[4A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Ty Young, Skorburg Company, on behalf of property owners, Rita Alford, Judy McCallum, and Tony & Sara Acri, to 1) Rezone the subject property from Single-Family Residential (SF-9) to Planned Development (PD) District for Single-Family Residential (SF-9) ; 2) Approve a Concept Plan to construct 56 single-family residential lots; 3) Amend the Comprehensive Plan; and 4) Amend the official Zoning Map of the City. The property is located generally north of Carroll Lane and east of President George Bush Highway, consisting of a 16.607-acre tract situated in the Henry H. Hall Survey, Abstract No. 663, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

THANK YOU.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AND WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR AT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FIRST ITEM, 4A CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY TY YOUNG, SKORBURG COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS, RITA ALFORD, JUDY MCCALLUM, AND TONY & SARA ACRI, TO 1) REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF-9) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF-9) ; 2) APPROVE A CONCEPT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 56 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS; 3) AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND 4) AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED GENERALLY NORTH OF CARROLL LANE AND EAST OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH HIGHWAY, CONSISTING OF A 16.607-ACRE TRACT SITUATED IN THE HENRY H. HALL SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 663, IN THE CITY OF

ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

I'M REPRESENTING THIS AGENDA ITEM. IT IS LOCATED AT 6106 LIBERTY GROVE ROAD, GENERALLY NORTH OF CARROLL LANE AND EAST OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH HIGHWAY. IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF NINE AND THE DESIGNATION IS A STATE RESIDENTIAL. AGAIN, THIS REQUEST IS TWO FOLD, IT IS A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AND A --

[00:05:10]

FIRST, LOOKING AT THE ZONING, IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY NINE, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT AND THEY AREN'T PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WITH A BASE ZONING OF SINGLE-FAMILY NINE. THE ZONING IS CHANGING TO A PD DUE TO BEING UNABLE TO MEET THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BUT THE BASE ZONING WILL REMAIN SF NINE.

AS YOU HAVE HEARD ME SAY BEFORE, IF WE ARE CHANGING THE ZONING FROM ONE TO ANOTHER, IF OUR CONFERENCE OF PLAN, OUR FEATURED LAND USE MAP DOES NOT REQUEST WHAT THE ZONING IS, WE HAVE TO CHANGE THAT IN LOCKSTEP WITH THE ZONING CHANGE. IT IS CURRENTLY STATE RESIDENTIAL OVER 20,000 SQUARE FEET, SO THEY DO HAVE TO REQUEST A CHANGE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR SORRY, STATE RESIDENTIAL IT SHOULD SAY LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS BETWEEN 7000 SQUARE FEET AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET. SO AGAIN, I WANT TO CLARIFY THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS NOT ZONING. IT IS WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THIS AREA IN 15 OR 20 YEARS WITH INPUT FROM CITIZENS BUT IT IS NOT THE CURRENT ZONING. THE CURRENT ZONING IS SF NINE. HE DOES HAVE 53 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE INDIVIDUALLY PLOTTED. THEY WILL BE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED. IT IS MEETING ALL THE DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SF-9 AND THAT INCLUDES THE LOT DEPTH, AREA AND DENSITY THAT IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE SF-9 ZONING DISTRICT. THIS WILL BE NEXT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH HIGHWAY BUT IT DOES CONNECT TO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH. SO THEY NEED THAT LOOP FOR FIRE CONNECTION. ANY PRIVATE LOTS, YOU CAN SEE IN THE GREEN THERE ON THE CONCEPT PLAN, THOSE OUR PROPOSED PRIVATE LOTS AND THOSE ARE OPEN SPACE. THEY WILL BE MAINTAINED BY AN HLA. SO THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN, THEY ARE PROVIDING THE TWO CANOPY TREES IN THE FRONT YARD OF EACH LOT WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CODE SO THE PRIMARY ENTRYWAY THEY ARE PLANNING ON MEETING MOST OF THE REQUIREMENTS THERE WHICH IS THE MINIMUM TWO CANOPY TREES AND MINIMUM SHRUB REQUIREMENT, BUT THEY ARE REQUESTING A DEVIATION FOR THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE AT THE PRIMARY ENTRYWAY. SO THEY ARE REQUESTING 5000 SQUARE FEET TOTAL WITH 2500 SQUARE FEET ON EACH SIDE. I WILL GO INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE COMMON OPEN SPACE BECAUSE IT IS A DEVELOPMENT OVER 25 LOTS AND OF THAT OPEN SPACE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF WHAT THAT IS. THE DEVELOPER PROPOSES THAT AMOUNT. BUT OF THE -- WHATEVER THEY PROPOSE A MINIMUM 30% OF THAT DOES HAVE TO BE OPEN SPACE WITH SOME FOCAL POINTS.

THEY ARE PROPOSING A TRAIL WHICH DOES MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.

SO THESE ARE THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS. SO NOW GETTING INTO THE STANDARDS AND DEVIATIONS OF THEIR PLAN DEVELOPMENT. SO THE FIRST TWO GO HAND IN HAND. THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES ALLEY ACCESS WITH DRIVEWAYS AND THEY ARE PROPOSING FRONT ENTRY WHEN ALLOWED, FRONT ENTRY GARAGE IS HAVE TO BE EITHER L OR J HOOK. THEY ARE PROPOSING JUST FOR ENTRY. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROVIDING A MINIMUM OF 60 FEET AND THEY ARE PROPOSING 50 FEET FOR A PORTION OF IT. THE ROUTE DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES CAPITOL BLOCKS AT 1200 FEET. THEY ARE REQUESTING A MAXIMUM BLOCKING OF 2100 FEET. AGAIN, TOUCHING ON THE PRIMARY ENTRYWAY IS, THEY ARE PROPOSING A REDUCTION FROM 9000 DOWN TO 6000 SQUARE FEET TOTAL AND 500 SQUARE FEET, AND THEN LAST IS TREE MITIGATION FEES. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO CAP THE AMOUNT OF THEIR TREE MITIGATION TO $2500 AS A ONE-TIME PAYMENT AND AS A GOING TO PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE IN THE MIDDLE AND ALSO PLAN AN ADDITIONAL 66 TREES, IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER THEY ARE REQUIRE TO PLANT PER THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.

THOSE ARE THE COMPENSATORY MEASURES AND THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT ONE-TIME PAYMENT.

SO WE DID SEND OUT NOTICES. WE SENT OUT 71 WITHIN 200 FEET AT THE TIME THIS WAS MADE THERE WERE SEVEN IN OPPOSITION. SINCE THEN WE HAVE RECEIVED MORE THAN 200 FEET AND I EMAILED THOSE TO Y'ALL TODAY. NOW IT IS 13. I WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT THERE IS A STATE LAW THAT IF ÚOVER 20% OF THE PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET PROVIDE WRITTEN OPPOSITION IT DOES TRIGGER A SUPER MAJORITY AND THEY ARE A LITTLE SHORT ON THAT BY ONE. I DO NEED TO GET CLARIFICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT WHAT THEY SUBMITTED TODAY DOES MEET THAT LEGAL STANDARD OF A WRITTEN OPPOSITION. IT MAY TRIGGER A SUPER MAJORITY AT CITY COUNCIL.

[00:10:01]

152 NOTICES WERE ALSO MAILED OUT TO 500 FEET AND WE HAD FIVE IN OPPOSITION, ONE IN FAVOR AND WE HAD ONE ADDITIONAL LETTER OF OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION BUFFER.

SO AS THE RECOMMENDING BODY YOU MAY APPROVE THE CONDITIONS OR APPROVE . THE APPLICANT IS HERE TODAY AND THEY DO HAVE A PRESENTATION BUT STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTION FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? MR.

POLLARD. >> BRITNEY, ON THIS SF-9 PD REQUEST, AS I LOOK AT IT, 16.6 ACRES. YOU TAKE 20% OUT FOR THE UTILITIES AND THE ROAD AND YOU TAKE THE 80% THAT IS LEFT, YOU DIVIDE THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 9000 . THEY COULD PUT IN 64 HOMES . HAVE YOU DONE THE CALCULATIONS OF THAT?

>> I HAVE NOT. THEY ARE UNDER THE MAX DENSITY OF WHAT SF-9 ALLOWS.

>> SO FOR THE PEOPLE OUT THERE , THEY COULD PUT MORE IN HERE THAN THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

>> OKAY.

>> ALWAYS.

>> I NEVER GET TO GO FIRST. MY NAME IS JOHN ARNOLD. I AM AT 8214 WESTCHESTER STREET DALLAS, TEXAS 75225. THANK YOU ALL FOR HAVING ME TONIGHT. OKAY, PERFECT. LIKE I SAID, TONIGHT I WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH SOME BACKGROUND HISTORY OF SKORBURG COMPANY AND ROWLETT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THE ZONING AND PROJECT HISTORY. THIS IS NOT OUR FIRST TIME IN THIS HOME -- ROOM WITH THE PROJECT WITH Y'ALL. WE WILL GO THROUGH THE CONCEPT PLAN, OPEN SPACES AND THEN I WILL TAKE Y'ALL THROUGH THE VARIANCES WITH SOME PHOTOS AND STUFF. SO SKORBURG COMPANY IS LOCALLY OWNED, PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT FIRM. WE HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS 40 YEARS. WE HAVE DONE PROJECTS IN THE DFW AREA AND WE ARE STRICTLY DFW. WE HAVE OVER 25 CURRENT PROJECTS IN ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT.ONE IS STILL IN ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT IN ROWLETT. I WILL SHOW YOU THAT IN A SECOND. WE HAVE A REPUTATION FOR BUILDING HIGH-QUALITY LONG-LASTING COMMUNITIES. WE DO PROJECTS LIKE THIS THAT ARE SMALL THAT ARE 40 OR 50 LOTS AND MASTER PLANS WITH 400 UP TO 1000 ACRES. OR 1000 LOTS.

BUT IN ROWLETT WE HAVE DONE SIX PROJECTS. THIS WOULD BE OUR SEVENTH. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, WOODSIDE ESTATES , LAKESHORE VILLAGE AND THAT IS IN LONGBRANCH AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE A COUPLE HOMES IN THERE AND THEN MANNERS ON MILLER. THAT IS ONE OF OUR FIRST PROJECTS THAT WE DID IN ROWLETT. THAT WAS 39 LOTS ON EIGHT ACRES. THAT DENSITY IS AROUND FOUR UNITS PER ACRE. SO HIGHER DENSITY THAN THIS ONE. IT IS ON MILLER ROAD AND OUR BUILDER WAS THE SISTER COMPANY, WINDSOR HOMES AND THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF THE PROJECTS IN ROWLETT AND THE LOT SIZE WAS 50 FOOT BY 115 FOOT. AND THEN 15 ACRES RIGHT AROUND FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, JUST UNDER OVER ON CHEESE OR ROAD IN BEL AIR. THAT IS FULLY BUILT OUT. THOSE LOTS WERE 50 FOOT BY 125 AND SMALLER THAN THIS PROJECT AS WELL. WOODSIDE ESTATES, THAT WAS PLUS OR -6 ACRES AND 27 LOTS. A LITTLE HIGHER DENSITY THAN THIS ONE AS WELL. THAT WAS ON WOODSIDE. AND AGAIN ON THAT ONE, WINDSOR HOMES. THIS ONE IS -- THOSE ARE 60 FOOT BY 115, 145 .

AND THEN BELLAS AT LONGBRANCH, THAT WAS 32 LOT 40 FOOT PATIO HOME PROJECT THAT WE DID AND WINDSOR HOMES WAS THE BUILDER THERE AS WELL. MERRITT VILLAGE WAS A PROJECT WE DID OVER ON THE NORTH SHORE THAT WAS 133 LOTS WITH A MIX OF 50 , 60S AND 40S.

AND WINDSOR HOMES, TREES AND THE BUILDERS OVER THERE. SO THAN LAKESHORE VILLAGE. THAT IS THE CURRENT BUILDOUT AND THAT WAS A MIX OF 50S AND 60S. IT WAS ABOUT FIVE UNITS OR 4.5 UNITS PER ACRE. WINDSOR AND GRAND HOMES ARE THE CURRENT BUILDERS

[00:15:01]

BUILDING THAT. THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW. SO THIS IS SOME OF THE PRODUCT. I KNOW WE SHOWED YOU THE ELEVATIONS AND YOU HAVE HEARD THE NAME IN DFW BUT WE WILL GO THROUGH SOME OF THEIR SMALLER ONE-STORY PRODUCT INTERIORS AND TWO STORY PRODUCT . ALL OF THESE YOU KNOW, THE RANGE IS ON THESE HOMES ARE EXPECTED TO BE IN THE 500S UP INTO THE 800S.

I WILL TAKE Y'ALL THROUGH SOME OF THOSE. AND KIND OF GET TO THE MEAT OF THE ZONING CASE.

SO OUR SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NEXT TO GEORGE BUSH, JUST NORTH OF CARROLL LANE. IT IS BETWEEN THE PARK AND FLAMINGO BAY. AND LAKE RAY HUBBARD ON OUR EAST SIDE AND WE ARE ABOUT 16.5 ACRES ON THE PROPERTY. CURRENT SURROUNDING ZONING IS MARINER PARK TOWARDS NORTH AND FLAMINGO BAY ESTATES TO THE SOUTH. BOTH OF THOSE PROJECTS IS SF-9. OUR MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THIS IS ABOUT 9000 SQUARE FEET, BUT OUR AVERAGE LOT SIZE IN IT IS 10,000+, SO ALL THESE LOTS ARE ABOVE THAT 9000. WE AVERAGE AROUND 10,000 SQUARE FEET. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO THE SOUTH OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO 9000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. IF ANYONE CAME INTO REPLY IT. MARINER PARK WAS ZONED PD AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ON THAT IS ABOUT 8000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, SO SMALLER THAN SF-9. AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS JUST UNDER 8500 AND HOURS WAS GOING TO BE OVER 10,000 SQUARE FOOT. SO WE ARE LARGER LOTS THAN THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH BUT SMALLER THAN THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH. SO A LITTLE HISTORY ON THIS PROJECT. WE WERE IN 2024 WE CAME IN AND TALKED TO COUNSEL ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WE WERE WORKING WITH COUNSEL AND WE WERE GOING TO COME BACK AND SEE Y'ALL FOR ZONING BUT AT THE TIME WE WERE LOOKING AT 50 FOOT LOTS. WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF WINDSOR PRODUCT IN THE TOWN. WE ARE LOOKING FOR THAT FOR THE PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INVOLVED SOME PROPOSED COLUMBIA PARK IMPROVEMENTS . THAT WAS DENIED AND MAINLY FOR DENSITY REASONS. SO WE HAVE ADJUSTED OUR PLAN. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ON THAT WAS 150, SO WE TOOK THE FEEDBACK AND CAME BACK WITH THE BASE ZONING. BUT THE BASE ZONING FOR THIS PROJECT AS YOU WILL SEE, THIS LONG NARROW STRETCH OF PROPERTY IS LEFT OVER AND IT NEEDS SOME HELP TO BE DEVELOPED.

SO WE WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WITH A 56 LOT DEVELOPMENT AND ABOUT 3.4 UNITS PER ACRE. WE WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND SHOWED THEM THE VARIANCES. WE VOTED 3-2 BUT YOU NEED A SUPER MAJORITY SO WE NEEDED TO GET THAT, SO THAT WAS THE STAFF THAT MET WITH COUNCILMEMBERS AND FOCUSED ON OUR DENSITY AND THEN TODAY OUR PLAN AS WE MOVED IT DOWN TO 53 LOTS, WE PAID FOR A TREE SURVEY AND LOOKED THROUGH THE PROJECT AND FOUND SOME OF THE SPECIMEN TREES IN THERE AND MARKED OFF AN AREA WHERE WE COULD ACTUALLY SAVE TREES IN THE AREA OF VALUE.

TO THE CITY, TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THIS PROJECT. SO NOW THE CURRENT PLAN WE ARE SHOWING YOU TONIGHT IS 53 LOTS. NOW 3.22 DENSITY. SO A LOWER DENSITY BY ALMOST .5 OR .6 TO THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH. THEY ARE ABOUT .6. SO MUCH LOWER DENSITY AND SO AS BRITNEY SAID, WE HAVE 53 LOTS AND THE AVERAGE SIZE IS 10,000 SQUARE FEET. WE MEET OR EXCEED ALL THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF SF-9. SHE SAID THIS WAS JUST A TABLE SHOWING YOU THE MAX DENSITY ON SF-9 IS 4.8 UNITS AND WE ARE 3.22. WE ARE MEETING MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND AVERAGING ABOUT 10,000 SQUARE FOOT. THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, THEY ARE ALL 64 FEET WIDE AND AT LEAST 115, SOME ARE 145 OR 150. MAX LOT COVERAGE AND THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK AND WE MEET ALL THOSE INTENTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN,

[00:20:06]

I MISS THAT, BUT SOME OF THE LOTS ARE ALL THE WAY UP TO 210 DEEP.

OPEN SPACE AREAS. AS WE SAID WE WILL HAVE A LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE AREA UPFRONT WITH MASONRY ENTRY FEATURE AND COLUMNS AND A STEEL FENCE. IT WILL BE LANDSCAPED AND WE ARE GOING TO PLAN, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE TOP OF THE PROJECT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TREE PRESERVATION AREA ALONG OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND THEN TRY TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AS WE CAN TO THE SOUTH AND THEN PLANT TREES ON THE SOUTH. THAT IS WHAT BRITNEY WAS TALKING ABOUT. THE ADDITIONAL PLANNING WE WILL DO TO KEEP A BUFFER AND WE HAVE DEEP BACKYARDS WE CAN WORK WITH. AGAIN, I WILL GO INTO THIS A LITTLE MORE BUT WE REMOVED THREE LOTS WITH THE CONCENTRATION ON SOME OF THE SPECIMEN TREES. SO TREE PRESERVATION AND PLANNING, WE ARE LOOKING TO ENHANCE THE NATURAL BUFFER IN THE SUBDIVISIONS BETWEEN 156 AND 111 TREES WILL BE PRESERVED ALONG THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. WE DON'T HAVE A FULL GRADING PLAN. THIS PROPERTY DROPS ABOUT 20 FEET NORTH TO SOUTH. SO WE WILL KNOW WHERE WE CAN PUT WALLS TO SAVE TREES AND EVERYTHING. SO WE HAVE LEFT A RANGE THERE. BUT THE TREES WILL BE PRESERVED AT 20 UP TO 30 INCHES AND THREE WILL BE BETWEEN 30 AND 40, AND 66 PERIMETER TREES PLANTED BY THE DEVELOPER ALONG THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH.

SO WE FOCUSED ON SOME OF THE SPECIMEN TREES. THE PRESERVATION AREA WE ARE LOOKING TO PUT IN PARK TRAILS AND BENCHES AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. 35 OF THE TREES WILL BE PRESERVED AND 50% OF THOSE ARE GREATER THAN 50 INCHES AND BETWEEN 20 AND 30 AND FIVE TREES BETWEEN 30 AND 40. WE FOUND SOME LARGE TREES SO THAT WE COULD SAVE THEM. WE WILL MAKE IT A PRETTY AREA WITH SHADE AND THE AREA WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. SO ALL THE VARIANCES, BRITNEY TOUCHED ON THESE. THE FIRST IS THE BLOCK LENGTH. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM YOU KNOW, WHAT THIS ACTUALLY SHOWS YOU PRETTY WELL. WE DON'T HAVE AN ENTRANCE IN AND OUT FOR THIS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. THE SUBDIVISIONS WILL ALLOW ANY ACCESS POINTS WHEN THEY WERE DEVELOPED, SO THE ONLY WAY IN IS ON THE EAST SIDE. WE HAVE ACQUIRED ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE LANDOWNER SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THAT CONNECTION DOWN TO THE EAST. SO YES, THE PROPOSED LOCK LANE IS 2100 FEET BUT THERE IS REALLY NOWHERE TO GO FOR THIS PROJECT.

AND IF YOU WENT IN AND OUT YOU CANNOT USE THE WHOLE PROPERTY.

WE GOT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE TWO POINT ACCESS TO MEET THAT CONDITION. SO ALLEYS, ALLEYS SHOULD BE PROVIDED AND ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. WE DON'T HAVE ALLEYS TO THE NORTH OF US OR TO THE SOUTH OF US. ALL SIX OF OUR PREVIOUS PROJECTS EXCEPT FOR MAYOR VILLAGE HAVE SOME ALLEYS BUT THEY ALL HAD FRONT ENTRY HOMES WITHOUT ALLEYS. THE SITE GEOMETRIES ARE VERY NARROW AND IF WE PUT AN ALLEY ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH WE WOULD HAVE A BIG WALL TO THE SOUTH WITH AN ALLEY RIGHT UP AGAINST IT AND IT NARROWS THE PROJECT DOWN TOO MUCH. AND YOU KNOW, CONSUMER -WISE, THE DEEP LOTS AND BIGGER BACKYARDS ARE MUCH MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN AN ALLEY.

ON THE FRONT ENTRY , WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, NOT REALLY ON THE SIZE OF THE SPACE THAT WE ARE GIVING. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE A TOTAL OF 9600 SQUARE FEET. EACH SIDE HAS TO BE 4600 SQUARE FEET. IF YOU TAKE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WE ARE 12,500 SQUARE FEET. WHAT WE ARE ASKING TO DO IS REALLY THE SHAPE. SO IF YOU LOOK -- I'M DOING THIS WRONG. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE ON THE NORTH, THERE IS THE RED LINE THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT THE SHAPE NEEDS TO BE AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS ACTUALLY GIVE MORE AREA BUT CHANGE THE SHAPE OF WHAT THE ENTRY FEATURE WOULD BE BECAUSE IT WOULD EAT INTO THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA AND PUSH THOSE LOTS BACK . WE ARE GIVING OVER THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE BUT ASKING TO RESHAPE IT. WE THINK THIS GIVES US MORE AREA TO PUT TREES ALONG THE FRONTAGE AND MORE LANDSCAPE AND KEEP THE PRESERVED OPEN SPACE.

RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH, WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS THIS NARROW SECTION TOWARDS THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY. THE LOTS IN THE

[00:25:03]

PROPERTY OWNERS ARE RETAINING A PIECE OF THE PROPERTY SO IT NARROWS BACK THERE BUT WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS TO KEEP THE 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY UNTIL THE LAST PIECE WHERE TRANSITIONS DOWN TO ANOTHER 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS IS NOT OUT OF THE ORDINARY FOR THE PREVIOUS PROJECTS. ALL OF OUR PROJECTS EXCEPT FOR MERIT VILLAGE WERE IN THE NORTH SHORE AND INVOLVED 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAYS. AND WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THE 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT A FIVE FOOT EASEMENT ON THE BACKS OF THOSE LOTS SO WE WILL NOT UTILITIES, SO THE BIGGEST CONCERN IS HAVING ROOM FOR CITY UTILITIES. THE ROAD WIDTH DOES NOT CHANGE AND SIDEWALKS DO NOT CHANGE. IT IS JUST THE ACTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY SO WE CAN HAVE ENOUGH DEPTH TO KEEP THEM ABOVE THE 9000 SQUARE-FOOT MINIMUM.

FRONT ENTRY , THIS IS YOU KNOW, JUST A PRODUCT BECAUSE THE 65 FOOT LOTS MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO DO SWINGS AND OUR BUILDER PRODUCT HAS BEEN POPULAR AND ALL OF OUR PROJECTS HAVE BEEN FRONT ENTRY, FRONTAGE PRODUCTS AND I THINK WE SHOWED SOME GREAT ELEVATIONS FOR THESE PROJECTS.

FOR THIS PROJECT.

AGAIN, TREE MITIGATION. THIS IS A CONVERSATION I HAVE HAD WITH STAFF AND SOME OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS LAST YEAR. ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS, WE HAVE A BIG TREE FUND, WHAT DO WE DO WITH ALL THOSE TREE FUNDS? WHAT IS THE VALUE OF A TREE THAT ALREADY EXISTS? I GO UP THERE AND PLANT YOU KNOW, 106 INCH TREES AND WE CAN WAIT 40 YEARS UNTIL THEY ARE THE SIZE OF ONE OF OUR 30 INCH TREES, SO WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO INSTEAD OF PAYING A BIG NUMBER INTO THE TREE FUND, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR THE TREE FUND, LOOK FOR AN AREA THAT ACTUALLY PUTS A VALUE ON THE TREES THAT WE ARE EATING. SO WE LOOKED AT AN AREA THAT HAD 30 INCH TREES, 29 INCH TREES IN THESE LARGE TREES AND SAID YOU KNOW, THEY COULD TAKE 30 OR 40 YEARS TO REBUILD, SO WHY TRY TO FORCE SOME TREES INTO ANOTHER AREA WHEN WE CAN SAVE THESE HERE? SO THAT IS KIND OF THE BASIS OF WHY WE ARE ASKED IN. WE ARE STILL LOOKING TO PUT IN $250,000 INTO THE TREE FUND, BUT SAVE THESE TREES IN THIS AREA AND MITIGATE SOME OF THAT PLANTING AND THE FUNDS THAT GO IN THE TREE FUND FROM MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE PROJECT WHERE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT NOW. SO THAT IS MY PRESENTATION. I AM HERE FOR QUESTIONS FROM EVERYBODY.

>> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ? OKAY.

GENERALLY I LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. AND I WILL TRY TO TAKE THE VARIANCES, BECAUSE THE TRADE-OFFS, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE STREET MAKES SENSE , SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM ON THE RECONFIGURATION AT THE FRONT AND TREES, AND YOUR LITTLE PARK THERE. I'M NOT WILD AT ALL ABOUT THE FRONT ENTRY . I GUESS GOING HAND IN HAND WITH THAT IS IF YOU HAD A WIDER MINIMUM LOT WIDTH THEN YOU COULD DO THE L OR J. BUT I'M NOT WILD ABOUT THAT. BUT CONSIDERING YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE MORE HOUSES THAN YOU HAVE AND I THINK THAT MAY BE A TRADE-OFF TO LOOK AT. THE TREE FUND , IN YOUR GREENBELT UPFRONT, CAN YOU NOT PUT MORE TREES OR REQUIRE MORE TREES ON EACH LOT AND LANDSCAPING PACKAGE?

>> WE ARE ADDING 66 TREES ALONG THE AREAS ON THE LOTS. WE WILL MAYBE MORE TREES UPFRONT. BUT AGAIN, I WILL TELL YOU, I WENT THROUGH THIS ACTUALLY ON CHEESE OR ROAD. AND HAD THE SAME CONVERSATION AT THE P AND Z MEETING SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AGO. AND WE ENDED UP ADDING MORE TREES TO THE YARDS AND THERE WERE LESS YARDS AND THEN WE ADDED TREES UPFRONT. BUT I THINK YOU COULD MAYBE GO DOWN THERE AND SEE IT RIGHT NOW. THEY ARE

[00:30:02]

JUST TREES IN A ROW. IF YOU START STUFFING TREES ON THESE LOTS AND UPFRONT YOU END UP WITH EIGHT INCH TREES FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. WE HAD A PECAN FARM WE WORK ON IN MCKINNEY AND THEY PLANTED THEM ALL TOO CLOSE TOGETHER AND THEY NEVER GREW TO MATURITY. SO WE CAN ADD MORE TREES AND I THINK THAT IS NOT A FINISHED LANDSCAPE PLAN. WE CAN ADD MORE TREES IN THE GREEN SPACE. BUT I DON'T WANT TO JUST STUFF IN 20 TREES IN THERE. WE COULD TALK TO AN ARBORIST AND SAY WHAT IS THE RIGHT DISTANCE? IF WE HAVE THAT AREA THAT IS 150 FEET YOU PLANT THEM EVERY 20 FEET BEHIND THERE, SO THAT WOULD BE 115 FEET AND YOU COULD PLANT 10 TREES ON EACH SIDE SO THAT IS MAYBE LIKE AN EXTRA 20 TREES.

BUT THEN IF YOU PLANT THEM WE ARE ADDING THEM INTO THE BACKYARDS AND THOSE FRONT LOTS. AND THEN JUST PLACING TREES IN AREAS CLOSE TO THE HOUSES. AND THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE UP BACKYARD SPACE. SO WE HAVE TRIED TO FOCUS ON AN AREA WITH LARGE TREES BECAUSE THIS SITE HAS A TON OF TREES AND THEN WE WENT

THROUGH THE WHOLE ENTIRE -- >> MY LOT IS 9000 SQUARE FEET AND I HAVE TWO LARGE MATURE PECAN TREES, ONE ON THE SIDE, ONE IN THE BACK. , PISTACHIO IN ADDITION. SO YOU KNOW, MORE THAN JUST TWO OR THREE. AND THEY WERE ALL PRODUCERS.

MY WIFE LOVES THEM.

BUT ANYWAY, THE LONG AND SHORT IS, I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE YOU BE ABLE TO REASONABLY PUT IN SOME MORE TREES IF YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU CAN THEN SUCH A LARGE STIPEND TO THE CITY THAT JUST SITS THERE.

>> WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR TREES ON THE LOTS? TWO?

>> FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS THEY REQUIRE TWO IN THE FRONT, THAT IS IT.

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS FOR

SINGLE-FAMILY. >> BUT WE CAN EASILY PLAN

ANOTHER TREE. >> IF THEY COULD DO THAT AND REDUCE WHAT IS GOING INTO THE TREE FUND I WOULD PREFER THAT.

THE LAST I HEARD THERE WERE 400+ THOUSAND SITTING THERE FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

>> I BELIEVE THE CITY IS WORKING ON AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO START USING THAT MONEY. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT ORDINANCE IS RIGHT NOW BUT I BELIEVE STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING ON THAT. AS YOU HAVE NOTED, THERE IS QUITE A LARGE --

>> MR. BURR, WOULD YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHERE THAT ORDINANCE IS? THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO AT THIS TIME WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC.

WOULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND CALL THE FIRST PERSON TO SPEAK AND CALL THE SECOND PERSON SO THAT THEY CAN BE PREPARED TO SPEAK? THANK YOU.

>> SO THE FIRST PERSON, JUSTIN MAR STOWE AND ON DECK, JAMES

PELLEGRINI? >> 5401 FLAMINGO DRIVE. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN AND OPPOSITION FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WORKING ON TWO YEARS THE DEVELOPERS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIND DIFFERENT WAYS TO DEVELOP THIS TO MAKE THIS DEVELOPMENT WORK FOR THEIR OWN GAIN. NOW THE DEVELOPER IS SEEKING TO REZONE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVIATION FROM THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS THE COMMISSION HAS SHOWN LEADERSHIP AND SOUND JUDGMENT IN UPHOLDING THE VISION FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH, HOWEVER, THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE CHANGES IN THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF ROWLETT WHICH HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE LAND USE MAP WHICH YOU SEE HERE. THIS IS TO SET A CLEAR AND CONSISTENT DIRECTION FOR MANAGING THINGS LIKE POPULATION GROWTH, INFRASTRUCTURE, NEEDS WHICH DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTE TO QUALITY OF LIFE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LARGE BLUE AREA, THIS WAS LABELED THE EMPLOYMENT AREA. AND THAT SPECIFICALLY DID NOT

[00:35:02]

INCLUDE THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS THAT YOU SEE TODAY BUT THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN ADDITIONAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, SOME OF WHICH THE DEVELOPER HAS ALREADY MENTIONED.

THAT ARE STARTING TO DEVIATE SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THAT LAND USE MAP. THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE WITH REZONING RESTS LIES IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TOOL, NOT SIMPLY THE IDEA OF DEVELOPMENT ITSELF. WHILE PDAS CAN BE APPROPRIATE IN SPECIAL CASES THEY PRESENT SERIOUS LONG-TERM ISSUES WHEN MISUSED, ALLOWING DEVELOPERS TO WRITE THEIR OWN RULES AND BYPASS IMPORTANT ZONING STANDARDS. OVER TIME THIS LEADS TO FRAGMENTED AND INCONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS UNDERMINING ZONING BASED CATEGORIES. THEY CREATED A PATCHWORK OF ONE-OFF EXEMPTIONS PLACING THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON STAFF AND MAKE IT HARDER TO ENFORCE THESE UNIFORM POLICIES. THEY CAN ERODE THE PUBLIC'S TRUST IN PREDICTABILITY BY SHIFTING CONTROL FROM THE CITY TO PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS. MUCH LIKE WHAT WE ARE SEEING HERE. EQUALLY CONCERNING, THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY GUIDED BY THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR STATE USE RESIDENTIAL WHICH HAS BEEN PRESENTED. THAT DESIGNATION REFLECTS THE SITES TOPOGRAPHY, INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITATIONS AND CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. APPROVING THIS PD RISKS FURTHER DEVIATIONS FOR THE LONG-RANGE PLANNING GOALS , PARTICULARLY IN THIS NORTHWEST AREA THAT HAS CHANGED SO MUCH.

I'M CONCERNED WITH JUST THOSE COMPOUNDING CHANGES THAT ARE HAPPENING WITHIN THE NORTHWEST AREA. SOMETIMES IT TAKES ABOUT 15 MINUTES FOR PEOPLE IN MARINER PARK TO GET ONTO GEORGE BUSH EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE A MILE AWAY FROM IT. THE OTHER THING IS, THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS TO TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT WHAT THEY HAVE NOT TOLD YOU IS THAT THERE ARE OVER $700,000 WORTH OF TREE MITIGATION FOR THAT. AND YES, I UNDERSTAND THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER IS WORKING ON THE TREE MITIGATION AND HOW WE CAN USE THE FUND, BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A MINIMAL FRACTION OF WHAT REALLY IS HERE, OVER 900 FEET OF CALIPER INCHES. I UNDERSTAND THE CITY MUST GROW BUT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE LONG-TERM PRIORITIES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> JAMES PELLEGRINI? >> I RESIDE AT 6301 IN THE MARINER PARK SUBDIVISION. MY BEAUTIFUL HOME ON THE CORNER THERE, WHICH IS, IF THIS PLAN IS ACCEPTED, WILL NOW HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC DRIVING IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. WELL, THAT IS PROGRESS. I UNDERSTAND PROGRESS. WHAT I'M HERE TODAY TO TELL YOU IS THAT I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH ANY KIND OF IDEAS THAT THE CITY ALLOWING A BUILDER TO HAVE THREE OR FOUR MORE HOUSES ON THAT , AND LET'S GET SOME DEVIATIONS. LET'S GET THE CITY TO SACRIFICE A LITTLE BIT FROM THEIR RULES AND THE PLANS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED PEOPLE WHO KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING. FOR MORE PROFIT. THE DEVELOPER WOULD NOT BE HERE TRYING TO DEVELOP LAND THAT NEEDS A LOT OF WORK AND GET ALL THESE DEVIATIONS IF IT WERE NOT MORE PROFITABLE. THAT IS WHAT IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO. ARE WE, AS MEMBERS OF ROWLETT, CITIZENS AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS, ARE WE WILLING TO SAY OKAY, GIVE US SOME MONEY AND YOU AND CUT DOWN THOSE TREES? YOU BUILD MORE HOUSES AND WE WILL MAKE MORE TAXES AND WE WILL DEVIATE FROM OUR PLANS. I DISAGREE WITH THAT WHOLE IDEA. I THINK THE RULE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY BUT WHY DO WE HAVE TO ACCEPT CHANGES TO GET IT DEVELOPED? INTO A REASONABLE PROPERTY, AND ALSO THE FACT REMAINS, BUILDING $800,000 HOUSES ON THE SLIGHTLY SMALLER LOTS, THEY SAY THEY'RE NOT SMALLER, BUT THEY ARE SMALLER THAN MANY OF THEM, MINE INCLUDED, IS NOT GOOD FOR THE TAX BASE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY LIVE HERE. WE HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE THIS WAS ALL NEW. I HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE MY HOUSE WAS BEING BUILT.

AND NOW WE WANT TO CHANGE EVERYTHING. THE WHOLE ATMOSPHERE OF THE AREA FOR MORE PROFIT FOR A LARGE COMPANY. PRIVATELY HELD OR NOT, THIS IS AN ALARMIST COMPANY WITH MILLIONAIRES. AND THEY THROW AROUND THE TREE MITIGATION FEES LIKE IT DOES NOT EXIST. WE SHOULD NOT REDUCE THAT. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO SAY WELL, YEAH, THAT IS A A BIT MUCH, YOU ARE OKAY. THE PLAN SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. THEY WERE SET IN PLACE FOR A REASON. AND NONE OF US DISAGREED WITH THE PLANS, THAT IS WHY WE BOUGHT BEAUTIFUL HOMES AND PAID LARGE AMOUNTS OF TAXES FOR OUR PROPERTIES. THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME. I HOPE THAT WE ALL DO THE RIGHT THING HERE.

>> SHERRY HARMON? ON DECK, DIANE ARTHUR.

>> 5209 ROYAL BAY DRIVE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

[00:40:06]

THE SAME THING. YOU WANT TO TIE INTO THE BACKEND OF MY PROPERTY THERE ON THE ROAD THAT GOES DOWN TO THE LAKE DOWN THERE. WE NEED YOU THAT YOU ARE GOING TO CREATE THE TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING TO COME UP ON ROYAL BAY DRIVE WHERE WE LIVE. WE HAVE TWO ENTRANCES INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE AT MARINER PARK. WE BOUGHT THERE FOR A REASON, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHO IS COMING IN AND OUT. WE STAYED THERE FOR A REASON, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHO IS COMING IN AND OUT. HE BUILT A NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH OF US CALLED MARINER COVE. WE HAD TO HIRE OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICERS TO COME PROTECT OUR POOL BECAUSE THOSE RESIDENTS CAME INTO OUR POOL THREATENING OUR RESIDENCE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OF MARINER PARK.

HOW MANY OF YOUR RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO COME IN THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM BECAUSE I LIVE RIGHT NEXT --

>> MA'AM.

>> I UNDERSTAND DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE. I HAVE BEEN A FIREFIGHTER PARAMEDIC FOR 20 YEARS AND I'M GOING TO RETIRE.

I LIKE CHANGE. I LIKE TO SEE GOOD THINGS HAPPEN. BUT NOT WHEN YOU IMPOSE UPON MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM THERE FOR A REASON. BECAUSE I WANT MYSELF PROTECT IT. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD , YOU ARE TRYING TO TAKE A 50 POUND BAG AND YOU ARE TRYING TO SHOVEL 100 POUNDS OF POTATOES INTO IT AND NOW IT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO 70 POUNDS OF POTATOES AND NOW 60 POUNDS OF POTATOES IN IT. YOU ARE TRYING TO SHOVE TOO MUCH INTO TOO LITTLE. YOU ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY A NATURAL RESERVE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE BEHIND THEIR .

YOU HAVE DONE THE RIGHT THINGS FOR TWO YEARS. YOU HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB. YOU HAVE GOT SOME GOOD THINGS GOING ON. PROTECT THE COMMUNITIES AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY THERE AND QUIT TRYING TO MAKE THE TAX BASE BIGGER THAN WHAT IT ALREADY IS.

THANK YOU.

>> DAN ARTHUR FOLLOWED BY ROBERT ARTHUR.

>> HELLO, I -- I AM SHORT. I LIVE IN MARINER PARK AND I HAVE LIVED THERE SINCE THE BEGINNING, SO WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF CHANGE AND I UNDERSTAND CHANGE. SO ANYWAY, I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO READ THIS PETITION THAT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY OVER 40 PEOPLE. WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS OF ROWLETT TEXAS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS PETITION IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THE ALFRED ESTATES PROPERTY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS THE DEVELOPER HAS MADE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO REZONE THIS SITE IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF HOMES FAR BEYOND WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP INTENDS FOR THIS AREA. THESE REPEATED EFFORTS PRIORITIZE DENSITY OVER THOUGHTFUL PLANNING AND LONG-TERM COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS DESIGNATED ON THE CITY OF ROWLETT'S LAND USE MAP AND THE PLAN FOR STATE RESIDENTIAL. WHICH RECOMMENDS LOT SIZES OF HALF AN ACRE OR LARGER. THIS LAND USE DESIGNATION BETTER REFLECTS THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE, ITS TOPOGRAPHY, PROXIMITY TO GREEN SPACE AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITATIONS. AND WOULD CREATE LESS STRAIN ON SURROUNDING ROADWAYS AND SERVICES. SMALLER MORE COMPACT LOTS , AS PROPOSED IN THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT WOULD DEVIATE SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THAT VISION. FURTHERMORE, MUCH OF THE REMAINING UNDEVELOPED LAND IN NORTHWEST ROWLETT HAS ALREADY BEGUN TO DEVIATE FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP . WHEN DEVELOPMENTS MOVING AWAY FROM THE CITY'S ORIGINAL INTENT FOR THIS AREA. IF THIS CONTINUES THE COMPOUNDING EFFECT OF HIGHER DENSITY PROJECTS WILL FURTHER DISRUPT INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND THE OVERALL BALANCE INTENDED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT GOAL ONE OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SPECIFICALLY CALLS WHAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO UTILIZE THE FUTURE LAND USE

[00:45:01]

MAP AS A GUIDE FOR DAILY DECISION-MAKING REGARDING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. UPHOLDING THIS GUIDANCE IS CRITICAL TO MAINTAINING LONG-TERM CONSISTENCY AND QUALITY AND HOW ROWLETT GROWS. WHILE WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT RESPONSIBLE INFILL DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY AT THE REQUESTED DENSITY AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION. A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION WILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPER --

>> ROBERT ARTHUR FOLLOWED BY MISS BROTHERS.

>> IT IS HARD TO FOLLOW YOUR WIFE. BUT I WILL TRY.

I LIVE AT 5314 OASIS THEY DRIVE IN MARINER PARK AND OUR PROPERTY BORDERS THE LAND THAT IS IN QUESTION HERE. AND UP TO THIS POINT THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF HOMES TO BE BUILT, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE PRICE OF THE HOMES AND THERE HAS BEEN CONCERN ABOUT THE TREES THAT ARE ON THE ALFRED ESTATES. A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THIS PLAN IS THE FAMILIES OF MARINER PARK WILL BE LEFT TO DEAL WITH THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION THAT WILL SURELY HAPPEN. ASSUMING THERE ARE 53 HOMES AND YOU CONFIGURE TWO CARS PER HOME, AND IF THEY HAVE KIDS YOU CAN ADD TO THAT NUMBER. THAT IS GOING TO CREATE A PROBLEM. THUS FAR THIS PROBLEM HAS NEVER BEEN SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. AND I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THIS IS A CRITICAL PROBLEM. IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CARS ARE PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET AND THIS MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR TWO CARS HEADED TOWARDS ONE ANOTHER TO PASS. SO ONE OF THE CARS HAS TO STOP AND PULL OVER AND ALLOW THE OTHER CAR TO PASS AND THEN MOVE ON. I CANNOT IMAGINE WHAT THAT WILL CREATE WITH ALL OF THIS ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. THE CONCERN OF THE MARINER PARK HOMEOWNERS IS, WHAT PLAN DOES THE BUILDER HAVE TO ALLEVIATE THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION THAT WILL BE CAUSED AS A RESULT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT? IF THE PLAN IS TO LEAVE THE PROBLEM FOR THE HOMEOWNERS, THEN THERE IS NO PLAN.

SO, IF THERE ARE TO BE HOMES BUILT ON ALFRED ESTATES, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPERS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE IMPACT AND QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TO LIVE IN ALFRED ESTATES AS WELL AS THE FAMILIES WHO LIVE IN MARINER PARK, MANY OF WHO HAVE LIVED HERE OVER 20 YEARS. BUILD WHAT YOU WANT, JUST DON'T LEAVE THE HOMEOWNERS OF MARINER PARK WITH YOUR PROBLEM, BECAUSE ONCE IT IS DONE IT CANNOT BE UNDONE. I PROPOSE THAT THE BUILDER RECALCULATE HOW THIS PROBLEM IS TO BE SOLVED, THEN SUBMIT A NEW PLAN FOR HOW THEY INTEND TO HANDLE THE TRAFFIC THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BRING. I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES. NUMBER ONE, BUILD A NEW ROAD FOR THE ALFRED ESTATES HOMEOWNERS TO ENTER AND LEAVE. THIS MUST NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO OASIS BAY DRIVE MARINER PARK. CURRENTLY THE PLAN IS TO LET THE NEW HOMEOWNERS GET OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ANYWAY THEY CAN. AND AS I HAVE EXPLAINED, THIS WILL CREATE AN INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM. NUMBER TWO. BUILD AN EXIT ROAD .

>> OUT OF TIME, SIR. SORRY.

>> THE SECOND SOLUTION IS DO NOT BUILD AN EXIT ROAD AT THE LAKE RAY HUBBARD END OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THIS MEANS THAT THE CARS WILL COME IN AND OUT OF ALFRED ESTATES DEVELOPMENT JUST LIKE THEY DO ON CARROLL LANE AND ON FLAMINGO. AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME . WE WISH THE BEST FOR THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE FAMILIES.

THANK YOU.

>> AND DARYL HALL.

[00:50:01]

>> I LIVE AT 5514 OASIS BAY DRIVE. I'M HERE TODAY TO ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR ZONING CHANGES RESENTED FOR THE SMALL ACREAGE BETWEEN AKER PARK AND FLAMINGO BAY. WE SAT HERE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WHILE THIS DEVELOPER REQUESTED VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT THEY PROPOSED FOR THIS LAND. IN THAT MEETING THEY CLEARLY STATED THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD BUILD THEIR HOUSES WAS TO HAVE THOSE VARIANCES, WHICH WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY PLAN.

AT THAT TIME THEY ARE PRESENTING THE SAME NUMBER OF LOTS ON THIS STRIP OF LAND AS THEY ARE TODAY. THEIR REQUEST WAS DENIED AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN WITH THEM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HAVING NEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS GOING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION ASKING FOR THE SAME THING. THIS IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY PLAN. I CAN SEE WITH THE PROPOSED HOUSES ON THIS LAND THEY HAVE LITTLE MOVE -- ROOM TO MODIFY THE PLANS. I AM AGAINST THIS HIGH OF A DENSITY. I UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPER AS A BOTTOM LINE AND THAT THIS MANY HOUSES ALLOWS THEM TO ACHIEVE THEIR INCOME GOALS, BUT FEWER HOUSES ALLOWS FOR DEVELOPING IN A WAY THAT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY PLAN AND WOULD NOT NEED ZONING REQUESTS OR VARIANC APPROVALS. ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THE 53 HOMES MEANS POTENTIALLY OVER 100 MORE VEHICLES TRYING TO GET THROUGH THE 66 INTERSECTION TURNAROUND WHICH ALREADY TAKES SEVERAL LIGHT CYCLES TO GET THROUGH, PLUS THE WIDTH OF THE PROPOSED ROAD DOES NOT ALLOW FOR TURNING AROUND MEANING ALL THE DELIVERY THROUGH TRAFFIC WILL FEED INTO MARINER PARK GOING INTO MY STREET. THEY SAY IT IS A SIMILAR WIDTH AND THEY ARE RIGHT BUT GUESS WHAT HAPPENS RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE ON A CONSTANT BASIS ? EVERYONE USES THE TURN HARBOR INTERSECTION DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE AS A TURNAROUND. THEY'RE NOT PLANNING ANY MID STREETS, SO THEY DON'T HAVE ANY TURNAROUND OPTIONS. I KNOW THE COMMITTEE CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT TRAFFIC BUT YOU CAN DENY THIS REQUEST TO KEEP THE PROBLEM WHICH AFFECTS ALL OF ROWLETT FROM BEING EXACERBATED. IF THE DEVELOPER CANNOT RESPONSIBLY DEVELOP THE LAND IN A WAY THAT KEEPS IN MIND THE LOCATION AND WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR CITY AS A WHOLE, MAYBE THEY ARE THE WRONG DEVELOPER FOR THIS LAND. THEY CAN OFFER EXAMPLES OF OTHER PROJECTS AND THAT IS GREAT. THEY CAN GO DO THEIR WONDERFUL THINGS ON LAND THAT IS BETTER SUITED FOR WHAT THEY HAVE TO OFFER. THIS LAND CANNOT SUPPORT 53 HOMES WITH 53 HOUSEHOLDS WORTH OF TRAFFIC IN A WAY THAT FITS THE AESTHETICS OF ROWLETT. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.

>> DARYL HALL FOLLOWED BY PAMELA BELL.

>> WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS BEEN SAYING, I AM AT 5418 OASIS DAY, SO MY PROPERTY BACKS UP TO THE PROPOSED PROPERTY AND JUST TO REITERATE WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, IT IS BASICALLY GOING TO BE A ONE-WAY STREET COMING IN AND THEN COMING OUT THROUGH MARINER PARK. SO MOST OF THE TRAFFIC WILL JUST COME IN.

ANYBODY THAT IS NOT A RESIDENT WILL HAVE TO JUST GO STRAIGHT AND COME OUT MARINER PARK NUMBER WHICH IS WHERE I LIVE. I WILL SEE A MASSIVE INCREASE OF DELIVERY TRUCKS, PEOPLE, DELIVERY DRIVERS FOR FOOD AND ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WITHOUT ANOTHER EXIT , EVERYTHING WILL BE FORCED TO COME THROUGH BECAUSE THOSE NEIGHBORS OR THE PEOPLE AT ALFRED ESTATES ARE NOT GOING TO WANT PEOPLE TO DO U-TURNS IN THEIR DRIVEWAYS AND SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO STRAIGHT, GO TO THE EAST END, COME OUT AND GO THROUGH MARINER PARK AND I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS VIABLE FOR ANYBODY. IT IS ESSENTIALLY A ONE-WAY STREET FROM THAT POINT ON. AS FAR AS THE TREES GO, THEY HAVE CLEARED A COUPLE HOMES FOR KEEPING SOME OF THE TREES. IF YOU LOOK AT THE GOOGLE MAPS, THE MAJORITY OF THE TREES ARE TOWARDS THE EAST END OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT IS WHERE A LOT OF THEM ARE. THAT IS CLOSER TO WHERE LIVE AND WHERE PROPOSE THERE IS A SMALL LOT BUT IF THEY REALLY WANT TO SAVE SOME TREES THEY SHOULD GO FURTHER EAST AND PUT SOMETHING DOWN THERE. SO IF YOU GUYS DO APPROVE THE PROPERTY, NO RELIEF ON MEDICATION. THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING. SO THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. APPRECIATE IT.

>> GOOD EVENING, 6501 AND MY NAME IS PAM BELL AND I'M GOING TO SAY DITTO TO EVERYTHING. I KNOW FROM BEING A REALTOR THAT YOU BUILD 53 HOMES, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AT LEAST 2.5 CARS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE KIDS AND ALSO , THEY WILL BE COMING THROUGH MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIVE RIGHT THERE AT PG BT AND IT IS ALREADY A LOT OF CARS COME THROUGH MY STREET.

IT IS GOING TO BE DOUBLE. AND LIKE I SAID, DITTO TO WHAT THEY SAID. I AM TOTALLY AGAINST IT. I DO NOT WANT ALFRED ESTATES. THEY

[00:55:03]

CAN GO FIND SOMEPLACE ELSE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? >> THAT IS ALL.

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

YEAH. OKAY.

BUT YOU WANT TO TALK AS THE APPLICANT, SO SEEING NO OTHER SPEAKERS, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SORRY, I JUMPED THE GUN. I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS. AND WE COULD ADDRESS SOME OF THESE IN THE OTHER MEETINGS WE HAD BEFORE ON THIS.

THE LANDOWNER SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE, HER FAMILY HAS OWNED THIS WELL BEFORE MARINER PARK WAS THERE AND WELL BEFORE GEORGE BUSH WAS THERE. THE HOUSE IS WHERE GEORGE BUSH IS NOW. THEY WERE MOVED BACK. THEIR APPROACH AT THE TIME THAT MARINER PARK WAS DEVELOPED. THEY DO NOT SELL THEM. THEY ARE STILL THERE.

MARINER PARK AT THE TIME DID NOT HAVE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE TODAY. THEY DO NOT HAVE TREE MITIGATION AND YOU LOOK BACK IN THERE ARE JUST AS MANY TREES AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR NOT SELLING BACK THEN. WE ARE DOING BASICALLY THE SAME OR GREATER LOT SIZE, LESS DENSITY AND WE HAVE HEARD FROM COUNSEL AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND WE HAVE MADE OUR CHANGES. AS FAR AS THE TREE MITIGATION, WE WERE GOING TO COME IN HERE ASKING FOR 56 LOTS AND TREE MITIGATION. THAT IS WHERE WE GO. THIS WAS A CREATIVE SOLUTION TO A BIG CONCERN. YOU ARE TAKING OUT A BUNCH OF TREES. YOU FIND THE TREES AND MAKE A PLAN. THERE ARE TREES IN THE BACK AND THEY ARE TIED TOGETHER AND THERE ARE SMALLER TREES. THIS IS THE AREA WHERE THEY ARE.

AS FAR AS TRAFFIC, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF MARINER PARK.

MOST OF THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO EXIT OUT, COME IN THE SUBDIVISION AND EXIT OUT OF THE SUBDIVISION. THE ENTRANCE, THE ROAD OUT THERE AT SOME POINT .

YOU KNOW, THAT IS REALLY KIND OF ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON IT. WE ARE TRYING TO DO A SIMILAR PROJECT THAT DOES FIT IN THE AREA. IT IS GREATER DENSITY THAN THE NORTH AND WE FEEL LIKE IT DOES FIT IN THE AREA. IT IS HIGHER DENSITY AND LARGER LOT SIZES THAN ANYTHING WE HAVE DONE IN ROWLETT. SO THANK YOU.

>> MR. HERNANDEZ? >> I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO COMMENT ON THIS A LITTLE BIT. PERSONALLY I AGREE WITH SOME OF THE SPEAKERS TODAY. I DON'T -- I SEE THIS STREET BEING BASICALLY A ONE-WAY STREET IN. UNLESS YOU LIVE THERE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO COME BACK OUT. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE DRIVE. I HAVE GONE DOWN FLAMINGO AND FLAMINGO IS ALREADY VERY TIGHT. I THINK IT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE. YOU HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END IF YOU WANT TO TURN AROUND TO GET OUT.

THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAD WITH THIS PROPOSAL , LIKE ONE OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS SAID, THE MAJORITY OF THE TREES IN THIS AREA ARE IN THE EASTERN HALF OF WHAT IS PROPOSED . SO WHAT I WAS WONDERING ABOUT HERE IS WHY THIS PLAN DID NOT TAKE OR CONSIDERATION OF THAT. IT COULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLY A SMALLER DEVELOPMENT WITH 30 OR 40 HOMES KIND OF FRONTLOADED TOWARDS THE HIGHWAY. INSTEAD OF TOWARDS THE LAKE. MAYBE LIKE WITH A CIRCLE KIND OF DRIVE. I DON'T KNOW. BUT I THINK THAT THE OPEN SPACE THAT IS PROVIDED MISSES THE POINT OF WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE TREES ARE.

AND THE OTHER THING I WAS THINKING ABOUT IS, I KNOW THERE IS A HOME FOR SALE ON FLAMINGO THAT IS BEING LISTED SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $500,000. WHICH MEANS THAT THESE HOME DEVELOPMENTS ARE GOING TO BE MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT, SO I KIND OF SEE A LITTLE BIT OF GENTRIFICATION POSSIBLY TO THE FLAMINGO ESTATES THAT MAY HAPPEN HERE SIMPLY BECAUSE THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE WELL OVER 500 . SO, YEAH. I STRUGGLE WITH THIS . SO THANK YOU.

>> TO THE APPLICANT. LOT 28 B, OPEN SPACE 0.2 ACRES. WHAT IS

[01:00:07]

THE WIDTH OF THAT? THAT IS DOWN ON THE EASTERN END WHERE STREET A ENDS .

>> WHAT IS THE WIDTH? TO THE PROPERTY LINE TO YOUR PROPOSED STREET? SO, WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, IF YOU COULD WIDEN THE ROAD OUT THERE , IT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH TO MAKE A TURN DOWN THERE, BUT I'M NOT SURE IT IS WIDE ENOUGH THAT SOMEONE COULD TURN AROUND AND GO BACK OUT THE OTHER WAY.

>> THAT IS IT FOR THE APPLICANT.

I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. >> ARE YOU SAYING BLOCK OFF THE

MARINER PARK ENTRANCE? >> NO, I WAS THINKING ABOUT WIDENING, ALMOST LIKE A CUL-DE-SAC WHERE SOMEBODY COULD SWING TO THE RIGHT AND THEN TURN AROUND IN THE STREET AND GO BACK OUT STREET A, BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE WIDE ENOUGH TO DO THAT.

>> NO, IT WOULD NOT BE WIDE ENOUGH TO DO THAT.

AND TO GO BACK TO THE TREE MITIGATION, IT IS HEAVILY TREATED BACK THERE, BUT WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS FOCUS ON SPECIMEN TREES, THE 30 INCH AND THERE WERE NOT MANY BACK THERE AT ALL. SO IT WASN'T -- IF THEY HAD ALL BEEN BACK IN THE END, I WOULD HAVE CHOSEN TO GO BACK TO THE BACK. WE WENT THROUGH AND WE LOOK AT WHERE THE BIGGEST TREES ARE MOSTLY CONCENTRATED. THERE IS ONLY REALLY ONE BIGGER TREE IN THE AREA AND IT WAS ON THE NORTH SIDE, BUT THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH AROUND IT. SO WE DID LOOK FOR AN AREA WITH LARGE TREES . WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A BETTER THAN TAKING THREE LOTS OUT OF THE BACK TO CROWD SOME OTHER TREES. WE COULD HAVE DONE THE TREE MITIGATION AND NOT DONE THE LOTS. IT IS KIND OF BALANCE, THE VALUE OF THE LOTS AND THE TREE MITIGATION. IF IT WENT THE OTHER WAY, WE HAD THAT, WE COULD DO THAT TOO. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS PUT A BIG VALUE ON LARGE SPECIMEN TREES. GOING TO THE BACK WOULD NOT HAVE SERVED THAT PURPOSE BECAUSE WE CANNOT FIND AN AREA WHERE I COULD SAY I HAVE 15 TREES OVER 20 INCHES AND NINE BETWEEN 20 AND LIKE OVER 30. SO WE LOOK FOR AN AREA WITH LARGE TREES AND THAT WAS KIND OF WHY WE FOCUSED ON THAT AREA. WE STILL HAVE LIKE A BIG GROVE OF TREES BETWEEN US AND THE LAKE THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS STILL OWNS . IT IS 300 OR 400 FEET OF TREES BETWEEN US AND THE LAKE .

SO THERE IS A LARGE GROVE OF TREES AT THE END OF THE PROPERTY TOO THAT WE WILL BE LOOKING INTO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I KIND OF, I DON'T KNOW. I KIND OF THINK IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE ANYBODY WHO LIVES THERE IS GOING TO DRIVE IN OFF OF PG BT AND THEY ARE GOING TO EXIT TO GO BACK AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WELL, MAYBE THE FIRST COUPLE TIMES THEY TRIED, THEY WILL TRY TO GO THROUGH MARINER PARK AND THEN REALIZE THAT IS A MORE ARDUOUS ROUTE THAN GOING UP THE STREET AND EXITING THERE. SO , THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING TO GO THROUGH MARINER PARK OFF OF THIS PROJECT I THINK IS MINIMAL. AND HAVING THAT CONNECTION THEREFORE EMERGENCY ACCESS FAR OUTWEIGHS TRYING TO CLOSE THAT OFF AND PREVENTING THAT. SO, ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS BEFORE WE ASK FOR A MOTION?

>> I HAVE SAT HERE AND DEBATED WHETHER TO BRING THIS UP OR NOT.

BUT I GUESS I WILL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SPOKEN TONIGHT AND THE OTHERS SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW SOME THINGS AND UNDERSTAND SOMETHING'S ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WE MAY LOOK AT THIS PROJECT AND VOTE ON THIS PROJECT.

I WAS ON PNC FROM 95 THROUGH 2005. I SAT HERE NEAR THE SAME

[01:05:06]

PLACE AND WE APPROVED MARINERS PARK AND MARINERS COVE. AND THE SETBACKS, BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL PROPOSED HIGHWAY 190, WHICH WE ALL KNOW NOW IS GEORGE BUSH.

I ALSO PROBABLY KNOW REASONS AND I WILL NOT GET INTO IT, OF WHY THE DESIGN WAS WHAT IT WAS. I WAS THERE AT PNC AT THE TIME. IN THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY MY FIGURES ARE THAT FIRST OF ALL, LET ME BACK UP FOR A SECOND. YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS WHAT WE THE COMMITTEE THAT WROTE IT, CITY COUNCIL AND CITIZENS THAT GAVE INPUT WANTED THE CITY TO LOOK LIKE WHEN IT BUILT. AND I WAS ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE AS WELL.

AND ALTHOUGH CITY COUNCIL.CHARGE AREA, THEY DID NORTH SHORE.

BUT WITH THAT SAID, THE ZONING THAT IS ON THE GROUND, IF THEY WENT OUT AND BUILT HER THE ZONING ON THE GROUND, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT MEAN A THING IF THEY BUILT WHAT IS THE ZONING ON THE GROUND . IF THEY BUILT THE ZONING ON THE GROUND , BY MY CALCULATIONS THEY COULD PUT IN 64 HOUSES IN THERE.

THEY ARE DOING 53.

SO IF THEY DID NOT DO A PD, AND THEY JUST WENT IN THERE, THEY COULD PROBABLY PUT 60 HOUSES IN THEIR WITH THE STANDARDS THAT WE REQUIRE NOW. SO YOU ARE GETTING LESS HOUSES THAN YOU WOULD IF THEY HAD A PD.

SO, I DON'T PARTICULARLY, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I DON'T CARE OR THE FRONT AND LOADING HOUSES BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THE DENSITY IS LESS THEN IT WOULD BE . THERE WAS KNOWLEDGE BACK WHEN YOUR SUBDIVISION MARINERS PARK WAS DESIGNED , KNOWING THAT THERE COULD BE FURTHER BUILDING TO THE SOUTH.

THAT BACKED UP AGAINST THE FLAMINGO ESTATES. AND THE FLAMINGO LANE AREA. SO YOU KNOW, IN ESSENCE, I THINK THAT WE CAN REFINE SOME THINGS THAT WOULD BE A WIN FOR EVERYBODY. SOMEBODY MAY NOT LOOK AT IT AS A WIN FOR ANYBODY. BUT I THINK THAT THEY HAVE MADE A VALIANT EFFORT TO REDUCE WHAT THEY COULD BUY RIGHT , BY THE CURRENT ZONING THEY COULD GO IN AND THERE IS NOT A THING THAT THE CITY CAN DO ABOUT IT.

MR. TUCKER? >> I JUST HAD ONE COMMENT ABOUT THE TRAFFIC , AND I KNOW THAT IS A CONCERN. BUT THE MAJORITY OF CARS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SIT 95% OF THE TIME AND THAT MEANS 5% THEY ARE COMING OR GOING. I DON'T SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM FOR YOU. YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THEM COMING THROUGH THE PARK, BUT AGAIN, HOW OFTEN ARE THEY GOING TO BE DOING THAT? I LIVE IN A LARGE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE COME AND GO AND I DON'T HAVE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T SEE THAT BEING A CONCERN.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WILL HAVE TO KIND OF AGREE WITH MR. POLLARD ON A COUPLE OF ITEMS. WHICH IS SURPRISING. THAT AS FAR AS THE UNDERLYING ZONING , THIS AREA IS SF-9 AND IT IS A PD BECAUSE I THINK PRIMARILY FOR THE LOSING OF THE ALLEYS AND HAVING THE FRONTLOADED GRUDGES AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THAT IS GOING TO SAVE A BUCHU AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THE CITY BECAUSE AFTER THIS PROJECT IS DONE IN 15 OR 20 YEARS WHEN THOSE ALLEYS

[01:10:03]

HAVE TO BE REPAVED OR FAIL, BUT IT'S JUST ONE MORE LINEAR FOOT OF STREET THAT THE CITIZENS OF ROWLETT HAVE TO PAY FOR TO PAVE.

SO I THINK THAT NOT DOING AWAY WITH THE ALLEYS IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DO AS A CITY ACROSS THE ENTIRE NETWORK.

BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS TRIED TO OR HAS LISTENED TO , AND HAS TRIED TO COME UP WITH A VIABLE SOLUTION FOR THIS AREA. AND I CERTAINLY ENJOY THE FACT THAT THEY TOOK THE TIME TO TRY TO FIND THE LARGEST NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES TO SAVE IN FACT, ADJUSTED THEIR PLAN TO DO SO. SO THEY ALSO TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THAT DENSITY WAS SOME THING THAT WE ALL ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AND YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY AS MR. POLLARD NOTED, BACKED OFF ON THE DENSITY. SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SOMEBODY HAS GOT TO DO THAT.

I AM LOOKING.

>> TO STAFF, CAN YOU PUT BACK UP ON THE PRESENTATION UP HERE, WHAT THE REQUESTS ARE, THE EXEMPTIONS?

>> IF YOU AGREE WITH THEM YOU CAN JUST SAY AS REQUESTED OR AS PRESENTED.

ALL RIGHT, KEEP GOING.

>> ALL RIGHT, HERE WE GO.

>> GO-AHEAD . ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE TREE MITIGATION FEES AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT TO WHERE THE APPLICANT GOES BACK AND REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT THEY WANT TO MITIGATE.

CAN WE DO THAT? >> JUST TO CLARIFY, SO IF THIS IS APPROVED THEY STILL HAVE TO COME THROUGH FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A TREE PRESERVATION PERMIT, SO WHENEVER THEY REMOVE THOSE TREES THAT COMES THROUGH A SEPARATE PROCESS THAT WILL BE APPROVED AS A RESOLUTION. ALTERNATIVELY, YOU COULD INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THIS WILL BE ASSESSED AT THE

TIME OF THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. >> IT WILL GO THROUGH Y'ALL AND INTO THE COUNCIL.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> WE TOOK OUT THE THREE LOTS FOR THAT PRESERVATION. SO IF WE ARE TAKE IN OUT THE TREE MITIGATION , I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE.

>> WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS FOR YOU TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT PUTTING MAYBE MORE TREES AND ON THE LOTS. I THINK THAT OUR DISCUSSION UP FRONT WAS YOU ARE REQUIRED TWO OF FRONT AND THAT IS IT.

>> COULD WE DO SOMETHING WHERE IT IS APPROVED WITH THE VARIANCES WITH THE CONDITION THAT BETWEEN HERE AND COUNCIL WE GO BACK AND ADD A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TREES TO THE LOTS OR UPFRONT?

>> NO, BECAUSE -- >> BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT

[01:15:06]

TREE PLANTINGS, NOT THE TREE MITIGATION FEE.

>> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS FOR YOU TO LOOK AT YOUR LANDSCAPE PLAN AND SEE WHERE YOU CAN PUT TREES BACK IN INSTEAD OF HAVING A DOLLAR AMOUNT.

>> BUT THAT DOLLAR -- >> I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT

DOLLAR -- >> I WAS GOING TO OFFER TO ADD MORE TREES AND STILL PAY THE DOLLAR AMOUNT. BUT WHAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER IS I WILL PAY THE $203,000 AND I WILL STILL ADD 20 TREES UPFRONT AND I WILL STILL ADD 53 TREES ON THE LOT, OVER 50

TREES PER LOT. >> IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU ARE

TALKING ABOUT? >> YES. THAT IS WHAT I SAID TO YOU EARLIER. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT I ADD 20 TREES UPFRONT AND ONE MORE TREE PER LOT, I CAN DO THAT.

INSTEAD OF GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT HOW MUCH THE FEE IS, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS IF I HAD 63 TREES I TAKE THAT OUT OF THE 250? I'M SAYING I'M FINE DOING BOTH

>> MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AS IT RELATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE COMMISSIONS INPUT , THERE IS A MINIMUM BUT NO MAXIMUM TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT CAN BE PLANTED. SO FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU BECOME A HOMEOWNER AND YOU DECIDE IF THERE WAS A MINIMUM OF TWO TREES AND YOU WANT TO ADD FIVE MORE, THERE IS NO RESTRICTION IN TERMS OF WHAT IS

REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE. >> WELL I WOULD LIKE -- MORE TREES .

>> BUT HE IS SAYING THAT HE IS WILLING TO 50,000+ AND ADD ADDITIONAL TREES THAN WHAT WAS PRESENTED .

>> I WILL MAKE MY MINIMUM TREE COUNT ON MY LOT, THREE TREES INSTEAD OF TWO AND THEN I WILL ADD 20 TREES UPFRONT.

>> YOU'RE MAKING MY LIFE HARD.

>> I THINK I MAKING IT EASIER THAN WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DOING. WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DOING IS TAKING THE 60 TREES OR WHATEVER I'M GOING TO PLANT OUT OF THE 250. I'M SAYING LEAVE THE 250, A SOLID NUMBER SO WE ARE NOT TRYING TO DO MATH AND I CAN ADD 20 TREES UPFRONT AND THEN MAKE MY MINIMUM LOT, MINIMUM TREE REQUIREMENT ON EACH LOT THREE TREES. THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE DONE WITH BUILDERS BEFORE. SOMETIMES LIKE YOU SAID, SOMETIMES THEY PUT THREE TREES. WE CAN MAKE A MINIMUM OF THREE TREES AND THESE WILL HAVE BIG BACKYARDS AND THEN I WILL PUT 20 UP IN FRONT, 20 ADDITIONAL TREES ON THE FRONT.

YEAH, I MEAN THE ENTRYWAY.

SO 20 EXTRA TREES AT THE ENTRYWAY AND MAKE MY MINIMUM THREE TREES PER LOT. AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE DOES SAY THE SAME.

SO IT IS JUST AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION ON TOP OF WHAT THE VARIANCE IS.

>> YEAH, I UNDERSTAND AND I CAN ALSO UNDERSTAND THERE IS A DRIVEWAY IN THAT AREA AS WELL AS TWO TREES AND TO TRY TO STUFF ANY MORE TREES IN THE FRONT OF THAT LOT --

>> HE CAN PUT ONE IN THE BACK AND TWO IN THE FRONT. WE COULD ALWAYS PLANT MORE IN THE FRONT.

OKAY.

GOT IT.

>> SO I WILL REDO MY MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT AND IN ADDITION FOR THE TREE MITIGATION FEES THAT HE WILL AGREE TO THE TERMS AS REQUESTED, PLUS HE WILL PROVIDE THREE TREES PER LOT VERSUS THE TWO REQUIRED AND PUT 20 ADDITIONAL TREES AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE SUBDIVISION.

MISS WILLIAMS? DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?

>> HOW DID THEY ARRIVE AT THE $250,000 PAYMENT FOR TREE MITIGATION? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN MY PACKET THAT INDICATES HOW MANY CALIPER INCHES ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED.

[01:20:04]

>> IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE APPARENTLY KNEW WHERE THE TREE MITIGATION WAS, SO IT WAS SOMEWHERE IN THAT 600 OR $700,000 RANGE OR MAYBE A LITTLE MORE. BASICALLY WE TOOK THE THREE VALUES, THREE OF THOSE LOTS, BECAUSE THEY WILL BE SOLD IN THE $200,000 RANGE, AND WE TOOK THOSE OUT AND CAPPED IT AT $230 SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A VIABLE DEVELOPMENT.

>> SO YOU ARE LOOKING AT A COMPARABLE VALUE AROUND 800 ,

830,000? >> BUT WE ARE GIVING 250, SO WE ARE GIVING A LITTLE EXTRA. SO IF YOU TAKE 250 FROM LET'S SAY IT IS 800, THAT IS 550 DIVIDED BY THE THREE LOTS, THEY ARE STILL VALUED MORE THAN THAT. SO THE LOTS WOULD BE WORTH 600 OR MORE.

SO WE ARE STILL GIVING, SO IT IS, IT IS A COMPARABLE VALUE.

AND WHAT VALUE DO YOU PUT ON MATURE TREES? ONE WAY WE COULD MAKE A LITTLE MORE MONEY IF WE LEFT THE LOTS IN THERE. SO WE ARE GIVING, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT ON THIS TOO.

>> WHEN YOU REMOVE THAT VOLUME OF TREES, WHAT IMPACT WILL IT

HAVE ON DRAINAGE? >> WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE DRAINAGE ON THIS PROJECT AND THE TREES GET REMOVED AND EVEN IF THIS WAS A FLAT PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH THE GRASS ALL OVER IT IT WOULD NOT BE DIFFERENT. IT HAS AN EFFECT MORE ON THE SOIL .

SO THE SOIL, WE TAKE OUT THE TREES AND WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING HIM SOME DIRT AND COMPACT IT BUT THE DRAINAGE WILL REMAIN THE SAME. THE LOTS WILL DRAIN INTO A STORM SYSTEM AND INTO THE STREETS AND THERE WILL BE A STORM DRAIN ON THE SOUTH SIDE TOWARDS THE END THAT GOES ON THE BACK OF THE LOT. IT IS NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY EFFECT OTHER THAN IF THERE WERE TREES OR THERE WERE NOT TREES, WE STILL HAVE TO GRADE THE TREES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS.

SO WE HAVE TO MEET CITY STANDARDS EITHER WAY AND IF THERE WAS OR WAS NOT TREES, WE ARE GOING TO GRADE IT THE SAME WAY. STILL PUT WALLS IN AND STORM DRAINS AND HAVE THE LOTS DRAINED TOWARDS THE STREET AND INTO THE STORM SYSTEM. SO IT WILL NOT CHANGE ANY KIND OF NEGATIVE AFFECT TO DRAINAGE.

>> ANY MORE COMMENTS BEFORE WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS MOTION? AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS THE MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER POLLARD TO APPROVE THE REQUEST WITH THE ADDITION OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO ADD THREE TREES ON EACH LOT AS WELL AS 20 ADDITIONAL TREES IN THE ENTRYWAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TUCKER.

WOULD WE LIKE TO HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS? SEEING NONE WE WILL CALL THE VOTE.

WE JUST HAVE TO DO A COUPLE ABSTENTIONS. THERE WE GO.

SO THIS PASSES 3-2 WITH TWO ABSENCES.

THANK YOU.

[4B. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Kellan Black and Reece Flanagan, PE, on behalf of property owner Shital Thakkar, SKY110 Land Holdings LLC, regarding a Special Use Permit and Site Development Plan to allow for a 61-unit multifamily condominium building on a property zoned Form Based-Urban Village (FB-UV). The subject property is located at 4310 Main Street and 4311 Kirby Street, consisting of a 1.801-acre tract situated in the William Crabtree Survey, Abstract 347, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

MOVING ON TO ITEM 4 B.

4B. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY KELLAN BLACK AND REECE FLANAGAN, PE, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER SHITAL THAKKAR, SKY110 LAND HOLDINGS LLC, REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW FOR A 61-UNIT MULTIFAMILY CONDOMINIUM BUILDING ON A PROPERTY ZONED FORM BASED-URBAN VILLAGE (FB-UV). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4310 MAIN STREET AND 4311 KIRBY STREET, CONSISTING OF A 1.801-ACRE TRACT SITUATED IN THE WILLIAM CRABTREE SURVEY, ABSTRACT 347, IN THE CITY OF

ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

[01:25:08]

SO IT IS THE CENTER PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4310 MAIN AND 4311 KIRBY STREET. IT IS ZONED FORM-BASED URBAN VILLAGE AND 1.081 ACRES. IT IS SUBJECT TO THE NEWLY MINTED DOWNTOWN ROWLETT STRATEGIC PLAN AND IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT PLAN. THIS IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL. IT MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE SEEN THE SU P COME THROUGH SINCE CITY COUNCIL PASSED THE ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES SU P FOR MULTI-FAMILIES AND ALL ARE FORM-BASED. THIS WILL BE A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND INCLUDES 61 UNITS, THE FAMILY WITH 2307 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR. LIKE I SAID, IT DOES REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THIS IS PARTIALLY A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IT IS INCLUDING THE WARRANTS AS WELL. THIS IS A BIT OF AN UNUSUAL CASE. SO MIXED-USE BUILDING. IT DOES HAVE THE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL WAS 61 UNIT MULTIFAMILY BUILDING AND 63 FEET IN HEIGHT. HE DOES HAVE THE 18 UP TO 26 FOOT BUILT ZONE ALONG MAIN STREET. SO DOES HAVE A FIRE LANE CONNECTING MAIN STREET ALL THE WAY TO KIRBY SO IT HAS THE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS REQUIRED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. AS FAR AS PARKING, THEY ARE PROVIDING 96 PARK AND SPACES FOR THE MULTIFAMILY AND SEVEN FOR THE RETAIL AND SEVEN BICYCLE PARKING SPACES AS REQUIRED BY THE FORM-BASED CODE. SO THEY ARE LANDSCAPING AND PROVIDING THE FIVE REQUIRED STREET TREES AND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 13 PARKING LOT TREES AND THEY ARE REQUESTING TO PROVIDE SIX, SO THAT REQUIRES A WARRANT WHICH I WILL TOUCH ON AND THE MINIMUM OPEN SHADE AND THE MINIMUM USABLE LIPS

>> EXCUSE ME, SIR. IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING OR A PUBLIC MEETING, SO WE HAVE TO EAT THE DOOR OPEN.

BUT WE CAN ASK THEM TO MOVE IT OUTSIDE.

>> SO THEY ARE PROVIDING THE MINIMUM OPEN SHADE IN THE MINIMUM USABLE OPEN SHADE . SO THE SITE IS SUBJECT TO TREE MITIGATION BUT THE FORM-BASED CODE TREE MITIGATION IS A LOT LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN THE ROWLETT CODE, SO THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ANY MITIGATION EITHER IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS OR A FEE. THEY ARE MEETING ALL THE FORM-BASED CODE TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS HERE. THESE ARE THE PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND PROPOSED RENDERINGS. THEY ARE MEETING ALL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MIXED-USE BUILDING WITHIN URBAN VILLAGE. SO AS FAR AS THE REQUESTS GO, THE ONLY HAVE TWO WARRANTS THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO GET IN THE FIRST IS FOR ACCESS DRIVES. AS WE ARE AWARE, ACCESS DRIVES ARE ALWAYS REQUIRED TO COME BEFORE YOU AS A WARRANT OR ADMINISTRATIVELY BE HANDLED AS A WARRANT. IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE DEVIATING FROM THE CODE THAT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STAFF TO LOOK AT HOW THEY ARE PROPOSING THE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ON-SITE.

THE OTHER THAT THEY DO REQUIRE IS FOR THE INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE. BUT HERE ARE THE TWO ACCESS DRIVES, ONE FOR MAINE AND ONE FROM KIRBY. AND THEN THEY ARE REQUIRING INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE WARRANT BECAUSE WE REQUIRE A TREE ISLAND EVERY EIGHT SPACES WITHIN THE FORM-BASED CODE. AS YOU CAN SEE, HIGHLIGHTED IN RED, THEY DO HAVE MORE THAN EIGHT SPACES WITHOUT A TREE ISLAND. THE APPLICANT DID SAY BECAUSE OF THE NARROW LOT AND THE CONFIGURATION IT WAS CHALLENGING TO FIT THE REQUIRED PARKING LOT TREE ISLAND WITH THE REQUIRED DIMENSIONS AND ADDITIONALLY THEY ARE JUST MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS HERE.

THAT WOULD BRING THEM BELOW THE MINIMUM PARKING.

SO THESE ARE THE SU P APPROVAL CRITERIA. I WILL NOT GO INTO THE DETAIL BUT IT DOES INCLUDE ALL OF THE RESPONSES THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ANY IN DETAIL LET ME KNOW. SO WE DID DO OUR 205 FOOT PUBLIC NOTICES AND 18 WERE WITHIN 200 FEET AND 39 WITHIN 500 FEET AND WE HAD ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. SO PNC MAY RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIED. AND I DO THINK WE HAD SOME COME IN TODAY THAT I EMAILED Y'ALL FOR OASIS AND WE HAD TWO IN OPPOSITION IN THE MAIL BEFORE, THEY DID NOT WRITE ANYTHING AS TO WHY THEY WERE IN OPPOSITION BUT WE DID GET THEM.

>> FOR THIS ITEM? >> YES.

OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE

APPLICANT HERE? >> THEY ARE HERE, THEY DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION BUT THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR BASTIONS.

>> DARN.

[01:30:01]

WELL, WITH MR. POLLARD ON , WE WILL PASS THIS ITEM.

JUST KIDDING, I'M WAITING FOR HIM TO RETURN.

MR. HERNANDEZ. >> YOU DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, IF POSSIBLE. SINCE THEY HAVE ASKED FOR TO

REMOVE THE TREE ISLANDS A LIPS >> HOLD ON A SECOND, LET THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.

WE HAVE TO MAKE UP OUR MIND WHO WAS THE APPLICANT?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM THE ARCHITECT WITH -- 2000 RUSHING CREEK DRIVE HARTLAND, TEXAS. WE HAVE A CIVIL ENGINEER , REESE,

AND WE HAVE THE HONOR HERE ALSO. >> OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO LANDSCAPING AND THE PARKING LOT, MR. HERNANDEZ, --

>> BECAUSE YOU ASKED US TO CONSIDER THE REMOVAL OF THOSE TREE ISLANDS , I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS POSSIBLE OR NOT, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO LOOK INTO POSSIBLY PUTTING COVERINGS OVER THESE

PARKING SPACES? >> YES. I THINK THAT WOULD AT

LEAST HELP LIPS >> FORM-BASED CODE DOES NOT ALLOW CARPORTS. I WANT TO LET Y'ALL KNOW.

>> SO THEY WOULD CONSIDER IT BUT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSIONERS? MR. POLLARD? YOU HAVE TO -- MISS WILLIAMS.

>> ON THE DRAWING WHERE IT SHOWS THE TRASH RECEPTACLES, I DON'T SEE A ROAD. HOW IS THE GARBAGE TRUCK GOING TO GET TO THE TRASH RECEPTACLES? IT IS ON EXHIBIT D.

>> YEAH. SO WE HAVE KIRBY STREET ACCESS WHERE THE TRASH TRUCK CAN COME THROUGH THEIR AFTER PICKING UP THE OTHER SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES AND COME STRAIGHT UP TO THE TRASH IN CLOSER ON THE FIRE LANE.

>> AND THEN HE IS GOING TO EXIT -- SO HE IS GOING TO GO IN ON

KIRBY AND EXIT ON MAIN STREET? >> YES.

>> AND THEN I COUNTED ON THIS EXHIBIT D, AND MAYBE I AM MAKING AN ERROR IN MY ACCOUNTING, I ONLY CAME UP WITH 42 PARKING SPACES . CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE ALL THESE PARK SPACES THAT YOU ARE REFERENCING ARE ON EXHIBIT D?

>> IT IS KIND OF HARD TO SEE. THERE IS A PARKING ROAD ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND THEN THERE IS ACROSS FROM THAT THE BUILDING ANOTHER PARKING ROW AND THERE IS PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE ON THE BOTTOM AND THEN ALL ALONG THE BUILDING ON THE FRONT AS YOU GO UP ON BOTH SIDES AND THERE IS PARALLEL PARK IN ALONG MAIN STREET. THERE IS MORE THAN YOU CAN MAYBE TELL FROM THIS SLIDESHOW HERE BUT STAFF DID COUNTY PARK INN.

>> THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT. AND GETTING BACK TO THE PARKING, I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE PARKING SITUATION IN THE CURRENT APARTMENT BUILDINGS. THIS 1.25 PARKING SPACES YOU KNOW, SHOULD PROBABLY -- I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU, WITH A QUARTER OF A CAR.

>> CARPOOLING. >> HAVE YOU CONSIDERED MOORPARK AND SPACES? IN LIGHT OF ALL THE CURRENT COMPLAINTS AND ALL THESE OTHER OF HARTMAN COMPLEXES THAT THERE IS NOT ADEQUATE PARKING AND VEHICLES ARE BEING TOWED CONSTANTLY?

>> SO WE HAVE IT FOR THE FORM-BASED CODE WITH -- PER THE AMOUNT AND WE HAVE THE 61 LIVING UNITS AND 100 FOUR PARKING SPACES.

[01:35:06]

AND THE 2300 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL .

THE FORM-BASED CODE REQUIRES ONE-BEDROOM UNITS TO BE PARK AT 1.5 PARKING SPACES, SO WE HAVE 31 ONE-BEDROOMS AND THE TWO BEDROOMS, THERE ARE 22 OF THEM, AND YOU PARK THAT AT 1.75, SO JUST MEETING THE STANDARD.

PER THE CHART ON THE SITE PLAN.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY, SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DIFFERENT UNITS, SO THEY HAVE EFFICIENCY UNITS WHICH ARE 1.25, ONE-BEDROOM UNITS WHICH ARE 1.5 PER UNIT AND THEN TWO. THEY ARE PROVIDING ALL THE REQUIRED PARKING PER THE CODE.

AND AS FAR AS THE RETAIL PARKING, SO THAT ACTUALLY CAN ALSO BE COVERED BY THE DOWNTOWN PARKING THAT IS PART OF THE DARK AGREEMENT. TECHNICALLY THAT PARKING IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DARK AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE. SO THEY ACTUALLY ARE EXCEEDING WHAT THE SITE WOULD REQUIRE.

>> IS THIS GOING TO BE CONDOS OR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX?

>> OUR OTHER PROJECT DOWN THE STREET, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND I THINK THE REQUIREMENT IS TO BE CONDOMINIUMS FOR THE DOWNTOWN

MAIN STREET AREA. >> THAT IS THE PROJECT FURTHER UP MAIN STREET. WHAT ABOUT THIS PROJECT? IS THIS GOING TO BE

CONDOS? >> MULTIFAMILY CONDOMINIUMS,

THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? >> WELL, MY PACKAGE SAYS MULTIFAMILY, THAT IS WHY I AM ASKING FOR SOME SPECIFICITY.

IS IT MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS, OR IS IT CONDOS?

>> WE HAVE THE OWNER HERE.

>> IT IS CONDOMINIUMS. THANK YOU.

>> IS THAT IT, MISS WILLIAMS? MR. POLLARD?

>> SIR, YOU HAVE 2307 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL. I ASSUME THAT IS

ALL ON THE BOTTOM. >> YES, ON THE FRONT ON MAIN

STREET. >> WHAT YOU BELIEVE WILL BE LOOKED AT TO GO INTO THAT? HOW WILL THEY MARKET THEIR?

>> HOPEFULLY --

>> IF YOU WILL COME ON UP, SIR.

>> WE ARE TARGETING RESTAURANT PLACES, SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WE HAVE UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE 3522 MAIN STREET. WE ARE PUTTING THE GREASE TRAP AND TARGETING SOME TYPE OF STUFF THAT THEY CAN HAVE A RESTAURANT DOWNSTAIRS.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY AGREEMENTS WITH THE RESTAURANT TO GO IN?

>> NOT YET.

>> ALL RIGHT. NOW I WILL COMMENT ON THE PARKING. I REALIZE STAFF IS SAYING THAT YOU MEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

I ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE SEVEN EFFICIENCY UNITS .

>> YES. EIGHT STUDIOS. >> AND 31 ONE-BEDROOM AND 32 ONE-BEDROOM. 22 TWO BEDROOM.

>> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO, JUST AS A COMMENT , AND AGAIN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT STAFF SAYS YOU NEED THE PARKING REQUIREMENT. YOU ARE NEAR THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RIGHT NEXT DOOR AND YOU ARE NEAR SCHOOLS , ESPECIALLY A HIGHS GOAL. AND WITH WHAT YOU ARE PARKING AND WHAT VEHICLES MAY BE THERE, I THINK WE ARE WOEFULLY IN OUR ORDINANCE UNDER PARK, BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU HAVE A TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT, YOU ARE MORE THAN LIKELY GOING TO HAVE

TWO VEHICLES. >> IF THAT IS A CONCERN THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THEN WE CAN LOOK AT IT AS WE UPDATE THE

[01:40:02]

ORDINANCE, HOWEVER, IN THIS ORDINANCE THEY ARE MEETING THE

CODE. >> I UNDERSTAND, BUT MORE THAN LIKELY WILL HAVE TWO. I CAN LIVE WITH 1.51 ONE-BEDROOMS BECAUSE IT COULD BE A ONE PERSON OR IT COULD BE TWO AND THE UNIT HAS TWO DIFFERENT VEHICLES. THE POINT I'M DRIVING AT IS YOU ARE PROVIDING 96 PARKING SPACES AND I THINK YOU ARE UNDER PARK, AND THERE IS NO PLACE FOR YOU TO PARK EXCEPT OFF PROPERTY AND IF ANYBODY EVER COMES TO VISIT THOSE FOLKS , AND I HAVE HAD KIDS, I HAVE A SON AND HIS WIFE AND A DAUGHTER RECENTLY MOVED FROM AN APARTMENT AND WHEN YOU HAVE VISITORS GO VISIT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY PLACE TO PUT THEM.

EXCEPT OFF SITE, WHICH MEANS THEY GO OVER AND PARK AT THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OR OVER AT THE CHURCH BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DO IT ON KIRBY, BECAUSE IT WILL BE TOO SMALL AND THAT IS SO NARROW DOWN THROUGH THEIR YOU CREATE A ONE LANE DEAL. SO ANYWAY, THAT IS MY COMMENT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MISS WILLIAMS?

>> ON EXHIBIT D ONE, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT EXHIBIT TO ME, BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THESE PARKING STALLS. HOW DO THESE VEHICLES -- ARE THEY GOING TO BACK OUT INTO THE ROAD?

>> YEAH, ON THE SITE PLAN THERE ARE DRY VIALS AND FIRE LANE .

THERE IS LANDSCAPE ALL AROUND THE PARKING LOT.

>> NO, THIS IS EXHIBIT D1. >> STAFF HAD A CONCERN. STAFF HAD A CONCERN. IF YOU LOOK AT SOUTHEAST YOU SEE THAT SQUARE THERE? SO STAFF HAD A CONCERN BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO TURN AROUND AT THE END BECAUSE THEY HAD THE PARKING STALLS GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE END, SO THEY HAD THE TAKEAWAYS OF TWO SPACES TO HAVE A WAY FOR CARS TO TURN AROUND. BUT ASSURING THAT THEY HAVE THE SPACE TO TURN AROUND IN THAT HATCHED AREA. THAT WAS BECAUSE STAFF HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THE OVERALL FLOW OF THE SITE FOR THE CARS TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT.

THIS IS THE HATCHED AREA RIGHT HERE.

>> OKAY. AND THEN I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION. WHICH WAS THIS .

SOMEWHERE I SAW CRUSHED GRANITE. WHY WOULD THEY USE CRUSHED

GRANITE AND NOT CONCRETE? >> IF IT IS IN THE OPEN SPACE AREA I IMAGINE THAT IS WHAT IT WOULD BE IN. WHENEVER THEY HAVE THE AREAS THEY WILL WALK IN WE WOULD NOT WANT TO JUST A BUNCH OF CONCRETE THERE. IF THEY HAVE WALK WAYS, THAT COULD BE IT. I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPE.

>> IT IS THE FIRE PIT AREA. >> THAT IS PROBABLY WHY. THEY WILL HAVE A FIRE THERE, SO WE WOULD NOT WANT CONCRETE. CRUSHED GRANITE COULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE.

SO IT IS JUST AN AMENITY OF THEIR OPEN SPACE.

>> AND HOW IS A FIRE TRUCK GOING TO GET IN AND OUT OF THIS

DEVELOPMENT? >> IF YOU LOOK ON THE PLAN, THAT DARKER DRIVE I'LL THAT IS SHADED DARKER GRAY, THAT IS THE FIRE LANE. THAT CONNECTS MAIN STREET TO KIRBY STREET AND PROVIDES CIRCULATION FOR THE FIRE TRUCKS TO GET THROUGH THE SITE.

>> BECAUSE I DROVE DOWN KIRBY STREET AND IT IS A VERY NARROW ROAD. I HAD TROUBLE TURNING MY CAR AROUND.

>> THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A CONNECTION BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT RETURNING THEIR CAR AROUND. THEY WOULD BE TAKING THE FIRE LANE ACCESS FROM EITHER KIRBY TO MAINE OR FROM MAINE TO KIRBY.

>> IS KIRBY STREET GOING TO BE WIDER?

>> THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 24 FEET, IT'S KIRBY STREET IS CURRENTLY. AT SOME POINT THE STRATEGIC PLAN DOES SHOW WIDENING UP TO 50 FEET SO THE APPLICANT IS DEDICATING THE NECESSARY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO MAKE THAT THE CASE. BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW FIRE HAS LOOKED AT THIS PLAN AND SIGNED OFF ON IT TO MOVE FORWARD .

>> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, SEEING A NINE, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY? >> NOPE.

[01:45:01]

>> NO COMMENTS? NOBODY WANTS TO TALK TO US? IN THAT CASE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. POLLARD MADE A MOTION BUT HE IS NOT GOING TO TALK? MR. POLLARD.

>> CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT.

>> MR. POLLARD HAS A MOTION TO DENY, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MISS WILLIAMS? SECONDS THE MOTION TO DENY.

DISCUSSION? RTS.

OKAY. ONE OF THE THINGS TO KEEP IN CONSIDERATION HERE IS WE HAVE 61 ACRES OF 1.8 ACRES AND THAT IS 33.9 UNITS PER ACRE AND THEN YOU HAVE GOT, IF YOU TAKE OUT THE AMOUNT OF THE ACREAGE THAT WOULD BE USED TO PUT IN THE DRIVES, THE PARKING LOT, UTILITIES AND SO FORTH, YOU REDUCE THAT AND YOU ARE LOOKING AT 42.4 UNITS PER ACRE AND THEN YOU CAN SAY WELL, BUT APARTMENTS ARE NEARBY AND THAT IS ONE THING AND THE OTHER APARTMENTS DOWN FROM IT. AND THAT WOULD BE A TRUE STATEMENT. BUT THEY ARE ALSO FACING GEORGE BUSH AND HAVE A WIDER ROADWAY TO DISPERSE THE PEOPLE ALL IN THEIR UNITS. THIS IS GOING OUT FROM THE SOUTH SIDE TO KIRBY ROAD ON A VERY NARROW ROAD. COMES RIGHT OUT JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM US HERE. AND TO GO OUT ON MAIN STREET, IT IS JUST A TWO LANE. AND OBVIOUSLY, NOTHING THAT THEY ARE DOING TO HELP WITH THE TRAFFIC IN EACH DIRECTION ON MAIN STREET.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MISS WILLIAMS?

>> I AGREE WITH MR. POLLARD. I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THIS ADDITIONAL HIGH DENSITY .

>> OKAY. WELL, MY COMMENTS ARE, G, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ASKED FOR.

IN THE DOWNTOWN ROWLETT URBAN VILLAGE TYPE ENVIRONMENT AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE POSITIONING THIS. THAT IS THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD AND IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE ENTIRE RUN ON MAIN STREET INTO THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE WE WILL EVENTUALLY BE MAPPED OUT THE SAME WAY. AS FAR AS TRAFFIC OR MORE TRAFFIC, WE HAVE MORE TRAFFIC ON A SUNDAY MORNING BECAUSE YOU HAVE TWO CHURCHES THERE THAN OUT OF THIS FACILITY ON A DAILY BASIS. SO I'M NOT SURE THAT THE TRAFFIC IS THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE. AND INFRASTRUCTURE WISE, IT'S THERE. SO I DON'T KNOW. I AM IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT MYSELF.

WE WILL SEE. MR. HERNANDEZ?

>> JUST A THOUGHT BEHIND THIS, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE MAJORITY OF MAIN STREET FROM THE ROUNDABOUT ON THE WAY TO GEORGE BUSH, ALL THAT PROVIDES PARALLEL SPARK -- PARK SPACE RELIEF. SO ANYBODY VISITING THESE AREAS WOULD STILL HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE SPACES AT A MINIMUM. SUNDAY PROBABLY WOULD BE THE NUMBER ONE DAY OF QUESTION BECAUSE THEN THE LOTS FOR THE CHURCHES WOULD PROBABLY BE FULL AND THEN YOU KNOW, CARS ALONG MAIN STREET, THAT MIGHT BE MORE DIFFICULT TO HANDLE THERE. BUT I DO AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN HERE THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS THERE . THE

[01:50:02]

CONCERN I THINK IS MOSTLY BECAUSE KIRBY STREET IS SO NARROW AND KIND OF DUMPING THE SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC TO THAT IS A LITTLE NEW, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NECESSARILY A BAD IDEA, ESPECIALLY IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, BECAUSE AS THE CHAIRMAN SAID, THIS IS KIND OF WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR, OR THE DOWNTOWN AREA WE WANT MORE DENSE AND WE WANT MORE PEOPLE TO BE IN DOWNTOWN. MY ONLY QUESTION TO MR. POLLARD, I DON'T KNOW IF WOULD IT BE POSSIBLY TO CHANGE THE MOTION TO BE AN APPROVAL AND THEN VOTE AGAINST IT IF YOU ARE STILL AGAINST IT?

>> MR. POLLARD? >> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I WILL WITHDRAW THE MOTION AND YOU CAN MAKE ONE TO DO THAT. I WOULD SAY IN A REBUTTAL TO BOTH THE CHAIRMAN AND YOURSELF, ALTHOUGH I AGREE WITH BOTH OF YOU ALL THAT I GUESS IS THE INTENT OF THE URBAN VILLAGE MIXED-USE DOWNTOWN, THE EXTRAORDINARY PART OF THIS IS NINE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR AT LEAST BETWEEN 6:30 IN THE MORNING UNTIL MID AFTERNOON A LOT OF THOSE PARKING SPACES ARE TAKEN BY STUDENTS. THEY PARK ALL THE WAY FROM THE HIGH SCHOOL AND ALSO IN THE PARKING LOT AT FIRST METHODIST.

AND ACTUALLY IT IS NOW FIRST BAPTIST ROWLETT THEY HAVE A BRAND-NEW PARKING LOT OVER THERE.

>> THAT IS TRUE TOO. BUT ANYWAY, I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION.

>> MISS WILLIAMS, WOULD YOU CONCUR WITH THAT? OKAY.

WITHDRAW? OKAY, THANK YOU.

SO, I AM BACK TO WILLING TO ACCEPT OR ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. HERNANDEZ? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AS PRESENTED.

>> AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? MR. TUCKER? SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AS PRESENTED AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS ANYTHING ON THAT? THEN WE WILL CALL THE VOTE.

AND THAT PASSES 3-2 WITH TWO ABSENCE .

[4C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Majed Khalaf, Roc Design Engineers, on behalf of property owners F2S Investments LLC, seeking to amend Planned Development (12-16-86B) with I-1 (Industrial) use classification, to allow for a newly constructed 720-square-foot vehicle repair bay, within an existing autobody and repair shop , to encroach 3 feet into the required building setback, on an approximate 0.55 acre lot. The subject property is situated at 5433 Lakeview Parkway, Lot 1. Block A, Banyan Heights, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

OKAY, MOVING ON.

ITEM 4C. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY MAJED KHALAF, ROC DESIGN ENGINEERS, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS F2S INVESTMENTS LLC, SEEKING TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (12-16-86B) WITH I-1 (INDUSTRIAL) USE CLASSIFICATION, TO ALLOW FOR A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED 720-SQUARE-FOOT VEHICLE REPAIR BAY, WITHIN AN EXISTING AUTOBODY AND REPAIR SHOP , TO ENCROACH 3 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK, ON AN APPROXIMATE 0.55 ACRE LOT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT 5433 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY, LOT 1. BLOCK A, BANYAN HEIGHTS, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT,

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

SO THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT AS MENTIONED IN THE TITLE IS FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL USES I-2.

SORT OF AN OLD PLAN DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO THE M2 USES TODAY.

AND THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED VEHICLE REPAIR BAY WITHIN AN EXISTING AUTOBODY SHOP TO ENCROACH THREE FEET WITHIN THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.

OR BUILDING LINE.

SO BACKGROUND ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS 0.55 ACRES LOCATED AT 54 33 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. AGAIN, THE ZONING IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH I-2 USES. THIS IS AN EXISTING

[01:55:04]

BUSINESS AND WHEN CONSIDERING THE AMENDMENT, IT IS GOING TO BE FOR THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY, LOT ONE BLOCK A.

SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION INTO WHY THYOU TODAY. THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY CAME TO US WITH A COVERED PATIO THAT HE WANTED PERMITTED . IT WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCT DID, SO HE CAME IN LONG STORY SHORT, THE PATIO FILLED THE INSPECTION AND WE ALSO FOUND OUT HE HAD CONSTRUCTED THIS VEHICLE REPAIR BAY ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING AND WE THEN MET WITH THE APPLICANT FOLLOWING WHAT WE FOUND OUT AND WE NOTICED THAT THEY HAD ENCROACHED INTO THAT REAR BUILDING LINE.

WHEN IT COMES TO LAND-USE PATTERNS, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS PRIMARILY COMMERCIAL AND HIGH RESIDENTIAL.

NOW THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN COVERING THE AREA AGAIN, IT IS PRIMARILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE, RETAIL AND THE ORIGINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT ALSO SHOWS THIS AS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. THIS WAS AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR THIS AUTO REPAIR SHOP AT THIS SPECIFIC SITE WITH I-2 INDUSTRIAL USES, BUT AGAIN, IT IS NOT CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THERE ASK IS TO ENCROACH WITHIN THREE FEET OF THAT REAR BUILDING LINE.

SO CONSIDERATIONS IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT. SO THE SITE PLAN DOES SO THAT EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THE NEWLY ADDED BAY TO THE BACK OF THE LOT AND 16 AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES FOR THE REQUIRED TO ADD ANOTHER FOUR FOR THE ADDITIONAL BAY THAT THEY HAVE CONSTRUCT DID. AND THE EXISTING INGRESS AND EGRESS ALONG PARKVIEW PARKWAY.

NOT A LOT OF LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS WERE TRIGGERED BUT WE DID ASK THE APPLICANT TO ADD A LIVING SCREEN BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

WE DID SEND OUT PUBLIC NOTICES FOR THIS ITEM AND RECEIVED ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND ZERO IN FAVOR WITHIN THE 500 AND 200 FEET BUFFER.

NOW AGAIN, THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS TO ALLOW FOR THAT ENCROACHMENT, THREE-FOOT ENCROACHMET INTO THAT REAR BUILDING LINE. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO GET THE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THAT BUILDING YOU WOULD HAVE TO , COUNSEL WOULD HAVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST PENDING YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

AND THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? MR. HERNANDEZ?

>> SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALL OF THIS HAS ACTUALLY ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED, CORRECT MARK AS IT ACTUALLY BEEN CORRECTED AS FAR

AS WHAT FIELD INSPECTIONS? >> NOT YET. SO THE APPLICANTS, IN TERMS OF THE PATIO COVER, NO, NOTHING HAS BEEN FINALIZED WITH THAT ITEM, NOR HAS ANY TYPE OF PERMIT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS PENDING APPROVAL .

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD HE LIKE TO -- GIVE US A PRESENTATION OR SPEECH OR

DISCUSSION? >> GOOD EVENING , COMMISSIONERS.

I LIVE AT 650 SUNNYVALE, TEXAS. AS LILY ANNA HAD MENTIONED, THIS BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A BUILDING BACK THERE. I THINK THE OWNER AND THE CONTRACTOR THAT HE GOT DID NOT REALIZE THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO THIS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY. HE WAS REMODELING IT AND THEY ENDED UP DOING A LOT MORE THAN WHAT THEY STARTED WITH AND THEY REALIZED IT WHEN THE CITY HAD TOLD THEM. THEY HIRED US TO COME IN AND ACTUALLY DO THE -- BRING THAT BUILDING INTO CODE. SO OUR JOB IS TO ACTUALLY, IF WE CAN GET THIS THREE-FOOT ALLOWANCE FOR THAT BUILDING, THEN WE WOULD BRING ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND OF COURSE WE HAVE THE CIVIL AND THE LANDSCAPING AND THE STRUCTURAL PLANS TO SUBMIT TO THE CITY TO BRING THAT INTO -- AND THAT IS WHAT WE INTEND TO DO.

>> ARE YOU WORKING ON THIS PATIO COVER?

>> I'M SORRY, SIR? >> VERY WORKING ON THE PATIO

[02:00:07]

COVER? >> YES, SIR. THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WILL EVALUATE THE BUILDING AND WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO TO IT AND THE SAME THING FOR THE PATIO AND WE WILL SUBMIT THESE PLANS TO THE CITY FOR THEIR APPROVAL AND INSPECTIONS.

BUT THE FIRST STEP IS TO GET PAST THAT HURDLE OF THE THREE-FOOT WHERE THE BUILDING ACTUALLY ENCROACHES INTO THE SETBACK . ONCE WE HAVE THAT, AND IF YOU LOOK AT -- WE ARE ACTUALLY COMMITTING TO A BUNCH OF STUFF. WE ARE ADDING CONCRETE, WE ARE ADDING A FIRE LANE INTO THE BUILDING, INTO THE PROPERTY AND WE ARE ALSO BUILDING AN ENCLOSURE FOR THE DUMPSTER AND PUTTING IT TO WHERE IT IS ACTUALLY INTO CODE AND ADDING LANDSCAPING TO BRING THIS UP TO BE WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE BUILT IF IT WAS A DULY CONSTRUCTED DEVELOPMENT. SO WE ARE TRYING TO DO ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE CAN. AND WITH THAT WE WILL HAVE BETTER FIRE ACCESS PROTECTION.

WE WILL HAVE MORE PARKING AND WE WILL HAVE LANDSCAPING AND THAT ENCLOSURE WILL HIDE THAT DUMPSTER BACK THERE.

>> CAN WE BACK UP TO ONE OF YOUR FIRST COMMENTS, WHICH WAS THIS BUILDING WAS ALREADY THERE WHEN THE OWNER LIPS

>> THERE WAS A SHED BACK THERE. DO YOU HAVE THE SURVEY? I HAVE A SURVEY. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE IT. THERE IS A LITTLE BUILDING THAT WAS BACK THERE. AND THAT BUILDING , THEY INTENDED TO REMODEL THAT BUILDING OR DO SOMETHING WITH IT.

>> THAT BUILDING WAS NOT IN THE SETBACK?

>> I DON'T KNOW. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS. I'M NOT SURE IF ANYBODY EVER YOU KNOW, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT A LITTLE CLOSER. IT DOES HAVE A 15 FOOT EASEMENT ON THE BACK, BUT IT DOES NOT GIVE A MEASUREMENT TO THE BUILDING. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS. I THINK WHAT THEY DID IS THEY STARTED WITH THIS BUILDING AND THEN JUST WENT FORWARD TO THE CONCRETE WHERE THE PARKING IS. AND YOU KNOW, THEY UNDERSTAND THEY WERE WRONG IN DOING THAT AND THAT IS WHY THEY HIRED US, A CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM. I AM A CITY EMPLOYEE AND I WORKED WITH THE CITY OF IRVING FOR 22 YEARS AND STARTED IN 84 AND RETIRED IN 2005. SO THEY GOT ME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WRING THIS BUILDING INTO CODE, AND WE WILL. WE WILL HAVE AN ARCHITECT AND WE WILL HAVE A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND WE WILL HAVE A TEAM THAT WILL EVALUATE THIS PATIO OR THIS CANOPY THAT THEY PULLED UP AND IF WE HAVE TO TAKE IT DOWN AND BUILD IT AGAIN, WE WILL. AND WE WILL BE SUBMITTING FOR THE PERMITS ON THAT IN THE INSPECTIONS. THE SAME THING FOR THE BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT BACK THERE.

>> MR. POLLARD? HOW OLD IS THE 720 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING BACK

THERE ? >> I THINK IT IS -- LESS THAN A

YEAR? >> IT IS, IT LOOKS LIKE A NEW BUILDING.

SO I DON'T -- NOTHING THAT I SAW WHEN I WENT OUT THERE AND LOOK LOOKS LIKE IT WAS ADDED ONTO IT. IT LOOKS LIKE A NEWLY

CONSTRUCTED METAL BUILDING. >> I THINK THAT IS WHAT THEY STARTED WITH AND THEN THEY ENDED UP GOING WAY OUT OF CONTROL ON THAT ONE.

>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. IF THEY NEED TO THEY WILL TEAR DOWN THE CANOPY TO BUILD ONE THAT IS APPROPRIATE OR WHATNOT. IF THIS WAS JUST NEWLY CONSTRUCTED AROUND OR BUILT AROUND AN EXISTING SHED , THEN WHAT PREVENTS US FROM MOVING IT THREE FEET FORWARD SO THAT YOU MEET THE APPROPRIATE SETBACK?

>> YEAH, THE BUILDING IS THE ONE THAT NEEDS TO BE, THAT IS ACTUALLY ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACK. THE CANOPY LIPS

>> I UNDERSTAND. I'M SAYING IF YOU'RE WILLING TO REBUILD THE CANOPY, YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO REBUILD THE 750 SQUARE FOOT

BUILDING? >> ACTUALLY, IT IS A LOT MORE COST TO BRING IT IN. THE CANOPY, WHEN I SAID REBUILD IT TO LIPS

>> I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE CANOPY.

>> THE FOUNDATION ON THE CANOPY. I THINK THE STRUCTURE IS GOOD.

THIS JUST HAVING TO CERTIFY THE FOUNDATION IN MAKING SURE IT IS SOLID WITH TWO COLUMNS. THAT IS ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH

THE CANOPY. >> I'M NOT REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE CANOPY. THIS IS THE COMMENT THAT YOU MADE. OKAY? I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE BUILDING AND THE POSITION OF THE BUILDING NOT MEETING THE SETBACK.

>> YES, THE BUILDING DOES NOT MEET THE SETBACK. IT IS A THREE-FOOT VARIANCE THAT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO GIVE US LEEWAY ON TO WHERE WE COULD MOVE ON AND BRING THAT BUILDING INTO CODE AND DO THE APPROPRIATE THINGS AND GET THE RIGHT PERMITS AND

[02:05:01]

GET THE RIGHT PROFESSIONALS TO MAKE SURE IT IS BUILT CORRECTLY AND SAFELY. AND HE IS PROVIDING THE FOUR ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES AND WE ARE EXTENDING THE FIRE LANE AND THERE AND ADDING MORE PAVEMENT TO THE SIDE. WE ARE ADDING A BUNCH OF LANDSCAPING TO ENHANCE THE DEVELOPMENT AND WE ARE ALSO IMPROVING ON THAT ENCLOSURE, THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE. WE ARE PUTTING IT IN AN ENCLOSURE, THE DUMPSTER AND APPROPRIATE TO WHERE IT IS BETTER SUITED AND BETTER LOCATED.

>> OKAY. AND THAT BUILDING IS HOW FAR, 22 FEET?

>> IT IS 22 FEET BACK. >> FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WHICH PUTS IT WHAT, ABOUT 30 FEET FROM THE APARTMENT COMPLEX SITTING

BACK THERE? >> I'M NOT SURE FROM THE BUILDING WHERE IT IS, BUT WE ARE PUTTING SOME TREES IN THE BACK .

BUT I DON'T KNOW, THERE IS THE LANDSCAPING. WE ARE PUTTING SOME MORE BACK THERE.

>> JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THAT, OKAY, IS THE APARTMENT COMPLEX.

>> WE ARE PUTTING BUSHES ALL AROUND IT TO KIND OF SCREEN IT AND PUT SOME LANDSCAPING BACK OUT THERE.

>> MR. CHAIR, CAN THE OWNER COME UP, PLEASE? OKAY, COULD YOU TELL US WHAT YOU DO IN THE METAL BUILDING?

>> AS OF RIGHT NOW WE ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING, BUT WHAT I INTENDED TO DO IS JUST SMALL WORK . I THINK I SPOKE TO YOU YESTERDAY. I THINK THAT YOUR INTENT THOUGHT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO WORK ON SEMI TRUCKS AND BIGGER TRUCKS. IT IS JUST AN EXTRA DAY FOR ME TO HELP WITH THE TRAFFIC THAT WE HAVE GROWN BECAUSE I DO SEE WE DID JUST GET BEST SHOP IN ROWLETT. WE HAVE EXCEEDED OR ARE EXCEEDING WITH OUR CUSTOMER BASE AND WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE COMING IN AND WHEN THEY WRAP AROUND IT GIVES ME MORE SPACE IF I HAVE TO DO SMALL JOBS LIKE A BREAK JOB OR SOMETHING LIKE A COOLANT EXCHANGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,

IT GIVES ME MORE SPACE TO DO SO. >> DO YOU HAVE A LIFT IN THE

FLOOR? OR IN THAT BUILDING? >> AS OF NOW, NO, BUT THAT IS THE PLAN TO PUT A FOUR POST LIFT ON THE INSIDE.

>> OKAY. MR. CHAIR, FROM WHAT I OBSERVED OUT THERE THIS IS A CLASSIC METAL BUILDING. IT IS GOT AN OVERHEAD DOOR THAT IS BIG AND HIGH ENOUGH THAT YOU CAN PUT, AS I MENTIONED TO HIM, A BIG TRUCK IN THERE. NOT A TRAILER, BUT JUST A BIG TRUCK OR A BOX TRUCK IN THEIR AND LIFTED UP AND DO WHATEVER IN THERE. ON THE OUTSIDE OF IT IS A GOOD-SIZED AIR COMPRESSOR AND THAT IS THAT. THE OTHER LOOKS LIKE THEY PUT THEIR OWN CANOPY UP.

>> YEAH, I MEAN TRUCK WISE, I THINK THE BIGGEST TRUCK I WILL BE ABLE TO PUT ON THAT LIFT IS PROBABLY AN F2 50. IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO TAKE A DULY BECAUSE THE ENTRYWAY OF THAT IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE TAKING A DULY. BUT WHAT WE DO INTEND IS JUST MORE SPACE TO WORK ON. THAT ADDS VALUE TO THE PROPERTY AND ADDS VALUE TO THE CITY, I BELIEVE. WE WILL BE ADDING MORE TO WHAT WE CAN. IF YOU DID WALK INTO THE SHOP, WE KEEP IT CLEAN AND UP TO DATE AND MODERN AND THAT IS WHAT WE WILL BE DOING WITH THIS BUILDING AS WELL.

>> AND YOU DO MINOR AUTO REPAIRS I THINK YOU SAID? NO ENGINE OR

TRANSMISSION? >> NO, I DON'T WANT THE HEADACHE OF REBUILDING ENGINES AND TRANSMISSIONS.

IT IS EASY MISCELLANEOUS THINGS.

>> MISS WILLIAMS? >> WHY DIDN'T YOU GET A PERMIT

TO BEGIN WITH? >> COULD YOU STEP UP TO THE

MICROPHONE, PLEASE? >> THAT WAS MORE OF A MISTAKE WHERE I FIGURED THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS ALREADY A SHED, SO WE ARE JUST REMODELING AND I DID NOT KNOW THAT , LIKE I DID NOT REALIZE THAT WAS REQUIRED UNTIL THEY CAME IN AND CODE ENFORCEMENT CAME AND LET US KNOW RIGHT AWAY AS SOON AS WE FOUND OUT WE DID GET TWO TICKETS, ONE FOR THE CANOPY AND ONE FOR THE BUILDING AND WE TOOK CARE OF THOSE AND PAID THEM OFF AND EVER

[02:10:02]

SINCE I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH EVERYTHING THEY NEEDED TO WORK TO WHERE WE HAVE TO GET TO.

>> IS A POSSIBLE JUST TO MOVE THAT BUILDING THREE FEET? IS

THAT FEASIBLE? >> IT IS NOT IN THE PLAN. I MEAN IT IS VERY HARD TO JUST MOVE A BUILDING.

>> WHAT TYPE OF FOOTER DO YOU HAVE THERE?

>> HE HAS A CONCRETE SLAB WITH A BEAM ALL AROUND IT AND IT IS A METAL PREFAB BUILDING AND THEN HE HAS A WOODEN STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF IT WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF TWO BY FOURS AND ALL OF THAT.

AGAIN, WE WILL HAVE OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ONCE THIS IS APPROVED, HE IS GOING TO GO IN THERE AND EVALUATE IT. ALONG WITH THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER AND THE ARCHITECT AND EVERYBODY TO GET THOSE PLANS AND MAKING SURE THAT IF WE NEED TO DO ANY IMPROVEMENTS WE DO IT AND THEN SUBMIT FOR THE PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS. SO WE INTEND TO DO IT AND BUILD IT CORRECTLY, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS GOING TO BE EASY TO TAKE THAT APART. HE WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY TEAR IT DOWN. IT WOULD BE EASIER TO TEAR IT DOWN AND START OVER. I DON'T THINK IT IS A MOVABLE THING.

>> ANY OF THE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR

FOR PUBLIC HEARING. >> NO SPEAKERS.

>> MR. POWER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING TO US? OKAY.

WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN.

COMMISSIONERS I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

IT'S ONLY 9:16, SO WE HAVE GOT A WHILE. MR. POLLARD.

>> I WOULD LIKE A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST

OF THE APPLICANT . >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MR. HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY MR. HERNANDEZ. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

MR. HERNANDEZ? >> WOULD IT BE ADVISABLE TO POSSIBLY AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUIRE THAT ALL, EVERYTHING ELSE BE BROUGHT UP -- WELL, I GUESS IT HAS TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE. SO -- THEN NO.

>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED . MR. POLLARD.

>> IF THIS BUILDING BACKED UP AND ENCROACHED OR THROUGH WATER BACK ON ITS NEIGHBOR I WOULD HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY AND WOULD NOT GO FOR THAT, BUT IT SITS AWAY FROM ANY STRUCTURE AND WHAT IS DIRECTLY BEHIND IT IS ENCLOSED GARAGE IS.

>> AND I'M SURE ONCE THIS GOES TO PERMITTING WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE APPROPRIATE BUFFER BETWEEN I-2 AND HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL?

>> IT DID NOT TRIGGER THOSE STANDARDS BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY BUILT AND AN OPERATING BUSINESS. JUST THE SITE ITSELF, STAFF WHEN READING THE CODE, THE STANDARDS DID NOT TRIGGER ANY COMPATIBILITY BUFFER.

>> AND TO ADD ONTO THAT, TO TRIGGER CURRENT LANDSCAPING STANDARDS YOU NEED TO ADD 2500 SQUARE FOOT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND THAT DOES NOT MEET THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, SECONDED BY MR. HERNANDEZ TO APPROVE THIS . NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. CALL THE VOTE.

AND IT PASSES 5-0 WITH TWO ABSENT.

[4D. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Michael Doggett, on behalf of property owner JFH Rowlett LLC, regarding a Special Use Permit and a Site Development Plan to allow for a vehicle service and repair facility on a property classified as Commercial/Retail (C-2) District. In conjunction with the proposed development, the applicant is also requesting approval of an Alternative Landscape Plan (ALP). The subject property is located at 8101 Lakeview Pkwy, consisting of a 0.87-acre tract described as a portion of Lot 2R, Block A of the Amesbury Addition, Phase II, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

MOVING ON TO ITEM 4D. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY MICHAEL DOGGETT, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER JFH ROWLETT LLC, REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW FOR A VEHICLE SERVICE AND REPAIR FACILITY ON A PROPERTY CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (C-2) DISTRICT. IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING APPROVAL OF AN ALTERNATIVE

[02:15:03]

LANDSCAPE PLAN (ALP). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8101 LAKEVIEW PKWY, CONSISTING OF A 0.87-ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 2R, BLOCK A OF THE AMESBURY ADDITION, PHASE II, IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

>> ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS LOCATED AT 810 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AND ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL. THE DESIGNATION IS COMMERCIAL RETAIL OFFICE. THIS SITE IS 0.87 ACRES. SO THE REQUEST HERE IS THEY ARE INTENDING TO BUILD A BREAKS PLUS WHICH DOES REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THE C-2 ZONING DISTRICT. THEY ARE ALSO INCLUDING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH IS TRIGGERING AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THIS IS A MULTISTEP PROJECT HERE. SO FIRST, LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, THE BUILDING ITSELF IS 4960 SQUARE FEET AND IT IS MEETING ALL C-2 DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AND ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AS FOR PARKING, FOUR PARKING SPACES PER ONE BAY, SO A TOTAL OF 32 AND THEY ARE PROVIDING 34, JUST AS A SIDE NOTE, AND ACCESS EASEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED ALONG LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AS THEY DON'T HAVE DIRECT ACCESS, A DIRECT DRIVE WAY TO LAKEVIEW. SO THESE ARE THE PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS. THEY ARE MEETING THOSE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS AND HERE IS THE SEP APPROVAL CRITERIA THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED. I WILL NOT READ IT YOU AS PART OF THE PACKET. SO GETTING TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, SO THEY ARE TECHNICALLY MEETING ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS. IF YOU ARE WILLING AND ABLE TO APPROVE THAT ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOUR RIGHT-OF-WAY BUFFER TREES HOWEVER THIS SITE, AND THIS WAS TRUE FOR MULTIPLE SITES HERE, THERE IS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF EASEMENTS AND ELECTRICAL OVERHEAD LINES ALONG LAKEVIEW PARKWAY WHERE THEY CAN'T PHYSICALLY PLANT THOSE TREES. WE WILL NOT LET THEM. SO BECAUSE OF THAT THEY DO QUALIFY FOR AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THEY DO STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE THOSE TREES, THEY JUST HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM ELSEWHERE. THEY ARE PROVIDING THOSE TREES ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THEY ARE PROVIDING THE 37 SHRUBS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUFFER AS FAR AS THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS, THOSE ARE ALONG THE WESTERN EASTERN PROPERTY LINES AND IN TOTAL THEY REQUIRE 14 TREES AND 228 SHRUBS WHICH THEY ARE PROVIDING. FOR THE IN COMPATIBILITY BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE EITHER TREES OR A MASONRY SCREENING WALL AND IN THIS INSTANCE THEY ARE PROVIDING THE MASONRY SCREENING WALL AND THE REQUIRED 37 SHRUBS AND IN TOTAL FOR THE PARKING LOT TREES THERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EIGHT OF THEM, WHICH THEY ARE DOING.

SO AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, FOR THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER TO THE NORTH, YOU HAVE TO GIVE US EITHER A MASONRY SCREENING WALL OR THOSE FOUR TREES IN THEIR GIVING US THE SCREENING WALL. AND FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUFFER THEY HAVE TO GIVE US THE FOUR TREES SO THOSE ARE THE TREES YOU SEE IN THE BACK. THEY ARE DOING THE REDUNDANT SCREENING IN THE BACK TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUFFER AND THE IN COMPATIBILITY BUFFER. BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL MEETING OUR REQUIREMENTS AND THEY HAVE SPECIFIC SITE CONSTRAINTS, THEY QUALIFY FOR ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN. AND THE CHIPOTLE I BELIEVE TO THE EAST ALSO RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE SAME REASON .

SO THIS IS JUST THE APPROVAL CRITERIA TO REMIND YOU THEY HAVE TO HAVE UNIQUE SITE CONSTRAINTS AND IT HAS TO MEET THE INTENT OF OUR CODE AND HAVE CONSISTENCY WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND IT HAS TO HAVE COMPLIANCE, SO NO MODIFICATION BEYOND THE PERMITTED REQUEST, ALL OF WHICH APPLY IN THIS SITUATION. SO WE DID SEND OUT PUBLIC NOTICES. WITHIN 200 FEET WE SEND 30 AND ONLY RECEIVED ONE OPPOSITION LETTER WITHIN 200 FEET. THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE USE AND THAT THERE WAS A SIMILAR ONE ACROSS THE STREET AND CONCERNS ABOUT POTENTIAL -- THERE BEING ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS FOR THIS TYPE OF USE.

SO AS THE RECOMMENDING BODY YOU CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL, PER THE CONDITIONS OR DENIED. THAT INCLUDES THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR PRESENTATIONS .

>> MR. HERNANDEZ? JUST CURIOUS, THE , IN THE PACKET IT SHOWS THE

[02:20:02]

LOT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE AUTOZONE.

>> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN?

>> WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IN THE PACKET, THE LOT MARKED OFF AS BEING CONSIDERED HERE IS THE ONE NEXT TO THE AUTOZONE? THE PRESENTATION SHOWS BASICALLY SOMEONE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE?

>> SO, YEAH. THIS IS ONE LOT RIGHT NOW. THEY WILL HAVE TO COME THROUGH FOR A REPLY TO SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO.

>> OKAY, AND THEN LIKE YOU SAID THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST WILL BE THE CHIPOTLE AND THEN THE STARBUCKS. OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ? THANK YOU.

>> SINCE THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE A PRESENTATION WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING .

OKAY. SO WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SEEING NO INPUT.

COMMISSIONERS? LOOKING FOR A MOTION .

>> MR. HERNANDEZ.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED.

>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ITEM AS PRESENTED , SECONDED BY MISS WILLIAMS .

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE WE WILL CALL THE VOTE.

I KNOW, I WAS WAITING.

AND THAT PASSES 5-0.

[4E. Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on a request by Young Wook Choi of JBI Partners, Inc., on behalf of the property owners, Trail Creek Partners, LTD for approval of a Tree Removal Permit application on property zoned Planned Development (PD) District with Form-Based New Neighborhood (FB-NN) Uses. The approximately 88.774-acre site is part of the Williams Blevins Survey, Abstract No. 95, the Atkinson Clements Survey, Abstract No. 255, the Elisha M. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1114, and the M. L. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1115 City of Rowlett & City of Garland, Dallas County, Texas.]

MOVING ON, ITEM 4E. CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY YOUNG WOOK CHOI OF JBI PARTNERS, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, TRAIL CREEK PARTNERS, LTD FOR APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT WITH FORM-BASED NEW NEIGHBORHOOD (FB-NN) USES. THE APPROXIMATELY 88.774-ACRE SITE IS PART OF THE WILLIAMS BLEVINS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 95, THE ATKINSON CLEMENTS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.

255, THE ELISHA M. PRICE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1114, AND THE M. L.

PRICE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1115 CITY OF ROWLETT & CITY OF

GARLAND, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> COMMISSIONERS, THE LAST REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 293 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 17 OPEN SPACES AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO CARRY OUT THE DEVELOPMENT. YOU ALL KNOW THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT VERY WELL, THE TRAILS AT COTTONWOOD CREEK. THIS WOULD BE PHASE 2, APPROXIMATELY 88 .7 ACRES AND IT FRONTS VINCENT ROAD AND IS NORTH OF THE COTTONWOOD CREEK TRAIL. AGAIN, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH A BASE ZONING OF THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD. UNDER OUR FORM -BASED CODE. THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED OF JUNE OF LAST YEAR AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW AND PENDING APPROVAL. TYPICALLY OUR TYPICAL PROCESS, WE APPROVE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THEN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. THE APPLICANT IS CLOSE TO THAT APPROVAL WITH US, SO HENCE WHY WE WERE HAVING THIS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.

AS FAR AS THE TREE MITIGATION CALCULATIONS, YOU ARE LOOKING AT 584 TREES THAT ARE PROTECTED. OUT OF THOSE 584, 371 ARE PLANNED TO BE REMOVED AND 213 ARE PLANNED TO BE SAVED, WHICH IS A CREDIT TO THE DEVELOPER. IN ADDITION TO THAT THEY ARE PLANTING 709 TREES ON THE SITE, WHICH IS, WHICH YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVIDED ON YOUR STAFF REPORT WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS NO MITIGATION REQUIRED.

SO YOU MAY APPROVE, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUEST.

[02:25:06]

AND THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS

HERE. >> ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU. DOES THIS HAVE TO GO TO GARLAND FOR A TREE MITIGATION

APPROVAL AS WELL? >> NO, IT DOES NOT.

>> JUST CURIOUS. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ? THANK YOU. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE. DO THEY WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? THEY ARE SHAKING THEIR HEAD NO. NOBODY WANTS TO TALK TO US. OKAY. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I AM -- WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. TUCKER?