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

STEWARDSHIP. >> THANK YOU.

>> WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 4C. - - 4C.

PROVIDING THOSE TONIGHT IS MISS BOWERS.

>> YOU KNOW THIS IS MY FAVORITE THING. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

STARTING SEPTEMBER 1ST, KIDS KINGDOM WILL BE TEMPORARILY CLOSED FOR FOUR TO SIX WEEKS AS WE KICK OUR PHASE TWO RENOVATIONS. WE UNDERSTAND THE SHORT-TERM CLOSURE MAY BE DISAPPOINTING, WE ARE MAKING BIG IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL MAKE THE PLAYGROUND BETTER, SAFER AND MORE FUN. LIVE ON MAINE IS ONE JOIN US EVERY NIGHT - - EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT IN SEPTEMBER FOR ROWLETT SIGNATURE STREET PARTY. ENJOY LIVE MUSIC ON THE MAIN STAGE, FOOD TRUCKS AND SHOPPING FROM DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES AND VENDORS. ADMISSION IS FREE. THE SENIOR RESOURCE FAIR COMING UP TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER NIGHT FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 12:00 P.M. AT THE ROWLETT COMMUNITY CENTER. SENIORS CAN LEARN ABOUT SERVICES AND EVEN WIN PRIZES. BEST OF ALL, IT IS FREE TOO. FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL 972-412-6170. FROM OUR LIBRARY. THE PUBLIC LIBRARY IS SEEKING VOLUNTEERS TO SERVE AS TUTORS FOR THE PREPARATION PROGRAM. NO PRIOR TEACHING EXPERIENCE IS REQUIRED.

JUST A DESIRE TO HELP OTHERS SUCCEED. TUTORS PLAY A VITAL ROLE IN SUPPORTING ADULT LEARNERS AS THEY WORK TOWARD EARNING THEIR GED. OPENING DOORS TO NEW JOB OPPORTUNITIES. VISIT THE WEBSITE TO LEARN MORE AND BECOME A VOLUNTEER TUTOR. ALSO STOP BY THE LIBRARY TO SEE THE AMAZING ENTRIES FOR THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSIONS PHOTO CONTEST THAT ARE ON DISPLAY UNTIL OCTOBER 10TH. FROM OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE ROWLETT POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL PARTICIPATE IN MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING'S SATURATION SATURDAY. ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS WILL BE WORKING AND TRYING TO LOCATE IMPAIRED DRIVERS. SATURATION SATURDAY IS ON AUGUST 23RD. THE SATURDAY BEFORE LABOR DAY WEEKEND. THESE HIGH VISIBILITY EFFORTS AIMED TO SHOW POTENTIAL OFFENDERS THERE IS NO TOLERANCE FOR IMPAIRED DRIVING AND TO HELP END IT. NOT NECESSARILY TO MAKE MANY ARRESTS, THE GOAL IS TO ENCOURAGE CITIZENS TO USE DESIGNATED DRIVERS OR WRITE SHARES INSTEAD OF DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. IT IS ALMOST TIME FOR NATIONAL NIGHT OUT. IT IS NEVER TOO EARLY TO START TO PLAN. WE HAVE 12 NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE ALREADY SIGNED UP. THIS YEAR, THE EVENTS WILL TAKE PLACE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7TH AND IT IS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO CONNECT WITH NEIGHBORS AND WHAT FIRST MET. WHETHER YOUR HOSTING A BLOCK PARTY, A COOKOUT OR ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD GET-TOGETHER, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO ORGANIZE NOW. OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE A UNIFORMED OFFICER VISIT EVERY REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD.

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO REGISTER YOUR EVENT CALL OFFICER ERIC MITCHELL, CONTACT OFFICER ERIC MITCHELL AT E MITCHELL AT

ROWLETT.COM. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. IT IS TIME FOR THE NIGHT'S FEATURED PET. MEET KEIRA, A SWEET, GENTLE DOG WHO MIGHT FEEL A LITTLE NERVOUS IN THE SHELTER BUT WHEN SHE IS OUTSIDE, HER PERSONALITY SHINES. SHE LOVES TO SHOW OFF HER SMILE AND ADORES EVERYONE SHE MEETS. THAT SONG I THINK WOULD GIVE GENE SIMMONS A RUN FOR HIS MONEY. SHE IS CALM AND GENTLE AND NEVER JUMPS AND IS FANTASTIC POLICE. SHE IS FULLY POTTY TRAINED AND REMAINS COMPOSED IN HER KENNEL. SHE IS ON THE SMALLER SIDE AND WOULD THRIVE IN A CALM, LOVING HOME WHERE SHE FEELS SAFE AND CHERISHED. SHE IS AVAILABLE FOR FOSTERING, FOSTER TO ADOPT OR ADOPTION. PLEASE CONTACT 972-312, 6119 OR COME BY THE SHELTER FROM 10:00 TO 5:00

[00:20:01]

TUESDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. IT SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE THAT FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT FOLLOW THIS, THE ANIMAL SHELTER IS STRONGLY AT CODE RED WHICH MEANS ALL KINDLES ARE FULL SO ALL ADOPTIONS ARE $25 INCLUDING SPAY, NEUTER, MICROCHIP AND UP-TO-DATE VACCINATION. SOMETHING TO CONSIDER WOULD BE FOSTERING SHELTER DOCS FOR THE WEEKEND. JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AWAY FROM THE SHELTER CAN HELP THE ANIMALS RELAX, RECHARGE AND SHOW OFF THEIR TRUE PERSONALITY WHICH HELPS THEM IT ADOPTED FASTER. SHORT-TERM MEMORY, BIG IMPACT AND YOU WILL GET IT OUT OF CANDLES. SIGN UP TO BE A WE CAN FOSTER BY CONTACTING ANIMAL SERVICES AT ROWLETT.COM OR CALL 972-412-6219. THE LAST THING IS PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDARS FOR OUR ANNUAL ADOPT A THOUGHT.

HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE A BEAUTIFUL DAY SATURDAY FROM 10:00 TO 3:00 AT THE SHELTER WHICH IS AGAIN AT 4402 INDUSTRIAL STREET HERE IN ROWLETT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNSEL, ANY OTHER UPDATES?

[5. CITIZENS’ INPUT ]

SEEING THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM FIVE, CITIZENS, AT THIS TIME, COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN. I HAVE ONE SPEAKER THIS EVENING MR. PATRICK - - AND YOU CAN COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME. IF THERE ARE OTHERS WHO WISH TO SPEAK THIS EVENING, GRAB A SPEAKER CARD FROM THE BACK CORNER OF THE ROOM AND DROP THEM OFF WITH OUR CITY SECRETARY AND

WE WILL CALL YOU. >> I LIVE IN ROWLETT. I'M EXCITED TO HEAR WE HAVE A $20 MILLION BUDGET SURPLUS. I GUESS THAT MEANS WE WILL NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LOAN FROM THE STATE SINCE IN ONE QUARTER WE EARNED AN ADDITIONAL $20 MILLION. THAT IS EXCITING. I WAS AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHERE RESIDENTS PRESENTED THE DEED OF THEIR PROPERTY TO DAVID HALL AND ALL OF YOU AND SHOWED WHERE THEIR PROPERTY LINE ENDS AT THE ALLEY BEHIND THEIR HOUSE. STILL, I HEAR DAVID HALL PUSHING THE FALSE AGENDA THEY OWN THE LAND BEYOND THE ALLEY AND EVEN THE SCREENING WHILE BEYOND THAT - - WALL BEYOND THAT. I THINK IT IS CLEARLY DRAWN ON THEIR DEEDS. I DO NOT KNOW WHY EVERY TIME I HEAR HIM TALK HE SAYS WE NEED TO GET OUR FACTS STRAIGHT. IT IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD ON THE DEED ITSELF. AT THESE MEETINGS I ALWAYS HEAR YOU SAY, THAT YOU WILL DO WHATEVER THE CITY

COUNCIL SAYS. >> IF YOU CAN ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL. WE ARE THE GOVERNING BODY YOU ARE ADDRESSING THIS EVENING AND NOT STAFF.

>> I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THE - - THE CITY COUNCIL IS WORKING FOR US OR DAVID HALL. IT SEEMS YOU WILL NOT MAINTAIN THE CITY-OWNED BALLS AND YOU CLAIM IT WILL TAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO UPKEEP THEM. IF THIS IS SPREAD OUT OVER TIME LIKE IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY BUDGETED IN THE PAST, THIS WILL NOT BE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU SAY IT WILL BE. THREE YEARS AGO, WHEN THIS BUDGET WAS STOPPED, THE UPKEEP OF THE WALLS, THE BUDGET WAS OVER $300,000. THAT HAS BEEN THREE YEARS NOW. IN MY CALCULATION ALMOST $1 MILLION RIGHT THERE WE COULD HAVE PUT INTO THESE WALLS AND WE WOULD NOT HAVE THEM CRUMBLING ACROSS THE CITY. I AM NOT SURE HOW LONG THE CITY WILL SET ASIDE WHILE THE WALLS ARE LITERALLY FALLING DOWN AROUND THE CITY. YOU HAVE LET THIS GO FOR ALMOST THREE YEARS BEFORE YOU EVEN MENTIONED IT AT A COUNCIL MEETING. THIS MONEY THAT WE HAVE PUT IN THAT IS OUR HARD-EARNED TAX MONEY. YOU WERE ELECTED TO SPEND IT WISELY TO BENEFIT THE TAXPAYERS. I THINK THIS IN ACTION HAS BEEN LONG ENOUGH. IT IS TIME TO STOP MANIPULATING THE SITUATION AND GET TO WORK AND FIX THE WALLS AND CLEANUP THE CITY. ENOUGH OF THE REVIEWS AND THIS TALK OF - -, STOP PUSHING THESE BAD IDEAS.

I THINK THE TIME FOR TALK IS OVER AND IT IS TIME FOR ACTION,

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER REQUESTS

[00:25:04]

TO SPEAK THIS EVENING? SEEING THEM, WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM SIX

[6. CONSENT AGENDA ]

OUR CONSENT AGENDA. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS MIGHT BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MEASURE. DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO PULL ANY ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION FROM THE COUNCIL OR THE PUBLIC? SEEING MEN, CITY SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE ITEMS

INTO THE RECORD? >> CONSIDER ACTION APPROVED IN THE MINUTES. CONSIDER ACTION OF RECEIVING THE INVESTMENT REPORT.

CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE ROWLETT YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS. AND CONSIDER ACTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE

OF ONE REHABILITATION TRAILER. >> THANK YOU, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. I SEE A MOTION BY MR. BRITTON.

>> YES, I MOVE WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS AS WELL.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND THAT

>> A MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S CALL THE

[7A. Conduct a public hearing on a request by Scott Caruthers, on behalf of property owner Melvin Bullitt, for the approval of a Development Plan with Warrants related to required landscaping in accordance with the existing Regulating Plan and Form Base-Urban Village Standards for an approximately 5.176 acre tract in the Bullitt Multisport Addition Survey, Abstract No. 544, Lot 1, Block B, Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Form-Based Urban Village (FB-UV) and located northwest of Liberty Grove Road and Princeton Road, and being addressed as 8700 Princeton Road.]

BOAT. THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. WILL MOVE TO INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEM NUMBER SEVEN A CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER MELVIN BULLET FOR THE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING REGULATING PLAN FOR AN APPROXIMATELY FIVE PUT 176 ACRE TWO NUMBER FIVE PUT ONE - - BEING ADDRESSED AS 8700 PRINCETON ROAD.

>> [INAUDIBLE] SOME WARRANTS RELATED TO IT. A PHASED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF OLD PRINCETON ROAD AND NORTH OF LIBERTY GROW. THE EXACT ADDRESS 8700 PRINCETON ROAD. THIS PURPOSE IN SPACE TO - - THIS PRESENTS PHASE TWO OF THE MASTER PLAN AND THERE ARE GOVERNING POLICY DOCUMENTS. THE AREA ZONED URBAN VILLAGE SUBJECT TO THE WOODSIDE LIVING FRAMEWORK PLAN AND AMENDED PLAN ADOPTED IN AUGUST 2024. AS WAS STATED EARLIER THE REGULATING PLAN AND PHASE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS INITIALLY APPROVED IN 2014. A THREE PHASE DEVELOPMENT ENCOMPASSING A MULTI-SPORTS COMPLEX. SUBSEQUENTLY AN AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED REGULATING PLAN OCCURRED IN 2020 TO INCORPORATE THESE OF ADDING CAGES WITH PHASE ONE OF THE MULTIPHASE MASTER-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE REGULATING PLAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS LAST SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 8, 2024. THE APPROVAL WAS TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS PROGRAMMING OF PHASE TWO AND PHASE THREE AND INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING WARRANTS. CATHOLIC FIELDS, PARKING, BLOCK SIZE, LIGHTING, FENCING AND LANDSCAPING. SPECIFIC TO THE LANDSCAPING PLANTING ALONG PRINCETON ROAD TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING ACROSS FROM THE 21 EXISTING PARKING SPACES. THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THE CURRENT REGULATING PLAN. YOU NOTICE THE SPORTS FIELDS IN THE GREEN AND THE ACCOMPANYING BUILDING ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF PRINCETON ROAD. AS IT RELATES TO THE SITE DATA ITSELF, AS WAS MENTIONED, INCLUDES ATHLETIC FIELDS, TURF ATHLETIC FIELDS THAT ARE PLANNED ALONG OLD RINCETON ROAD AND PRINCETON ROAD. A DESIGNATED PLAYER WARM-UP AREA IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE NEIGHBORING CHURCH. A PROPOSAL FOR 76 PARKING SPACES.

ACCESS IS AVAILABLE FROM BOTH OLD PRINCETON ROAD AND PRINCETON ROAD WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REGULATING PLAN. THE FOLLOWING WARRANTS ARE REQUESTED FOR THE APPLICANT. A WARRANT TO THE 2024 REGULATING PLAN FOR LANDSCAPING, A WANT TO - - WARRANT TO INTERIOR PARKING LANDSCAPING AND

[00:30:07]

A WARRANT FOR PLANT MATERIALS. AS IT RELATES TO THE WARRANT FOR LANDSCAPING, THE REGULATING PLAN REQUIRES - - ALONG PRINCETON ROAD FOR SCREENING OF THE BLACK CHAIN-LINK FENCE. THE STREET SCAPE WAS TO BE ARRANGED SO THE SIDEWALK AND CURB YOUR FLESH WITH PLANTINGS POSITIONED ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED BLACK CHAIN-LINK FENCE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO OMIT ALL TREES AND PLANTINGS NEAR TURF FIELDS BECAUSE OF MAINTENANCE CONCERNS.

AND PROPOSES SHRUBS AND NATIVE WASH GRAVEL. NO LANDSCAPING PROPOSED ALONG OLD PRINCETON ROAD NEAR THE TURF FIELDS. THE JUSTIFICATION, THE APPLICANT HAS STATED POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO SYNTHETIC TURF MAY OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE TREES BEING PLANTED, SHRUBS AND GRAVEL AS A LOWER MAINTENANCE ALTERNATIVE.

AS IT RELATES TO OUR ASSESSMENTS, WE HAVE ASSESSED IN COMPARISON TO THE REGULATING PLAN AND THE GUIDING DOCUMENT IN A FORM BASED CODE, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY AS GRAVEL IS NOT PERMITTED. THE PROPOSED SHRUBS WILL NOT FULLY SCREEN THE EIGHT-FOOT CHAIN-LINK FENCE BECAUSE OF THE SPACING LIMITS AND PORTIONS OF THE PLANTING AREAS ARE ALREADY PAID WITH CONCRETE, RESTRICTING LANDSCAPING. THE NEXT WARRANT IS RELATED TO THE LANDSCAPING ON THE INTERIOR PARKING. THE FORM-BASED CODE REQUIRES A LANDSCAPED ISLAND WITH A LARGE TREE PER EIGHT PARKING SPACES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO OMIT TREES TO THE PARKING ISLAND NEAR THE SOUTHERN TURF FIELD, CITING CONCERNS THAT ROOTS AND VEGETATION MAY DAMAGE THE SYNTHETIC TURF. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLANT THE REQUIRED TREES WITH OPEN SPACE BY THE DETENTION POND. THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT THREE AND PLANT GROWTH DAMAGE AND INTERFERENCE OF PERFORMANCE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SYNTHETIC TURF. THE APPLICANT ONLY PROPOSES TO INSTALL HYDRO MULCH, GRASS AND NATIVE GRAVEL AS ALTERNATIVE.

THERE ARE ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS AS IT RELATES TO CONSISTENCY WITH THE FORM-BASED CODE. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SPECIFIC BUFFER DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TURF FIELD AND PROPOSED LANDSCAPING. STANDARD PRACTICE REQUIRES A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK FROM THIS TYPE OF SURFACE SUCH AS CONCRETE. NOTABLY, THERE IS AN EIGHT FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN TURF AND THE ADJACENT PARKING LOT, WHICH MAY PROVIDE ADEQUATE SEPARATION. THEN, A FINAL WARRANT BEING REQUESTED TONIGHT IS FOR PLANT MATERIAL. SPECIFIC TO THE CODE, VISIBLE PLANTINGS MUST INCLUDE SHRUBS, EVERGREENS, GROUNDCOVER, FINES AND SEASONAL COLOR PLANTS IN REFERENCE TO APPENDIX 2.4.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE REQUIRED TREES AND EVERGREEN GROUNDCOVER WITH NATIVE WASH GRAVEL IN AREAS NEAR THE TURF FIELD ALONG PRINCETON ROAD. STAFF'S COMMENT IN RELATION TO THE FORM-BASED CODE PROHIBITS GRAVEL AND PAVING BUT IS SILENT ON ITS USE IN THE TYPE OF LANDSCAPING. SO, FOR CONSIDERATION, FOR THIS ITEM, THE REQUESTED WARRANTS MEET THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE FORM-BASED CODE AS DESCRIBED. AND THE FORM-BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. THE REQUESTED WARRANTS WILL RESULT IN AN APPROVED - - IMPROVED PROJECT. AND REQUESTED WARRANT WILL NOT PREVENT THE REALIZATION OF THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE FORM-BASED CODE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT.

STAFF SENT OUT NOTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR NOTIFICATION

[00:35:04]

REQUIREMENTS. THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 22 NOTICES SENT OUT. IN PROXIMITY TO 200 FEET. THERE WAS ONE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION AND ONE RECEIVED IN FAVOR A COURTESY NOTICE WAS SENT OUT TO 500 FEET THAT INCLUDED 89 NOTICES IN TOTAL. STAFF RECEIVED NONE IN OPPOSITION AND NONE IN FAVOR. THIS ITEM WENT TO - - JULY 22ND, 2025. AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ON A NUMBER 2-3 VOTE RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE FIRST WARRANT FOR THE 2024 REGULATING PLAN FOR LANDSCAPING. THE COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT TO FORM BASE CODE - - WHICH IS FOR INTERIOR PARKING LANDSCAPING. THE FINAL WARRANT, COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE WARRANT TO FORM-BASED CODE - - FOR PLANT MATERIAL. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, APPROVE OR DENY THE SITE PLAN WITH WARRANTS REQUESTED.

>> THANK YOU. COUNSEL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS

ITEM? >> YEAH, THANK YOU. COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT THEY VOTED AGAINST? THE FIRST

ONE? >> YES. I WILL PULL IT UP, JUST

ONE MOMENT. >> WHILE WE ARE GETTING THERE I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY. I WATCHED THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING EARLIER TODAY. EACH OF THESE WARRANTS WAS CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY WHICH ON ITS FACE IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL. THIS PARTICULAR WARRANTS, THE FIRST ONE, THERE WAS A MOTION BY ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE THE ITEM, TO APPROVE THAT WARRANT AS PRESENTED. THROUGH DISCUSSIONS THAT HAPPEN, IT SEEMS LIKE THE MOTION AND HAVE CHANGED IN SOME CAPACITY. I WASN'T CLEAR IF THERE WERE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS PLACED. THE MOTION FAILED IN THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE MOVED ON.

I'M CURIOUS IF THAT CONSTITUTES A DENIAL ON ITS FACE OR IS THAT JUST A FAILED MOTION THAT PERHAPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION?

>> FIRST OF ALL, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY NOT CONSIDER THESE INDIVIDUAL HE IS INDIVIDUAL WARRANTS. BUT INSTEAD, TAKE THEM AS A WHOLE. IF THE ONLY WANTED TO APPROVE TWO THEIR MOTIONS SAY THAT. SO IT IS ONE MOTION. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, FOR THE FIRST WARRANT THEY MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. AND THAT APPROVAL FAILED. THAT ACTUALLY IS TANTAMOUNT TO A DENIAL OF THAT PARTICULAR WARRANT. BUT, NOT NECESSARILY A DENIAL OF THE ENTIRE REQUEST. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT CHOSE TO MAKE A REQUEST THAT INCLUDED THREE WARRANTS. THAT IS THE REQUEST. THEY WERE OKAY TO GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT THE REST OF IT. I THINK FOR PURPOSES OF COUNSEL, YOU NEED TO JUST CONSIDER THIS FROM - - THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS, APPROVAL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM ONE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT VERIFICATION. YOU ASKED ABOUT

THE FIRST? >> MAYBE A LITTLE MORE CLARIFICATION ON THAT. CAN WE APPROVE ALL THREE?

>> YES. >> REGARDLESS?

>> YES. >> THAT IS WHERE I WAS GOING.

WHAT EXACTLY, COULD WE LOOK AT THAT , THAT WARRANT?

>> ACTUALLY, THE ONE PRIOR TO THIS WOULD BE THE PERIMETER

LANDSCAPING, NOT THE PARKING. >> I FEEL, YOU KNOW, TO APPROVE

[00:40:07]

THE ENTIRE THING THAT I WANT TO CAUSING.

>> THIS IS IT. >> THIS IS IT.

>> THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT. IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS.

>> OKAY. I MEAN, IT LOOKS TO ME AND I DO NOT WANT TO GET TOO PLANT TIKI - - WILL NOT FULLY SCREEN AN EIGHT FOOT CHAIN-LINK FENCE WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE IS CORRECT. IF THAT WAS THE REASONING, I DO NOT THINK IT IS A VALID REASON. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE AND THIS MAY BE FOR THE APPLICANT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WASHED NATIVE GRAVEL. I AM CURIOUS EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS. THAT IS A LITTLE VAGUE. IF IT IS JUST LOOSE GRAVEL OR IF IT IS SOMETHING MORE LIKE A DECOMPOSED GRANITE THAT ACTUALLY FORMS UP, WHAT I AM LOOKING AT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL NOT BLOW AROUND, WILL NOT BLOW ONTO THE STREET. WILL NOT BLOW ONTO YOUR FIELDS AND CAUSE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS. I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT IS GETTING TOO MUCH IN THE WEEDS BUT I WOULD GUESS THAT WOULD BE MY REQUEST THAT WE GET SPECIFIC TO THAT TYPE OF A PRODUCT, MORE THAN JUST A GENERIC WASHED GRAVEL, WHICH MIGHT HAVE MAINTENANCE AND ESCAPE ISSUES. SECOND LET'S TRY TO BREAK THAT DOWN INTO PIECES. THE FIRST THING I HEARD WAS THE PROPOSED SHRUBS WITH IN YOUR OPINION, WOULD PROVIDE SCREENING. THE STAFF COMMENTS SAY IT WOULD NOT BECAUSE OF SPACING. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT PLANT IS. I ASSUME IT IS SOME SORT OF A NARROW PLANT IN SHAPE AND BECAUSE OF THE SPACING THEY WOULD BE GAPS BETWEEN THEM THAT WERE NOT FULLY SCREEN THE FIELD?

>> CORRECT. AT THE TIME OF PLANTING THEY WILL NOT BE FULLY

MATURED PLANTS. >> GRANTED, THEY WILL NOT SCREAM UNTIL FULLY MATURE BUT IT IS A LARGE SCREENING PLANT WHICH IS WHAT THEY ARE TYPICALLY USED FOR. IT IS COMPLETELY

APPROPRIATE FOR THIS USE. >> THE SECOND POINT I THINK YOU'RE MAKING WAS ABOUT THE SCREENING BUT THAT THIS TYPE OF PLANT WOULD BE A SUBSTITUTE. THE FALSE - - SPECIFICALLY. THE FACT IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT IS THE ISSUE AND WHY THE WARRANT HAS TO

BE CONSIDERED. >> A DEVIATION FROM WHAT IS

REQUIRED. >> AGAIN, ANYTHING - - ANYBODY THAT HAS THEM KNOWS HOW MESSY THEY ARE. I WOULD RECOMMEND NOT USING THOSE, THAT IS JUST MY OPINION.

>> IF YOU COULD COME UP AND SPEAK TO THE GRAVEL QUESTION

THAT WAS ASKED. >> WE WANT TO KEEP EVERYTHING AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE. THE SIDEWALK AND THE POINT BETWEEN THE TURF AND THE SIDEWALK. IT WILL BE HEAVIER. AS FAR AS ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT - - WE HAVE SOME THAT WE HAVE KIND OF

LOOKED AT. >> REALLY I AM MORE THINKING ABOUT YOUR FACILITY THEN ANYTHING ELSE. AND ESCAPE OF AGGREGATES INTO THE STREET ONTO THE SIDEWALK ONTO YOUR PROPERTY.

IF IT IS LARGE ENOUGH IT WILL NOT MOVE. OR IF IT IS SOMETHING LIKE DECOMPOSED RENNET THAT COMPACTS AND WILL NOT MOVE.

>> A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THE WARRANT WE ARE CONSIDERING TONIGHT, WHICH ARE THE REQUIREMENTS DOES IT PUT IN PLACE FOR THE TYPE OF GRAVEL THAT WILL BE USED? IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE WARRANT WOULD ALLOW ANYTHING FROM PEA GRAVEL ALL THE

WAY UP TO WASHED OVER ROCK? >> IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN I DON'T THINK IT IS AN ACTUAL APPROVED LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. IT WOULD BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COUNCIL TO OVERRIDE THAT.

[00:45:08]

>> THE ORDINANCE, WHEN I DRAFTED THE ORDINANCE I USED THE LANGUAGE IN THE APPLICATION WHICH JUST SAYS NATIVE WASHED GRAVEL. IF YOU WANTED TO REVISE, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE

MOTION. >> CAN YOU MORE CLEARLY EXPLAIN TO US WHAT NATIVE WASHED GRAVEL IS. I KNOW YOU ARE NOT A LANDSCAPING EXPERT AND YOU HIRED A LANDSCAPER.

>> WE DO NOT HAVE THE EXACT, I GUESS, SAMPLE OF WHAT WE WOULD BE USING BECAUSE OF THE CONGREGATE AREA. I KNOW THAT WE DO PLAN FOR IT TO BE A HEAVIER ROCK MATERIAL. IT WILL NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WILL WASH AWAY. THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE ARE LOOKING AT. I CANNOT GIVE YOU THAT ANSWER SO - - BECAUSE - -

>> WHICH ARE GRAVEL BE CONTAINED WITH SOME TYPE OF EDGING? SO IF WE HAVE A HEAVY RAIN IT IS NOT?

>> THAT WOULD BE THE GOAL. WILL BE CONTAINED? NO BUT IT WILL BE - - BY THE SIDEWALK, THE WALKING AREA. IT SHOULD BE CONTAINED BY THE DESIGN AREA. I CANNOT REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE BUT IT WILL NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WASHES OUT.

>> DID YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION ARE YOU JUST HERE TO ANSWER

QUESTIONS? >> JUST TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> PERFECT, ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

>> WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, I DO NOT HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK BUT DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON

[7B. Consider approval of an ordinance approving a Development Plan including Warrants to allow deviations from landscaping requirements of the existing Regulating Plan and Form Base-Urban Page 2 of 4 Village Standards for an approximately 5.176 acre tract in the Bullitt Multisport Addition Survey, Abstract No. 544, Lot 1, Block B, Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas, zoned Form-Based Urban Village (FB-UV) and located northwest of Liberty Grove Road and Princeton Road, and being addressed as 8700 Princeton Road. ]

THIS ITEM? SEEN THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVED TO THE NEXT ACTION ITEM. IF THERE IS QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS WE CAN ENTERTAIN THOSE OTHERWISE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'VE A MOTION TO I MOVE WE ACCEPT THE ITEM AS PRESENTED.

EMOTION TO ACCEPT THE ITEM AS PRESENTED. I SEE A SECOND, ANY

DISCUSSION? >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR COMING INTO ROWLETT. I KNOW PEOPLE THAT HAVE USED YOUR FACILITY AND THEY ARE VERY IMPRESSED AND I AM GLAD YOU ARE

HERE IN TOWN. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATIONS AND DIALOGUE WE HAVE HAD. I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A VERY LONG PROCESS. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND NOW YOU ARE FACING A BIGGER CHALLENGE WITH THE SEWER ISSUE. YOU HAVE BEEN MORE THAN PATIENT WITH THE CITY AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK THIS GET YOU EVERYTHING YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IN THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE HAD WITH RESPECT TO NOT HAVING GRASS THAT WILL GET ON THE FIELD AND TAKE ROOT OR TREES THAT WILL COME UP FROM THE NEED THE TURF AND ALL OF THAT. I HOPE THIS GETS YOU INTO POSITION WHERE YOU HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL OPERATION TO THESE NEW FIELDS.

VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO VISITING WHEN IT IS ALL FINISHED. RA, COUNSEL, LET'S CALL A BOAT. - - ALL RIGHT,

[7C. Conduct a public hearing on a request by Rusdien Samie, property owner, for a change in zoning from Single Family Residential -10/21 (SF-10) to Single Family Residential – 10/21 with a Special Use Permit (SF-10-SUP) to allow for an enclosed accessory structure with an area greater than 500 square feet and not exceeding 1,400 square feet for an approximately 0.86-acre lot is situated northwest of the intersection of Hickox and Toler Road and being addressed as 2906 Toler Drive, also described as Lot 5, Block 3, Chandler Park 2, a Replat of Hickox Road Estates No.2 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

COUNSEL, LET'S CALL A VOTE. THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ITEM CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON - - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN ENCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. - - SPECIAL USE PERMIT. TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WHICH WILL BE USED AS

A PARKING GARAGE. >> CLARIFIED BY PARKING GARAGE I SEEM YOU DON'T MEAN IN A TRADITIONAL SENSE.

[00:50:01]

>> CORRECT. THE REQUEST SPECIFICALLY IS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OVER 500 SQUARE FEET. THE LOCATION IS IN NORTHWEST ROWLETT SPECIFI TO THE INTERSECTIONS OF HICKOK AND - - ROAD. THE ADDRESS IS 2906 TOLER DRIVE. IT IS OWNED SINGLE FAMILY. IN THE LOT ITSELF IS APPROXIMATELY 8184 ACRES. - - 8.84 ACRES. FROM THE ILLUSTRATION YOU SEE A SIDE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PROJECT IN RED. ON THE PLAT ITSELF THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. TWO STORY PRIMARY RESIDENCE INCLUDING AN ATTACHED GARAGE TOTALING 3551 SQUARE FEET. THERE IS ALSO A PORT THAT TOTALS 800 SQUARE FEET AND A SHED THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 96 SQUARE FEET. EXISTING DRIVEWAY, THERE IS A CIRCLE DRIVEWAY, A MAIN DRIVEWAY, A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY TO ATTACH TO THE GARAGE APPROXIMATELY 500 LINEAR SQUARE FEET. A CONCRETE WALKWAY, A PROPOSED NEW DRIVEWAY EXTENSION.

OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACES INCLUDE A CONCRETE SLAB AND HOT TUB PAD. THEN, IT IS LOCATED ON A SEPTIC SYSTEM, SITUATED BEHIND THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AS IT RELATES TO THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE, STATES THAT THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS APPLY TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, LOT COVERAGE, HEIGHT AND SETBACKS.

TO LOT COVERAGE, SINGLE-FAMILY 10 ZONING DISTRICT MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE PERMITTED NO GREATER THAN 45 OR 35 OF THE REAR YARD WHICHEVER IS LESS. 35% OF THE REAR YARD EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 9147 SQUARE FEET. THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE INCLUDING THE EXISTING CARPORT, A PART OF THE EXISTING DRIVE, HOT TUB AND NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND NEW DRIVEWAY TOTALS APPROXIMATELY 3463 SQUARE FEET. THIS REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY 14% OF THE REAR YARD COVERAGE. THE HEIGHT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE APPROXIMATE 23 FOOT PRIMARY STRUCTURE. AS A RELATES TO SETBACKS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR YARD REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET SETBACK BOTH FOR SIDE AND REAR YARDS. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HAS THE FOLLOWING SETBACKS. 131 FEET FROM THE REAR LOT LINE. 12 FEET FROM THE NEAREST SIDE LOT LINE. 166 FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT LINE, 59 FEET FROM THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, NINE FEET FROM THE CARPORT AND 49 FEET FROM THE SEPTIC SYSTEM. AGAIN, REFERENCING SECTION 77 ¿ 1105 AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE AFFIXED TO THE GROUND. SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, THE USE OF WHICH IS INCIDENTAL TO THE DOMINANT USE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE FOR THE PREMISE ITSELF. WE ALWAYS SAY THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS ANCILLARY OR SECONDARY TO THE PRIMARY USE. INCIDENTAL USE INTENDED FOR STORAGE OF COLLECTION VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED PARTS AS WELL AS FOR PERFORMING MAINTENANCE WORK ON PERSONAL VEHICLES AND YARD?.

THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS SMALLER THAN A PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THE USES INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. THE ILLUSTRATIONS YOU SEE OUR SITE PHOTOS. - - OUR SITE PHOTOS. THE FIRST ILLUSTRATION TO THE LEFT IS THE PROPOSED NEW 14 HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THEN, THE SECOND ILLUSTRATION YOU SEE SHOWS THE STRUCTURE ANDO SHOWS THE NEW DRIVE. ABOUT FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. I WILL NOTE, I DO NOT THINK IT WAS COVERED IN THE PRESENTATION THAT THIS WAS THE RESULT OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE SO THE APPLICANT IS COMING

[00:55:03]

FORWARD TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. STAFF FOUND OUT CONSTRUCTION WAS UNDERWAY WITHOUT HAVING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING AND PERMIT.

HENCE THE PHOTOS OF THE STRUCTURE ALMOST COMPLETE. THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION DATE WAS JULY 11TH WITHIN 200 FEET. STAFF SENT OUT 14 NOTICES. WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR WITHIN 200 FEET, ONE IN OPPOSITON BUT THE COURTESY 500 FEET ONE IN FAVOR.

PLANNING AND ZONING AT THE JULY 22ND MEETING VOTED NUMBER 4-1 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION MEETING ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS. THE RECOMMENDATION BEFORE CITY COUNCIL IS TO APPROVE, TO APPROVE CONDITIONS OR DENY. THIS CONCLUDES THE

PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF POINTS. THE NOTICE RESPONSES WERE NOT INCLUDED THIS TIME. THE ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION DID HAVE A COMMENT AT THE BOTTOM THAT SAID REGARDIG THE ZONING REQUEST I DO NOT AGREE THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE ZONED AS A BUSINESS. THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, THIS IS A BUSINESS,

CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. I NEED HELP UNDERSTANDING THE TIMELINE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. I AM NOT GOING TO ASK FOR TOO MANY SPECIFICS FROM THE PRIOR SU P WHICH WAS FOR THE CARPORT. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THAT IS A DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNER.

>> FOR THE CARPORT? >> FOR THE CARPORT? THE PRIOR ONE. HE HAS HAD THIS ISSUE BEFORE. THIS PROPERTY HAS HAD THIS ISSUE BEFORE THERE IS A CARPORT THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN A PERMIT ACQUIRED AFTER CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETE OR IN

PROGRESS. >> CORRECT.

>> THAT WAS A DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNER?

>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> WE GET BEYOND THAT WE HAVE A CARPORT IN PLACE, NOT ENCLOSED, JUST A COVER. NOW AN ADDITIONAL SLAB THAT HAS BEEN POURED BEHIND THE CARPORT FURTHER ONTO THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A PERMIT TO POOR THAT

CONCRETE, RIGHT? >> CORRECT.

>> WHAT WAS THE SCOPE OF THAT PERMIT?

>> THE INTENT AS I KNOW IT WAS TO SIMPLY POUR CONCRETE FOR A

DRIVE. >> AT WHAT POINT WOULD THE CITY COME OUT AND DO INSPECTIONS WHILE A CONCRETE IS BEING

POURED? >> PROBABLY DURING THE TIME IN WHICH THE ACTIVITY IS GOING ON AND A FINAL INSPECTION TO CLOSE

THAT PARTICULAR REQUEST OUT. >> DID THE CITY GO OUT AND DO ANY INSPECTIONS OR DID THE CITY ONLY COME OUT AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETE AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED? NO INSPECTIONS TOOK PLACE AT ANY TIME DURING THE CONCRETE BEING INSPECTED? I DO NOT RECALL THAT AN INSPECTION OCCURRED AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE COMPLETION OF THE CONCRETE

WAS POURED. >> THERE COULD HAVE BEEN AN

INSPECTION DURING THE POOR? >> CORRECT.

>> BUT NO FINAL INSPECTION. OKAY. COUNSEL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I DO NOT SEE THE APPLICANT.

>> THAT MAKES THIS FAR MORE CHALLENGING. COUNSEL, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS I HAVE I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:59 P.M. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO PROVIDE COMMENT OR SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING MEN, WE WILL CLOSE

[7D. Consider approval of an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of Rowlett, as heretofore amended, by granting a change in zoning from Single Family Residential - 10/21 (SF-10) to Single Family Residential – 10/21 with a Special Use Permit (SF-10 SUP) to allow for an enclosed accessory structure with an area greater than 500 square feet and not exceeding 1,400 square feet for an approximately 0.86-acre lot is situated northwest of the intersection of Hickox and Toler Road described as Lot 5, Block 3, Chandler Park 2, a Replat of Hickox Road Estates No.2 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas and being more commonly known as 2906 Toler Drive. ]

THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, THE ACTION ITEM THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS ITEM AND I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY

QUESTIONS OR A MOTION. >> THIS IS MORE A COMMENT. I UNDERSTAND THERE HAS BEEN TWO PROPERTY OWNERS BUT STILL, I CANNOT HELP BUT GET THE FEELING THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A GAME OF IT IS EASIER TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS THAN PERMISSION. IT HAS HAPPENED TWICE ON THE SAME PROPERTY. THEY ARE WELL INTO CONSTRUCTION. I DO NOT THINK IT IS PRUDENT OR PROBABLY WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS TO DENY IT. I WOULD ASK, IS THERE ANYTHING IN

[01:00:02]

OUR ENFORCEMENT THAT HAS ANY SORT OF PUNITIVE TYPE OF RESULT TO THIS? ANY SORT OF FINE FOR THIS TYPE OF THING? MY CONCERN IS, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST ONE OF THESE WE HAVE HAD, EVEN IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS. IT SEEMS TO BE SORT OF, I DO NOT WANT TO CALL IT A TREND BUT, PEOPLE ARE BUILDING THINGS AND COMING AND OH YEAH, I AM THREE QUARTERS OF THE WAY DONE THROUGH A BUILDING I HAVE $20,000 IN. I DO NOT WANT TO BE THE GUY SAYING TEAR DOWN YOUR $20,000 BUILDING BECAUSE OF PERMIT ISSUES BUT AT THE SAME TIME I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF ENFORCEMENT ANCILLARY TO MAYBE SOMETHIG NOT QUITE SEVERE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS AVAILABLE? ARE THERE ANY ACTIONS WE MIGHT INCLUDE IF WE APPROVE THIS. SO I WILL TRY TO GIVE AN ANSWER. I WANT TO SEPARATE THE IDEA OF NOT GETTING A BUILDING PERMIT FROM THE IDEA OF NOT GETTING APPROVED ZONING. THIS IS FOR ZONING. THAT IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM NOT GETTING A BUILDING PERMIT. WE ARE LOOKING AT WHETHER WE CAN, WE WILL RETROACTIVELY BASICALLY GRANT THE APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THIS. IF YOU DO NOT GRANT THAT ZONING THEM, IT IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE, IT VIOLATES THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE RELIEF WOULD BE TO HAVE IT REMOVED. IF YOU DO GRANT THIS, IF YOU APPROVE THE ORDINANCE, YOU HAVE MADE IT COMPLIANT. IT IS NOW COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING SO THERE WILL BE NO PENALTY FOR THE ZONING.

>> THE CITY DOES CHARGE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, DOUBLE THE PERMIT FEE WHEN IT IS DONE RETROACTIVELY?

>> CORRECT. >> WOULD THAT BE FOR ALL THE

PERMITS? >> TYPICALLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMITS. I DO NOT KNOW FOR THE ACTUAL SU P?

>> THERE IS A PUNITIVE MEASURE.

>> AS I UNDERSTAND THAT - - ACTUALLY NINE FEET SO THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER VIOLATION, IS THAT CORRECT? LIKE I SAID, I AM NOT SUGGESTING WE GO TO THE EXTREME OF SAYING WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM TEAR IT DOWN, THAT SEEMS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. I DO THINK WE NEED TO, AS A COUNSEL AND AS THESE COME UP, AT LEAST LET OUR CITIZENS KNOW, WE HAVE A PROCESS AND WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU AND WE ARE HERE TO DO THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO. BUT THIS IS NOT LIKE PUTTING UP A FIVE BY 10 HOME DEPOT SHED. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE. I FEEL LIKE WE JUST NEED TO MAYBE BE A% LITTLE MORE COGNIZANT OF IT AS WE GO THROUGH THESE PROCESSES IN

THE FUTURE. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I WISH THE APPLICANT WAS HERE BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM, DOES HE UNDERSTAND ALL YES TO DO TO GET THAT STRUCTURE UP TO CODE, I GUESS I WILL UNDERSTAND - - ASK YOU, DOES HE UNDERSTAND WHAT HE HAS TO DO IF WE DO APPROVE THE ZONING?

>> BOTH THE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF AND THE BUILDING STAFF MET WITH THE APPLICANT. BEFORE ANY OF OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS WE ALWAYS REACH OUT TO THE APPLICANT TO LET THEM KNOW WE ENCOURAGE THEM TO ATTEND. WE HAVE COMMUNICATED TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY THEY WILL NEED TO COMPLY AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DO NOT EXPECT ANY ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS TO OCCUR. I WILL JUST SAY, GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT, I AM AMAZED HE IS NOT HERE, I REALLY AM.

>> HE WAS AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. WHEN I WATCHED THAT MEETING, THERE WERE SOME GAPS AND QUESTIONS I WAS LEFT WITH. I RESPECT OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OPINION THAT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS A ZONING CASE. I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT WITH THE RESPECT TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE CARPORT AND BUILDING IT IS ONLY NINE FEET WHICH IS AGAINST THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT, WOULD GRANTING THIS AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THAT CONFORMING? WHO WOULD APPROVE

THAT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT? >> THAT COULD BE A VARIANCE THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS GIVE

[01:05:03]

HIM THE ZONING TO CONSTRUCT AND DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY BUILDING CODES AND CITY ORDINANCES. HE HAST TO DO THAT AND IF HE HAS NOT, IT WOULD REQUIRE A FURTHER

VARIANCE. >> I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF HELP UNDERSTANDIG HOW WE WOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION IF STAFF WERE NEVER OUT THERE TO INSPECT? WOULD WE HAVE AN ENGINEERING STUDY? HOW WOULD WE ACCOMPLISH THAT?

>> WE WOULD MAKE SURE OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT GOES OUT. WE NEED TO HAVE PLANNING STAFF GO OUT AND DO THE MEASUREMENTS.

>> THANK YOU, THAT IS HELPFUL. ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS LEFT WITH WAS THE APPLICANT CAME UP AND SPOKE AND SAID THE SLAB HAD BEEN INSPECTED. BECAUSE AT THAT MEETING, LILIANA WAS THE PRESENTER AND SHE SAID THERE HAD BEEN NO INSPECTIONS. THAT LEAVES ME WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT THE QUALITY. WE ARE NOT HERE TO DEBATE THAT, WE ARE HERE TO DEBATE THE MATTER OF THE ZONING.

WITH RESPECT TO THE ZONING, I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM. I THINK IT FITS AND MAKES SENSE. WE HAVE APPROVED THESE IN ADVANCE, PROACTIVELY AND RETROACTIVELY UPON APPLICANT'S REQUEST IN NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE THAT WHERE WE HAVE LARGE BUT SIZES. THIS FITS EVERY OTHER REQUIREMENT AS FAR AS HEIGHT AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN DONE REALLY WELL. MY QUESTION IS THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING AND KNOWING IT WILL BE UP TO BUILDING CODE BECAUSE STAFF WILL BE ON TOP OF THAT GIVES ME ASSURANCE AND I AM OKAY TO APPROVING THIS.

>> CAN I CORRECT MY COMMENTS REGARDING THE NINE FEET VERSUS 10 FEET? YOU ARE APPROVING EXHIBIT B. THAT IS A SITE PLAN.

IT DOES NOT HAVE MEASUREMENTS ON IT. IT DOES HAVE A 10 FOOT ELECTRIC SERVICE EASEMENT WHICH COULD POSSIBLY - - COULD BE USED TO ARGUE THAT YOU ARE APPROVING A NINE FOOT DISTANCE FOR THE SETBACK. AGAIN, I CANNOT TELL FROM SORRY, EXHIBIT C. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE ALSO APPROVING EXHIBIT C.

>> THANK YOU, THAT IS HELPFUL. I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT DURING THE MEETING THE MOTION MADE WAS TO APPROVE THE ITEM PROVIDED IT MET THE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS. THAT MOTION, WHILE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, DOES NOT MATCH UP WITH WHAT I JUST HEARD FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY THAT THERE WOULD BE A VARIATION IN BUILDING CODE BASED ON EITHER NINE OR ALMOST 10 FOOT.

>> IT COULD, HONESTLY I CANNOT TELL FROM THE SITE PLAN. I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY THAT IS AN ENGINEER TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND GIVE ME AN OPINION. I JUST WANTED TO CALL THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION. WE ARE SAYING IT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATION MAP. WE ALSO SAY IT HAS TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY CODES. THIS ORDINANCE ITSELF IS AN EXCEPTION TO THOSE.

IF YOU ARE APPROVING B AND C THAT IS AN EXCEPTION.

>> THANK YOU. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS YOU HAVE? SEEING NONE I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. THE MOTION BY MR.

SCHUPP. >> YEAH, I WILL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS ITEM AS PRESENTED.

>> A SECOND BY MR. BRITTON? >> I SECOND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? I THINK I HAVE ALREADY SAID OF THE COMMENTS I HAVE TO SAY SO LET'S CALL THE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIED

[7E. Consider action to approve a resolution regarding a Tree Removal Permit on a request by Sri Harsha Thotakura, on behalf of the property owners, Lakeview Biergarten LLC, on property zoned Planned Development District with a base zoning of Commercial/Retail (PD: C-2). The approximately 3.19-acre site is part of the James Hobb Survey, Abstract No. 571 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ITEM. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ON BEHALF OF LAKEVIEW BEER GARDEN LLC WITH A BASE ZONING OF COMMERCIAL

[01:10:02]

RETAIL. THE APPROXIMATELY THREE POINT ONE - - 3 POINT ONE ACRE

SITE. >> THANK YOU. THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST FOR A PROJECT THAT IS CALLED - - 130,000 SQUARE FEET OUTDOOR SPACE. FOOD TRUCK YARD I GUESS IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE TITLE. IT INCLUDES SOME ACCOMPANYING INFRASTRUCTURE. THE PROPERTY SIZE APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES LOCATED, IT FRONTS LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. SPECIFICALLY AT 6851 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY. IT IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNDERLINING ZONING IS COMMERCIAL RETAIL. THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4TH, 2024. IT HAS SINCE BEEN AMENDED SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2024. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BUSINESS BELTWAY STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY AREA, CONTAINED WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE AREAS DESIGNATED FOR PRIMARY - - AS IS OUTLINED IN THE MAP. THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED FOR THE PROPERTY JANUARY 21ST, 2025. THIS EXHIBIT, THOUGH A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO READ SHOWS THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN. A SUMMARY OF THE MEDICATION CALCULATION INCLUDE TOTAL CALIPER INCHES PROTECTED ON-SITE, 29 TREES. THOSE TO BE REMOVED INCLUDE NINE. THOSE PROTECTED, 20. THE REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION FOR THE REFORESTATION FUND - - NO MITIGATION THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO BASED UPON THE CALCULATIONS. ON JULY 22ND, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST. AS A RECOMMENDATION, STAFF IS ASKING FOR THE GOVERNING BODY TO APPROVE, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE TREE MOBILE PERMIT REQUEST. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

>> DID THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION OR WANT TO MAKE IN YOUR MAX? OKAY, ALL RIGHT, QUESTIONS? - - MAKE ANY REMARKS?

OKAY, ALL RIGHT, QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE BEEN EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT, I WAS EXCITED WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO US. I AM REALLY, I FEEL GOOD THAT THEY TOOK THE TIME, TOOK THE EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THE TREES, THERE ARE LARGE TREES ON THERE. I THINK THE TREES WILL BE A HUGE ASSET TO THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. THE TREES DEFINITELY VALUABLE BOTH TO THE CITY AND THE SITE. AGAIN, I THINK IT IS A WONDERFUL PROJECT.

I'M GLAD TO SEE WE ARE NOT TRYING TO SWAP DOLLARS FOR TREES, THAT WE ARE GETTING TREES SAVED SO I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS

ITEM. >> I WILL TAKE THE OTHER POSITION ON THAT. I VOTED NO ON THIS LAST YEAR. THE CONCERN OF THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE BEHIND. I WANT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH MY VOTE AND I WILL VOTE NO ON THIS. I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THIS.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION. I WILL MAKE COMMENTS BECAUSE I AM EXCITED.

LIKE MR. BRITTON I DID VOTE NO ORIGINALLY BUT IT IS A PROJECT I THINK HAS A TON OF POTENTIAL. I THINK THAT THEY HAVE DONE GOOD

[01:15:01]

WORK AND TRY TO MITIGATE THE CONCERNS. WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING WITH THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY DOING GOOD WORK AND MAINTAINING THE TREES. THAT IS SOMETHING WE OFTEN LOOK AT. YOU HAVE MANAGED TO MAINTAIN AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF TREES AND PROTECT THE TREES PARTICULARLY.

I THINK IT WILL BE NICE TO GO TO THIS SITE AND ALREADY HAVE NICE SHADE TREES IN EXISTENCE AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WATCHING TREES GROW FROM SMALL SAPLINGS UP TO PROVIDE SHADE. IT WILL ALREADY BE IN EXISTENCE AND I AM EXCITED. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? LET'S CALL A VOTE. THAT CARRIES BY A VOTE OF 6-1. NEXT ITEM.

[7F. Consider action to approve a resolution authorizing suspending the September 17, 2025 effective date of the proposal by CoServ Gas, Ltd. to implement interim grip rate adjustments for gas utility investment in 2024. ]

THANK YOU, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE WITH US. CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUSPENDING THE SEPTEMBER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PROPOSAL BY - - TO IMPLEMENT A GRIP RATE ADJUSTMENT FOR GAS UTILITY INVESTMENT IN 2024. I'VE ASKED OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TO PLEASE INTRODUCE THE ITEM.

>> THE MAYOR TOLD ME I DIDN'T HAVE TO GET UP. YOU DON'T HAVE

TO BUT SHE'S GOING TO ANYWAY. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M HERE BEFORE YOU TO PRESENT AN ITEM REGARDING THE SUSPENSION OF THE RATE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY - -. IT IS A COMPANY IN TOWN THAT PROVIDES GAS TO MANY OF OUR RESIDENTS. THEY HAVE SUBMITTED A PETITION TO THE CITY AS WELL AS THE RAILROAD COMMISSION TO INCREASE THEIR RATE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 17TH. THIS IS BASED ON A PRIOR YEAR REVIEW ENDING DECEMBER 2024 OF THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS THEY MADE INTO THE SYSTEM. THEY ARE CONTENDING THEY MADE $267 MILLION PLUS AND THEREFORE NEED TO RECOVER THAT MONEY FROM THE RATE PAYERS. THE CITY, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS UNDER SOMETHING THAT IS CALLED A GRIP. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTEST OR PROTEST THIS PARTICULAR RATE. WE DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUSPEND EFFECTIVE DATE BY 45 DAYS, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY LAW. THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE WHICH IS A LAW FIRM OUT OF AUSTIN TO REVIEW THE RATE FILING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS LEGAL AND THERE ARE NO TYPE OF LOOPHOLES WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE ABLE TO CONTEST THE ACTUAL RATE. THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION THAT IS BEFORE YOU IS REQUESTING THAT YOU ALLOW US TO SUSPEND THE RATE FOR 45 DAYS. THE RATE INCREASE WILL EQUATE TO ABOUT $3.33 PER MONTH TO THE RESIDENCE ROWLETT. IF WE ARE ABLE TO SUSPEND THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT IT UNTIL NOVEMBER. WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS. BECCA QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. I NOTICE IN OUR PACKET IT SAYS THERE IS NO FINANCIAL OR BUDGET IMPACT TO THE CITY, THESE ARE RATES PAID