[1. CALL TO ORDER ] [00:00:24] THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, IT MAY BE PUT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE BY THE CITYCITY ATTORNEY ANY ITEM. AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REALIGN THE REGULAR SEASON OR CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS. PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT, IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, THIS IS A CITIZENS INPUT FORM ON THE CITY WEBSITE, 3:30 P.M. THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING. ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE START. FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. WE HAVE A QUORUM, [4A. Conduct the Oath of Office and the Statement of Elected/Appointed Officers to the newly and reappointed Commissioners ] I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. THEN EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO REARRANGE THE MEETING. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO 4A, CONDUCT THE OATH OF OFFICE AND STATEMENT OF ELECTED/APPOINTED OFFICERS TO THE NEWLY AND REAPPOINTED COMMISSIONERS. >> HELLO. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, WELCOME NEW COMMISSIONERS TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. TODAY WE WILL CONDUCT THE OATH OF OFFICE. IN FRONT OF YOU ON THE PODIUM, GRAB A COPY OF YOUR CERTIFICATE. AFTER I READ THE FIRST SECTION, STO STOPPING AT OFFICE, YOU READ ALOUD THE PARAGRAPH THAT FOLLOWS IN UNISON, OKAY? ALL RIGHT. IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, OATH OF OFFICE, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY AYE. GO AHEAD. SAY YOUR NAME. DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR. >> SERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THIS STATE SO HELP ME GOD. >> THANK YOU. CONCLUSON OF THE MEETING, SEE OUR NOTARY TO GET THE CERTIFICATE SIGNED. CONGRATULATIONS. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITHWITH YOU ALL YEAR. >> QUICK QUESTION, DO WE HAVE ANOTHER FOR MR. DAMERON? HE'S SITTING RIGHT THERE. I'M SORRY. LESLIE, DID YOU GET ONE? OKAY, YOU'VE HEARD THE PRACTICE ONE, YOU CAN GO AHEAD. RIGHT HERE IN THE FRONT ROW, I MADE THEM MOVE TO THE FRONT. YOU WANT TO DO IT AGAIN FOR THOSE TWO? WE CAN DO IT NOW, WE WANT TO HEAR THEM. AND LESLIE. YEAH. >> MIC ON? PERFECT. IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS OATH OF OFFICE, I -- >> I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR AND AFFIRM TO EXECUTE THE DUTIES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND STATE OF TEXAS, TO THE BEST OF MYMY PRESERVE THE -- CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE. >> THANK YOU. >> THEN DID YOU WANT TO LET THEM KNOW ABOUT THE 31ST? >>÷÷ YES. I WANTED TO NOTIFY YOU ALL, AND YOU ALL WILL BE RECEIVING EMAIL FROM US SHORTLY. JANUARY 31ST WILL BE A TRAINING CONDUCTED BY OUR CITY SECRETARY OFFICE FOR ALL NEW MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT. EXPECT TO HAVE THAT EMAIL FROM US SOMETIME THIS WEEK AND WE'LL PROVIDE MORE DETAILS TOTO [4B. Election of a Chair for a one-year term ] THEN. >> THANK YOU, SIR. [00:05:01] MOVING ON TO ITEM 4B, ELECTION OF A CHAIR CHAIR FOR A ONE- YEAR TERM. I OPEN THE FLOOR FOR NOMINATIONS. MR. HERNANDEZ. >> I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE MR. JOHN COTE FOR CHAIR. >> SECOND. >> WE JUST NEED TO NOMINATE NOMINATE÷÷ NOW. MR. POLLARD. >> I MOVE THATTHAT CEASE CONSIDERING I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE. >> MS. WILLIAMS? OKAY. WELL, SEEING NO OTHER -- >> >> IT'S JUST A NOMINATION. >> MR. POLLARD MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE NOMINATIONS, AND MS. WILLIAMS MADE THE SECOND. >> OKAY. I'M SORRY. I MISSED THAT. >> NOBODY ELSE IS TALKING, SO -- >> IN THAT CASE, MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO CLOSE THE NOMINATIONSNOMINATIONS CHAIRMAN OF OF AND ZONING, ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. >> AYE. >> OKAY. NOW I'D LIKE TO VOTE ON THE NOMINATION FOR CHAIRMAN. SO WE HAVE SINGLE NOMINATION FOR THE CHAIR FORFOR COTE. ALL IN -- LET'S SEE, ELECTION. DO WE DO THAT ON MONITOR OR SHOWSHOW HANDS? MONITOR. OKAY. >> WHOEVER MOTIONED FIRST, IF THEY CAN ADD ITIT THE RECORD BY CLICKING -- AS YOU WOULD FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. >> YEAH, WE ALREADY HAD THAT. MR. HERNANDEZ MAKE THE MOTION. IT'S NOT LETTING HIM. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SEAT GOES VACANT. >> IT'S OKAY. CAN YOU TRY IT NOW? WE CAN JUST DO IT BY HAND. >> THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR OF ELECTING MR. COTE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING RAISE [4C. Election of a Vice-Chair for a one-year term ] YOUR HAND? ANY OPPOSED? THAT PASSES. MOVING ON TO ITEM 4C. ELECTION OF VICE- CHAIR FOR ONE YEAR TERM. OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR NOMINATIONS. MR. HERNANDEZ. >> I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE MS. TAMRA WILLIAMS AS VICE-CHAIR. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS? SO WE HAVE A MOTION THEN? LET'S MAKE A MOTION, MR. JOBE. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO ELECT TAMRA WILLIAMS AS VICE CHAIR. >> SECOND THE MOTION. >> I SECOND IT. >> THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, CALL THAT VOTE. THAT PASSES 7- 0. WHEW, NOW WE CAN GET BACK TO REGULAR BUSINESS AND MIGHT [2. CITIZENS’ INPUT ] DO THIS A LITTLE BETTER. ITEM TWO, CITIZENS' INPUT. THREE-MINUTE COMMENT FROM ANY AUDIENCE ON -- ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY COMMISSIONERS DURING INPUT. DO WE HAVE INPUT? >> WE HAVE TWO, DENISE ALOCHE. OKAY. >> ABSENT. >> MA'AM, STATE YOUR NAME, CITY OF RESIDENCE, THEN YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. NOT A PROBLEM. WE WON'T START THETHE CLOCK YOU SAY CITY OF RESIDENCE. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS [00:10:06] DENISE, ROWLETT, TEXAS. THE SHED AT 6602 DRIVE IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FIVE-FOOT STEP BACK AND IT HAS ZERO, NO BIDDERS HAVE BEEN PLACED IN FIVE YEARS AND THE CITY IS AWARE OF IT. WE'RE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE SHED CAUSING FOUNDATION PROBLEMS, CRACKING THE BRICKS ON OUR HOME, BIG GAP IN THE WINDOW FRAMING FROM THE DOWNPOUR. THE NEIGHBOR BUILT IT 2004, 2005, WITHOUT A PERMIT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS REQUIRED AT THE TIME TO HAVE A PERMIT. THEN IT WAS EXTENDED AND AND WITH NO PERMIT IN 2015-2016. THE WHOLE STRUCTURE, THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION, AND MOST CITIES HAVE STRICT RULES ABOUT THESE MATERIALS, NOT ALLOWED. ALSO THE RULE WAS MADE OF -- METAL SHEETS, NOT ALLOWED TO BE USED. THE SHED ATTACHED TO THEIR HOME IS AN ADDITION TO THEIR HOUSE. I WONDER IF THE MATERIALS AS STATED BY THE OWNEROWNER SUGGEST MATERIALS THAT ARE EVEN SAFE. THE MATERIALS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE MATCHING. THE HOUSE, WHICH IS BRICKS AND SHINGLES. IS THE FOUNDATION DESIGNED TO HOLD THE WEIGHT OF THIS STRUCTURE? AND FOR THE USE OF THE SHED? HAS PLUMBING AND ELECTRIC BEEN APPROVED AND PERMITTED? ALSO, THIS SHED HAS BEEN DENIED TWICE, THIRD TIME IN A CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6602 WARWICK DRIVE AND THREE COUNCILMEN APPROVED WITH ALL THE ISSUES WITHOUT CONSIDERING US AND THE DAMAGE THE CITY HAS ALLOWED TO OUR PROPERTY AND OUR FENCE. SINCE WHEN DOES THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE A DEGREE IN ENGINEERING AND ZONING TO GO TO THIS DEGREE TO APPROVE THIS SHED. IF THIS IS THE CASE, I DON'T SEE ANY USE FOR THE ZONING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS HAS GONE ON WAY TOO LONG AND IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. ALSO, IN THE PERMIT AND DRAWING HE SAID HE DIDN'T WANT TO BUILD A SHED IN THE BACKYARD WHICH WOULD OBSTRUCT OUR VIEW, THOUGHTFUL OF HIM. NOW WE HAVE PICTURES OF PIGS, ONE SHOWING A FACE, ONE AT THE BACK, SAYING DON'T FORGET TOTO WIPE. LET ME SHOW YOU THIS PICTURE WE HAVE TO SEE EVERY DAY. DO YOU GUYS THINK THAT'S A HATE CRIME? I DO. 6620 WARWICK DRIVE HAS -- >> RESET THE CLOCK, PLEASE. >> CAN YOU RESTART MY TIME? >> THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. >> THANK YOU. 6602 WARWICK DRIVE HAS AT LEAST FOUR VIOLATIONS BROUGHT TO THE CITY'S ATTENTION STILL EXISTING TODAY. WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO RESEND THE PICTURES, EVEN THOUGH THE CITY HAS HAD THEM OVER FOUR YEARS. ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER IS HOW IS THE SHED GOING TO BE MAINTAINED. A BEDROOM WINDOW HAS BEEN COVERED, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IF F-4 TORNADO NEVER CROSSED HIS LOCATION, STATED IN THE APPLICATION. SO HOW IS THE WIND LOAD MEASURED? WE WANT ALL THE TESTING RESULTS EMAILED TO US. OUR HOUSE IS BEING DESTROYED. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED. PEOPLE NEED TO HAVE ENGINEERING, SOME KIND OF CONSTRUCTION, SOME KNOWLEDGE. CAN'T JUST SAY THIS IS PERMISSIBLE WHEN TEXAS WATER CODE SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE WATER THAT SHEDS ONTO THE PROPERTY. IF THE CITY OF ROWLETT FOLLOWS THE RULES OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, HOW IS THIS PERMISSIBLE? THERE'S BEEN NOTHING TO DIVERT THIS WATER FOR FIVE YEARS. OUR NEIGHBOR HAS HAD A BRICK ON TOP OF HIS ACCESSORY BUILDING FOR SIX MONTHS, TAKEN DOWN IN [00:15:02] 2025. THAT TELLS ME SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE STRUCTURE. IF YOU PUT A MAKESHIFT MATERIAL LIKE A WOOD FENCING PANEL ON TOP TO ON THE WATER AND IT FALLS OFF AND HITS OUR PROPERTY, THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE. AND WE HAVE BEEN GOING AROUND AND ROUND AND ROUND FOR FIVE YEARS AND NOTHING IS EVER ADDRESSED. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO WHENWHEN RULES KEEP CHANGING. AND THE COUNCILMAN SAID, HE SAID THAT THIS VARIANCE WAS DENIED TWICE. THE CITY ORDERED IT TO BE TAKEN DOWN TWICE. NOTHING WAS DONE. SO WHAT DID THE CITY DECIDE TO DO? THEY DECIDED TO CHANGE AN ORDINANCE TO GET AROUND IT DUE TO ONE PERSON. THESE PROBLEMS ARE NOT JUST MINE, EVERYONE ELSE CAN HAVE A SHED BUILT RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SETBACKS ARE THERE FOR A REASON TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR HOME. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT ANYMORE. WE CAN'T PUT A LAWN MOWER THROUGH THE SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY. WE HAVE WATER THAT POOLS UNDER OUR AC UNIT. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. FOR A LONG TIME, THE ROOF WAS ENCROACHING ONTO OUR PROPERTY. ROOF GOING LIKE THIS AND THIS, THINK ABOUT THE MOMENTUM COMING DOWN, RIGHT? FOR THE FORCE TO STOP, IT HAS TO HIT SOMETHING. THAT'S OUR HOUSE. AND WE HAVE DAMAGE BECAUSE OF THAT. AND YOU GUYS JUST KEEP IGNORING US AND IGNORING US. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, I HAVE TO ADMIRE YOU, YOU SAW THE WRITING ON THETHE WALL, Y'ALL ARE -- >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? [3. CONSENT AGENDA ] HEARING NO MORE, WE'LL CLOSE CITIZENS' INPUT. MOVING TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, THE FOLLOWING COULD BE DONE INONE MOTION. OR COMMISSIONER OR CITIZEN CAN ASK ONE BE REMOVED. WE HAVE ONE ITEM, 3A, ACTION TO APPROVE THE 2025 REGULAR MEETING. ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. HERNANDEZ. >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> MR. POLLARD SECONDS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, CALL THE VOTE. [4D. Conduct a public hearing and take action on the 7600 Lakeview Parkway Replat submitted by Chris Walton, Kolibri Civil Engineers LLC, on behalf of the property owner Darren Lewin dba RP Lakeview, LLC. The property is addressed as 7600 Lakeview Parkway, and is further described as Block A, Lot 1R, of Lakeview Plaza Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ] THAT PASSES 6- 0, ONE ABSTENTION. MOVING ON TO INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS. 4D. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE 7600 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY REPLAT SUBMITTED BY CHRIS WALTON, KOLIBRI CIVIL ENGINEERINGS LLC ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER DARREN LEWIN, DBA RP LAKEVIEW, LLC. FURTHER DESCRIBED AS BLOCK A, 1R, LAKEVIEW PLAZA ADDITION, CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> BUILDING. THIS IS A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT IS GOING ON. COLOR CODED. IN PINK THE EXISTING EASEMENT AND BRIGHT PINK WITH THE NEW EASEMENT AROUND THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING. WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS REPLAT IS GREEN, YELLOW AND PURPLE. WE'RE ABANDONING THETHE EASEMENT ON BOTH SIDES. THE WATER/UTILITY EASEMENT. AND PUSHING IT OVER. TO THE GREEN. WATER EASEMENT. [00:20:04] THIS CREATESCREATES ABILITY TO -- THIS IS THE REPLAT ITSELF. ROWLETT CODE SAYS NO PLAT SHOULD BE APPROVED UNLESS THETHE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. MEET APPLICABLE ZONING AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. STATE ENGINEERING INDICATING REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN -- OR AGREEMENT IS APPROVED BY THE CITY FORFOR SUBSEQUENT ISSUE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR FACILITIES IN THE CHAPTER. ALL PAID. ADDRESSED ALL COMMENTS, SUBMITTED ALL FOR APPROVAL BY STATE LAW. WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. THE APPLICANT HAS ADDRESSED ALL OUTSTANDING STAFF COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. SOMEBODY'S PHONE ON? COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? EVERYBODY'S CHECKING THEIR OWN PHONE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE INVOLVE ALL ALTERNATES WHO SHOW UP IN THE MEETINGS. IF Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, FEEL FREE TO RAISE YOUR HAND AND WE'LL DIRECT YOU TO THE PODIUM TO ASK THAT QUESTION. ONLY THING YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO DO IS PARTICIPATE IN THE VOTE. SEEING NO QUESTIONS, THANKTHANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION THEY WANT TO GIVE? NOT THAT YOU HAVE TO, JUST ASKING. >> IT'S FINE. I'M CHRIS WALTON, KOLIBRI CIVIL ENGINEERS AND I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU SIR. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> CHAIRMAN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. >> OOPS, I'M SORRY, NEW YEAR. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'LL HOLD THE MOTION. OPEN THIS FOR PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE NO INPUT, WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, NOW I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE APPROVE THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT AS SUBMITTED. >> OKAY. MS. WILLIAMS? >> I SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. PASSES 7-0. MOVING ON TO 4E. [4E. Conduct a public hearing and take action on the 6701 Heritage Parkway Replat submitted by Josh Edge, Dynamic Engineering Consultants, LLC, on behalf of the property owner Michelle Edgar dba Twinstar, LLC & BSM Heritage, LLC. The property is addressed as 6701 Heritage Parkway and is further described as a replat of Lot 1C, Block 1, Heritage Medical Office Tract 0, as recorded in Cabinet C, Page 34 P.R.R.C.T. out of W.G. DEWEESE SURVEY, Abstract No. 70, in the City of Rowlett, Rockwall County, Texas.] CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE 6701 HERITAGE PARKWAY REPLAT SUBMITTED BY JOSH EDGE, DYNAMIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER MICHELLE EDGAR, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS REPLAT OF LOT 1C BLOCK 1, HERITAGE MEDICAL OFFICE TRACT 0 AS RECORDED IN THE CAB NET C PAGE 34 P. ARE. ARE C. IT OUT OF WITH. GOOD. DEWEESE SURVEY, IN CITY OF ROWLETT, ROCKWALL COUNTY, TEXAS. >> ONCE AGAIN, SENIOR PLANNER, ANOTHER REPLAT REQUEST. REPLAT EXISTING LOT BY REDEDICATING THE EASEMENTS TO MATCH PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENGINEERING PLANS. 6701 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY [00:25:01] BY THE HOSPITAL IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR. IT'S A MEDICAL OFFICE, ZONING IS FORM BASED URBAN VILLAGE. REPLAT IS NECESSARY TO FACILITATE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CIVIL PLAN APPROVALS. THE IDEA IS GO BACK TO WHAT WAS AGREED UPON IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN 2017, WHICH IS IN THE BACKGROUND WINDOW HERE. HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS THE ROUTE THEY WANT TO ADJUST THIS PARKING LOT. JUST A SIMPLE REPLAT OF REALLY UTILITY AND ACCESS LANES. PER ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE, NO PLAT SHALL BE APPROVED UNLESS FOLLOWING STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. WE WENT INTO IT IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION. I CAN REPEAT IT. BUT THE APPLICANT HAS ANSWERED ALL STAFF COMMENTS AND SUBMITTED ALL REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL, APPROVAL WITH CONDITION OR DENIAL, THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFIED ALL STAFF COMMENTS. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. POLLARD. >> MR. KING, THIS HAS NOTHING PRECISELY TO DO WITH THAT, BUT YOU SAID THIS WAS ZONED URBAN VILLAGE? >> YES, FORM BASED ZONING CODE, PART OF THE URBAN VILLAGE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. >> IS THAT WHOLE AREA ZONED THE SAME? >> MUCH OF IT IS, YES. I THINK -- TRYING TO LOOK IF THIS SLIDE HAS IT. NO RESIDENTIAL SOUTH OF IT IS NOT, BUT WHOLE AREA ABOVE IS, THE HOSPITAL. >> ALL THE COMMERCIAL STUFF FOR THE HOSPITAL IS URBAN VILLAGE? >> YES. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. BLAYDES. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. I THOUGHT THE ADDRESS WAS 6701 HERITAGE PARKWAY, NOT LAKEVIEW. >> THE PREVIOUS WAS LAKEVIEW, DID I MISS SOMETHING ON A SLIDE? I SURE DID, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING ME. >> CORRECT ADDRESS IS 6701 HERITAGE PARKWAY, YES? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU, MR. KING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE OR HAVE A PRESENTATION THEY WANT TO GIVE? OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS? WE HAVE ONE PERSON. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, CITY OF RESIDENCE. >> JOSH -- FROM FORT WORTH, TEXAS, REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, AND THE CIVIL ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF SUNSHINE PEA PEDIATRICS. WE WERE UNAWARE THE ACCESS EASEMENT WOULD CONNECT TO OUR PROPERTY AND WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS HOW THIS WILL IMPACT OUR PROPERTY BEFORE THIS IS APPROVED. >> THAT'S A STICKY SUBJECT FOR ME. >> PLANNING MANAGER, FOR THE RECORD, THE APPLICANT CAN -- THE GENTLEMAN SPEAKING AT THE PODIUM, THEY CAN CONNECT AND HAVE A DISCUSSION. PER STATE LAW AND STATS REVIEW, THE PLAT MEETS ALL OF OUR SUBDIVISION AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS, SO WE DO HAVE TO PROCESS THEM. >> TO A CERTAIN POINT. WE HAVE A TIME FRAME, ARE WE UP AGAINST IT? >> YES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. THERE'S YOUR ANSWER. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC INPUT? AT THIS POINT WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. POLLARD. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE REPLAT PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. >> MOTION ON THE FLOOR, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MR. HERNANDEZ SECONDS THAT [00:30:02] MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. [4F. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to Chapter 77-800 “Review and Approval Procedures” of the Rowlett Development Code, by amending Section 77-805.B.7.b regarding review, protest, and approval procedures for zoning cases; Section 77-803.F at Table 8.3-1 regarding Notice Requirements; Section 77-803.F.3, 77 803.F.4, and 77-803.F.5 regarding common notice procedures. ] THAT PASSES 7-0. MOVING ON TO ITEM 4F, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 77-800 BY AMENDING 77-805.B.7.B. TABLE 803. RECORDING THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND COMMON NOTICE PROCEDURES. YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT THOSE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE HE GIVES HIS PRESENTATION, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? >> SURE. >> HOPEFULLY HE CAN COVER THIS. DEFINE FOR ME THE DEFINITION OF COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE AND COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE -- WAIT, I DIDN'T SAY THAT RIGHT. WHAT A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE IS, AND HOW IT HE'S DIFFERENT FROM A REGULAR ZONING CHANGE. >> YES, SIR, THAT'S PART OF THE SLIDE SHOW. >> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING MANAGER FOR THE RECORD. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH REVIEW PROCESS AND PROCEDURES SO WE'RE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH WITH HOUSE BILL 24 RECENTLY ENACTED IN THE 89TH TEXAS LEGISLATIVE SESSION, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 2025. THIS BILL CHANGED REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING AND NOTICE PROTESTS BY DEFINING AND SETTING NEW RULES FOR COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGES. I'LL GET INTO THE DEFINITION IN FOLLOWING SLIDES. INCREASING PROTEST THRESHOLDS FROM 20% TO 60% OPPOSITION UNDER NEW SPECIFIC RULES. ELIMINATED PROTEST PROCEDURES FOR CITYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGES AND PROVIDED UPDATES FOR SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS. GETTING TO IT, AS HB- 24 DEFINES A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE AS CHANGE THAT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING MORE RESIDENTIAL AND APPLYING UNIFORMLY TO EACH PARCEL IN ONE OR MORE ZONING DISTRICTS. TWO, ADOPT A NEW ZONING CODE OR MAP ZONING APPLY TO THE ENTIRE CITY. THINK RECODE ROWLETT, THAT'S COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE. IF YOU MAKE A CHANGE THAT AFFECTS THE ENTIRE CITY. THREE, ADOPT A ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ALLOW MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INCLUDE AN AREA ALONG A MAJOR ROAD, HIGHWAY OR TRANSIT CORRIDOR. SINGLE SITE DEVELOPMENTS WITH MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALONG A ROAD, HIGHWAY OR MAJOR TRANSIT CORRIDOR. NOT ONLY DID HB-24 SET A DEFINITION FOR COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE, IT ALSO ESTABLISHED RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THOSE CHANGES AND WHAT GOES INTO EFFECT. CURRENTLY ALL CITYWIDE ZONING CHANGES ARE SUBJECT TO PROTESTS. IF ENOUGH MEMBERS OF A PUBLIC OPPOSE AN ITEM, CAN TRIGGER SUPERVETO VOTE. NOW THOSE ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PROTEST PETITION. WOULD NOT TRIGGER IN A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE. ALSO IT CHANGED THE PROTEST PROCEDURES FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND ALL CITIES ACROSS TEXAS. CURRENTLY PROTEST BY OWNERS OF 20% OR MORE OF LAND WITHIN 200 FEET WOULD TRIGGER THREE- [00:35:01] FOURTHS SUPERMAJORITY VOTE AT CITY COUNCIL. SEGMENT OF THAT IS STILL ACTIVE BUT HB- 24 CHANGED THE REQUIREMENTS FROM 20% TO 60% OF THE LAND AREA WITHIN THAT 200 FEET IF THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS PROPOSING MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN EXISTING ZONING REGULATION OR DISTRICT BOUNDARY WOULD ALLOW. IN THE EVENT YOU'RE GOING FROM COMMERCIAL ZONED PROPERTY, PROPOSING MULTIFAMILY OR ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 60% RULE WOULD TRIGGER. PROPOSING COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL, 20% RULE IS STILL IN EFFECT. IT ALSO ADDS A NEW PROVISION FOR IF THE ZONING DISTRICT OR REGULATION YOU'RE PROPOSING WOULD ALLOW ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USE THAT DOES NOT EXCEED 35% OF THE GROUND FLOOR SPACE THEN THE 60% RULE WOULD ALSO KICK INTO EFFECT IN THAT REGARD AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. HB-24 ALSO CHANGED THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND HOW WE NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. CURRENTLY WE'RE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH OFFICIAL NOTICE IN THE NEWSPAPER, THROUGH MAIL AND ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT LEAST TENTEN DAYS THE DATE OF THE HEARING. HB-24 CHANGED IT TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC AT LEAST 15 DAYS BEFOREBEFORE OR DAYS FOR THE NEWSPAPER AND CITY'S OFFICIAL WEBSITE. THIS RULE DID NOT CHANGE FOR MAILING. TECHNICALLY THE RULE IS TEN DAYS TO MAIL OUT NOTICES TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TEN DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING. TO FALL INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS, WE'VE BEEN MAILING AND POSTING 16 DAYS IN ADVANCE JUST TO BE SAFE, STAFF HAS ENACTED ALL THE CHANGES BEFORE YOU TODAY. WE'RE JUST UPDATING THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO IT'S ENACTED INTO OUR LAWS. HB-24 ALSO CHANGED THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. BEFORE THE SIGNS REQUIRED WERE TO BE POSTED TEN DAYS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING, NO LESS THAN 4 BY 4 FEET. CITY OF ROWLETT ALREADY COMPLIES WITH THIS, BEEN POSTING SIGNS WELL IN ADVANCE OF TEN DAYS AND THEY'RE BIGGER THAN REQUIRED, 24 BY 48 INCHES. WE COMPLY WITH THAT NEW RULE. LASTLY, THE HB- 24 REQUIRES US TO NOTIFY EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH A PROPERTY IS LOCATEDLOCATED LEAST TEN DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IF THEY'RE PROPOSING NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS. CURRENTLY WE DON'T HAVE REQUIREMENTS TO NOTIFY THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. WE DO NOTIFY SOME WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY OWNER LIST, 200 TO 500- FOOT LIST. BUT BOUND BY STATE LAW, WE HAVE TO NOTIFY SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES COMING ON BOARD. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THE GOVERNING BODY MAY TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS, RECOMMEND APPROVAL, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR RECOMMEND DENY. QUESTIONS? >> YES, SIR, ONE FROM ME. THE CHANGE PROPOSED FOR SIGNAGE INDICATES IT'S GOING TO BE 48 BY 48,÷÷ RIGHT? >> THAT CHANGE IS ALREADY INDICATED IN OUR CODE. THE CHANGE WE'RE PROPOSING TO MAKE IS WE HAVE TO POST IT TEN DAYS BEFORE. >> OKAY. MR. HERNANDEZ. >> JUST A QUESTION ON THE CHANGE TO THE 60% SUPERMAJORITY TO INCREASE RESIDENTIAL. THAT ONE, IF SOMEBODY HAS A VACANT LOT BETWEENBETWEEN -- SAY SF 40 AND THAT VACANT LOT, IF SOMEBODY WERE TO ASK TO MAKE THAT MULTIFAMILY, THAT WOULD THEN TRIGGER 60%? >> YES. IT WOULD TRIGGER 60% BECAUSE THE ZONING DISTRICT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO TURN IT INTO WOULD ALLOW MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. SO IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE AGAINST THAT, 60% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200- FOOT BOUNDARY AREA WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION AGAINST THAT PROPERTY -- THAT PROJECT. >> REGARDLESS OF THE FACT IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED SF- 40, ALL THREE LOTS, BUT IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE TO MULTIFAMILY, THAT REQUIRES THE 60% SUPERMAJORITY? >> IF 60% OF THE LAND AREA WITHIN THAT 200 FEET, [00:40:07] IF THEY RESPONDED AND SAID WE OPPOSE THIS AND PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES, YES TRIGGERS A SUPERMAJORITY. CURRENTLY -- NOT CURRENTLY, WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS SINCE SEPTEMBER 1ST. OLD RULES WERE 20% OF THE LANDOWNERS WITHIN THAT AREA OF SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO SAY THEY OPPOSE A PROJECT. ONCE WE CALCULATED THAT H TRIGGERS A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE, THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE TO PASS. THAT CHANGED NOW. PROPOSING MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED, IT JUMPS UP TO 60%. MORE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO BE IN OPPOSITION OF THE INCREASE IN DENSITY TO TRIGGER A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE. >> THIS IS REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT IT'S -- IT WOULD REQUIRE ZONING CHANGE? OR SIMPLY -- STILL REQUIRES THE ZONING CHANGE PROCESS, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. IF YOUR REPORT IS ON SF-40 AND YOU WANT MULTIFAMILY AND CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT, YES, REQUIRES A ZONING CHANGE. >> OKAY. >> MR. JOBE. >> HE JUST ANSWERED THAT QUESTION I HAD. I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE TALKING ABOUT IT -- THAT'S TO ME ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHANGES. TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT FALLS UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. DOES THAT FALL WITHIN HIS RULES, CHANGING PLOT TO BIGGER RESIDENT, DOES THAT FALL UNDER THE PLAN THAT CAN'T BE PROTESTED? >> HAS TO BE CITYWIDE. IF YOU'RE CREATING A NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, APPLYING UNIVERSALLY TO A PARCEL AS PART OF CITYWIDE EFFORT, THAT'S COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE AND WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO -- THE PROTEST REQUIREMENT WOULDN'T BE TRIGGERED AND YOU WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO GIVE MAIL NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. >> RIGHT NOW ONLY WAY THERE'S NOTICE IS NEWSPAPER/ONLINE, NO PROTESTS. BUT COULD STILL COME AND MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND SHARE THEIR GRIEF THAT WAY. >> YES. TEXT AMENDMENTS AS WELL. THEY APPLY UNIFORMILY TO THE ENTIRE CITY, OR A NEW ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ALLOW MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INSTALLING NEXT TO A MAJOR ROAD, HIGHWAY OR TRANSIT CORRIDOR, THAT'S COMPREHENSIVE. EVERYTHING ELSE IS REGULAR ZONING CHANGE. >> MR. BLAYDES. >> I WAS CONFUSED BY THE ANSWER TO THE CHAIR ON THE NOTICE/SIGNAGE REQUIREMENT. >> OKAY. >> AS I READ THE TEXT, IT SAYS HAS TO BE AT LEAST 24 BY 48. OUR CURRENT RULE IS 48 BY 48, THAT WOULD GO AWAY AND NEW RULE IS 24 BY 48? >> NO, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALLOW LARGER SIGNS. WE'RE KEEPING THAT, JUST INSTALLING A SECTION THAT SAYS BEFORE THE TENTH DAY BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CURRENTLY WE'VE BEEN POSTING EXACTLY TEN DAYS -- >> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DAILY BUT THE SIZE OF THE SIGN. >> WE'RE NOT CHANGING OUR SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS. WE ALREADY MEET THE NEW STATE LAW. >> MR. WHITE. >> QUICK QUESTION. SINCE THIS IS A STATE LAW AND AT THE BOARD WE CANNOT CHANGE THE STATE LAW, WHY ARE WE VOTING ON IT? IS IT JUST TO INFORM US TO MOVE FORWARD? >> WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY CHANGING STATE LAW BUT OUR CITY LAWS. >> IT'S JUST INFORMATION. WE HAVE TO AGREE THAT THE STATE MADE THE RULES SO -- >> THE DECISIONS YOU ALL AREARE ARE IF YOU WANT US TO INCORPOATE THE STATE LAW CHANGES DIRECTLY INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. IF NOT, THE PUBLIC IS NOT GOING TO BE AWARE OF THE NEW CHANGES UNLESS THEY'RE PRIVY TO HB-24. WE'RE PROPOSING TO PUT IT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO THE PUBLIC IS AWARE AND THEY'RE AWARE OF THE NOTIFICATION, PROTESTING RULES, SIGNING REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE IS. >> JUST GOING TO ADD FOR CLARIFICATION, RIGHT NOW THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES WITH OUR ORDINANCE AND STATE LAW. THIS IS TO ASSIST IN BRINGING CONSISTENCY AND CONFORMITY TO THE STATE LAW JUST WENT INTOINTO [00:45:07] SEPTEMBER 1ST. >> CONSISTENCY OF OUR LAW TO ALIGN WITH STATE LAW. >> YO.ES. >> I WISH IT WAS THE OTHER WAY AROUND BUT YOU KNOW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. POLLARD. >> OKAY. IS EVERYBODY ELSE -- HAS EVERYBODY SAID WHAT THEY WANT? MINE IS LENGTHY. >> DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A SEAT? >> LET'S GO, MR. POLLARD. >> NUMBER ONE. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING IS WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO ZONE MULTIPLE SITES AT ONE TIME ACROSS THE CITY. >> CORRECT. WHEN YOU PLAN ON INSTALLING -- >> NOT AN INDIVIDUAL ZONING REQUEST. >> CORRECT. >> WANT TO MAKE SURE EVEN THE PUBLIC THAT WATCHES THIS UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S GOING ON. ALL RIGHT. NUMBER TWO, THIS HAS TO DO WITH ZONING, NOT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS. >> CORRECT. >> TWO DISTINCT DOCUMENTS. >> YES, SIR. >> OKAY. NUMBER THREE. THE VOTING -- THE PROTEST, SORRY, NOT VOTING BUT THE PROTEST APPLIES TO GOING TO CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY COUNCIL IS VOTING, NOT OUR BODY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO IF ONLY 10% PROTEST, IT DOESN'T KICK IN ANYTHING AS FAR AS OUR VOTING. >> CORRECT. >> THAT PROTEST HAS TO DO WITH CITY COUNCIL. >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. WE'RE ABOUT TO DO A REZONING, HOPEFULLY SOMETIME THIS YEAR. AND IT WILL BE A COMPREHENSIVE REZONING. SORRY. GET BACK UP HERE. SO THIS WILL DEFINITELY APPLY TO THE NEW RECODES AS WE'RE CALLING IT OR THE NEWNEW FOR ZONING. >> YES, SIR. >> THREE OF US ON THIS PANEL IS ON THAT RECODE ROWLETT. MS. WILLIAMS, MR. COTE AND MYSELF. REPRESENTING THIS BODY. IS AND HAS THE CITY ATTORNEY WEIGHED IN ON ALL OF THE CHANGES? >> YES, THE CITY ATTORNEY GAVE AA TO CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 30T I BELIEVE, IN A SESSION. SHE'S MADE AWARE OF IT, AS WELL AS THE INDIVIDUALS LEADING RECODE ROWLETT. BE PREPARED TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS, MAYBE OR ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STRATEGIES WHEN LOOKING AT UPDATING AND ADOPTING NEW ORDINANCES AND ZONING MAPS. BUT THEY'RE ALL AWARE OF IT, YES. >> OKAY. AND MAYBE THIS IS ONE FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY TOTO ANSWER. EVEN THOUGH THIS IS -- CHANGES ARE NECESSITATED BY STATE LAW, WE'RE PRETTY MUCH AT THE ROAD OF WE HAVE TO ACCEPT IT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> SO ALTHOUGH I CAN VOTE AGAINST IT, STILL WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GRAPPLE WITH IT AND GO AT SOME POINT WITH IT TO SUGGEST TO CITY COUNCIL, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. CAN YOU FLIP THROUGH YOUR SLIDES AGAIN. >> ANY IN PARTICULAR? >> NO, KEEP GOING, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEARING EVERYTHING. I GUESS THAT DOES IT. >> MR. HERNANDEZ. >> MR. POLLARD ACTUALLY MADE ME THINK ABOUT A QUESTION HERE. THE EXAMPLE I GAVE BEFORE, EMPTY LOT, ALL SF- 40S AND EMPTY LOT WANTS TO GO TO MULTIFAMILY. IF THIS COMMISSION VOTED UNANIMOUSLY AGAINST THAT CHANGE, DOES THAT -- THAT TYPICALLY WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL TO DO [00:50:01] SUPERMAJORITY ANYWAY, WOULD IT NOT? >> CORRECT. >> I'M NOT AWARE OF THE RULE. IS IT? OKAY. >> IF WE VOTE SOMETHING UNANIMOUSLY, YES. >> SO HOW DOES THAT APPLY TO THE SUPERMAJORITY PROTEST PART? OR ARE THEY INDEPENDENT? >> VIEW THEM AS INDEPENDENT. PROTEST COMES IN THE FORM OF THE PUBLIC'S PROTEST. IF THE PUBLIC COMES IN AND 20% OR 60% OF THEM ARE IN OPPOSITIONOPPOSITION WHATEVER ZONING CHANGE THAT IS BEING PRESENTED IN FRONT OF YOU ALL, THERE'S NO CHOICE WHETHER YOU VOTE UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE IT, 5-2 DENY, IT HAS TO GO FOR A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE. GO AHEAD. >> I GUESS I'M THINKING IFIF COMMISSION SAYS NO, THEN THE SUPERMAJORITY PROTEST BASICALLY DOESN'T MATTER. WE'RE REQUIRING -- WE WOULD TELL COUNCIL YOU GOT TO GO SUPERMAJORITY ANYWAY. >> IF YOU ALL VOTE UNANIMOUSLY TO DENY IT, THAT COULD BE CORRECT, I'LL HAVE TO VERIFY. >> AND VICE-VERSA. WE VOTE UNANIMOUSLY AND THEY DON'T HAVE 60%, THEY STILL HAVE TO BE SUPERMAJORITY. HOLD ON. MR. WHITE. >> POINT OF CORRECTION OR CLARITY. IF WE VOTE SOMETHING DOWN, HAS TO BE UNIFIED 7- 0 TO TRIGGER A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL? OR SOMETHING LOSES, 4-3? >> I DON'T. LET ME JUMP IN HERE. I DON'T WANT TO CONFLATE THE QUESTION. REMEMBER THAT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS A RECOMMENDING BODY WHEN IT COMES TO ZONE CHANGES. ANYTHING THAT THIS BODY IS RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL IS IN THE FORM OF A RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S THE FIRST POINT. SECOND POINT IS WHAT JAYLENJAYLEN TALKING ABOUT IS SPECIFIC TO THE PUBLIC IN TERMS OF THE PROTEST VOTE. IT WAS MORE LIBERAL PREVIOUSLY, NOW THE STATE, THROUGH THE LEGISLATURES, HAVE RESTRICTED THE PROTEST VOTE AS IT RELATES TO INDIVIDUALS IN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. SO BECAUSE OF THAT, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE LESS RESTRICTIVE AND WHAT THIS RECOGNIZES IS -- I DON'T WANT TO CONFLATE HOW THIS BODY MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL VERSUS WHAT THIS PROTEST PROCEDURE IS. THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES. >> RTS, PLEASE. GO AHEAD. >> I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YOUR STATEMENT THERE ABOUT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. INDIVIDUALS LIVING NEAR A PROPERTY HAVING A PROTEST WENT FROM 20% TO 60%. THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS IF THIS BODY AS A BOARD SAYS NO TO SOMETHING, DOES IT STILL TRIGGER -- OR HAS TO BE UNIFIED? >> WE CAN GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT, I GOT A QUESTION ABOUT IT, TOO. >> TRIGGER WHAT? >> SUPERMAJORITY VOTE IF IT LOSES. THAT'S THE QUESTION, BUT DOESN'T RELATE TO THIS ITEM, JUST A BIGGER QUESTION. >> MR. POLLARD. >> OKAY. LET'S GO BACK TO THE DEFINITIONSDEFINITIONS OF ZONING CHANGE. WHAT WAS LAID OUT IN THE PACKET, FIRST PAGE OF THE THREE ITEMS THAT HAS TO BE MET, NOT RELY ON TWO OR THREE, BUT INDIVIDUAL REQUIREMENTS, IS THAT CORRECT? I'M REFERRING TO PAGE 18 OF 25 ON -- IF YOU GO BACK TO THE PACKET. >> REFERRING TO THE STAFF REPORT, RIGHT? >> YES. >> THE TABLE SECTION? >> YES. I'LL READ IT, PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE MEANS A CITY PROPOSAL TO ONE CHANGE AN EXISTING REGULATION THAT WILL HAVE AN EFFECT ON ALLOWING MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN PREVIOUSLY, AND II WILL APPLY UNIFORMLY TO EACH PARCEL IN ONE OR MORE DISTRICTS, OR -- THAT WOULD BE SEPARATE NOT DEPENDENT ON OR COMBINATION BUT SEPARATE -- TO ADOPT A [00:55:04] NEW ZONING CODE OR MAP TO APPLY TO THE ENTIRE CITY. OR THREE, ADOPT A ZONING OVERLAY THAT WILL HAVE THE EFFECT ALLOWING MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN PREVIOUSLY AND TWO INCLUDE AN AREA ALONG A MAJOR HIGHWAY, OR TRANSIT CORRIDOR. WHAT I SEE FROM YOUR NODDING IS IT'S NOT A COMBINATION BUT INDIVIDUAL THREE POINTS. >> ACTUALLY, THE WAY THAT THE -- THE WAY THAT THE CODE READS IS ONE, THE FIRST TRIGGER. CHANGE TO THE EXISTING ZONING REGULATION WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN THE PREVIOUSPREVIOUS WOULD ALLOW AND HAS TO APPLY UNIFORMLY TO EACH PARCEL IN ONE OR MORE DISTRICTS. OR ADOPT A NEW ZONING CODE OR MAP FOR THE ENTIRE MUNICIPALITY. THE EXISTING ZONING REGULATION HAS TO ALLOW MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S FIRST KEY COMPONENT. AND HAS TO EITHER A,A, UNIFORMLY TO EACH PARCEL, OR TWO, BE ADOPTED THROUGH NEW ZONING CODE OR MAP THAT APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE MUNICIPALITY. THAT'S THE VERY FIRST ONE. >> NUMBER THREE IS WHAT I WANT TO PICK ON. ADOPTING A ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT. TALKING ABOUT NORTHSHORE, AND WE HAVE AN OVERLAY DISTRICT, OR LET'S SAY WE HAVE AN OVERLAY FOR MEDICAL DOWN BY THE MEDICAL CENTER, THOSE ARE NOT CITYWIDE, WOULD THIS APPLY OR NOT APPLY? >> IT WOULD NOT BEBE -- THE MEDICAL DISTRICT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE IF IT DOES NOT ALLOW MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED WITHOUT THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. SAME AS NORTH SHORE, CORRECT. OVERLAY DISTRICT. I BELIEVE HE WANTEDWANTED CLARIFY? >> AS IT RELATES TO THE OVERLAY DISTRICTS, THOSE CAN BE IN COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OR ALSO IN ZONING ORDINANCE. DEPENDING UPON THE POLICY DOCUMENT, WILL NECESSITATE WHAT THIS IS TALKING ABOUT. THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS COMPREHENSIVE PLANS. THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS OVERLAY DISTRICTS IN COMPREHENSIVE PLANS. WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE RDC AN OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR SOUTH OF 66. THAT WOULD APPLY TO THIS IF WE MADE CHANGES TO THAT OVERLAY DISTRICT BECAUSE IT'S CODIFIED IN THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. BUT IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL OVERLAY DISTRICTS CODIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AT WHICH TIME IT'S UPDATED OR CURRENTLY THERE, THIS DOESN'T NECESSARY ADDRESS IT. THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE POLICY DOCUMENTS. >> DO WE NOT HAVE AN OVERLAY FOR DOWNTOWN? THAT'S CODIFIED? >> WHAT WE HAVE IS A DOWNTOWN -- DOCUMENT. IT IS NOT CONSIDERED A ZONINGZONING DOCUMENT. IT IS MORE SO AN AREA PLAN. KIND OF TECHNICALITIES HERE, BUT I ALWAYS REVERT TO WHAT IS IN RDC OR FORM BASE CODE IN THOSE OVERLAY DISTRICTS BECAUSE THEY'RE SPECIFIC TO A ZONING ORDINANCE. >> NOW, WHEN WE GO TO RECODE, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT NORTH SHORE BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN REGARDS TO A RECENT PROPOSAL FOR MULTIFAMILY UNITS, AND IF THERE IS AN OVERLAY FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAY BUT NOT FOR THE ZONING. >> CORRECT. >> IF WE MAKE THAT PART OF THE ZONING, THEN IN RECODE WE TALKED ABOUT MAYBE A MEDICAL DISTRICT OVERLAY. GOES THROUGH, THEN WOULD BECOME ZONING. >> CORRECT. >> THEN THIS WOULD APPLY OR NOT APPLY? [01:00:02] >> NO. >> I DON'T THINK ITIT WOULD. THAT OVERLAY DISTRICT WON'T INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL. >> CORRECT. >> THAT'S MY THOUGHTS, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. MUCH LIKE THE EXAMPLE GIVEN ON THE INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY. WE COULD GET RID OF THE INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY AND NOT MEET THIS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE COMMERCIAL THERE. NOT INCREASING THE RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL VOLUME OR DENSITY. WHEW, ANYBODY ELSE LOST? >> I AM. >> LAST POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR THE ZONING OVERLAYS, THIS DEFINITION ONLY APPLIES IF IT'S PROPOSING TO ALLOW MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. IF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT YOU'RE INSTALLING WILL ALLOW MORE RESIDENTIAL, IT'S CONSIDERED COMPREHENSIVE IF IT'S ALONG A MAJOR ROADWAY AS WELL. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO INSTALL OR NOT, IT'S NOT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES, MA'AM. >> SECTION FIVE STATES THAT THE CHANGES IN LAW BY THIS ACT ONLY APPLY TO A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE A MUNICIPAL ZONING REGULATION OR DISTRICT BOUNDARY MADE ON OR AFTER THE BILL'S EFFECTIVE DATE. IF WE DON'T RECODE ROWLETT, WILL THIS NOT APPLY TO US? >> COULD YOU REREAD WHAT YOU SAID -- THE LAST PORTION. >> IF WE DO NOT RECODE ROWLETT, WILL THIS BILL NO LONGER APPLY? BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MAKING A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE TOTO CITY. >> IF YOU DO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH RECODE ROWLETT, THEN THERE WILL BE NO COMPREHENSIVE CITYWIDE ZONING CHANGES THAT I CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THIS DEFINITION. BUT BECAUSE YOU'RE WORKING ON THAT, UPDATING THE ENTIRE CITY MAP, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE. >> OKAY. IF WE DON'T RECODE ROWLETT, THEN THIS WON'T APPLY? >> WELL, THE RULE APPLIES, ENACTED SEPTEMBER 1ST OF 2025, WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THIS DEFINITION NO MATTER WHAT. HOWEVER, THE ACTION ACTION A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE WILL NOT BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF RECODE ROWLETT OR THE CITY DIRECTED STAFF TO DO ANOTHER COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP UPDATE IN ANOTHER AREA OR AT ANOTHER TIME. >> I GUESS I'M CONFUSED. IF WE LEAVE OUR CURRENT ZONING, DOES THIS APPLY? >> IT COULD. >> IN CERTAIN AREAS I COULD SEE WITH SIGNAGE. BUT AS FAR AS INCREASING THE DENSITY AND REQUIRING THE 60% -- I CAN SEE WHERE 60% COULD STILL APPLY. >> CORRECT. YES. IT ALL STILL APPLIES. IF YOU DO NOTHING WITH RECODE ROWLETT, THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS STILL APPLY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FOR STAFF. I'M SURE THERE ARE, JUST HOLDING BACK. THANK YOU, MR. PORCHAY. I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE FLOOR TO THE PUBLIC. NOBODY WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING TOTO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. ANYBODY CAN MAKE THAT MOTION. MR. JOBE, IF YOU WOULD PUSH YOUR RTS PLEASE. YES, SIR. >> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE AS READ. >> MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. MR. HERNANDEZ HAS SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MORE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. AND THAT PASSES 6-1. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.