[00:00:10]
>>> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2025, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT. THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN.
THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS, OR REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION, CALLED SESSION, OR ORDER OF BUSINESS PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT.
FOR THE PROCESS OF PUBLIC INPUT, IF YOU'RE NOT AVAILABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU MAY BE -- ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARD TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE MEETING. FOR THE IN- PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOORS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
WE HAVE A QUORUM. SO THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS TO CALL ORDER. SECOND ITEM IS CITIZENS' INPUT. AT THIS POINT, THREE- MINUTE COMMENT WILL BE MADE, WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC.
NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION DURING CITIZENS' INPUT.
DO WE HAVE ANY INPUT? MR. HALL, STATE YOUR NAME, CITY OF RESIDENCE, AND YOU HAVE THREE
MINUTES. >> DAVE HALL, ROWLETT.
SEVERAL MEETINGS AGO, YOU VOTED TO ALLOW THE VINEYARD'S DEVELOPER TO BUILD A TOO SMALL HOUSE ON A LOT THAT WAS TOO SMALL FOR THE HOUSE. YOU FAILED TO LISTEN TO EACH NEIGHBOR WHO OBJECTED. YOU FAILED TO HEAR MY OBJECTION TO YOUR USE OF MY ACCESS EASEMENT IN DEVELOPING THE LOT SIZE. YOU WERE ABLE TO PASS THIS EXCEPTION WITHOUT A COUNCIL VOTE. SINCE STAFF PRESENTED IT AS A PROJECT, WHICH WAS TOO SMALL TO NEED A COUNCIL VOTE. SINCE YOUR APPROVAL VOTE, SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS STATED THEY WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS CHANGE TO ALLOW A HOUSE BUILT ON A TOO- SMALL LOT. EXHIBIT ONE IS A RECENTLY COMMISSIONED SURVEY BY ENCORE, WHICH SHOWS THE DEVELOPER'S RETAINING WALL INTRUDING ON MY ACCESS EASEMENT, BLOCKING MY ACCESS. IT ALSO SHOWS THE DEVELOPER ES AFENCE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MY PROPERTY ON THE BOUNDARY LINE SO THAT HALF THE WIDTH OF IT IS ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY.
WHEN I BUILT MY STORE ON THIS NORTH SIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, I HAD TO SET MY STRUCTURE ONE AND A HALF FEET INSIDE MY PROPERTY. THIS PLACED SEVERE OPERATIONAL LIMITS ON MY PROJECT, YET YOU LET THIS DEVELOPER INTRUDE ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY. ERRORS AND EMISSIONS.
NOW I AM STUCK WITH THESE PROBLEMS. YOU APPROVED THIS PROJECT, YOU INSPECTED THE PROJECT, YOU IGNORED THE SUBSEQUENT PROBLEMS AS THEY BECOME APARENT.
I ASKED, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? YOU HAVE FAILED ME AND THE RESIDENTS.
IT'S SLOPPY WORK LIKE THIS THAT HAS HELPED MAKE ROWLETT AN UNINVESTIBLE CITY. -- COUNCIL TAKES THESE INDIVIDUALLY LIKETHIS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER? WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE CITIZENS' INPUT. MOVING ON TO ITEM THREE, THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER OR A CITIZEN MAY REQUEST ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 2025, REGULAR MEETING. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO POLL THAT? HEARING NONE, I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE R ALREADY READ IT. SO, I'LL ACCEPT THE MOTION. MS. WILLIAMS? COULD YOU PUSH YOUR RTS, PLEASE? PUSH YOUR
RTS, PLEASE. >> -- THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE APRIL 22, 2025, MINUTES AS
A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, SECONDED BY MR. HERNANDEZ.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. HEARING NONE.
[00:05:11]
AND THAT PASSES 6-0. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AND MAY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.REGISTRATION FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
ITEM 4A, WHICH IS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY AKHILA REDDY ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER SREELAKSHMI -- BOY AM I GOING TO MURDER THIS -- TINNANOORU REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A DAYCARE ON AN APPROXIMATE 1.
49 ACRE LOT, CLASSIFIED AS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL BASE ZONING. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT 5602 DEXAMETHASONE ROAD, LOT 2, BLOCK A, TALLAL ADDITION.
WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THE APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN THE REQUEST. SO, MOVING ON TO ITEM 4B.
THAT IS TO CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REBEST BY STEPHANIE COOKE ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER KENT STAINBACK FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRONE DELIVERY SERVICEON A 2. 75 ACRE PROPERTY ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICT. -- APPROXIMATELY NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF THE LAKE VIEW PARKWAY AND KEN WOOD DRIVE BEING PART OF THE REASON KRIS SURVEY SH, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. WE'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE CANDIDATE -- OR APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THAT UNTIL -- ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT THE APPLICANT WHO WANTS TO DO THAT. IT'S THE CITY THAT WANTS TO TABLE THAT TO OUR NEXT MEETING ON THE 27TH. SO, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION.
>> I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND TABLE ITEM 4B UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> MAY 27, 2025. MR. -- MS. WILLIAMS, SECOND THAT. MR. POLLARD, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> YES. ZIP LINE IS MENTIONED IN THIS, IS THIS THE ZIP LINE PROJECT? OKAY.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO GO AHEAD AND TABLE THIS ITEM,ITEM, 4B UNTIL MAY 27TH , 2025. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE.
>> OKAY. ON THE AGENDA, IT SAYS IT'S 2.
75 ACRE, BUT IN THE DOCUMENT, IT SAYS 2.85.
SO, I'D LIKE ONE OR THE OTHER.
>> WELL, WHEN IT COMES BACK, I'M SURE IT WILL BE PROPERLY
>> THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO TABLE ITEM 4B TO MAY 27, 2025.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? CALL THE VOTE.
AND THAT PASSES 6-0. ITEM 4C, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS KMS RETAIL, HUNTSVILLE LP TO REZONE SUCH A PROPERTY FROM COMMERCIAL C DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD DISTRICT MULTIFAMILY ATTACHED TOWN TOWNHOME, APPROVE THE CONCEPT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 30 TOWN HOMES, THREE, AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND FOUR, AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY, THE PROPERTIES LOCATED GENERALLY SOUTH OF KENWOOD DRIVE AND WEST OF CYPRESS DRIVE, CONSISTING OF A 4.31 ACRE TRACK, DESCRIBE THIS
[00:10:01]
PORTION OF LOT 6 RA, BLOCK A OF THE AMENDING REPLATT OF LUKE'S LANDING -- BLOCK A IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.THAT WILL BE INDIVIDUALLY PLOTTED.
PARKING IS MINIMUM TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE RBC. PROVIDING -- ADDITIONAL PARKING AS WELL. ACCESS KENWOOD DRIVE. THE STREET ITSELF WILL ACTUALLY BE A PRIVATE STREET -- SO, THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL LENIENCY PLAN.
REQUIRED FOR PRIMARY ENTRY. SO -- CONSIDERED B STANDARDS.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE 80 FEET ALONG EXTERNAL DRIVES AND 80 FEET ALONG TO THEIR STANDARD. THE OTHER COMPONENT WILL BE ADDED TO THE STANDARDS IS THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE ADDING 6,000 SQUARE FOOT, THE ACTION NEEDS TO PROVIDE AT LEAST 75% WHICH IS THAT CONDITION THE REQUIREMENTS THEY'RE PROVIDING DOG PARK -- SO, THESE ARE THOSE BUILDING ELEVATIONS.
ONCE WE GET TO A SECOND -- PLAN WE'LL GET MORE DETAILED PLANS. I DID PUT IN YOUR PACKET A TRIP GENERATION DEMO, AND I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT FOR Y'ALL. SO, THE -- LOOKING AT 17 TRIPS DURING THE -- HOURS. FOR P.M. , THEY'RE LOOK AT 19 TRIPS. FOR SATURDAY, THEY'RE LOOKING AT 18 TRIPS. FOR SUNDAY, LOOKING AT 24 TRIPS.
-- THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA.
SO, WE DID STANDARDS THAT WERE MORE FYI.
PRESENTATION, I JUST INCLUDED THE ACTUAL ] SO VARIANCES -- STANDARDS. SO, THE FIRST IS IF YOU WANT TO DO A PRIVATE ACCESS, A PRIVATE ROAD, YOU HAVE TO REQUEST IT SEPARATELY.
SO, THEY ARE REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR ALLEYS FOR REAR ENTRY, AND THEY ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE THE INAUDIBLE ] GARAGE. AND LASTLY THEY ARE REQUIRING SOME VARIANCES FOR INAUDIBLE ] SQUARE FEET WITH 4,800 SQUARE FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE ROAD. WHAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED IS 9,196 SQUARE FEET TOTAL WITH 3,490 SQUARE FEET THE COMMISSION -- APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIAL.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THE COMMISSION DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THEY DO WITH THE CONDITION
[00:15:02]
THE APPLICANT EITHER UPDATES THE LANDSCAPE PLAN OR PROVIDES SO, AGAIN, THAT'S -- AT LEAST 75 SO, WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. WE RECOMMEND INAUDIBLE ] LANDSCAPE OR STANDARDS.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. POLLARD?
>> DESCRIBE FOR US, WHAT IS A TRIP? IS A TRIP WHEN YOU LEAVE YOUR HOME AND YOU GO SOMEWHERE AND YOU COME BACK?
IT'S ONE-WAY TRIP. >> EXITING VEHICLES AND KIND OF BREAK IT DOWN BY HOW MANY PEOPLE THEY EXPECT TO ENTER, HOW MANY VEHICLES THEY EXPECT TO LEAVE.
THAT TOTAL NUMBER IS THE TRIPS GENERATED.
>> SO, DURING A PEAK TIME OF A.M. ON A WEEKDAY, YOU HAVE 31 EXPECTINGEXPECTING 17 OUT OF THE 31 TO LEAVE.
>> THIS IS WHAT THEIR TRIP GENERATION CORRECT. IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THEY INAUDIBLE ] I WOULD DEFER THA PORTION TO
FOR EVERYBODY, EVEN THOSE THAT MAY WATCH THIS, JUST WANT THEM TO UNDERSTAND. AND ON A SUNDAY, YOU HAVE 24 OUT OF THE 31 THAT MAY LEAVE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION? COULD YOU DO ME A BIG FAVOR AND JUST TAKE YOUR PRESENTATION BACK TO THE -- I WANT TO SAY FLOOR PLAN -- BACK TO THE -- YES. RIGHT THERE.
DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWED THIS? YES. THAT ONE RIGHT THERE.
OKAY. I CAN'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MY GLASSES OR JUST THE READING THERE, BUT I CAN'T DIFFERENTIATE.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHICH ONE'S THE MAIN ENTRANCE AND WHICH ONE'S THE SECONDARY ENTRANCE?
>> THE ONE ON -- NORTH IS FEATURED AS A PRIMARY AND THEN ON SOUTH, THE FIRST WHITE
RECTANGULAR IS -- >> PARK, I BELIEVE. AND THE SECOND ONE IS OKAY. THANK YOU. YES? NO.
THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT? PLEASE.
>> MY NAME IS BRIAN DOYLE WITH TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AT THE MOMENT. JUST TO ECHO WHAT BRITTANY TALKED ABOUT, FOR THE PAST NINE MONTHS, WE'VE DONE SOME LAST PIECE.
A AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEN ON THE RIGHT IS THE FAR AS DEVIATIONS TO TOWN HOMES IS REALLY COMING FROM THAT NORTHWEST PORTION WHERE THE ENTRY IS NARROW BY KENWOOD.
AND WE'D LIKE TO BE HERE, WE'RE ALREADY HERE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, ALONG MAIN STREET.
EXCITED TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. POLLARD?
>> OKAY. SO, GOING BACK TO TRIB GENERATIONS. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW ON A WEEKDAY, A.M. , YOU HAVE 30 -- WELL, THIS HAS 31, BUT IT'S
[00:20:03]
>> BUT THAT YOU'RE HAVING JUST OVER 50% TOTAL TRIPS IN THE A.M.
>> SO, THE TRIP GENERATION REPORT IS BASED OFF OF -- WHICH IS TRANSPORTATION MANUAL.
WE RUN THE SOFTWARE THAT IS BASED OFF OF ZONING AND -- IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THEY'RE USING -- I DON'T HAVE THE REPORT WITH ME.
BUT THEY'RE USING ANY GIVEN TIME, PEAK TIME, THAT'S 8:00 TO 10:00 A.M. ONLY A FEW NUMBER OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO GET -- SO, OUT OF 30 RESIDENTS, IT'S ASSUMED THAT THE COUNT WOULD BE AROUND 17. NOW, THE OTHER RESIDENTS COULD BE MOVING BETWEEN 10:00 AND 2:00 P.M.
>> OKAY. SO, I'M STILL SOMEWHAT CONFUSED HERE. SO, YOU GOT
>> COULD HAVE ANYWHERE FROM PROBABLY 30 TO 60 VEHICLES.
>> NOW, A REASON I SAY THAT IS GIVEN THAT EVERY TOWN HOME MAY ONLY HAVE ONE PARTY OCCUPANT --
SIR. >> BUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS POTENTIAL 30 TO 60 VEHICLES --
>> CORRECT. >> -- THAT'S IN THIS PROJECT.
AND YOU'RE ONLY FIGURINGFIGURING A WEEKDAY THAT DURING PEAK A.M. , ONLY 17 -- JUST BARELY -- WELL, IN A CASE OF 30 TO 60, WAY UNDER 50% IS LEAVING. THAT'S UNCONCEIVABLE TO ME.
>> PEAK A.M. IS 8:00 TO 10:00.
>> SO, YEAH, SOME VEHICLES LEAVING BEFORE 8:00, 7:00 TO 8:00, AND SOME LEAVING RIGHT AFTER.
>> THE TRIPS EXITING IS 13. SO, OKAY.
AND YOUR TRIPS ENTERING IS FOUR FOR YOUR TOTAL OF 17.
BUT EXITING IS 13 OUT OF POTENTIALLY 30 TO 60 VEHICLES. I JUST -- I FIND THAT HARD TO
BELIEVE. >> A GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD BE, I GUESS CHILDREN, NOT EVERYBODY'S VEHICLE YOU HAVE 30 UNITS
>> THIS IS ALL BASED OFF OF ITE TRANSPORTATION GUIDELINES, AND WE HAVE THE REPORT FOR STAFF THAT WE SHARED.
>> I UNDERSTAND. AND THE OTHER THING THAT DOESN'T -- IN READING THROUGH THIS, I DIDN'T SEE IT, AND YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY TRAFFIC COUNT FROM ANYTHING FROM ROWLETT ROAD THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMING BY YOUR PROJECT AND GOING OUT ON THE 66. SO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF COUNT OF HOW MUCH THAT'S GOING TO ADD, SUBTRACT, OR WHATEVER FROM THE LOAD THAT'S ALREADY ON THAT STREET, RIGHT?
>> SO, THE ASSUMPTIONS ON THE REPORT, WHEN THE TRIP GENERATION REPORTS ARE BEING CONDUCTED, IT'S SOLELY BASED OFF OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.
>> SO, ANY CONSIDERATION OF OTHER TRIPS ON KENWOOD OR -- ROAD IS ALL SECONDARY TRIPS. RIGHT NOW, 1,000 TRIPS
>> AND I GUESS THE LAST QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR YOU AT THIS TIME IS, HOW COME, THROUGH THESE MONTHS THAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF, HOW COME YOU'RE STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM STANDARDS ON THE NORTHERN OR PRIMARY ENTRANCE AND EXIT ON THE SIZE. AND ALSO I BELIEVE STAFF SAID THAT THERE WAS -- YOU DIDN'T MEET THE STANDARD ON LANDSCAPING. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> OKAY. SO, WHY? WHY CAN'T YOU DO THAT?
[00:25:02]
>> IT'S BEEN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, CHANGING SITE PLANS, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ACCOUNTING FOR ALL THE OTHER ITEMS ON SITE, ADDING COMMUNITY EVIDENCE -- PARKING. SO, SOME OF THE ITEMS BASED OFF OF THAT ENTRY, AS I MENTIONED, IT'S VERY SLIM. WE ALSO HAVE -- COMING THROUGH THERE. SO, IT'S BEEN A LOT OF
>> OKAY. SO, IS ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE SOUTHERN ENTRANCE, MAYBE SLIDING THAT DOWN FARTHER, JUST BASICALLY COMING OFF AT AN ANGLE, ALLOWING YOU TO INCREASE YOUR GREEN SPACE ON THAT HALF OR THAT SOUTH SIDE OF YOUR PRIMARY ENTRANCE, THEREFORE GIVING YOU MORE SPACE TO PLANT?
>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED SPECIFICALLY -- EVERY DEVELOPMENT OF THIS KIND REQUIRES TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.
>> I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED THE CONCEPT OF, LIKE, RIGHT FROM WHERE YOUR GUEST PARKING IS JUST START TO TURN DOWN AND BACK OUT TO KENWOOD ONLY BEING AT THE VERY SOUTH TIP OF YOUR PROPERTYPROPERTY LINE IS WHAT I
THAT ALSO SO, WE'RE CAUGHT RIGHT IN BETWEEN THE TWO.
THE PLACEMENT RIGHT THERE ACCOUNTS FOR BOTH THE SECONDARY AND THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE, GIVEN EQUAL SHARE.
>> MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU HAVE AN APPROXIMATE IDEA ABOUT WHAT TOWN HOME IS GOING TO COST?
>> YES. RIGHT NOW WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT. AS YOU KNOW, THE MARKET IS SHIFTING AS FAR AS CONSTRUCTION COSTS. BUT OUR TARGET IS ENTRY POINT 450 RANGING TO 500.
LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW. >> OKAY.
MY CONCERN HERE IS THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LOOKED AT DOZENS OF THE HOUSES THAT ARE IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS OFF OF CYPRESS AND MAPLE.
NOT ONE HOUSE -- OR AT LEAST I COULDN'T FIND ONE HOUSE -- THAT WAS VALUED AT OVER 300,000.
SO, IN MY MIND, THE VALUE OF THESE TOWN HOMES IS GOING TO BASICALLY INCREASE THEIR VALUES, WHICH ESSENTIALLY IN MY MIND SCREAMS GENTRIFICATION. SO, MY MAIN CERTAIN HERE IS THAT THIS IS POSSIBLY GOING TO BASICALLY RAISE EVERYBODY'S TAXES IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AND QUITE POSSIBLY PRICE THEM OUT.
SO, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT COULD BE DONE AS FAR AS THOSE TOWN HOMES GO TO LOWER THEIR VALUES. YOU KNOW, MAYBE MAKE IT A LITTLE CLOSER TO WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD VALUES ARE BECAUSE THIS RIGHT HERE JUST SCREAMS THAT THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE A LOT OF PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD.
>> THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT -- OWNERSHIP AS FAR AS PRICING STRATEGY.
VERSUS THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED.
>> OKAY. ARE YOU AWARE THAT ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS -- ONE OF OUR AGENDA ITEMS, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE TABLED UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING, IS FOR A -- NOT A KIOSK, BUT A HUB FOR AERIAL DELIVERY? AND BASED ON WHATEVER OUR ORDINANCE COMES UP WITH, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT EVEN IF THEY GO WITH OUR MINIMUM OF 200 FEET FROM A RESIDENT, THEY WOULD END UP GETTING APPROVED BEFORE YOU ONLY BECAUSE I GUESS YOUR VACATION PLANS OR THE DEVELOPER'S VACATION PLANS OR SOMETHING. SO, THE FOLKS ASKING FOR THE KIOSKS ARE GOING TO MAKE IT TO CITY COUNCIL BEFORE YOU.
AND SO IF THEY GET APPROVED, YOU WOULD BE BASICALLY
[00:30:03]
NEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD KNOWING THAT YOU WOULD BE WITHIN THE NOISE OR THE EXCLUSION AREA THAT WOULD BE WITH OUR SUP OR AN SUP FOR THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION.I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE AWARE THAT THAT REQUESTREQUEST OR THAT APPLICANT IS, IN FACT, IN THE PIPELINE AND LOOKING TO PUT A AERIAL HUB IN THE PROPERTY JUST SOUTH OF YOU.
>> OUT. I GUESS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES IS THE PREVIOUS OWNERS' HOPEFULLY WE MAKE IT TO CITY COUNCIL.
BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T F1 HAVE ANY FEEDBACK ON
>> OKAY. BUT YOU'RE AWARE OF IT.
DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR US? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
>> YES, SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> THAT'S FAR EASIER THAN JUST YELLING FROM YOUR SEAT BACK THERE.
>> ANYWAY. MOST OF THE HOUSES THAT I'VE SEEN ON CYPRESS DRIVE ARE THE LOW -- RANGE.
NOW, THE MAYBE THE OLDER -- BUT ANYWAY, THE POINT I WANT TO BRING UP, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, IS ACTUALLY WITH THIS HUB. THIS HUB IS GOING TO, IF APPROVED, IS GOING TO -- I'M FEARFUL OF TRAFFIC GOING FROM, LIKE, WPM WALMART, AS AN EXAMPLE, ACROSS THE STREET AND HAVING ALL THIS CROSS TRAFFIC CAUSING KENWOOD DRIVE, AND WITH A POTENTIAL NEW TOWN HOME ADDITION, I'M AFRAID THAT'S GOING TO CREATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. AND THEN ALSO WE HAVE A PUBLIC PARK RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FOR THE KIDS.
SOT, SO, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY ISSUES WITH ALL THE TRAFFIC. WE ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF -- GOING ON AT KENWOOD AND HIGHWAY OF 66. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH LANES THERE OR LARGE ENOUGH LANES NOW JUST THE WAY IT IS.
AND THEN WHEN YOU ADD TOWN HOMES, 30 TOWN HOMES -- AND I AGREE THAT I THINK THAT ESTIMATE IS -- THAT 17 DURING PEAK HOURS, THAT'S JUST NOT REALISTIC IN MY VIEW AS WELL. SO, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY FOR THE KIDS WITH THE PARK. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION. AND THINGS LIKE THAT IS WHAT I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT. SO, I JUST WANTED TO VOICE
>> DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? WE CAN WAIT UNTIL HE'S DONE.
ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NONE, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT? MR. POLLARD? RTS.
>> SO, THE LAST TIME THAT I DID THIS, I DID A POSITIVE AND IT CREATED A PROBLEM ON THE MINUTES AND WE DID A CORRECTION.
SO, I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE OLD FORMAT, AND I'M GOING MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DENY.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MR. HERNANDEZ SECONDS THE MOTION TO DENY.
[00:35:02]
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MS. WILLIAMS?>> MY CONCERN IS THE DRONE ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE IN, YOU KNOW, THE DISTANCE REQUIRED.
>> SO, TO CLARIFY, NEITHER OF THOSE ITEMS HAVE PASSED.
AND SO IT'S, KIND OF, HOWEVER IT GETS PASSED FIRST, WE THEN WILL LOOK AT IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS FOR WHICHEVER ITEM COMES SECOND.
IF THE DRONE DELIVERY APPROVES FIRST, IT WOULD BE MEETING THAT 200-FOOT SETBACK. IF THIS GOT APPROVED, IT WOULD MAKE THE ZIPLINE NONCONFORMING.
BUT WE JUST LOOK AT ITEMS AS THEY COME IN AND AS THEY GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.
>> OKAY. I HAVE SEVERAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS. NUMBER ONE, THEY'RE ASKING US TO TAKE A COMMERCIAL ZONE, BEEN THAT WAY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND CONVERT IT TO A MULTI-FAMILY USE.
AND THEN WE HEARD ZIPLINE, AND THEY ARE IN THE PROPER ZONE SO TO SPEAK, THAT WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO IS CATER TO THOSE BUSINESSES THAT'S AROUND, LIKE, WHETHER IT BE SPROUTS, WHETHER IT BE WALMART, OR ANYBODY ELSE. AND THEY ARE IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE, NOT A RESIDENTIAL ZONE AREA.
AND I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM THAT -- AND I REALIZE WHOEVER GETS HERE FIRST. BUT I THINK WHATEVER IS COMMERCIAL NEEDS TO, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, NEEDS TO STAY THAT WAY UNTIL WE GET SOMETHIG LINED OUT ON THE OTHER PARCEL OF PROPERTY OF THIS, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO IS, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLY ICANT IN THAT, ONE, THEY'VE HAD SEVERAL MONTHS AND THEY STILL COME UP SHORT ON THE OPENING OF THEIR STREET INTO KENWOOD AND THE LANDSCAPING. AND COUPLED WITH WHAT I THINK ISIS UNBELIEVABLE PROJECTED GENERATION TRIP THAT THEY HAVE THAT -- ALL THAT COUPLED IS -- THAT TELLS ME THAT, YOU KNOW, THE QUALITY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS JUST NOT THERE.
I JUST -- YOU KNOW, AS THE CITIZEN THAT LIVES IN THAT AREA, THE BIG PROBLEM IS AT 66, THE BOTTLENECK. YOU KNOW, YOU COME OUT OF WALMART AND YOU'RE BACKED UP AT TIMES THERE, AND YOU'RE JUST ADDING MORE. AND OF COURSE THIS APPLIES TO A LOT OF TRIP GENERATIONS THAT I'VE SEEN OVER THE YEARS PRESENTED.
THERE'S NEVER A WHOLE LOT OF TRAFFIC TO SAY, GEE, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING WITH ANYTHING ELSE THAT IT AFFECTS. AND I JUST -- I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, AND I THINK COUNCIL NEEDS TO KNOW THAT.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY.
HEARING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DENY THE APPLICANT, SECONDED BY MR. HERNANDEZ. WE'LL CALL THE VOTE.
AND THAT APPLICATION IS DENIED 6-0.
MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, ITEM 4D, CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON REQUEST OF MICKEY GARNER, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER STEVEN L SALMAN FOR APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL -- FORM BASED NEW NEIGHBORHOOD USE. THE APPROXIMATELY 41.871-ACRE SITE IS SITUATED WITHIN THE WILLIAMS BLEVINS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 8, AND THE ML PRICE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 257, EAST OF VINSON ROAD AND
[00:40:03]
COTTONWOOD CREEK TRAIL IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND GARLAND, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.>> THE REQUEST IS FOR PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 170 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 14 PUBLIC OPEN SPACES, AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT THE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS ABOUT A 41- ACRE LOT.
IT'S LOCATED EAST OF VINSON ROAD AND THE COTTONWOOD CREEK TRAIL. IT'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, A PART OF THE TRAILS AT COTTONWOOD CREEK.
IT'S ONE OF THE FIVE PHASES OF THAT MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY PLATT APPROVED JULY OF LAST YEAR AND ALSO A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW, PENDING APPROVAL, WHICH SHOULD HAPPEN SOMETIME THIS WEEK. HERE'S YOUR TREE MITIGATION CALCULATION. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S ABOUT 226 PROTECTED TREES ON SITE. OUT OF THOSE 226, THERE'S 69 THAT ARE PLANNED TO BE REMOVED, LEAVING ABOUT 157 TREES TO BE SAVED, WHICH IS CREDITED BACK TO THE APPLICANT.
SO, THERE IS NO MITIGATION FEE TO BE PAID OFF TO THE REFORESATION FUND OR ANY REQUIRED TREES TO BE PLANTED.
>> AND THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. YOU MAY APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY THE REQUEST.
>> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. HERNANDEZ?
>> MY ONLY QUESTION HERE IS THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY REMOVED THE TREES, HAVE THEY?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE?
>> WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO GIVE US A
PRESENTATION? >> IT QUICK. BUT GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. MY NAME IS MICKEY GARNER.
AS LILYANA INDICATED WE'VE BEEN WORKING THE PAST FEW MONTHS TO COME UP WITH A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, THE PD, AND OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO PRESERVE WHATEVER WE CAN. SO, JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANTED TO NOTE. IN YOUR PACKET, THERE SHOULD BE A LAND PLAN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OUR PROJECT.
THERE'S A PARK WITH A LOT OF NICE MATURE TREES SURROUNDING IT. SO, WE ARE PROPOSING TO PRESERVE ALL OF THOSE IN ADDITION TO PRESERVING ADDITIONAL TREES AROUND THE TRAILS THAT WE HAVE THROUGH OUR DEVELOPMENT. AND ALSO LASTLY THE ADJACENT LOTS. THERE'S ABOUT THREE OR FOUR ADJACENT LOTS. SO, PRESERVING ALL OF THOSE TO CREATE ADDITIONAL BUFFER AS WELL. SO, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, I GUESS YOU'RE OFF THE HOOK.
>> THANK YOU. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND MY MRS. WILLIAMS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. POLLARD?
>> JUST A COMMENT. BACK TO THE APPLICANT AND ANYBODY ELSE THAT'S A BUILDER OR DEVELOPER THAT COMES BEFORE US.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED PERSONALLY, I WOULD RATHER SEE TREES SAVED ON WHAT'S OUTLINED AS THE LOTS UNTIL A FOOTPRINT CAN BE BROUGHT IN TO SEE IF THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED OR NOT. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BEFORE THIS MEETING STARTED, ONE OF THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVES MADE A COMMENT AS TO WHY THEY WERE DOING IT, IT'S A GRADING ISSUE, AND I'M SATISFIED WITH THAT. BUT TYPICALLY I'D LIKE TO SEE THEM LEAVE THE TREES UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY BUILD ON THE LOT.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AS PRESENTED.
NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. LET'S CALL THE VOTE.
AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.