[ 1.CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:11] GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 11, 2025, FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT. IT CAN BE CONVENED INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN. THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS OR CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. THE PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT. AND THIS HAS CHANGED FROM OUR PAST TIME LINES. IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU CAN COMPLETE THE CITIZENS INPUT FORM BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING AND ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FORMS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOORS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. IT IS [2.CITIZEN'S INPUT] 7:02. WE HAVE A QUORUM. I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, CITIZENS INPUT. AT THIS TIME, A THREE-MINUTE COMMENT WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN DURING CITIZENS INPUT. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO? DID YOU HAPPEN TO FILL OUT A FORM? >> YES. >> OKAY. >> WE HAVE IT. >> COULD YOU START OFF WITH YOUR NAME, YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE AND WE WILL START? >> 4800 EDGE WATER DRIVE. I AM HERE TONIGHT NOT BECAUSE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS BUT I SPOKE TO THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER AND HE SAID THAT IT MIGHT BE, IT'S A PLACE I COULD VOICE MY CONCERNS ABOUT ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED. I'M HERE FOR TWO THINGS. ONE IS THE MAIN STREET DEVELOPMENT OVER HERE ON MAIN STREET ACROSS FROM THE REC CENTER. I LIVE WITHIN 150 FEET OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. IN 2023, WE WERE NOTICED AND WE CAME TO THE MEETING HERE AND IT WAS REJECTED. A YEAR-AND-A-HALF LATER, I HEAR, HEAVY EQUIPMENT GOING OFF IN MY BACKYARD. WHAT IS GOING ON BACK THERE? THAT PROJECT WAS DENIED AND THERE HAS BEEN NO OTHER LETTER SENT OUT FOR CITIZENS INPUT. I FOUND OUT, THANK YOU SWEETIE. I FOUND OUT IT WAS APPROVED. WHERE WAS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT? I THOUGHT THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW. THAT ANYBODY THAT LIVES WITHIN 150 FEET OF A DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE NOTIFIED AND THEY GET TO COME HERE AND VOICE WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE. I CAME THE FIRST TIME. IT WAS DENIED. A YEAR-AND-A-HALF LATER THE MACHINES WERE GOING. NO OTHER NOTICES WERE SENT TO ME. THAT'S MY MAIN PROBLEM. YOU HAVE DEVELOPMENT GOING ON. YOU WILL BRING 64 TOWN HOMES IN MY BACKYARD. AND 250 MORE PEOPLE OMING DOWN TO GET ON MY DOCK. AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, I HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT GO DOWN TO THAT PARK. I OWN THE HOUSE ON THE END AND I HAVE MY DOCK THERE WITH MY VOTE. PEOPLE ALWAYS COME ONTO MY DOCK. GET ON MY BOAT. LEAVE GRAFFITI AND TRASH. NOW I HAVE ANOTHER 250 MORE PEOPLE TO WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE OF YOU GUYS. AND NO INPUT FROM THIS GUY. AND THEN I FIND OUT YOU ARE GOING TO PUT THE SWIMMING POOL OF ALL THE PLACES IN THAT WHOLE DEVELOPMENT, YOU ARE GOING TO PUT IT AS CLOSE TO MY PROPERTY AS YOU CAN GET IT. ALL I WILL HEAR ALL DAY EVERY DAY IS KIDS IN THE SWIMMING POOL. THERE GOES MY PEACE AND ENJOYMENT. I PAID A LOT OF MONEY FOR MY PROPERTY AND I PAY A LOT OF TAX MONEY EVERY YEAR. AND I DON'T APPRECIATE BRINGING IN 450 OR 250 NEW PEOPLE AND ME NOT EVEN HAVE A SAY ABOUT IT. I WOULD HAVE CAME AND I WOULD HAVE AT LEAST REQUESTED THAT THE SWIMMING POOL BE PUT AS FAR AWAY FROM OUR HOMES AS YOU CAN GET IT. NUMBER TWO, I COULD HAVE REQUESTED THAT THERE IS A BARRIER WALL. A BIG BARRIER WALL. A SOUND WALL. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT. I HAVE HAD QUIET AND PEACE IN MY PROPERTY FOR 18 YEARS. NOW I WAKE UP EVERY MORNING. >> YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP, SIR. BUT I THINK WE GOT YOUR POINT. [00:05:02] >> I HAVE ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY ON LIBERTY ROAD. YOU DENIED THAT PERMIT. >> SIR, YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP. THANK YOU. LILIANA, NEXT. >> TONY. >> THAT'S ME. >> THIS GUY HERE. NO, WE WANT YOU. IF YOU CAN PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME PLEASE. >> GO AHEAD. >> TURN YOUR MIC ON, 5610 GREENWAY DRIVE WHICH BACKS UP TO THE PARAGON PROJECT. SO I'M IN LOT THREE. MY NEIGHBOR AND I HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY IMPACTED BY WHAT THEY ARE DOING. FIRST LET ME SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE LIVING IN A CITY THAT TAKES CARE OF THEIR CITIZENS. AND THAT ENSURES ALL THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS DONE CORRECTLY. AND EVERYTHING LOOKS GOOD. AND IT IS WALKABLE. THAT'S IMPORTANT. I APPRECIATE IT. AND WHILE PARAGON WAS DOING THE DEVELOPMENT, THEY HAVE COMPLETED SO FAR, THEY HAD TO AFTER THEY HAD BUILT A WALL BETWEEN MY HOUSE AND THEIR PROPERTY, ON THE SIDE OF THE CREEK TOWARD THEIR PROPERTY, THEY HAD TO TEAR THAT WALL DOWN IN ORDER TO PUT IN ATTACHMENT TO THE SEWER SYSTEM. AND WHEN THEY DID THAT, THEY BULLDOZED DOWN SEVERAL TREES. THREE, FOUR, FIVE TREES. THEY COMPLETED THE SEWER ATTACHMENT. AND THEN THEY HAD TO REDO IT. THEY COMPLETED IT AGAIN. AND THEY REBUILT THE WALL. BUT THEY HAVEN'T PUT IN ANY REPLACEMENT TREES AND MY NEIGHBOR AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION WILL HOLD THEM TO THEIR PROMISE TO NOT REMOVE TREES IN THAT AREA. SO, IF THERE IS NO TREES FOR A WHILE, THAT'S OKAY. BUT EVENTUALLY, THEY NEED TO PUT IN TREES. AS TO THE THE CHANGES THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING, I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THAT. NEITHER DID MY NEIGHBOR. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANY OTHER PUBLIC INPUT? SEEING NONE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND [3. CONSENT AGENDA] CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT. NEXT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION. A ZONING COMMISSIONER MAY ASK THEY BE REMOVED. LY PULL ITEM 3B. FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO IT CONSISTS OF ONE ITEM. ACTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2025, REGULAR MEETING. AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION UNLESS THERE IS SOME CONVERSATION. >> SO MOVED. >> EXCUSE ME. OKAY. WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. TUCKER. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. AND I MESSED THAT UP MYSELF. I WAS GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM THAT BECAUSE I WAS NOT PRESENT FROM THAT. MS. WILSON? NEVER MIND. THAT PASSES 5-0. [3B.Consider approving the minutes] WITH TWO ABSTAINING. NEXT ITEM WOULD BE CONSIDER THE ACTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2025, REGULAR MEETING. AND THE REASON WHY I PULLED THOSE IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE PARAGRAPH 4 STRICKEN FROM, I BELIEVE PARAGRAPH 4 OF HANG ON. DO YOU HAVE IT AT THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD? THERE IT IS. STRIKE THE PARAGRAPH 4 WHICH READS COMMISSIONER POLLARD MADE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT. THAT IN FACT DID NOT HAPPEN. >> OKAY. >> SO THAT WHOLE PARAGRAPH CAN GO AWAY AND IT READS APPROPRIATELY FROM THERE ON. >> WE WILL CORRECT IT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> NO. >> SORRY, THAT ONE WENT TO ME. [00:10:01] JUST FOR REFERENCE FOR THE FUTURE, FOR UNDER THE ORDER IN THE HANDBOOK COMMISSION. EVEN IF Y'ALL WEREN'T PRESENT AT THE MEETING YOU STILL HAVE TO VOTE ON IT. YOU SHOULDN'T ABSTAIN FROM IT. JUST MOVING FORWARD. >> OKAY I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ONE. I'LL DO MY RESEARCH AND FIND OUT. OKAY. WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. >> MINE ON 3B IS ITEM NUMBER 4A ON PAGE 7 OR MAYBE IT IS PAGE 8. IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD AND I WILL GIVE YOU MY HANDWRITTEN THINGS, THAT COMMISSIONER POLLARD AFTER QUESTIONS STATED TO MR. LYLES IF HE TOOK THE HOUSES OUT OF ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, THEN HE COULD MOVE THE STREET OVER AND HE WOULD MEET THE RIGHT OF WAY STANDARDS. AND THE LOT DEPTHS. THEREFORE, IT WAS, HE WOULD NOT NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT. IT WAS NOT A HARDSHIP BUT A CHOICE. I WOULD LIKE THAT READ INTO THE RECORD. THAT IS THE REASON OKAY? ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THOSE MINUTES? SEEING NONE I WILL INTERRATION A MOTION. ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. HERNANDEZ. >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE CHANGES FROM CHAIRMAN COTE AND COMMISSIONER POLLARD. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, LET'S CALL THE [4A. Conduct a public hearing and consider approval of Development Application 25-000145 submitted by John Gardner, Kirkman Engineering, on behalf of property owner Parham Ghassemi, for an Alternative Landscape Plan (ALP) under Section 77-504(I) of the Rowlett Development Code to modify the primary and secondary entryway landscaping requirements. The subject property is located at 4401 Big A Road and is more specifically described as being 17.053 acres of land out of the J.M. Thomas Survey, Abstract No. 1478 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.] VOTE. AND THAT PASSES 7-0. MOVING ONTO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION. 4A. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AND WILL BE LIMITED THREE MINUTES. REGISTRATION FORMS INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY CHAMBERS. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 25-000145 SUBMITTED BY JOHN GARDNER. ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. FOR AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLAN UNDER SECTION 77-504 SUBPARAGRAPH I. TO MODIFY THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4401 BIG A ROAD AND IS MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING 17.053 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE JM THOMAS SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 1478 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. PLANNING MANAGER FOR THE RECORD. TODAY, WE WILL BE CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 25-000145 TO CONSIDER APPROVING AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN UNDER SECTION 77-504I OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE SECONDARY ENTRY WAY LANDSCAPING. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT AN ADDRESS AS 4401 BIG A ROAD. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ALLOW A REDUCTION ON THE SECONDARY FROM 6400 SQUARE FEET TO 8,884 SQUARE FEET AS A RESULT OF AN EXISTING WALL AND A REQUIRED SIX FOOT RETAINING WALL PER ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE TRACKS. THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS HAVE BEEN APPROVED CONDITIONALLY AND IT IS BACK IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO MAKE A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE LAND, FLOOD PLANE UNDER THE ROWLETT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP. THIS CATEGORY IS INTENDED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. AND THOSE MAY BE ATTACHED OR DETACHED BUT EACH UNIT SHALL BE LOCATED ON ITS OWN LOT. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE APPLICANT IS INTENDING TO DEVELOP HERE. AS IT PERTAIN TO [00:15:04] THE FLOODPLAIN LAND USE REFERS TO THE FEMA AND 1% FLOOD RISK ZONES TYPICALLY LOCATED ALONG CREEKS AND STREAMS. AND THERE IS A SMALL SLIVER LOCATED WITHIN THAT FLOODPLAIN AREA. THE APPLICANT HAS PRELIMINARILY COMPLETED ALL REQUIREMENTS WITH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THERE WERE NO CONCERNS WITH REGARDS TO THE FLOOD PLANE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM OUR DRC. THE SEWNS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SINGLE FAMILY NINE WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP THOSE LOTS IN ORDER, THOSE 35 LOTS. THIS DISTRICT, MINIMUM LOT OF 9,000 SQUARE FEET. SO, THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, PER OUR ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 6400 SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA FOR THE SECONDARY ENTRANCE. THE AREA IN QUESTION IS SITUATED ALONG THE SOUTHEAST PROPERTY LINE. THE PRELIMINARY AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS DESIGNATED A 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN THAT AREA ALONG BIG A ROAD. HOWEVER, AN EXISTING MASONRY WALL CIRCLED IN RED, LOCATEED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FULLY SCREENS THE BUFFER FROM PUBLIC VIEW. AND ESSENTIALLY REDUCES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PLANTS FOR THAT SECONDARY ENTRANCE. ALL, DURING THE CIVIL ENGINEERING REVIEW PHASE, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A SIX FOOT RETAINING WALL. AND SO, PROVIDING BOTH OF THOSE, THE EXISTING MASON WALL, AND THE RETAINING WALL IT WILL FULLY SCREEN THE BUFFER FROM PUBLIC VIEW. AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO ACCESS AND MAINTAIN THE AREA. HERE WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THE EXISTING WALL WALL. THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP CURRENTLY. SO IN CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN, THE CODE STATES THAT THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED PERIMETER BUFFER. FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, THEY CAN KYIV DEVIATE. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DEVIATION FROM THE ENTRY WAY AREA. SO, SECTION 77-504I4 OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE STIPULATES AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOULD ONLY BE PROVIDED AND APPROVED BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA. THERE ARE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY, SITE DESIGN OR USE THAT WARRANT SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO MODIFY OR DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECTION AND THEY ARE NOT SELF-CREATED. 2, APPROVAL OF THE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN WILL PROVIDE FOR INCREASED CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT PROJECTS. FOUR, IT CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION AND NO MODIFICATIONS ARE REQUESTED EXCEPT THOSE EXPLICITLY PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION 77-504I2B. AND SO, IN STAFF'S ASSESSMENT OF THIS CRITERIA, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD MAKE MAINTAINING THE LANDSCAPE AREA FOR THE SECONDARY ENTRY WAY DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN AND ACCESS. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE SIX FOOT RETAINING WALL AND THE EXISTING WALL PUT THERE BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TARGET. THEY PROVIDE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS FOR THEIR PROPERTY AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT AND COULD WARRANT MODIFICATION OR DEVIATION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE 6400 SQUARE FEET. SO AS OF TODAY AT 3:00, STAFF HAS RECEIVED RESPONSES, ZERO NOTICES IN OPPOSITION, ZERO NEUTRAL. ZERO WERE RECEIVED IN FAVOR WITHIN 200 FEET BUFFER AREA. WITHIN THE 500 FEET COURTESY NOTIFICATION AREA, WE RECEIVED ZERO NOTIFICATIONS IN OPPOSITION. ZERO IN NEUTRAL TO THE PROJECT. [00:20:01] ZERO NOTICES RECEIVED IN FAVOR. AND WITH THAT, THE GOVERNING BODY MAY TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION. APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY. >> THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. POLLARD? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN THE ORIGINAL FILING OF THIS, THEY FILED AND THE PNZ PASSED THE SECONDARY ENTRANCE LANDSCAPING. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND, WHAT IS IT THAT HAS CHANGED THAT CHANGES Y'ALL'S MIND THAT HE CAN'T PUT IN WHAT HE SAID HE COULD? >> THE BIG UPDATE IS PRIMARILY ÚTHE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIX FOT RETAINING WALL WHICH CAME ABOUT AS A PART OF THE CIVIL REVIEW. I'LL LET THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A MORE HISTORICAL OVERSIGHT INTO HOW THAT NEW REQUIREMENT WAS DISCOVERED. SOMETIMES THAT WILL OCCURMENT WHEN THEY MAKE IT TO CIVIL ENGINEERING SOMETHING UNFORESEEN POPS UP. THAT'S THE CASE WITH THIS PROJECT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THE THE APPLICANT HERE? THEY WANT TO PROVIDE A PRESENTATION OR JUST WANT TO HANG OUT? >> GOOD EVENING. I'M CHRISTOPHER ORR. I LIVE HERE AND ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER I HAVE MANAGED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS WILL BE MY FOURTH ONE HERE. YOUR RULES REQUIRE THAT YOU CREATE A SITE PLAN AND A LANDSCAPE PLAN BEFORE ANY ENGINEERING IS DONE. WHEN YOU ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE ENGINEERING YEARING PROCESS, IT OFTEN HAPPENS A RETAINING WALL IS REQUIRED FOR GRADE. A SEWER LINE NEED TO BE REMOVED. YOU CAN SEE, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE CAN SEE IT. THAT RETAINING WALL IS SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD. NOBODY WILL SEE IT. IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO GET BACK THERE. AND I THINK IT JUST GOT MISSED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS THAT THIS IS TARGET'S WALL AND THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE IT DOWN. >> IS THAT IT? >> THAT'S IT. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NOT SURPRISING, MR. POLLARD. >> OKAY, SO IS THAT RETAINING WALL A PART OF THE CEMETERY WALL? >> NO. IT IS ON THAT PARTICULAR LOT, THAT HOMEOWNER WILL. >> IT IS TARGET ITSELF. >> THE RETAINING WALL IS THE LOWER PORTION. THE RED AND MASON THEIR WALL, THAT IS TARGET. >> THAT IS TARGET'S WALL. >> GO BACK ANOTHER PICTURE. >> OKAY, SO THEY HAD TO PUT, OKAY. THEY HAD TO PULL THE WALL IN, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO, YOU WANT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PLANNINGS AN EVERYTHING THAT GOES IN THERE FOR MAINTENANCE, IS THAT GOING TO BE THE ONLY FIX YOU'VE GOT? >> YOU PHYSICALLY CAN'T GET ANYBODY IN THERE. NOBODY WOULD SEE IT IF YOU PUT TREES AND SHRUBS IN THAT GAP BETWEEN THE RETAINING WALL AND THE MASON WALL. IT IS PART OF YOUR ENTRY REQUIREMENT. IF THE OWNER PLANTED THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE, IT IS STILL NOT IN THE ENTRY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU. >> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IN THE POSITIVE. OH, NO I WON'T. FIRST THING I WILL DO IS OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? SEEING NONE,LY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND NOW I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. WHITE? >> I MAKE A MOVE. >> PUSH YOUR RTS REAL QUICK. [00:25:05] THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. >> I WILL MAKE A MOVE WE APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. WILSON SECONDS THE MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. POLLARD? >> WHAT WE WERE HANDED OUT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. IS THAT WHAT NEEDS TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD? >> YES. >> I WILL DEFER TO MR. WHITE. >> ALL RIGHT. >> WHAT DID YOU GET HANDED OUT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY? MR. WHITE? >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADAPT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS THAT THERE ARE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY SITE DESIGN AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS TO MODIFY OR DEVIATE FROM THESE REQUIREMENTS OF 770-4 AND THE CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT SELF-CREATED. TO THE ALP MEETS THE MEDIUM REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION WHILE REQUIRING THE USUAL SITE DESIGNS ARE USED RESTRAINTS ON THE PROPERTY 3. APPROVAL OF THE ALP WILL PROVIDE FOR BOTH INCREASE CONSISTENTLY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJUSTMENTS PROJECTED LOCATION, LOCATED IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. AND FOUR, THE ALP CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 77-504I AND NO MODIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED EXCEPT THOSE SPECIFIED AND PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION 77-504I2B AND ON THAT BASIS, GRANTS THE ALP. >> VERY GOOD. DO YOU STILL SECOND THAT MOTION? SORRY. MS. WILSON? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. POLLARD. >> FIRST QUESTION TO CITY ATTORNEY. SUPPOSE THAT YOU THINK THE APPLICANT HAS MET EVERYTHING BUT ONE POINT THAT YOU HAD IN THE MOTION THAT YOU HAD WRITTEN OUT IN THE MOTION AND THAT IS NOT SELF-INFLICTED. WHAT CAN YOU STILL APPROVE THIS? >> NO. UNDER ALL FOUR OF THOSE HAVE TO BE MET UNDER OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER FOR THE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO BE GRANTED. >> OKAY. SO MY COMMENT IS AS MUCH AS I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT WOUND UP, I THINK IT IS SELF-CREATED BECAUSE THE WALL EXISTED AT TARGET BEFORE THEY GOT OUT THERE AND BEFORE THEY PUT THE RETAINING WALL. THEN THEY PUT IN A RETAINING WALL AND BETWEEN THE TWO, IT CAUSED THE PROBLEM. I THINK THE RETAINING WALL WAS PUT IN BECAUSE OF THE CONTOUR OF THE LAND AND THAT, I MEAN, THAT IS NOT SELF-INFLICTED. HE IS JUST TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE LAY OF THE LAND. >> THE ENGINEERING YEARING AT THE LOCATION. COULD THEY HAVE SOME KIND OF DRAINAGE AND THEY PUT SEWERS IN. SO THE EVOLUTION OF THE PROJECT CHANGED. >> I DON'T DISAGREE. >> MR. POLLARD, YOUR RTS. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. BUT ONCE AGAIN, THE ONE WALL WAS UP, WHEN HE CHANGED THE CONTOUR, HE KNEW WHAT HE NEEDED TO DO AND WHAT HE DID CREATED THE PROBLEM. MAYBE THAT IS ONE OF JUST HOW YOU LOOK AT IT I THINK HE OUGHT TO GET THE REQUEST HE IS DOING BUT I THINK IT IS SELF-CREATED [00:30:10] UNFORTUNATELY. >> MR. HERNANDEZ? >> I NEED SOME HELP WITH SOME CLARITY ON THIS. THE ISSUE HERE IS THE SECONDARY ENTRY, CORRECT? >> YES. >> THAT WALL IS NOT, UNLESS I'M NOT READING THE MAP CORRECTLY OR GOOGLE MAPS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT WALL, THERE IS NO PROPERTY OWNER BEHIND THAT WALL. >> THAT WALL IS PART OF TARGET. >> RIGHT. >> SO, THE APPLICANT OWNS THE PROPERTY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THAT WALL. >> UH-HUH. >> JUST A COUPLE OF FEET FROM THAT, HE HAD TO PUT IN A RETAINING WALL BECAUSE OF THE CIVIL ENGINEERING YEARING PLANS REQUIRED THE CUT IN THAT AREA. >> OKAY. SO, THE. >> AND THE DOTTED LINE ON YOUR PRESENTATION YOU ARE LOOKING AT, IS THAT RETAINING WALL THAT HAD TO BE ADDED. >> OKAY, SO, THE RETAINING WALL IS ALONG WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO PUT IN A HOME I'M ASSUMING. >> RIGHT. >> AND, THE MASON THEIR WALL IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THAT. >> YEAH. >> OKAY. >> SO THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE RETAINING WALL HAS TO BE REDUCED? >> THE SECONDARY HAD TO BE REDUCED BECAUSE THAT RETAINING WALL TOOK IT OUT OF THERE. >> IT WILL BE DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO PROPER MAINTENANCE FOR THAT LANDSCAPING? >> THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS. >> BUT JUST ON THAT SIDE WHICH I GUESS IS THE EAST SIDE OF THE SECONDARY ENTRY. AND THAT'S ALL THEY ARE ASKING TO REDUCE? OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE. THIS IS TO APPROVE MISS WILSON? AND THAT PASSES 7-0. BREATHTAKING . OKAY. WE WILL THROW IN A LITTLE MORE ITEM. ITEM 4B HAS BEEN PULLED BY [4C.Conduct a public hearing and consider approval of Zoning Application 25-000172 on a request by property owner Matthew Henson, for Major Warrants in accordance with Section 1.5.3 of the Rowlett Form Based Code to 1) increase the height of the side yard fence along Eldon Mews, Cathy Court, and Royal Star Road from 4 feet to 6 feet and 2) to replace the wrought iron railing with wood, on a property zoned Form-Based New Neighborhood (FB-NN) District. The site is approximately 0.128 acres, located in the Merritt Village Subdivision, addressed as 8613 Royal Star Road also described as Lot 46, Block C of Merritt Village, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.] THE APPLICANT. SO MOVING TO 4C. CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF ZONING APPLICATION 25-000172 ON A REQUEST BY PROPERTY OWNER MATTHEW HENSON FOR MAJOR WARRANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 153 OF. INCREASE THE SIDE YARD FENCE ALONG ELDON MEWS, KATHY COURT. AND ROYAL STAR ROAD FROM FOUR FEET TO SIX FEET AND TWO. TO REPLACE THE WROUGHT IRON RAILING. IT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF CASTLE DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1860 FEET SOUTHWEST OF MERIT ROAD. ADDRESSED AS 8613 ROYAL STAR ROAD. ALSO DESCRIBED AS LOT 46 BLOCK C C. >> GOOD EVENING ONCE AGAIN. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVING MAJOR WARRANTS TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THIS SIDE YARD FENCE AND TO REPLACE IT WITH WROUGHT IRON RAILINGS WITH WOOD SO THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8613 ROYAL STAR ROAD. THE APPLICANT INTEND TO REPLACE THE INTERESTING 42-INCH METAL FENCE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A CORNER LOT LOCATED WITHIN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. IT DOES FRONT AND LANDSCAPE OBSERVE SPACE TO THE EAST. A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO THE SOUTH ALONG KATHY COURT. AN [00:35:12] ALLEY WEST, ELDE N MEWS. REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TOO FOOT OF LOT WIDTH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION AND APPROXIMATELY .12 L .1228 ACRES. ALL LOCATED WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE LOT BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND CASTLE DRIVE. AND SO THAT IS CURRENTLY WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS BUT THEY ARE ASKING TO DEVIATE FROM THAT AND GO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER AND REPLACE THE METAL FENCE WITH WOOD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AS I MENTIONED IT IS A PART OF AN ALREADY DEVELOPED SUBDIVISION WHICH CONSISTS OF 123 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. AND SO, THE WARRANT TODAY, THE WARRANT, EXCUSE ME, THE REQUIREMENTS IN ARTICLE 2.8.4, SET OUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES ALONGSIDE STREETS. AND THE LOT MATERIALS WOULD BE NO CLOSER THAN THE RED CORNER OF THE HOME AND BE CONSTRUCTED OF METAL PICKET. THE FRONT YARD PICKET FENCES WILL BE STAINED. THIS IS A SIDE STREET. AS IT PERTAINS TO THE HEIGHT. THE APPLICANT HAS A MIX MUM OF 42 INCHES. WITH POSTS UP TO 48 INCHES. THEY ARE ASKING TO EXCEED THAT AND GO TO SIX FEET. AND SO, ALONG ROYAL STAR ROAD, THE AREA HIGHLIGHTED IN RED ON YOUR SCREEN IS WHERE THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO PROVIDE THE PROPOSED SIX FOOT BOARD ON BOARD CEDAR FENCE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING FENCE. ARTICLE 1.5.3 OF THE FARM BASE CODE LAYS OUT CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPROVAL. IT STATES THAT THE REQUESTED PARENT MUST MEET THE GENERAL INTENT AND THE FORM BASED CODE IN SECTION 1.2.1 AND THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRIBUTE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 2.3.1. THE REQUESTED WARRANTS WILL RESULT IN AN APPROVED PROJECT. THEY WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE REALIZATION OF THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE FORM BASED URBAN NEW NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. THAT SHOULD BE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. NOT URBAN. THAT'S A TYPO. AS OF TODAY, WE RECEIVED A FEW NOTICES IN RESPONSE TO WITHIN A 200 FEET BUFFER. ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, ZERO IN NEUTRAL. WITHIN A 500-FOOT BUFFER, WE RECEIVED ONE IN OPPOSITION, AND FOUR IN FAVOR. AND WITH THAT THE GOVERNING BODY MAY APPROVAL, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE WARRANT REQUEST. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? MS. WILLIAMS? >> NO. >> OR WAS THAT JUST. PUT YOUR KEYBOARD AWAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD HE LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? OR SAY SOMETHING? >> HE HAS PREPARED A PRESENTATION. >> GOOD EVENING. >> SIR, IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE. >> YOU CAN SEE MY HOME THERE MERIT VILLAGE. AS DESCRIBED EARLIER, WE HAVE THE 42-INCH ORNAMENTAL WROUGHT IRON FENCING AND I'M PROPOSING A WARRANT REQUEST APPROVAL, REQUESTING APPROVAL TO INCREASE THAT TO A SIX FOOT BOARD ON BOARD CEDAR FENCE AS SHOWN IN THAT RENDERING THERE. THIS PRESENTATION IS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA AND SOME BACKGROUND ON WHAT I'M PROPOSING TO BUILD AND JUSTIFY WHY I BELIEVE THIS WARRANT SHOULD BE APPROVED. SO, IS THIS THE CLICKER? SO, THE WARRANT [00:40:04] REQUEST IS ON A COUPLE OF MAIN POINTS. IT IS ON SECURITY AND PRIVACY. SO IN MY PROPERTY, THE EXISTING FENCE IS 42 INCHES HIGH. SOMEONE CAN EASILY SEE MY BACKYARD, ACCESS MY BELONGINGS. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO PROVIDE SAFETY TO MY FAMILY THAT I BELIEVE A SECURITY FENCE SIX FOOT WOULD PROVIDE. AND IN ALSO, ON THE PRIVACY BASIS, MY HOME HAS THREE WINDOWS AND A BACK DOOR WITH A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT INTO MY HOUSE. YOU CAN SEE TRAIGHT INTO THE KITCHEN. LIVING ROOM AND THE OFFICE. SO, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO MAINTAIN PRIVACY WITHOUT MINDS OR CURTAINS AT ALL TIMES. THIS SHOULD BE APPROVALLED ON PRECEDENT. A WARRANT REQUEST WAS HEARD FOR AN IDENTICAL SCENARIO. THIS HOME IS ON A CORNER LOT. AND, IT GAINED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FOR A PERMIT AND WARRANT REQUEST. WHAT I PROPOSE IS IDENTICAL TO THAT TODAY. AND HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE HOME THAT GAINED APPROVAL. YOU CAN SEE THIS IS ON EDNA AND BOB CORNER LOT. IDENTICAL SITUATION. IT BORDERS A MAIN ROAD RIGHT THERE. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE HOMEOWNER CONSTRUCTED AN EIGHT FOOT BOARD ON BOARD FENCE TO THE SAME SPECS I'M PROPOSING TODAY. THERE ARE SOME DETAILS ON THE SLIDES IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THE HISTORY ON THIS. SO WITH THAT SAID, I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT WARRANT. ON THE BASIS OF PRIVACY, SECURITY, AND PRECEDENT. AND I WILL NOTE OUR HOA HAS ENDORSED THIS IN THE PAST. THEY WROTE A LETTER RECOMMENDING AND IN FAVOR OF THE OWNER OF 3108 BUILDING THAT PRIVACY FENCE. THE CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE COMMUNITY OR MY PROPERTY. IT WON'T IMPEDE ANY PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC OR LINE OF SIGHT ISSUES FOR CARS DRIVING BY. SO, WITH THAT, I WILL JUST SHOW YOU A COUPLE MORE DETAILS OF WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE. SO THERE'S THE FENCE AGAIN. THE BOARD ON BOARD CEDAR. SIX FOOT CALL. TO MEET THE MAJOR REQUIREMENTS I WILL MAINTAIN THE TEN FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE TO ENSURE THERE ARE NO SAFETY IMPLICATIONS FOR CARS DRIVING BY. AND THE OTHER CHANGE, OTHER THAN REPLACING THE EXISTING FENCE WITH THE CEDAR IS EXTENDING THAT FENCE LINE FORWARD TOWARD THE FORWARD FACE OF THE HOUSE BY 20 FEET. AND, YOU WILL SEE THAT IS STILL QUITE A BIT BACK FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOME PROVIDING NO VISIBILITY ISSUES AT THE INTERSECTION OF KATHY COURT AND ROYALSTAR. AND THEN, HERE IS THE PLAN Y'ALL SAW EARLIER. I HAVE SOME CONSTRUCTION DETAILS HERE. THE RED LINE IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOARD ON BOARD CEDAR FENCE. IT WOULD BE OF THE SAME EXACT STYLE, DIMENSION AND HEIGHT. YOU CAN SEE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE TO MAINTAIN VISIBILITY OF THE ALLEY WAY AND ROYAL STAR ROAD INTERSECTION AND YOU CAN SEE THE FENCE LINE EXTENDING FORWARD. 240 INCHES OR 20 FEET BACK FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOME. WELL BEYOND THE VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU TODAY. ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. POLLARD? >> YOU ARE THE ORIGINAL HOMEOWNER? >> YES, SIR. >> HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED THERE? >> THREE YEARS. >> OKAY. AND JUST KIND OF CURIOUS. WHY DOES SOMEBODY BUY THE HOUSE THAT HAS THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE KNOWING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE SECURITY? >> I COULD SUM IT UP TO LIFE CHANGES. AT THE TIME, MY WIFE AND I WERE MARRIED, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE KIDS YET. AND SECURITY HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME. >> MS. WILSON? >> I HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION. BUT [00:45:01] I WANTED TO BRING UP A POINT. BECAUSE I OWN A HOUSE WITH A WROUGHT IRON FENCE. WE CHOSE THAT HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE AESTHETICS AND I'M PRETTY SURE THE DEVELOPER WHEN THEY BUILT YOUR HOME, AND HOW COULD I SAY AN ADDITIONAL RESIDENCE COMING IN THAT SAME AREA WHEN YOU DESIGN A NEIGHBORHOOD ON A CORNER LOT. IT IS PROBABLY TO APPEASE OR MAKE THE DESIGN, YOU KNOW, I GUESS APPEASE TO THAT AREA BUT I DO RESPECT THE FACT YOU MENTION YOUR CHILDREN, THEIR SAFETY. BUT, WHEN YOU PURCHASE THAT HOME, YOU KNEW YOU HAD THAT OPEN SPACE. THE WROUGHT IRON FENCING. AND SO, THAT IS WHY I PROBABLY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. BUT I STILL BRING UP THE ISSUE ONCE WE DO THIS AND IF WE DECIDE TO SAY WE WILL VOTE FOR YOU. IT CHANGES THE DYNAMIC AESTHETICALLY TO THE ENTIRE AREA IF SOMEONE ELSE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS THAT SAME ISSUE. AND SO, IT IS LIKE WHY DESIGN IT LIKE THAT AND I WANTED TO, AND I GUESS I COULD ASK THAT LATER OF STAFF. HAVE THEY CONSIDERED IF SOMEBODY IS TURNING FROM YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE STREET, IS THE VISIBILITY CLEAR WHEN SOMEBODY IS APPROACHING THAT CORNER? >> HE HAS MET THE VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. >> OKAY. >> IF YOU NOTICE HE HAD THAT CORNER CHOPPED OFF COMING OUT OF THE ALLEY FOR TEN FEET VISIBILITY. AND SETTING IT BACK FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE FOR THE INTERSECTION. >> SO THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CLEARLY SEE IF SOMEBODY IS TURNING. THAT IS AN ISSUE, TOO. OKAY, WELL THANKS. APPRECIATE THAT. >> I UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS. AND ONE THING I WILL ADD IS IT IS ONLY THE CORNER LOTS. ALL THE OTHER HOMES HAVE THAT LEVEL OF SECURITY I'M SEEKING. AND I THINK THAT THE COMMUNITY IS GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF THIS IN TERMS OF THE HOA. AND YOU CAN SEE MY NEIGHBORS SUPPORTING ME. IF YOU SAW MY SITUATION, YOU WOULD SEE LINE OF SIGHT TO THE POND AND THE NICE PARTS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT THERE. >> OKAY. THANKS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO AT THIS TIME,LY GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SEEING NO INPUT,LY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF. YOU SAID THERE WAS ONE NEGATIVE RESPONSE. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE REASON ON THAT WAS? >> VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND ENTERING AND EXITING THE ALLEYWAY. THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT IF THERE WAS ADEQUATE SPACE FOR PEOPLE LEAVING THE ALLEYWAY. >> THAT WAS ADDRESSED. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. DO WE HAVE ANY SPECIAL WORDING ON THIS WE NEED? MR. HERNANDEZ? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVAL THE WARRANT AS DESCRIBED IN THE AGENDA. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. HERNANDEZ. SECONDED BY MS. WILSON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE WE WILL CALL THE VOTE. AND THAT PA * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.