLY VOTE FOR IT. BUT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS BRING MORE HOUSING , ALTHOUGH THEY CALL IT, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, "TOWNHOMES." I WILL NOT BE LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT. JUST FOR WHATEVER IT IS WORTH.

>> UNDERSTOOD. I BELIEVE THAT IS PHASE TWO OF THE PRODUCT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. SECONDED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. WE WILL CALL THE VOTE.

>> AND THAT PASSES 5-0, WITH TWO ABSENT.

[4A. 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.]

>> NEXT ON THE AGENDA, ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AND WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. REGISTRATION FORMS AGAIN ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE CITY CHAMBERS. 4A, 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.

[00:05:20]

>> QUESTION I AM HERE TONIGHT TO SIMPLY EXPLAIN THE MEANING AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU. LAST TIME THE COMMISSIONERS HAD CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF THE AMENDMENT ACTUALLY DID. SO WE HAVE REWRITTEN IT AND TRY TO MEET IT MORE CLEAR. WHAT THIS WILL DO HAVE PAST WILL GIVE CITY COUNCIL THE OPTION TO APPROVE A BUILDING PERMIT CONSISTENT WITH ITEM 1A, ATTACHED OR DETACHED STRUCTURE, 250 SQUARE FEET, 12 FEET MAXIMUM, BEHIND THE FRONT LINE, ET CETERA. COMPLIANCE IS REGULATIONS EXCEPT IT VIOLATES THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. IF THEY DO THAT, BASED ON FINDING THAT, THEN APPLICANT EXPERIENCING A SPECIFIC HARDSHIP, IN SECTION B, WHERE THEY HAD A SIMILAR STRUCTURE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 17 OF 2019, WITH EVIDENCE OF THAT FACT. AND THE STRUCTURE HAD BEEN PARTIALLY DEMOLISHED BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2024. SO IT BECAME OUT OF THE SETBACK. THEY SHOULD BE EVIDENCE WHEN THE COUNCIL APPROVED IT, THEY WOULD GET A BUILDING PERMIT TO BUILD THE STRUCTURE BACK INTO THE SETBACK. AND IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL NONCONFORMING.

UNTIL THE PROPERTY SOLD. THIS PROVISION IS LIMITED AND THE APPLICATION HAS TO COME IN BEFORE DECEMBER OF 2026. AND THE SUNSET WOULD LEAVE THE NONCONFORMANCE STRUCTURE THAT WAS PERMITTED VIA THE ORDINANCE. THAT IS WHAT THE ORDINANCE HAS PROPOSED TO ACCOMPLISH IF APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

>> ARE YOU READY FOR QUESTIONS? >> READY AS I WILL EVER BE.

>> QUESTIONS FIRST STAFF. MR. POLLARD, GO AHEAD. MR. POLLARD.

>> -- MR. KRISTOF, WHAT IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THIS?

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY A COUNCILMEMBER AND YOU HAVE TO

ASK THEM. >> OKAY. SO AS FAR AS STAFF OR AS FAR AS CITY MANAGEMENT IS CONCERNED, IT IS DRIVEN BY

COUNCIL AND THAT IS IT. >> THAT IS IT, REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER AND THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THINGS FORWARD, WE ARE TO FACILITATE THE REQUEST AND THAT IS ALL.

>> OKAY, AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT, I WILL NOT BELABOR SOMETHING ELSE, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION AS FAR AS THIS IS CONCERNED. SO, IF BY , IF I BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, LET'S JUST SAY, AND I DECIDE TO BUILD A SHED ON THE SIDE OF MY HOUSE, AND FOR WHATEVER REASON MY BUILD IS TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

ATTACHED TO MY HOUSE AND GOES TO THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT MY ROOFLINE STANDS OVER THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THIS BECOMES AN ILLEGAL USAGE ACCORDING TO THE ZONING AND ALL OF THE PREVIOUS KNOWN ORDINANCES THAT DEALS WITH THIS. SO WHAT I AM UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME IS IF A FIRE COMES UP AND DAMAGES SOME OF THAT BUILDING , RIGHT NOW I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD IT BACK. BUT THIS WILL ALLOW ME TO BUILD IT

BACK. >> SO I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU -- I AM IN CONTROL OF THE HYPOTHETIC. THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS THERE. ONE IS THAT YOU ARE BUILDING THE ROOFLINE OVER THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT IS A TRESPASS, A COMPLETELY

[00:10:03]

AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A YEAR THAN THAT GOES AWAY. IF IT IS LEGAL NONCONFORMING, STATUS, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, BY THIS STATUTE OR SOMETHING ELSE, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECONSTRUCT IT TO THE SAME SPECIFICATIONS IT WAS BEFORE IT WAS DESTROYED. AS LONG

AS YOU DO SO WITHIN A YEAR. >> LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. SUPPOSE THAT I , SUPPOSE THE STRUCTURE IS 40 YEARS OLD OR MORE. SO WHEN YOU BUILD IT BACK DO YOU HAVE TO BUILD , BECAUSE IT GOT DESTROYED BY FIRE, DO YOU BUILD IT BACK PER THE BUILDING CODE OF WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED 40+ YEARS AGO? OR DO YOU BUILD IT BACK TO THE CURRENT CODE?

>> USUALLY, IT IS NOT ALWAYS A CLEAR ANSWER. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO BRING IT UP TO DIRECT CODE. TO MY UNDERSTANDING. IT IN THIS CASE THE REQUIREMENTS HERE, IF A PERMIT WAS ISSUED UNDER THIS PROVISION, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD IT TO CURRENT CODE.

>> OKAY. SO WHY WOULD WE WANT TO HAVE SOMEBODY COMPLY WITH CURRENT BUILDING CODES WIRING IF IT HAD ANY PLUMBING IN IT, BRING IT UP TO CODE, BUT WE ARE GOING TO LET THEM SLIDE AND BRING SOMETHING UP THAT WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AND HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTABLE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

>> THAT IS A POLICY QUESTION, SIR.

>> SO THAT IS WHAT I SEE WE ARE DOING HERE. WE WOULD MAKE SOMEBODY GO TO THE CURRENT CODES BUT THEN WE ARE GOING TO EXEMPT THEM FROM SETBACKS. AND LET THEM GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE.

IT JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME. OKAY.

>> MR. WHITE. >> MY QUESTION IS, WHEN WAS THE PREVIOUS CODE THAT THE PREVIOUS BUILDING WAS BUILT UNDER, WHEN

DID THAT CHANGE? >> THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE CODE IN DECEMBER OF 2019. WITH THE CHANGE WAS THE REQUIREMENT OF A PERMIT. IT DID NOT CHANGE THE SETBACK RESTRICTIONS. IT ONLY CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT FOR PERMIT. THE PURPOSE OF PERMIT OF COURSE IS SIMPLY TO VERIFY THAT YOU ARE COMPLYING WITH THE CODE.

BUT THEN IT DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK. IT DID NOT CREATE THE SETBACK. THE SETBACK WAS THERE.

>> SO THE BUILDING TOOK PLACE, IT WAS BUILT IMPROPERLY BEFORE , NOT IN THE RIGHT LOCATION ORIGINALLY?

>> IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE THE PROVISIONS AND BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY, THEY WOULD'VE HAD TO BUILD IT ILLEGALLY,

BEFORE DECEMBER 17, 2019. >> ILLEGALLY. SO EVEN THOUGH THEY NEED TO GET A PERMIT IT WAS BUILT IN THE IN CORRECT --

INCORRECT LOCATION. >> CORRECT.

>> SO THE PERMIT SAID IT WAS BUILT TO THE WRONG LOCATION ANYWAY SO NOW THE CITY CHECKS IN AND WE ARE TRYING TO GET IT. SO IF I UNDERSTAND WE ARE TRYING TO GET A WAIVER TO LET THE BUILDING GO BACK TO THE SAME LOCATION THAT WAS BUILT ILLEGALLY

INITIALLY. >> GOT IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TAGGED THIS TO THE SUMMER OF 2019, THAT IS WHEN THE CITY DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND REQUIRE A PERMIT TO PUT IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR SOME BUILDING. AND I WONDER WHY THEY REQUIRED , DECIDED TO REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR THAT. IT WAS PROBABLY BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE NOT CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO THAT. WHICH WAS THE SETBACK RULE. ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE SETBACKS. I AM SURE THE OTHER WOULD BE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, OR OTHER BUILDING CODES. OKAY? SO, TO ME, IT IS LIKE NO, NO, WE ARE SETTING TOWARDS THE RIGHT DIRECTION BECAUSE WE REALIZED WE NEEDED TO START TO MAKE PEOPLE GET PERMITS SO WE COULD KEEP TABS ON WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND

[00:15:01]

GO AHEAD AND GET THAT APPROVED. >> I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. IF SOMEONE WANTED TO GO DO THIS, I MEAN THIS REALLY NARROWLY APPLIES TO SOMEONE WHO CAN SHOW THAT THEY HAVE BUILT SOMETHING

BEFORE DECEMBER 17TH 2019. >> HOW CAN YOU DO THAT THOUGH? IF WE DID NOT HAVE THE PERMITTING SYSTEM IN PLACE FOR

THAT PARTICULAR ITEM? >> THAT EVIDENTIARY IS FOR THE

COUNCIL TO MAKE. >> AGAIN, I COULD HAVE BUILT IT YESTERDAY AND REALIZED OH, IT IS NOT CONFORMING BECAUSE I AM WATCHING THIS P&Z MEETING AND REALIZE I MIGHT BE IN TROUBLE.

BUT LOOK, NOW I HAVE AN OUT. AND ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS YES, I BUILT IT BEFORE 2019. SO I DO NOT KNOW, IT JUST DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO. BECAUSE NOT ONLY IS IT THE FACT THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU WERE IGNORANT OF THE LAW DOES NOT GIVE YOU CLEMENCY FROM THE LAW. AND SETBACKS, BUILDING SETBACKS HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE WEN? WELL BEFORE -- I AM SORRY?

>> SOMETIME IN THE EARLY 80S.

>> RIGHT. SO, I AM JUST VERY -- I AM NOT AT ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS. AND THE OTHER THING IS, WHAT KIND OF BURDEN WOULD THIS PLACE ON THE CITY TO VERIFY THIS INFORMATION? BECAUSE WE WOULD EXPECT THAT THE BUILDING HAD BEEN BUILT WITH THE APPROPRIATE APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS. IS THERE GOING TO BE SOME VERIFICATION THAT THE ILLEGALLY NONCONFORMING BUILDING IS ACTUALLY BUILT PER CODE AND REGULATION? AND WHO WOULD DO

THAT? >> THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PIECES HERE, ONE IS THE PROCESS AS LAID OUT, HAS BEEN CLARIFIED. THIS IS A JUDGMENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL. THEY HAVE TO BE PROVIDED EVIDENCE AND THEY HAVE TO BE THE ONES THAT JUDGE THE APPROPRIATE SHOWING THAT THOSE TWO FACTS ARE FOUND AND THAT IS IN THEIR

JUDGMENT. IT IS NOT STAFF. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> AND AS FAR AS ENFORCING THE CURRENT HOLDING CODE ON THE BUILDING THAT IS BEEN PERMITTED, THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT OF STAFF AND WE WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT THERE AND INSPECTED LIKE ANY OTHER STRUCTURE AND ENSURE THAT THE NEW PERMITTED BUILDING, WHILE IN THE SETBACK, STILL MET ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

>> EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE. >> EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE.

>> THIS LEASE IS A BURDEN ON THE CITY COUNCIL, MEMBERS TO BECOME COMPETENT IN, WHILE I GUESS THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING COMPETENT IN CONSTRUCTION OR CODE COMPLIANCE AND REGULATIONS BECAUSE IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE PERMITTED AND

INSPECTED. >> THE TWO PIECES THEY HAVE TO FIND OUR THAT AND B, ONE AND TWO. IT WAS PARTIALLY DEMOLISHED BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2024.

>> OH, AND WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT THE PERMITTING

FEE FOR IT. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I AM SORRY, MR. WHITE.

[00:20:12]

>> OKAY, NEXT QUESTION. IF WE PASS THIS, JUST FOR ONE STRUCTURE OR WITH THE GIVEN LOOPHOLE FOR OTHER STRUCTURES IN

THE SAME SITUATION. >> CERTAINLY ANYBODY YOU COULD SHOW THE TWO FACTS IN B, AND WOULD BE ELIGIBLE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> AND OF COURSE YOU PASS THIS IT WILL GO TO COUNCIL AND THEN COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE IT AS

WELL. >> SURE. OKAY. THANK YOU . THIS IS, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY -- THAT WAS THE APPLICANT.

OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. AND I AM SEEING THAT WE HAVE NONE. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND COMMISSIONERS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> RTS. MR. WHITE. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE VOTE

ON THIS FIRST. >> WE ARE GOING TO VOTE, THE QUESTION IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON?

>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE VOTE ON, HOW SHOULD WE WORD THIS? OKAY, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE VOTE TO DENY THE SETBACK

SITUATION. >> OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DENY. SECOND VOTE, MR. POLLARD. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ? OKAY, UNDERSTANDING THAT A YAY WILL DEFEAT THE INITIATIVE. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? CALL THE VOTE.

>> IT WAS THAT QUICK , MOTION TO DENY PASSES 5-0. WITH TWO ABSTENTIONS. MOVING ON. ITEM 4B, CONSIDER AND MAKE A

[4B Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on a request by QuikTrip Corporation, on behalf of property owner Avalon Bayside, LLC, for a Major Warrant for a convenience store with gas pumps and associated warrants on property zoned Form-Based Urban Village (FB-UV) District. The 2.1327-acre property is located at the southwest corner of Dalrock Road and Sunset Boulevard and is described as a portion of Block B, Lot 1R, of Avalon Retail Development in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

MR. MARS. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. I WILL GO AHEAD AND TRY TO SET THIS TONIGHT, SOME BACKGROUND ON THE SITE. IT IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST FROM THE CORNER OF DALROCK ROAD IN SUNSET BOULEVARD. ZONING IS FORM-BASED URBAN VILLAGE AND WITHIN THE BAYSIDE DISTRICT UNDER THE BAYSIDE FRAMEWORK IN. IT IS ALSO GOVERNED BY THE AVALON AND BAYSIDE REGULATED PLAN. IN TERMS OF THE USE, THE CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS STATION REQUIRES A MAJOR WARRANT WITHIN THE URBAN VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT. SO MORE BACKGROUND, PROVIDED HERE IN THE IMAGE, THE REGULATED PLAN AMENDED IN 2024. ESSENTIALLY BREAKS IT INTO THREE PIECES. PLANNING AND ZONING ALSO APPROVED THE AVALON IN AUGUST OF 2024. AND DECEMBER 17, 2024, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DUAL BRAND HOTEL. THAT WOULD BE ON THE PINK PORTION. AND THIS WOULD BE TO THE UPPER RIGHT FOR THE CONVENIENCE STORE. SO IN TERMS OF THE SITE PLAN, THE PROPOSAL IS THAT IT IS APPROXIMATELY 5000 SQUARE FEET CONVENIENCE STORE WITH NINE GAS PUMPS. THERE ARE

[00:25:02]

THE CODE REQUIRES 80% OR MORE OF THE PRIMARY BUILDING FACADE BE LOCATED WITHIN THE -- ZONE. THE REQUEST IS TO WAIVE REQUIREMENTS ON ALL THREE FRONTAGES, AS IT WOULD NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT.

WE ALSO HAVE A WARRANT FOR THE BUILD TO ZONE, THE ZONE COMPLIANCE ESSENTIALLY STATES THAT THE BUILDING SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE BUILD TO ZONE WITHIN 18 TO 26 FEET FROM THE PLANT BACK OF CURB. THE INCREASE REQUEST IS FROM 11 TO 36 FEET, ESSENTIALLY CHANGING IT FROM 18 TO 26 FEET. THE IMAGE ON THE LEFT SHOWS WHERE THE ZONE IS WITHIN THE 18 TO 26 FEET AND WITH THIS REQUEST, THE BUILDING AND THE BLUE IS STRUCTURED, IT IS EXCEEDING BE BILLED TO ZONE, THAT IS WHY THEY WERE ASKING TO REDUCE IT TO 11 FEET, SO THAT BUILD TO ZONE WOULD BE IN THAT PORTION. SO WITHIN THE ZONE YOU HAVE A SIDEWALK AND PEDESTRIAN BUFFER. AND THE FORM BASE CODE IS ASKING FOR AMENITY ZONES WITH A SIDEWALK ZONE. THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS WITH THAT TYPICALLY WOULD BE. THE AMENITY ZONE IS TYPICALLY WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE WITH TREES, SIX FEET, AND AFTERWARDS A SIDEWALK OF 8 TO 12 FEET. THEY ARE ASKING TO REQUEST TO REMOVE THE AMENITY ZONE AND WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE ON THAT PORTION WOULD BE THE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK. ANOTHER OF THE REQUESTS IS THEY ARE ASKING FOR A MONUMENT/FREESTANDING SIDE. ESSENTIALLY THERE IS ONLY CERTAIN LOCATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE THAT IN, LIKE HIGHWAY 66, AND THE REQUEST IS SEEKING TO INSTALL A 5'10", APPROXIMATELY 30 SQUARE FOOT MONUMENT SIGN DOWN DALROCK ROAD, WHICH WOULD BE SHOWN THERE IN THE IMAGE. ANOTHER OF THE WARRANTS BEING REQUESTED IS THE SIGNAGE REQUIREMENT. THE FORMING CODE ONLY ALLOWS ONE WALL PER STREET FRONTAGE WITH ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE REQUIREMENT ALLOWING IT -- WARRANTS. TOWARDS THE LEFT YOU GET THE REVIEW OF THAT SITE AND DIRECTLY FRONT OF DALROCK ROAD THEY ARE REQUESTING THREE SIGNAGE IS, EXCEEDING THE ONE ALLOWED. AND ONE WOULD BE EXCEEDING IN, BUT IT WOULD BE 122 SQUARE FEET AND TWO 25 SQUARE FEET IN THE FRONT OF DALROCK ROAD. ANOTHER WARRANT IS FOR THE LIGHT HEIGHT.

ESSENTIALLY THE FORM-BASED CODE REQUIREMENTS ASK FOR A 12 FOOT IN HEIGHT AND WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING WOULD BE 22 FOOT LIGHT. THE LIGHT POLES WITHIN THE SITE. AND ANOTHER WARRANT THEY ARE ASKING FOR IS THE BUILDING HEIGHT. ESSENTIALLY REQUIRING A MINIMUM OF TWO STORIES UNLESS THE BUILDING IS LOCATED IN A TRANSITION AREA WHERE ONE-STORY BUILDINGS ARE ALLOWED. THE REQUEST IS TO SEEK APPROVAL OF A ONE-STORY BUILDING AS SHOWN IN THE IMAGE. THEY ARE ALSO ASKING WARRANTS TO THE PARKING LOT. TYPICALLY WITHIN THE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING YOU , THE INTERIOR PARKING LOT, YOU WOULD HAVE LANDSCAPING EVERY EIGHT SPACES AND A COUPLE OTHER LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. AT THE REQUEST IS TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, IN TERMS OF PARKING, TYPICALLY PARKING IS REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED BEHIND THE BUILDINGS UNLESS A MINOR WARRANT IS GRANTED. AND AS YOU CAN SEE THERE MOST OF THE SITE WOULD BE TAKEN BY PARKIN AND NOT HIDDEN BEHIND THE BUILDING. SO THEY ARE LOOKING TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS. THE FORM BASE CODE ALSO ASKS FOR ESSENTIALLY WARRANTS FOR ANY ACCESS DRIVES BEING REQUESTED. THEY ARE REQUESTING OFF OF DALROCK ROAD AND ALONG EAST AVALON BAY, TOWARDS THE NORTH, THOSE TWO ARE

[00:30:06]

>> JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION. YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY APPROVE?

>> MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. >> THE GO. OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY WE HAVE GOT SOME POWER. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? COMMISSIONERS?

>> MR. WHITE. >> DO WE HAVE TO APPROVE ALL WARRANTS IN ONE GROUPING? OR DO WE HAVE SEPARATE DISCUSSIONS ON

WHICH TO APPROVE AND REJECT? >> YOU COULD HAVE SEPARATE DISCUSSIONS. WITH SOME YOU MAY REQUEST TO MOVE AND OTHERS YOU

MAY NOT REQUEST THE SAME. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE BUT ONE. COULD YOU CLARIFY? BECAUSE THE SIGNAGE THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING IS ONLY GOING TO BE ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. THERE IS NOTHING ON EITHER SIDE?

>> THERE IS BUT ESSENTIALLY YOU ARE ALLOWED ONE PER STREET

FRONTAGE. >> SO THEY WILL BE THERE. OKAY.

AS WELL AS THE BACKGROUND. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT

HERE? >> YES.

>> WITH A LIKE TO GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION?

>> SIR, IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME. AND ADDRESS. OR NAME AND

CITY OF RESIDENCE. >> CRAIG HONEYWELL, INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, TEXAS, REAL ESTATE MANAGER. COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE MAJOR WARRANT FOR THIS, JUST FOR USE IN GENERAL. I APPRECIATE BOTH STAFF'S ABILITY TO WALK US THROUGH HOW TO MITIGATE SOME OF OUR IMPACTS. AND YOU ALL FOR LISTENING TO THIS TONIGHT AND TAKING IT INTO CONSIDERATION. OUR USE REQUIRES A MAJOR WARRANT. THAT IS POWER FOR THE CITY TO BASICALLY DECIDE WHO GETS THE PRIVILEGE OF PROVIDING THE SERVICES OR REQUESTING TO PROVIDE, AND WHO DOESN'T. OR IF NOBODY CAN. WE DO BELIEVE WE ARE A GREAT OPTION FOR THE USES AND NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AT THIS LOCATION. WE HAVE BEEN IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ROWLETT FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS NOW. WE HAVE TWO STORES. THE FIRST IN 2006 ON THE SECOND IN 2016, MUCH DIFFERENT FOOTPRINT.

I HAVE SOME PICTURES TO HELP SHOW YOU HOW WELL-MAINTAINED THESE ARE. THESE ARE THE LATEST IMAGES ON GOOGLE EARTH. BOTH BUILDINGS, A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF USE. OUR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AS WELL AS OUR REPUTATION AS A COMPANY SHOWS TO THE CITY WE ARE HERE FOR THE LONG TERM AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT IT LOOKS AS GOOD DAY ONE, AS YEAR 20. HERE ARE AERIAL PICTURES FROM BOTH LOCATIONS. TO JUST SHOW THE DIFFERENCE OF WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AND WHAT WE ARE DOING FOR THIS SPECIFIC LOCATION. YOU CAN SEE THE ONE ON LAKEVIEW PARKWAY IS THE PROTOTYPICAL SHIRT -- STORE TYPICALLY. VERY PROTOTYPICAL OUTLINE FOOTPRINT WITH FULL CIRCULATION AROUND THE BUILDING, MULTIPLE DRIVES, AND SHOVED ON THE FRONT OF THE STREET WE ARE

[00:35:01]

>> I AM SORRY, REALLY QUICK. WHAT IS YOUR FIRST OPTION?

>> THE PREFERRED OPTION IS IN THE CORNER OF DALROCK ROAD AND SUNSET BOULEVARD. WHICH WOULD MEAN THE CODE MORE CLEARLY.

HOWEVER THE WALKING TRAIL AND THE CITY EASEMENT'S. OUR NEXT OPTION WOULD BE TO PUSH IT IN THE CORNER OF SUNSET BOULEVARD AND PROPOSED EAST AVALON WAY, WHICH WE ARE SHOWING THE ROAD BEHIND US, NOT HOURS, THE COMMUNITY WOULD. WE ATTEMPTED TO ROTATE THE BUILDING TO PUT MORE FRONTAGE ALONG SUNSET BOULEVARD BUT DUE TO THE CONSTRAINTS ON THE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT, WE WERE UNABLE TO. THE PRIMARY REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR THE CHANGES IN THE BUILD TO ZONE IS BECAUSE OF THE GEOMETRY OF EAST AVALON WAY.

IF WE PUSHED THE BUILDING FURTHER SOUTH, CLOSER TO I-30.

BUT THAT WOULD MAKE US HAVE TO PULL THE BUILDING AWAY FURTHER FROM SUNSET BOULEVARD. AND WE WOULD WANT TO BE CLOSER TO SUNSET BOULEVARD AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BUILD TO ZONE. WE ARE IN IT FOR THE MOST OF THE BUILDING. THE AREA WHERE EAST AVALON DIVERGES IS WHERE -- THE WALK ABILITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE FAMILY GOING IN THE HOTELS, WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT AND MET TO THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE, LEAVING THE BUILDING ON THE CORNER OF THE TWO STREETS INSTEAD OF CENTERED ON EAST AVALON WAY. SOME ELEVATIONS FOR YOU, AS YOU SEE THE CANOPY HAS THIS -- ON IT WITH THE BUILDING PUSHED BACK, THE LANDSCAPING EASEMENT FILLED IN ON THE CORNER, OUR BUILDING AS MARTIN SUGGESTED, THERE IS SIGNAGE ON THE BUILDING ON THE SIDES . IN THE WAY ON ONE SIDE THERE IS AN ICE KIOSK, THAT IS WHAT YOU SEE AT THE TOP OF THE BUILDING. IT IS AN ICE VENDING MACHINE WHERE YOU CAN GET ICE BY THE BACK WITHOUT GOING INSIDE. AND THEN THE INSIGNIAS YOU SEE ON THE SIDE ARE INTERIOR AND NOT EXTERNAL WALL SIGNS. ON THE FRONT IS WHERE THE SIGNAGE IS PRIMARILY HERE. WE ARE ASKING FOR THE SIGNAGE BECAUSE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE DONE TO THE BUILDING. WE ARE HOPING IT WOULD HELP PROMOTE BRAND RECOGNITION CONSIDERING CHANGES WE MADE TO THE AESTHETICS OF THE BUILDING.

IT TAKES A LOT OF THE BRANDING AWAY HERE IN THE METRO. WE HAVE ADDED ROOF ELEMENTS, THE STACKED STONE TO LIGHTEN THE BUILDING AND ALSO WE HAVE COME IN WITH THE TEARS TO GIVE THE BUILDING TO LOOK TALLER. AS WELL AS THE STUCCO IS STATIC INSTEAD OF THE BRICK AESTHETIC TO GO ALONG WITH THE PROPOSALS THE AVALON HAS ADDED. HERE IS ANOTHER DEPICTION OF THE CANOPY WHERE YOU SEE WE CARRY THE SAME VISION THROUGH. WE ARE ASKING FOR THE CANOPY SIGN. OR SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC, NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC, ESSENTIALLY.

WE ASK THAT YOU MAKE THE APPROVALS FOR THE NECESSARY WARRANTS TO GO INTO SOMETHING THAT I HAVE NOT ADDRESSED SPECIFICALLY IN THESE LIGHTS, THE LANDSCAPING WARRANT, WE HAVE NOT ADDED INTERIOR LANDSCAPING AS YOU SEE IN THE DEPICTION.

BOTH THE CORNER AND THE FLOATING PARKS. THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHER WARDS IN YOUR PACKET, ONE WAS THE PARKING WARRANT. AS FAR AS THE GEOMETRY OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, 20 FEET WE STRIKE TO 18. ALL OF OUR PARKING HAS AN EFFECTIVE LENGTH OF OVER 20 FEET. DUE TO ACCOUNTING FOR OVERHANG WITH PLACEMENTS AS WELL AS LANDSCAPING NOT BEING CLOSE TO THE CURB. THE WARRANT FOR THE LINING , NOT TO GET INTO TOO MANY DETAILS, THE REASON FOR THE HEIGHT IS TO GIVE YOU A MORE EVEN LIGHT DISTRIBUTION. TRYING TO AVOID HOTSPOTS. IF WE GO TO A 12 FOOT LIGHT POLE WE HAVE TO ADD MORE LIGHTS. IT WILL CREATE HOTSPOTS. IT WILL CREATE MORE LIGHT LUCIAN. OUR LIGHT FIXTURES MEET LIGHT CODE. WE JUST ASK FOR

[00:40:06]

THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EVERY 60 FEET, THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE WE STRATEGICALLY SET THE SITE UP TO SEPARATE THE PEDESTRIAN FROM AUTO TRAFFIC. WE ARE PROVIDING ACTIVITY TO EAST AVALON WAY AS WELL AS PRIMARY ENTRANCE ON SUNSET BOULEVARD 'S WALKWAY. WE FEEL THAT ADDING EXTRA WALKWAY WILL PROMOTE OR PREVENT PEDESTRIANS FROM WALKING THROUGH THE AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC.

WE TRY TO MAKE SURE OUR PARKING WAS BEHIND THE FRONT LINE OF THE CANOPY AND COUNTED THAT AS OUR BUILDING. THE SECOND THING WE HAVE TRIED TO DO IS PREVENT ANY HEAD ON PARKING ALONG DALROCK ROAD OR SUNSET BOULEVARD TO PREVENT HEADLINES FROM SHINING ON THOSE ROADS WILL SOMEONE IS PARKED OR PULLING INTO A SPOT.

THESE WERE ALL IN ATTEMPT TO HELP MITIGATE THOSE WARRANTS AND HELP MEET THE INTENT OF THE CODE. THE REASON FOR US SEEKING THIS LOCATION, EVEN THOUGH IT IS IN THE FORM-BASED CODE FOR DISTRICT AND REQUIRES A MAJOR WARRANT, WE FEEL THERE IS A NEED HERE. YOU HAVE TWO MAJOR THOROUGHFARES ON THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN. YOU HAVE DALROCK ROAD AND YOU HAVE I WANT TO SAY -- BUT I MIGHT BE PRONOUNCING IT WRONG. OKAY. THE CONNECT JUST TO THE NORTH OF THIS. THERE IS A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT UP THERE, EXISTING RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY COMING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE AVALON GROUP. AS WELL AS THE MULTIFAMILY THAT WAS RECENTLY DEVELOPED. THOSE CARS HAVE TO FINALLY GET TO I-30 AND WE ARE TRYING TO BE THERE FOR THEM AND TO PROVIDE AMENITIES NEEDED FOR YOUR COMMUNITY. AS WELL AS TRY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE PEDESTRIAN WALK ABILITY THERE AS WELL. AND WITH THAT I AM ALSO HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR TALK THROUGH THE WARRANT PIECEMEAL WISE.

>> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. POLLARD.

>> TO YOUR WEST, IS THAT GOING TO BE POTENTIALLY THE HOTEL THAT IS A MARRIOTT , THAT IS IMMEDIATELY TO YOUR WEST?

>> SO THERE IS ACTUALLY ANOTHER FACILITY. IF YOU SEE THE EAST AVALON WAY ROAD SKETCHED IN BEHIND OUR SITE, THERE IS A PAD SITE THERE IN THE NEXT PADLOCK TO THE WEST IS THE NEXT MARRIOTT

OR DUAL BRANDED HOTEL IS. >> SO THE LIGHTING WILL NOT

AFFECT THE HOTEL WINDOWS? >> NO, AND WE WILL MEET ALL PROPERTY LINE LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE

PRECODE. >> ALL RIGHT, AND ONE OF THE WAIVERS IS TREES, INTERIOR TREES. AND ONE OF THE PHOTOS YOU HAD IN YOUR PRESENTATION AND THE CURRENT ONE THAT IS OUT, IT SHOWS A NUMBER OF TREES. WHAT SORT OF TREES ARE THESE OR WILL

BE? >> THE INTERIOR LOT TREES, SPECIFICALLY, THE ONE KIND OF ON THE CORNER BY THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY A CRÊPE MYRTLE WITH A BIT OF SHRUBBERY AS WELL. AND THEN THE ONE THAT YOU SEE RIGHT BY THE CANOPY TOWARDS THE LEFT, IN THE ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING, THERE ARE TWO PROPOSED RED OAKS IN THE LOCATION. WE LOOKED AT PUTTING TWO RED OAKS IN THE OTHER PART THERE AS WELL BUT THERE WAS VISIBILITY CONCERNS WITH TRAFFIC LOOKING TO GET ONTO EAST AVALON WAY. WE DID NOT PUT A TREE THERE AT THIS TIME DUE TO THAT CONCERN. BUT WE ARE OPEN TO SOME BACK AND FORTH THERE AS WELL. TO

INCREASE THE TREAT CAL. >> SO MOST OF THE TREES THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN HERE WILL BE LARGE OR MIDDLE TREES. NOT SMALLER ONES.

BECAUSE IF YOU PUT SMALLER ONES IN I COULD SEE THAT YOU WOULD

HAVE SITE ISSUES FROM TRAFFIC. >> CORRECT. THE CRÊPE MYRTLE IS IN THE ISLAND CLOSEST TO THE BUILDING. THAT IS WHAT I CONSIDER A SMALLER ORNAMENTAL TREE AND NOT LANDSCAPE GUIDED, TO BE REAL HONEST. THE OTHER TREES THAT ARE INTERIOR ARE RED OAKS AND LIVES ARE BIGGER, LARGER CANOPY TREES FOR SURE.

AROUND THE PROPERTY WE HAVE A MIXTURE OF TREES FROM RED OAK TO CHINESE FOR STASH, LARGER CANOPY, YOU KNOW DECORATIVE TREES. CHINESE PISTACHIO IS WHAT I PLANTED IN MY FRONT YARD BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I LIKE, THE LARGE CANOPY.

>> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION WHILE WE CONTEMPLATE THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS. THE TRIANGULAR GREEN

[00:45:01]

JUST GOING TO BE GREEN? >> I SWITCHED PICTURES TO KIND OF GIVE US A BETTER NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST, UP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT, WHICH GREEN SPACE ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

>> THE SOUTH-WEST. >> SO THERE WE HAVE IT. IT IS MOSTLY OPEN SPACE RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE ADDED A LOT MORE TREES, OR WE WILL ADD MORE, WE CAN ADD MORE AND FILL IT IN AS NEEDED.

REALLY WE ARE JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE A NICE GREEN SKI. WE HAVE CUSTOMERS THAT COME IN AND HAVE THEIR DOG AND TAKE THEIR DOG FOR A WALK AND PEDESTRIANS TAKE THEIR DOG FOR A WALK. WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP IT OPEN FOR THAT. BUT ALSO TRYING TO PROVIDE PLENTY OF TREES. WE BELIEVE WE ARE MEETING ALL LANDSCAPE COUNT REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS NUMBER OF TREES, CANOPY COVERAGE, AND

EVERYTHING ELSE PRECODE. >> AND EVERYTHING ELSE AS FAR AS CONDUCTIVITY IS FAR FROM YOUR PARKING AREA THOUGH, WITH THOSE BUSHES ALONG THAT PERIMETER, IT WOULD SEEM SOMEWHAT HARD FOR SOMEBODY TO TAKE THEIR DOG. THEY COULD WALK TOWARDS THE DUMPSTER THAN I SUPPOSE. ARE YOU PLANNING ON PROVIDING ANY AMENITIES FOR PEOPLE WALKING THEIR DOG ON A LONG TRIP?

>> WE HAVE NOTHING OPPOSED AND WE ARE OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS ON THAT. WE ARE NOT A DOG PARK BUT WE HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO DO A BENCH FOR SOMEONE THAT HAS THEIR DOG OR JUST TAKING A BREAK AS WELL.

>> SIGNAGE. WHERE WITH THE SIGN BEFORE THE LOCATION?

>> THE MONUMENT SIGN? OR ON THE BUILDING?

>> THE MONUMENT. >> ALONG DALROCK ROAD, TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE DRIVE, TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE SIDEWALK CONNECTION TO OUR LOT. THE REASON WE ARE PROPOSING THE SIGN ON DALROCK ROAD IS THAT IT IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. WE ARE TRYING TO GET OUR PRICE VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. SO THEY HAVE TIME TO MAKE THE INFORMED DECISION IN A SAFE TRAFFIC MANEUVER ON TOWER SITE ON DALROCK ROAD. KNOWING THAT THE ONLY OTHER SIGNAGE, MONUMENT SIGNAGE IS ALLOWED ON LAKEVIEW AND THE TURNPIKE FRONTAGES, I HAVE LOOKED AT THE SIGNAGE WE HAVE ON THE EXISTING SITES AND I PROPOSE A MUCH SMALLER SIGN. THIS IS THE SMALL ASSIGNMENT WE HAVE IN ANY OF OUR REPERTOIRE. IT IS LESS THAN SIX FEET TALL, IS VERY, VERY MINIMAL. IT IS JUST TO PROVIDE A PRICE ON THE STREET TO HELP SAFE TRAFFIC MANEUVERS AND PEOPLE MAKING THE DECISION TO ENTER OR NOT.

>> OKAY. AND I LOOKING AT THE PICTURE, LOOKING ON THE LEFT SIDE, SECOND STRUCTURE. THAT IS PARALLEL TO DALROCK ROAD.

>> CORRECT. THIS IS A PROPOSED ROAD. EXACTLY WHERE WE END IT OR NOT IS STILL UP IN THE AIR AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH EAST AVALON WAY. IF YOU RECALL FROM THE PLAT EXHIBIT TAT MARTIN SHOWED, THAT YELLOW LOT KIND OF WRAPPED AROUND THE ENTIRE WAY IN THE PROPOSAL THAT IS TO BE BROKEN UP INTO MULTIPLE LOTS.

THIS IS A KICK LIBERTY -- CONNECTIVITY FROM OUR BUSINESS

TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE CAN HAVE A MOTION

. WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION.

>> MR. POLLARD. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE

ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S PLAN. >> EXCUSE ME CHAIR. WE NEED CLARIFICATION. WE HAVE TWO SPEAKER CARDS BUT SINCE IT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, ARE THEY ALLOWED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?

>> I WILL LET THEM. >> OKAY. THAT BEING SAID, DAVID

EDELMAN. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

[00:50:02]

>> THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. CAN YOU HEAR ME ALL RIGHT? MY NAME IS DAVID EDELMAN AND I LEAVE IN ROWLETT OFF OF BAYSIDE DRIVE IN THE PROPOSED AREA OF THE QUIKTRIP. MY S QUESTIONS? THIS IS MY FIRST TIME. MY S QUESTIONS OF THE

COMMISSIONERS? >> NO, YOU CAN TELL US WHAT YOU

-- >> I SPOKE WITH MANY NEIGHBORS TODAY WHO ARE AWARE OF THE SCHEDULE COMING UP TONIGHT. I WAS WONDERING IF THEIR COMMENTS WOULD BE HEARD IN THE PUBLIC FORM, IF YOU RECEIVE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. I KNOW OF AT LEAST 10 SUBMITTED ONLINE PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

>> RESIDENT OF THE BAYSIDE COMMUNITY, I LIVE IN THE TOWNHOMES AND WE HAVE COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS THAT LIVE IN THE APARTMENTS, I WANTED TO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THERE ARE TWO OTHER GAS STATIONS CURRENTLY ACROSS FROM THE PROPOSED QUIKTRIP.

ADDING A THIRD FEELS A BIT REDUNDANT. AND PULLING OUR NEIGHBORS, THEY FEEL THE SAME SENTIMENT. ALL OF THE 10, ALL WERE NOT IN FAVOR. THEY WERE PROPOSING TO LOOK FOR SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES. IS SOMEBODY WHO COMMUTES TO DOWNTOWN DALLAS FROM THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS IS THE ONLY EGRESS INGRESS TO DALROCK ROAD AND THE WAY TO GET TO -- WHICH I TAKE, THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF TRAFFIC NOT ONLY IN THE MORNING BUT IN THE EVENING.

A PROPOSAL TO HAVE ANOTHER WAY OFF OF DALROCK ROAD INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN THE CREATION OF THIS AVALON STREET AS WELL WOULD ONLY CAUSE MUCH MORE CONGESTION. THERE'S ONLY ONE STREETLIGHT OUT TO THE OTHER TWO GAS STATIONS ALREADY THERE.

THERE WILL POTENTIALLY BE A THIRD GAS STATION WITH TWO MORE ROADS FOR PEOPLE TO TURN INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEREFORE CAUSING MORE TRAFFIC JAMS. SO THAT IS ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS WE HAD. AND YOU KNOW, HAVING THE WALKING PATH IS A NICE AMENITY FOR ALL OF US THERE BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE MAIN CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS JUST GOING TO ADD ANOTHER BYPASS FOR CARS , INCREASED CAR TRAFFIC, INCREASED LACK OF SAFETY FOR ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES AND NEIGHBORS TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE LAKESIDE AREA.

AND I KNOW THAT , ESSENTIALLY I DO NOT KNOW HOW LONG A PROCESS THIS IS, THIS IS MY FIRST HEARING AND I AM GOING IN TO A BIT OF A GOLIATH BUT IS SPEAKING AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO SUBMITTED REQUESTS BUT CANNOT BE HERE TONIGHT, WE ALL ASKED THAT THIS BE DENIED, RECONSIDERED, PUT ON HOLD. OF ALL THE NEIGHBORS WE SPOKE TO NOBODY WANTS ANOTHER GAS STATION. WE ALREADY HAD TWO LIQUOR STORES AND THEY PUT IN A THIRD. AND THERE IS MY TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> NEXT WE HAVE KAYLA BURNS.

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.

>> K LOVE BARNES, ROWLETT. I PREPARED A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

SORRY, IT WAS OUR FIRST TIME. WE HAD A LOT OF DISSENTING NEIGHBORS THAT DID SUBMIT COMMENTS BY 3:30. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS PUT INTO COMMENTS. I DID PREPARE A CH TOE LAST LIQUOR STORE WENT IN BUT THE PROMISE OF THE BAYSIDE COMMUNITY IS STILL IN FLUX AND MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS MYSELF -- TO OUR AREA. BAYSIDE IS RATHER ISOLATED FROM ROWLETT'S CORE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND WE COULD REALLY USE SOME LOVE FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LEADERS. WHEN I LOOK AT THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING AND THE VISION FOR ROWLETT I WAS STRUCK BY THIS. DIVISION IS A WELL-PLANNED LAKESIDE COMMUNITY OF QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS, DISTINCTIVE AMENITIES, AND CULTURAL TERM. ANOTHER LIQUOR STORE, MORE HOTELS, AND NOW YET ANOTHER GAS STATION IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. NOT EXACTLY THE PROMISE OF BAYSIDE. WE HAVE WAITED WITH BAITED BREATH AND WATCHED MORE THAN ONE RESTAURANT CONCEPT FALL THROUGH AND ANOTHER GAS STATION DOES NOT EXACTLY FILL THAT VOID OR ADD TO THE VISION OF DISTINCTIVE AMENITIES OR CULTURAL TERM. AS YOU WILL SEE IN THE NUMEROUS PUBLIC COMMENTS, WHICH I HOPE YOU ALL TAKE A MOMENT TO REVIEW AND WE FIND THOSE BEFORE YOU PASS THESE MAJOR WARRANTS, AS I BELIEVE THESE CAUSE A MAJOR PROBLEM .

[00:55:03]

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHERS?

>> NO OTHER CARDS. >> I SUPPOSE WE WILL UNOFFICIALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, MR. POLLARD.

>> I GUESS I WITHDRAW THE MOTION I WAS ABOUT TO MAKE. IF YOU WILL TAKE COMMENTS NOW. SEVERAL THINGS.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND GET A MOTION ON THE BOOKS.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND SEND TO CITY COUNCIL.

RECOMMENDATION OF FOR TO APPROVE THE QUIKTRIP OWNER AVALON BAYSIDE, LLC, FOR MAJOR WARRANTS FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS AND ASSOCIATED WARRANTS ON PROPERTY ZONE FORM BASED URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT. THE 2.1327 ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTH REST CORNER OF 24 IN SUNSET BOULEVARD AND IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LAW B, LOT 1 ARE, OF AVALON.

>> RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. >> THANK YOU. I DID NOT SEE THE

REST OF IT THERE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE. TO BE HAVE A SECOND? JUST BECAUSE WE MOTION AND SECOND DOES NOT MEAN WE WILL APPROVE IT. WE HAVE GOT TO GET SOMETHING ON HERE.

>> YOU HAVE GOT TO HIT THE RTS FOR ME. I'M SORRY. IT IS NOT COMING UP HERE FOR ME. GO AHEAD AND HIT RTS. MR. SHERIF.

>> I SECOND THE MOTION BY MR. POLLARD.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DISCUSSION. MOTION TO

APPROVE. DISCUSSION. MR. WHITE. >> HAVE WE DONE A TRACK STUDY IN THE AREA OR THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE AREA BASED ON WHAT THE

RESIDENTS WERE REQUESTING? >> TRAFFIC STUDY IS NOT REQUIRED. I MEAN WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS IF WE APPROVE THIS AND IT GOES FORWARD, THEY WILL PROBABLY BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A TRAFFIC STUDY AT THAT POINT IN TIME. BUT TO SPEND THE MONEY FOR

THAT NOW. >> THEY MAY. IT DEPENDS. I CANNOT PROMISE THAT THERE ABSOLUTELY WILL BE A TRAFFIC STUDY. IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIVIL PLANS PROVIDED. ISN'T THAT

RIGHT? >> I THINK TYPICALLY AT THAT

POINT THEY WOULD REVIEW TIA. >> SECOND QUESTION. SECOND

QUESTION. >> CORRECT. IT WOULD BE REVIEWED TO SEE IF WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS. AND IF IT DOES THEN IT WOULD BE

DONE. >> DOES THE INSTALLATION OF ANOTHER GAS STATION, DOES THAT FULFILL THE PROJECTIONS OR THE CITY PLAN FOR THE AREA? WAS THAT IN THE INITIAL PLAN OR WAS THAT , WERE THE RESIDENTS PLANNING TO HAVE OTHER AMENITIES IN THE AREA

AT THE TIME? >> THE PLANNING WE HAVE IS NOT THAT SPECIFIC AND DOES NOT SPECIFY WHAT USES WILL GO IN WHAT LOCATION. ADJUST AS GENERAL ZONING. AND AS I MENTIONED THIS IS NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT, IT HAS A WARRANT TO ALLOW THE USE. THAT IS WHY IT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

>> OKAY. >> MR. POLLARD.

>> THANK YOU. SO, SEVERAL QUESTIONS HERE. ONE FOR STAFF OR SEVERAL COMMENTS AND ONE FOR STAFF. IN THE BAYSIDE REGULATING PLAN , IS THE LOT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED CURRENTLY , WAS THAT ALL DESIGNATED TO BE COMMERCIAL?

>> IN TERMS OF THE USES, YOU HAVE YOUR USE CHART, SPECIFICALLY THAT WOULD BE THE URBAN VILLAGE. THAT WOULD BE COMMERCIAL, THAT WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL, IT REALLY WOULD JUST FALL UNDER THE USE CHART. 1 IT WOULD COME TO YOU BASED ON WHETHER IT IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT OR IF YOU NEED MAJOR WARRANTS

FOR IT. >> OKAY.

[01:00:09]

>> SO NOT NECESSARILY. >> BAYSIDE IS DIFFERENT, BOTH THE FIRST PHASE AND THE SECOND PHASE. IT IS NOW CALLED ZEPHYR.

IT WAS A ONE OF ORIGINALLY CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT OF HOW THAT WAS TO BE BUILT OUT. AND MY RECOLLECTION IS ALL OF THE APARTMENTS AND THEN THE CONDOS AND THEN ALL BACK THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, THAT WAS ALL IN AND BUILD ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT, THE AGREEMENT IN THE BEGINNING. MY RECOLLECTION IS ALL THE LOTS THAT COME BACK UP THAT ARE VACANT WERE TO REMAIN UNBUILT AS FAR AS RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT WAS TO BE COMMERCIAL. IS

THAT CORRECT OR NOT? >> NOT NECESSARILY. THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. YOU ARE TALKING RESIDENTIAL, THEN INAUDIBLE ] AND THEN THIS IS URBAN VILLAGE. TECHNICALLY SOMEONE COULD COME IN AND PROPOSE A MIXED USE PRODUCT. IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY MEAN JUST ALL COMMERCIAL.

>> OKAY. AND THEY HAVE THE OVERLAY THAT WOULD TELL THEM ALL OF THE PARTICULARS AS FAR AS TRAFFIC FLOWS AND CURB APPEAL AND ALL THE REST OF THAT GOOD STUFF. OKAY. SO NOW TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CITIZENS' CONCERNS THERE, THIS IS GOING TO BE RIGHT ON THE CORNER WHERE THE TRAFFIC LIGHT IS. AT SUNSET AND DALROCK

ROAD. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES.

>> AND THE NEXT THING TO THE SOUTH IS INTERSTATE 30. IS THAT CORRECT? FROM WHERE THIS QUIKTRIP IS GOING TO BE, YOU ARE A BLOCK OR TWO FROM INTERSTATE 30.

>> YES, YOU WOULD TAKE DALROCK ROAD INTO IT.

>> OKAY AND THERE IS POSSIBILITY OF A HOTEL THAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT IN AN L SHAPE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. IT IS A MARRIOTT, IT IS ON ONE SIDE AND THEN ANOTHER PROPERTY ON THE

OTHER. IF THAT IS CORRECT. >> CORRECT.

>> IN THIS WILL BE BUILT IN BETWEEN THE QUIKTRIP AND THE

APARTMENTS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> TO AN EXTENT. YES. YOU WILL HAVE HOTEL, VACANT LAND AND THEN QUIKTRIP IS RIGHT HERE.

>> OKAY, WHERE I AM DRIVING IS THERE WILL BE A CUSHION OF A HOTEL AND POSSIBLY SOME OTHER COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES BETWEEN THE QUIKTRIP AND THE RESIDENTIAL.

>> ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXHIBIT THERE, WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE VACANT RIGHT NOW IS THE BLUE LOTS, THE HOTEL WAS GOING ON THE PINK, AND THIS WOULD BE TO THE UPPER RIGHT. SO WE HAVE

TAKEN A PORTION OF THAT LOT. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I, ON THE GENERAL NOTICE HERE, IF YOU NOTICE , AND I GUESS THIS IS A COMMENT BACK TO STAFF. IF YOU NOTICE THAT VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING THAT COMES IN UNDER FOREIGN BASE CODE HAS A MAJOR OR MINOR WARRANT REQUEST. SEVERAL. THIS ONE HAS TENDED. -- 10. RIGHT? FOR ME, YOUR ZONE IS NOT WORKING FOR YOU. AND THE CODE, THERE IS ALWAYS A REQUEST FOR WARRANTS. IN THIS CASE I THINK THE WORDS ARE JUSTIFIED. BUT, THE POINT IS THERE IS ALWAYS WARRANTS THAT IS REQUESTED. SO IT IS NOT WORKING. THAT IS AN OBSERVATION. IN MY MIND. THIS IS A MAJOR INTERSTATE. I CAN UNDERSTAND OF THE SIGNAGE THAT THEY WILL NOT, YOU KNOW, SIGN SO PEOPLE FROM THE INTERSTATE CAN SEE THEM IN THE COMPETING ACROSS THE STREET OF GAS STATIONS. BUT YOU HAVE TO REALIZE ONCE AGAIN THAT IF THIS WAS AT MILLER AND DEL ROCK, I COULD UNDERSTAND CITIZENS THAT LIVE IN THERE. I COULD UNDERSTAND THEIR COMPLAINT. BUT THIS IS A MAJOR INTERSTATE. AND WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT A GAS STATION? I MEAN MOST OR A LOT OF BIG GAS STATIONS ARE SITTING ON INTERSTATES. SO THERE IS TWO THERE . I REALIZE THAT. THERE ON

[01:05:09]

>> I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU, LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION.

HOWEVER, I NEED TO POINT OUT LIKE ONE OF OUR SPEAKERS, THERE ARE ALREADY TWO GAS STATIONS THERE. THIS WOULD MAKE THREE.

THE OTHER THING THAT KIND OF MAKES YOU WONDER ABOUT IT IS THIS WAS, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DESTINATION LOCATION. AND I DON'T KNOW. I JUST DON'T GO TO A DESTINATION LOCATION TO FILL UP MY CAR WITH FUEL.

TWO OPTIONS FOR ME TO USE. SO, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE IDEA BEHIND BAYSIDE AND THE OVERLAYS OF THAT AREA WAS TO CREATE A VISION OR AN AREA THAT HAD A CERTAIN LOOK TO IT. AND THAT IS WHEN YOU KNEW YOU GOT TO YOUR DESTINATION BECAUSE YOU COULD SEE THAT IN THE AREA. AND YOU KNOW, THE LARGE NUMBER OF THE WARRANTS REQUESTED, BASICALLY JUST THROW THAT TO THE WIND. AND TWO, LIKE I SAID, THE REASON WHILE WHY YOU NEED A GAS STATION A MAJOR INTERSTATE IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT THIS EARLY WHAT WE HAVE A VISION FOR NOW OR I DON'T WANT TO SAVE THE FOUNDERS, WHEN WE STARTED THAT PROJECT, WITH THE VISION WAS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE. SO I AM NOT SURE THAT I CAN SUPPORT THE REQUEST. ANY -- ANYBODY ELSE. MISS WILLIAMS, DID YOU PUSH A BUTTON? MISS WILLIAMS?

YES? >> I AGREE WITH YOU, JOHN. I THINK THAT THIS HINDERS THE VISION OF THE FORM-BASED CODE AND THE URBAN VILLAGE. AND I LOVE QUIKTRIP. AND I HOPE YOU FIND ANOTHER LOCATION IN ROWLETT. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT LOCATION. THIS IS THE GATEWAY ENTRANCE TO THAT DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS BEAUTIFUL APARTMENTS, BEAUTIFUL TOWNHOMES, BEAUTIFUL HOMES. AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO STICK WITH OUR FORM-BASED URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT.

>> MR. WHITE, DID YOU? NO, OKAY. MR. POLLARD.

>> JUST ANOTHER ITEM ON THAT. I BELIEVE RIGHT NEXT OR RIGHT CLOSE TO THIS QT THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED A BUILDING TO GO IN THAT WILL HOUSE A PUBLIC STORAGE. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> IT IS A MIXED USE BUILDING. ESSENTIALLY THE BOTTOM FLOOR YOU WOULD HAVE I BELIEVE WHAT IS A RESTAURANT AND LOOKS LIKE AN ACTUAL BUILDING. BUT THE STORAGE, YOU WOULD GO UNDERGROUND AND ESSENTIALLY THE STORAGE BUILDING WOULD NOT LOOK LIKE A TYPICAL ONE IT WOULD BE MULTIPLE FLOORS.

>> THE STORAGE BUILDING IS MULTIPLE FLOORS.

>> MULTIPLE FLOORS. SOME OFFICE AND SOME AT THE BOTTOM. ALSO AT

RESTAURANTS. >> RIGHT. BUT AS FAR AS VISION OF THE DESTINATION PLEASE, I AM NOT SURE ON THE NORTH SIDE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE IT WAS DEFINITELY THE VISION WAS DESTINATION PLACE. I AM NOT SURE IT WAS ON THE NORTH SIDE. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. BUT THAT IS THE REASON THE SO DEEP INTO THE NORTHSIDE WHEN IT WAS BUILT AND NOT OUT ON THE STREET ON DALROCK ROAD. AND LIKE I SAID YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE ALREADY APPROVED A BUILDING THAT WILL HOUSE INDOOR CONTROLLED CLIMATES, SO UNDERSTAND A STORAGE FACILITY IS PRETTY

[01:10:02]

WHICH WOULD NOT BE ANY LARGE COMMERCIAL ENDEAVOR. IN THE SAME WAY WITH THE HOME TWO. THE RESIDENCE WAS ACTUALLY TWEAKED QUITE A BIT IN ORDER TO GET IT CONFORMING WITH THE IDEA OF BAYSIDE PROPERTY AND I KNOW LIKE WITH THEM WE ACTUALLY DISAPPROVED THE REQUEST FOR SIGNAGE. INCREASED SIGNAGE IN THAT. WE DID NOT WANT IT TO OVERPOWER THE LOOK OF THE VILLAGE. SO, YEAH, WHERE DO YOU STOP, WHERE DO YOU START? DID

YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE? >> YES, JUST AS A COMMENT TO

WHAT YOU SAID. >> HOLD ON. GO AHEAD.

>> I DO NOT NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH YOU, EXCEPT THIS IS ON THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. IF IT WAS SET BACK TO WHEREVER THE CROSSOVER STREET IS THAT GOES ON THE BRIDGE AND BACK TO THE SOUTH SIDE, I WOULD TOTALLY BE AGAINST THIS. BUT IT IS RIGHT UP AGAINST

DALROCK ROAD. >> RIGHT UP AGAINST THE ENTRANCE TO BAYSIDE. I MEAN THAT IS THEIR MAJOR THOROUGHFARE THROUGH THERE. TO GET BACK TO THE APARTMENTS.

>> OFF OF DALROCK ROAD. BUT YOU STILL HAVE THE BRIDGE.

>> SUNSET. SO, AGAIN, THAT JOINS. THIS IS LIKE THEIR FRONT

DOOR. MR. SHERIF. >> I AM NOT SURE WHO THIS QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO. ASSUMING THAT 12 OUT OF 12 IS DENIED, DOES THAT REALLY MEAN NO QT OR DOES THAT MEAN QT WITH NO LONG LIGHT POLES. IS THIS UNAVOIDABLE. WILL ADJUST MAKE IT UGLY WAS SHORT LIGHTS. WHAT IS THE PLAN ASSUMING THAT 12 OUT OF

12 ARE DENIED? >> SURE.

>> SO AS MARTIN ADDRESSED EARLIER, ONE OF THE OPTIONS IS APPROVAL WITH COMMENTS. RIGHT? WE ARE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND BUILD THE BEST THING FOR THIS COMMUNITY. WE HAVE DONE THE INITIAL TRAFFIC STUDY BY THE WAY. UNFORTUNATELY DALROCK ROAD, I-30, HUGE CONSTRUCTION. WE ARE UNABLE TO PERFORM NEW TRAFFIC COUNTS INTO A FULL-BLOWN TIA. WE WILL DO THAT WITH STANDARD PRACTICE AND NO QUESTIONS ASKED. WE HAVE A LETTER FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FROM TXDOT AS PART OF THE INITIAL STUDIES. WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO , IF WE PIECEMEAL THE WARRANTS, I KNOW THAT YOU MENTIONED SIGNAGE. WE HAVE SOME LEEWAY THERE. YOU KNOW WE CAN REDUCE THE COUNT A LITTLE, IF NEEDED AS PER ONE THE COMMENTS.

ONE OPTION WE DON'T SHOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD WAY OF SHOWING IT, THE RED BEHIND THE QT. THE ENTIRE RED AREA IS HUNDRED AND 22 SQUARE FEET AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE IT SPELLS OUT QUIKTRIP IT IS ROUGHLY 56 SQUARE FEET. WE CAN

[01:15:02]

LIGHT POLLUTION. >> DOES THAT ANSWER?

>> MAYBE THIS IS AN ANSWER OF EXPECTATIONS TO THE RESIDENTS, ASSUMING ALL 12 ARE DENIED, DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WILL GIVE UP

ON THIS QT. >> I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS USE IS NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT. SO ONE IS TO ALLOW THE USE AT THIS LOCATION. IF YOU DENY THE WARRANT AND THEY CANNOT GO TO

THIS LOCATION. >> THEY COULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL AND THEY COULD VERY WELL RECOMMEND IT. OR APPROVE IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> MISS WILLIAMS. WOULD YOU PUSH ? OKAY. NO COMMENT THERE, OKAY. ONCE AGAIN, UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. POLLARD IS SAYING. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS, WHEN I DRIVE IN THAT AREA, COMING OFF OF I-30 , WESTBOUND I-30, I MEAN I SEE THE GAS STATIONS ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE AND I LOOK TO THE LEFT HAND SIDE AND I WOULD BE ENVISIONING THAT I WOULD SEE THE BEGINNING OF BAYSIDE. YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROWLETT TRAVELS DOWN DALROCK ROAD TO GET ONTO I-30. WHETHER THEY ARE GOING EASTBOUND OR WESTBOUND. THEY ARE ALL GOING TO GO DOWN DALROCK ROAD AND MAKE A RIGHT-HAND TURN BECAUSE IF YOU GO EASTBOUND ON I-30 YOU NEED TO MAKE A RIGHT-HAND TURN AND CROSS WHATEVER THAT BRIDGE IS NOW. I FORGET THE NAME. TO BE ABLE TO GO EAST. OR JUST RIGHT ONTO I-30, TO THE SURFACE ROAD. THAT IS AN EXTREMELY BUSY PLACE WHICH IT'S GREAT FOR A GAS STATION IF IT WAS NOT, FOR WHAT I FEEL THE BEGINNING OF A DESTINATION LOCATION. AGAIN, I AM STILL NOT SUPPORTING. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, WELL WE HAVE A MOTION , I AM SORRY, MR. WHITE.

>> ANY DIRECTIONS FOR THE VOTING?

>> THE MOTION ON THE FLOORS TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED.

AND IF YOU DO THAT IT GOES TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THERE IS A QT ON THAT CORNER. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED.

SECONDED BY MR. SHERIF. HEARING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE BOAT . AND THAT IS DENIED, 1-3. AND WITH

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.