Feb 24, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

>> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND WELCOME TO THE ROWLETT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR TUESDAY 24, 2026. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.07 TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE THIS MEETING WILL CONVENE TO CLOSED SESSION SEEKING ADVISE ON ANY AGENDA THERE IN. THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE LIGHT EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS OF ANYTIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. THE PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN-PERSON YOU MAY SUBMIT A CITIZEN'S INPUT FORM, ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLAN ANDING ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETNG.

FOR IN-PERSON COMMENTS REGISTRATIONS FORM IS AT THE DOOR OF COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

WE HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

AT THIS TIME WE'LL HAVE CITIZENS INPUT, WE HAVE THREE-MINUTE COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE TAKEN ON ANY TOPIC NO ACTION MAY BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION DURING THE CITIEN INPUT. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO TALK TO TUESDAY FOR THREE MINUTES OR LESS? NO NO? OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE CITIZENS INPUT. OH, I'M SORRY. THIS IS GENERAL.

IF IT'S AN AGENDA ITEM, YOU CAN WAIT UNTIL THEN. OKAY.

SO WE WILL CLOSE THE CITIZENS INPUT. MOVING ON TO THE CONSENT

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO PULL THAT? YES, SIR? I DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE THAT, SORRY. THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE CAN ALWAYS MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CORRECTION, THERE IS ACTUALLY ANOTHER ONE TOO.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION--OH, I'M SORRY. MR.

JOBE. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE ADDITION.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. WILLIAMS, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY. WE HAVE TWO CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES.

THE FIRST ONE BEING THAT MR. WHITE IS NOT LISTED ON THOSE PRESENT AND THE SECOND IS UNDER ITEM 4D, IT WAS ACTUALLY SECONDED BY MR. LONNIE BLAYDES, WELL SO WOULD YOU MR.

JOBE LIKE TO? MR. JOBE? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO ADD THE

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. >> ADD THE TWO CORRECTIONS? >> YES.

>> MS. WILLIAMS, YOU SECOND THAT? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, SEEING NONE, LET'S CALL THE VOTE.

THANK YOU, AND THAT PASS APPROXIMATES 7-0. MOVING ON TO THE ITEMS FOR

[4A. Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on a request by Kellan Black, PE & Reece Flanagan, PE, Flanagan, on behalf of the property owner, Shital Thakkar, for approval of a Tree Removal Permit Application #25-000217 on a property zoned FB-UV, Form Based Urban Village District. The subject property is located at 4310 Main Street and consists of approximately 1.4413 acres in the William Crabtreet Abstract 347, Page 360, Tract 4.1, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

ITEM 4 A, CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON WHY OF KELLAN ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS, FOR APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER 25-000217. ON PROPERTY ZONE FORMED BASE VILLEABLING FORM BASE--WELL,

[00:05:04]

ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS. >> LONG TITLE. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, LILLIANA, I'M PRESENTING THIS ITEM TONIGHT. SO THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU IS FOR APPROVAL OF TREE PERMIT TO ALLOW OF CONSTRUCTION OF 61 MULTI RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 6 3000 OF GROUND SPACE. THE PROPERTY ASKED THE XHAIR MAN--CHAIRMAN MENTIONED IS FORM BASED URBAN VILLAGE. ON JULY OF LAST YEAR, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PARTIAL OF THIS PROJECT THAT CONSIST OF 61 MULTI FAMILY AOUNTSZ AND RETAIL SPACE.

DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, STAFF APPROVED THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

JUST FOR GENERAL KNOWLEDGE, ARTICLE 211 OF THE FORM BASE CODE MODIFIES THE TREE IN SECTION 750H. THAT SECTION REQUIRES THAT TRUE REMOVAL PERMITS ARE REMOVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. NOW PROTECTED TREES ARE ALL 8-INCH OR GREATER OAK AT THE CON. PER SERVATION PLAN SHOWS 46 TOTAL TREES ONSITE.

23 ARE TRO PEKTED TREES. OUT OF THE 23, 18 ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL.

TOTALING ABOUT 39 CALIBER INCHES TOWARDS THE MITIGATION. AS A REMINDER, TREES, THERE IS TREES REQUIRED PER THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE SITE PLAN.

AND IN ADDITION TO THE MITIGATION THAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING IN THIS CASE FOR 23 TREES TO BE PLANTED ONSITE FOR SUCH REASONS. AND HERE IS JUST THE GENERAL, CALCULATIONS ON HOW THE MITIGATION, THE CREDITS WILL BE CALCULATED.

THERE IS 393 CALIBER INCHES ONSITE. OUT OF THE 3491, 328 IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO KEEP ONSITE.

THE FORM BASE CODE, CALL GIVES PROVIDES THE APPLICANT CREDIT 4-1 CREDIT FOR TREES THAT PRESERVED AND IN THIS CASE IT EQUATES TO 252 CALIBER INCHES. 39 CALIBER INCHES IS A ONE ON ONE CREDIT PLANTED ONSITE TO STILL BE MITIGATED. IN THIS CASE, THE CREDITS WILL BE MITIGATED BY PAYING A FEE OF 4579. SO IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, YOU CAN HAVE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS APPROVED, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THIS REQUEST.

>> THANK YOU. STAFF QUESTIONS? OR, COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS

FOR STAFF? MR. POLLARD? >> LILLIANA, YOU KNOW YOU'RE

GOING TO GET THIS QUESTION, HOW MUCH MONEY IS IN THE FUND? >> WE HAVE THAT NUMBER TONIGHT.

>> IF I CAN INTERRUPT, 565,565.82 CENTS. OKAY.

GOOD, THANK YOU. >> NIZ OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? DO THEY WANT TO PRESENT ANYTHING?

>> I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> UH-HUH. >> COMMISSIONERS, I'LL

ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. POLLARD? >> IS MOVE THAT WE, AS MUCH AS I DON'T WANT TO, THAT WE, THAT WE ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST OR THE TREE MITIGATION.

[00:10:08]

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. POLLARD, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? YOU MAY WANT TO PUSH THE MOTION

BUTTON. >> SORRY. >> SECONDED BY MR. JOBE.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? >> YES. >> YOU NEED TO PUSH THE BUTTON.

>> I'M ON. >> YOU'RE NOT UP HERE. >> OH.

OKAY. SINCE THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE, I'LL ASK STAFF.

SO, THE 13 TREES THAT THEY WANT TO PUT IN, DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH CALIBER INCHES EACH TREE IS?

DID THEY SAY? >> NO, IT NEEDS TO BE AT THREE CALIBER.

EACH TREE NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST THREE INCH CALIBER. >> SO 37 INCHES ARE WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING TO BE CALCULATED TO THROW INTO THE REFORM STATION FUND?

>> YES. >> SO IF YOU FIGURE, 8-INCH CALIBER TREES THAT WOULD BE 5, 5H40. SO THEY CAN'T FIND A PLACE TO PUT FIVE MORE TREES?

>> HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE SITE, MR. POLL ORDER? --POLLARD.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> IT'S A SMALL SITE COMPARED TO OTHER PROPOSALS.

AND IN ADDITION, THERE ARE OTHER TREES SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THROUGHOUT THE PARAMETER OF THE SITE JUST THE TREES THAT WERE PROPOSED TONIGHT.

>> THEN TAKING WHATEVER CALIBER INCHES, MAYBE THREE-INCH CALIBER INCH THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN OF THE, THE, 13 TREES, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN INSIST UPON THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THOSE LARGER TREES? TO ACCOMMODATE THE 37 EXTRA INCHES?

>> THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? >> WHO IS NOT HERE.

>> WHO IS IS NOT HERE TONIGHT. >> UH-HUH. >> I'M NOT FOR PUTTING MORE IN REFORCED STATION. IT SITS THERE AND DOZEN NOTHING. IF THEY CAN MAKE A TREES.

THE GENTLEMAN JUST IN INDICATED THERE IS A LOT OF TREES BUT INSTEAD OF THREE INCHES, MAYBE THEY MAKE SOME OF THEM, 6 INCHES AND 8 INCHES AND USE THE 36 INCHES UP ON THEIR 13 TREES

INSTEAD OF MAKING THEM THE LEAST. >> THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE UP TO

THE APPLICANT, I CAN'T MAKE THE DECISION. >> I CAN'T NOT SUPPORT THROWING

MORE MONEY INTO THE REFORCE STATION. >> MR. JOBE.

>> QUESTION, SO THEY'RE GOING TO PLANT ADDITIONAL 13 TREES. SO ON THE LANDSCAPE, THERE WILL

BE ADDITIONAL TREES OTHER THAN THE 13. >> RIGHT, THEY HAVE TO.

>> DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT IS? >> IT'S ABOUT 27 TREES. >> PAGE 10 OF THE PACKAGE.

>> YES, 27 TREES. SO IT TOTAL 40 TREES ONSITE. >> AND THOSE 27, THEY MAY BE

ONE INCH, THREE INCH. >> THEY HAVE TO BE AT MINIMUM THREE CALIBER INCHES.

>> EVEN THE ADDITIONAL THAT THEY'RE DOING SEPARATE FROM THE 13?

>> CORRECT. >> SO WE'LL HAVE THE 13 PLUS THE 22?

>> UH-HUH. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> THE 27, UH-HUH.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YOU ALL KNOW THAT YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS TOO.

OKAY. >> NO QUESTIONS. >> MR. POLLARD?

>> SO, A COMMENT ON TO WHAT IS SAID. IF YOU GET THREE-INCH CALIBER TREES. I REALIZE THE WORD IS BELIEVE AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, SAYS THAT THOSE HAVE TO LIVE AT LEAST A YEAR. ONCE A YEAR, GOES AWAYS IF THEY DIE AFTER ONE SEASON? CITY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, RIGHT?

>> WE CAN. WE TYPICALLY HAVE CODE GO CHECK AND IF THE TREE CAN BE

REPLACED, WE CAN HAVE THEM REPLACE THE TREES. >> OKAY.

SO, IN MY THEORY IS WHEN YOU CALCULATE ALL OF THESE OTHERS, THEY'RE CLOSED TO 4 INCH

[00:15:01]

>> MR. HERNANDEZ? >> JUST KIND OF A COMMENT ON THIS.

THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT, I REMEMBER THIS FROM LAST YEAR. THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT WE REALLY WANTED IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

THIS PROJECT KIND OF GOES ALONG THAT COUNCIL SET FORWARD AND I THINK, WHILE IT'S, I'M LOOKING AT THIS IT'S SAD TO LOSE SMFT TREES ESPECIALLY SOME OF THE PECAN TREES, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ENOUGH TO HOLD BACK THIS PROJECT. JUST KIND OF MY THOUGHT.

>> AND IS THIS THE APPLICANT. >> SHE IS ONE--. >> HI.

>> OH I'M SORRY. >> LESLIE SNYDER? THANK YOU.

YES, MA'AM. >> IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOING ON IN THE P & Z MEETINGS, WHAT WITH YOU ALREADY SLOTED, IS WHAT IS GOING ON. ADDITIONALLY, IT IS EXTREMELY COMMON AND STANDARD FAUXER YOU TO HAVE THE THREE-INCH CALIBER TREES.

THIS IS ACROSS ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS AND EVERYTHING THAT I'VE SEEN ON MY SIDE, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL, DOES NOT MATTER. THE BIGGER THE TREE, THE MORE CHANCE THAT IT'S GOING TO DIE IF WE TRY TO REPLANT IT. SO I SUGGEST THAT YOU DON'T GET LARGER CALIBER TREES BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH THE PROBLEM OF THEM DYING.

THEY CAP AT 4 INCHES. A LOT OF COMMON ONES, LIKE LIVE OAKS OR DESERT WILLOWS WILL BE THREE-INCH SOMETIMES FOUR SPENDING ON THE TREE. I RECOMMEND THAT YOU DON'T ENCOURAGE GOING BEYOND INCOME TAXER UNLESS YOU WANT A BUNCH OF DEAD TREES.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? ANY DISCUSSION, I SHOULD SAY? SEEING NONE. WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO ACCEPT THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. SEEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE. AND THAT PASSES 4-3. ITEM 4B, DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE REQUIRED ZONING AND NOTIFICATION SIGN THAT IS SUPPOSE TO BE POSTED ON THAT SITE WAS INADVERTENTLY COVERED AND OBSCURED THE PUBLIC TO VIEW IT.

THAT ITEM HAS BEEN TABLED UNTIL MARCH 24TH, SO WE CAN UNCOVER THE SIGN AND LET EVERYBODY LOOK

[4C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by Olusoji Ojerinde for consideration to 1) Amend to the Comprehensive Plan from Estate Residential (over 20,000 square feet) to Low Density Residential (7,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet; 2) Rezone the subject property from Single Family Residential (SF-8) to Planned Development with a base zoning of Single Family Residential (SF-8); 3) Approve a concept plan to construct 18 single-family homes; 4) Amend the official Zoning Map of the City. The site is addressed as 9701 Dalrock Road, being 6.768 acres in the Hanse Hamilton Abstract No. 548, Page 595, Tract 54, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

TWO, TO REZONE OF SINGLE-FAMILY WITH A DIS OF ZONING OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

THREE, APPROVE A CONCEPT PLAN TO CONDUCT 18 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES 4, AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY. THE SITE ADDRESS IS 9701 DALROCK ROAD BEING 6768 ACRES ON HANS HAMILTON ABSTRACT NUMBER 548. MS. MORJA.

>> COMMISSIONERS, THE NEXT ITEM IN FRONT OF YOU IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

[00:20:03]

ONE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED AND THE OTHER TWO ARE UNDEVELOPED. VACANT LAND THAT IS HEAVILY VEGETATED ALSO WITH A PORTION IN THE FLOOD ZONE. THE SIGHTING QUESTION IS A NARROW 6700 LOT. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY NEAR THE FRONT PROPERTY BOUNDARY IS DESIGNATED AS FLOOD ZONE. THIS ALSO CONTAINS A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF MATURE TREES DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE IMAGINE TO MIZ LEFT. ACCESS TO THE SITE IS PROPOSED FROM DALROCK ROAD, THIS IS CURRENTLY TWO-LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY. THIS ROAD IS PLANNED AS A FOUR-LANE DIVIDED WITHIN A TWO-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. DEDICATION RIGHT AWAY FOR FUTURE EXPANSION. THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A TRIP GENERATION MEMORANDUM AND OUR ENGINEERING TEAM REVIEWED AND DETERMINED THAT THE T.I. A. IS NOT REQUIRED.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED AGAIN SF8 WHICH IS INTEND TODAY ACCOMMODATE SING THE RESIDENTIAL USES, LIBRARIES AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS AND AGRICULTURE CULTIVATION USES. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING, AT THE SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE PATTERN, YOU NOTICED THAT TO THE NORTH IT'S A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, ZONE SF8, SO THE LEFT, SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND ALSO FPD WITH SF10 AND SF20 USES ALL SINGLE-FAMILY.

TO THE SOUTH YOU HAVE A VACANT LOT AND TO THE WEST ALSO VACANT LOT AND ALSO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES PD. MEANING, THE V1 IS PRIMARILY 9,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE V21 OVER 7,000 SQUARE FEET. WHEN WE LOOK AT COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS WITH THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, WE LOOK TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY, THERE IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, IT'S ABOUT 5 ACRES AND THE ACTUAL RESIDENTS A LITTLE BIT OVER 3 THOUSANDS SQUARE FEET.

TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS WHERE YOU SEE DEVELOPED, YOU HAVE HOMES IN BETWEEN POINT 3 AND 3 ACRES WITH A DWELLING UNIT OF 2000, 3000 SQUARE FEET. AND YOU ALSO HAVE THE WATER EDGE PHASE 2 DIVISION AT APPROXIMATELY 4.4 ACRES LESS AND WITH AVERAGE HOME SIZE OF 3000 SQUARE FEET. AND THAT AGAIN, IT'S JUST AN AVERAGE, THERE IS HOMES THAT ARE 4,000 SQUARE FEET, 5,000 SQUARE FEET OR SO. AS A NOTE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT OFTEN DIFFER WHICH IS THE CASE HERE. ZONED FOR SF8, YOU DON'T SEE IT BEING PRESENT THERE TODAY. THE A PPLICANT PROPOSED TO BUILD A SITE FOR 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH MINIMUM OF 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. WHILE IT ALIGNS WITH THE SURROUND ISING AREA, THE PROPOSED LOTS AND DWELLING SIZES ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR THIS AREA, DESIGNATES A STATE RESIDENTIAL MEANING THAT, MEANING THAT LOTS OVER 20,000 OVER SQUARE FEET.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HAS LOTS THAT ARE APPROXIMATELY 8,000 SQUARE FEET, DEEMED LOW RESIDENTIAL AND DOES NOT GO WITH THE LAND USE DECEMBER --DESIGNATION.

NOW THE CONCEPT PLAN REFLECTS THIS 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE OVER 8,000 SQUARE FEET, 3 COMMON SPACE AREAS, PROPOSING STRAIGHT FRONT ENTRY GARAGE WITH NO ALLEY ACCESS, NO ALLEYS IN GENERAL AND EXTENDING OVER 1,000 SQUARE FEET TERMINATING AT A CUL-DE-SAC AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE CONCEPT PROVIDED ON THIS PRESENTATION AND ALSO ON THE STAFF REPORT.

[00:25:01]

THE APPLICANT IS STATING THAT THE REQUEST IS JUSTIFIED BY THE SITE CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING THAT IT'S NARROW, LINEAR CONFIGURATION AND THE LACK OF FEASIBLE EXTERNAL STREET CONNECTIONS. THERE WAS NO, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED FOR THE SMALLER DWELLING UNIT SIZES. THE APPLICANT WAS ALSO ASKING FOR A WAY FOR AN ALLEY WAIVER AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, FOREFRONT ENTRY GARAGE. AND ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE REQUEST IS JUSTIFIED BY AGAIN, THE SITE NARROW GEOMETRY AND BOUNDARY COMPLAINTS. PROPOSED TO ACCOMMODATE LINE--THAT ALIGN WITH THE PRODUCT DESIGN. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING A CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH GREATER THAN THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED THAN WHAT WE WANT, WHICH IS 600 SQUARE FEET, PROPOSING OVER 1,000 SQUARE FEET. HE HAS STATED THAT, YOU KNOW, DUE TO SITE CONSTRAINTS, SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING THE FEASIBILITY OF THE ROADWAY COK CONNECTIVITY, THERE IS ONLY ONE ACCESS POINT FROM DELROCK ROAD. ONE THING TO POINT OUT IS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATED WITH THE APPLICANT IN MULTIPLE OCCASIONS THAT, A DEAD END STREET EXCEEDING 600 FEET WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION, AGAIN RAISES CONCERNS WITH RESTRICTED EMERGENCY ACCESS INCLUDING POTENTIAL TO COMPLETE BLOCKAGE OF ACCESS TO AND FROM HOME DURING AN EMERGENCY. THE APPLICANT WAS ALSO ASKED TO PROVIDE A DETENTION FACILITY PLAN AND AS OF TODAY, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE.

SO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED WILL NOT BE APPROVING THIS PLAN UNLESS A POTENTIAL PLAN IS PROVIDED AND REVIEWED BY THEM. HERE I'M SHOWING THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING ANY DEVIATIONS IT'S JUST MORE FOR TO YOU LOOK AT WHAT IT'S PROPOSED WHEN IT COMES TO THE LANDSCAPE.

AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING THE BUILDING FACADES IN FRONT OF YOU.

THESE ARE JUST FOR ILLUSTRATED PURPOSES. BUT TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA ON THE TYPE OF HOME THAT THEY'LL BE PROVIDING. PUBLIC NOTICES FOR THIS ITEM WAS SENT FEBRUARY 9TH. WE RECEIVED 3 IN OPPOSITION WITHIN OUR LEGAL NOTICE SXZ THREE IN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET COURTESY NOTICE. AND YOU AS A COMMISSION TONIGHT

MAY APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CODITIONS OR DENY THIS REQUEST. >> THANK YOU.

>> I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> JUST BACK TO NOTICES AND RESPONSES, DO THOSE INCLUDE THE ONES THAT WE SAW ON OUR DESK THIS MORNING? OR THIS AFTERNOON?

>> I BROUGHT A HARD COPY, UNFORTUNATELY, WE, THERE WASN'T ENOUGH TO SEND IT TO Y'ALL TODAY, THIS AFTERNOON. SO SUCK SEE IT, AND READ IT BEFOREHAND.

BUT ESSENTIALLY THERE IS CONCERNS AGAIN WITH THE,--. >> WHAT I'M ASKING IS BEYOND

AND ABOVE THE THREE THAT WERE NOTED HERE? >> NO, THAT'S IT.

THEY'VE BEEN COUNTED FOR. >> OKAY. AND ALL COMMISSIONERS HAVE HAD

TIME TO LOOK AT THIS? >> UH-HUH. >> THANK YOU.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? >> HE IS HERE. >> DO THEY WANT TO PROVIDE A PRESENTATION? SAY AGAIN. I HAVE NOT OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING YET. OKAY. I WILL LET YOU SPEAK, THOUGH.

[00:30:15]

>> SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING. >> SORRY, SIR IF YOU CAN SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, YOUR NAME

AND CITY OF RESIDENTS AND. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, MY NAME IS SOJI, AND I'M REPRESENTING MAX SERVICES. PROPOSING THIS DEVELOPMENT. I KNOW, LILLIANA HAS DONE SOME PRESENTATIONS. WHAT I WANTED TO ADD BRIEFLY TO WHAT SHE SAID, IS INITIALLY WE TRIED TO PRESENT ALL THE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS AND EVERYTHING.

TO THE CITY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN ON THIS FOR LIKE THREE YEARS. THIS IS A FIRST TIME, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO COME TO THIS COMMISSION. AND THE, WHAT WE GOT WAS THAT, THIS IS SF-8 ZONING AND THAT'S WHY, WE PROPOSE SF8 FOR THIS PARTICULAR LAND DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS 8,000 SQUARE FOOT BY EACH OF THE LOT. I NOTICED SOME QUESTIONS THAT THEY RAISED IN THE PRESENTATION, PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE DETENTION POND AND ALSO THE FIRE ACCESS. I WAS ABLE TO MEET WITH THE FIRE CHIEF AND THERE IS A SUBDIVISION BEHIND US WHICH IS A SCHOOL AND THE CONCLUSION WITH HIM, WAS THAT WE SHOULD LINK TO SUBDIVISION TOGETHER. SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE EASY ACCESS FOR THE FINANCIAL BUT UPON MEETING WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ABOUT THREE OR FOUR WEEKS AGO, WHAT I HEARD WAS THAT THEY DON'T WANT THIS, THIS SITE TO BE DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER.

AND THAT'S WHY, WE PROPOSE THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT IS LONGER THAN 600 FOOT.

NOW MORE, THE HOUSES, WE PROPOSING IS MUCH MORE THAN THAT.

AND ALSO PROPOSING, LIKE A FENCE. SO WE CAN SEPARATE FROM EACH OF THE PROPERTIES. THE PROPERTIES ARE UNDER THOSE. SO WE LOOKED AT THEM, THE CURRENT SUBDIVISION WHICH IS JUST LIKE ADJACENT BEHIND THOSE AND WE NOTICED THAT WHAT THEY HAVE IN THE LOT IS ABOUT 10,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS WE'RE ABLE TO MEET UP WITH IT WITH THE SIZE OF THE LOT THAT WE HAVE. BECAUSE IT HAS A LOT OF CONSTRAINT BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH OF THIS PARTICULAR LOT. ACROSS US.

AND WE NOTICED THE ABSENCE, 10,000 SQUARE FOOT. WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WE CAN GO WITH THE 8,000 SQUARE FOOT BY EACH OF THE LOT. NOW, WE TRIED TO CREATE LIKE A, BUFFER BECAUSE WE NOTICED THAT ROUTE IS TOO NARROW. WE KNOW THAT LATER IN THE FUTURE, THE CITY MAY WANT TO DO SOMETHING BIGGER IN THAT PARTICULAR IN THE ROUTE.

NOW SOME OF THESE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS WERE ALREADY OUT THERE. BUT BECAUSE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOLD US, WE NEED A SITE CONCEPT AND THAT'S WHAT WE SUBMITTED.

SO IF WE'RE ALLOWED, APPROVED WE HAVE ALREADY. DRAWINGS WHICH WE'LL DISCLOSE WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO SUBMIT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

MR. POLLARD? >> SIR, YOU'RE REQUESTING QUITE A FEW VARIANCES TO THE SF8 CODE.

SO LET ME ASK YOU, SEVERAL QUESTIONS HERE. THE STAFF THAT MENTIONED TO YOU

[00:35:03]

CORRECTLY, YOU HAVE NOT REPLIED? >> SPEAKER: NO, ACTUALLY, I DIDN'T MEET WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WITH THAT. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE DON'T NEED ANY. WE HAVE A LOT OF ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, THIS WAS GOING TO BE LIKE A SITE CONCEPT, SO THERE ARE SOME DRAWINGS THAT WE DON'T NEED.

I ACTUALLY HAVE ALL THE DRAWINGS. >> OKAY.

AND I THINK THERE WAS A COMMENT ALSO IN HERE, ABOUT THE, THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN THAT YOU HAD NOT SUBMITTED A PLAN SINCE THERE IS QUITE A FEW TREES ON THAT PROPERTY?

>> YES, SIR. I HAD A TREE MITIGATION PLAN BUT LIKE THE INFORMATION, I GOT WAS THAT WE DON'T NEED THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN AT THIS STAGE. I'VE BEEN ON THIS FOR THREE YEARS. I'VE DONE SO MANY TREE MITIGATION PLANS.

BUT WHAT I WAS TOLD WAS AT THIS STAGE, WHAT WE NEED IS THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WE CAN ALWAYS

BRING IN ALL THE DRAWINGS LATER. >> OKAY. AND TELL ME WHY, THE SF8 DESIGNATION HAS A MINIMUM OF DWELLINGS SIZE OF 1800 SQUARE FEET.

AND YOU'RE ASKING FOR 1226 SQUARE FEET TO 1700 AND SOMETHING SQUARE FEET, IS THAT

RIGHT? >> NO, SIR. I'M NOT ASKING FOR THAT, I THINK THAT'S AN ERROR PROBABLY FROM MY SIDE OR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE DRAWINGS, THEY'RE VERY BIG DRAWINGS.

THE MINIMUM SIZE OF DWELLING WE'RE LOOKING AT IS 3000 SQUARE FOOT.

>> I'M SORRY, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET? >> 3000 SQUARE FOOT.

>> 3000. >> YEAH. SO I'M NOT LOOKING TO WHERE TO LOOK WE'RE LOOKING AT, THE FAMILIES THAT CAN INCREASE THE POPULATION AND BRING MORE TAXES

TO THE CITY IF WE ALLOWED TO DO--TO BE APPROVED. >> OKAY.

AND YOU PROVIDED DRAWINGS SHOWING KIND OF THE FACADE DESIGN OF HOUSES THAT YOU'RE

GOING TO PUT IN THIS SUBDIVISION? >> YES.

WE CAN ALWAYS BE DATED, WHAT IT IS UPDATED, IF THE CITY WANTS US TO UPDATE, WE CAN DO THAT.

>> SO WHAT DO YOU FEATURE THE FACADE, THE MAKE PICKUP OF THE FACADE IS VENEER?

ROCK? >> SO MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF FACADE LIKE, YOU CAN HAVE A, A TRANSITION, YOU CAN HAVE DIFFERENT KIND OF FACADE. WHAT THE CITY, WE CAN HAVE THE

SAME FACADE IN ALL THE--AND DIFFERENT FEATURES. >> ALL RIGHT.

HAVE YOU TALKED TO ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS AROUND, ESPECIALLY NEXT DOOR TO YOUR SUBDIVISION?

>> NOT REALLY SIR, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

IT TOOK ME THIS LONG TO GET TO THIS POINT. BUT I'M WILLING TO TALK TO THEM TO FIND SOLUTION TO SEE ANY OF THEIR QUESTIONS AND ANYTHING THEY HAVE SO WE CAN WORK

TOGETHER. >> OKAY. THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

>> COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. MS. DEDRIGE?

>> WE HAVE THREE FIRST ONE IS CAROLYN LINEHAN. LIN HANNE SORRY ABOUT.

SECOND ONE IS RAY LINHAN. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> SPEAKER: I'M CAROLYN LINHAN

I HAVE LIVED AT MY HOUSE FOR 39 YEARS AND. >> YOU CAN PULL THE MIC DOWN TO

YOU. >> SPEAKER: THE SHORT PERSON. YES.

[00:40:05]

THE, THE PROPERTY IS HEAVILY HEAVILY WOODED, WE JUST WALKED BACK THERE.

IT'S A HABITAT FOR MANY WONDERFUL CREATURES. MY PROPOSAL IS, SO THAT I'M NOT SAYING, NIMBY FOR SMALLER HOUSES, BUT HAVING LIVED THERE SO LONG, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THE MAYOR'S PARK WHICH IS PROPERTY VERY CLOSE TO THERE, IT'S ONLY THING THAT EVER HAPPENS THERE IS, MOWING. NOBODY--IN 40 YEARS, I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING ENJOY THE PARK.

SO IF THEY DON'T DO THE WETLAND AREA WHERE THERE ARE HER INS AND COYOTE AND, AND FABULOUS WILDLIFE BACK THERE AND IT'S VERY PRECIOUS PART OF LIVING IN ROWLETT, THERE IS ALTERNATES THAT WOULD BE BETTER SUITED. AND IT WOULD HAVE 2 POINTS OF EGRESS AND ALL THAT IMPORTANT

STUFF. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> RAY, I LIVE AT QUAIL GLEN SUBDIVISION. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PLANNER, SO, OUR ALLEY LOOKING EAST, I WOULD BE LOOKING RIGHT AT IT, DO YOU HAVE THE ACTUAL

YARDAGE OR FEET? HOW FAR FROM MY LOT? >> SIR.

YOU CAN MAKE COMMENTS TO US, BUT WE CAN'T RESPOND TO YOU AND YOU CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. OKAY. SO PLEASE, ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS. AND THERE IS A LOT OF PRECIOUS HABITAT.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DEVASTATION. THERE IS 1,000 TREES.

AND ANOTHER THING. THE TRAFFIC IS OUT OF CONTROL NOW.

AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, EXITING AND FORWARDING RIGHT THERE THAT COME OFF LIBERTY GROVE. IT'S BAD NOW. WE NEED TO STOP AT THE SIGN THAT IS SET THE ZONING, I GOT DRILLED JUST LOOKING AT THE SIGN.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE TURNING DOWN, THAT'S BAD. PLEASE GO OUT THERE AND SEE WHAT I'M SAYING. WALK THE PLACE. IT'S, I MEAN THIS IS ABOMINATION, IT'S CRAZY TO PUT MORE TRAFFIC OUT THERE. IT'S BEYOND CONTROL RIGHT NOW.

WHEN IF YOU GO DOWN, PAST MY SUBDIVISION, THERE IS A IMMEDIATE RIGHT TURN, PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GOING IN THE DITCH THERE ANYWAY. THEY'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR 20 YEARS. AND THEN IT LOOPS AROUND ANOTHER ALMOST 90, AND THEY'RE DOING 50 AND EVERY YEAR MORE AND MORE TRAFFIC. AND THEN THERE IS AN INCLINE AND YOU'RE GOING TO WANT THEM TO PULL IN AND--IT'S BAD THERE. AND THEN GO UP TO LIBERTY GROVE. PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT AND BETWEEN EVERYTHING, I MEAN, I JUST CAN'T THINK OF A WORSE THING. THEY'LL BE NO GREEN SPACE LEFT IN ROWLETT. SO, BUT I NEED THAT INFORMATION FOR MY OWN THING.

IT'S AN INCOMPLETE PROPOSAL. THERE IS SOME GIGANTIC TREES AS BIG AS THEIR EVERY GREENS, AS BIG AS THE CEILING HERE, AND IF THEY LEFT THEM THERE, THAT WOULD BE ADVENTAGOUS.

I HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT THE LAND, IF I KNEE THEY WERE GOING TO DEVASTATE IT.

WE MET SOMETHING THAT THEY BOUGHT 13 ACRES OF IT AND THEY WERE PLANNING ON DEVELOPING IT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. YOUR TIME IS UP. >> WE HAVE ONE MORE, MARK

[00:45:01]

COOLOUS. >> SPEAKER: I'M MARK, I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 26 YEARS.

I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF ROWLETT SINCE 1990. I HEAR BY SUBMIT A FORMAL OBJECTION THAT THIS CANNOT GO THROUGH. THE COMPATIBILITY, THE LOCATION, IT'S NEXT TO MILLION DOLLARS HOMES ON MILLION DOLLARS PROPERTIES.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JAMMING THIS, SMALLER HOMES AND TRYING TO GET SMALLER HOMES IN THERE ALREADY. AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK, ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT, THANK GOD FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR SAYING WHAT THEY DID.

I KNOW ROWLETT HAS A MINIMUM OF ALL OF THIS STUFF. I HOPE ROWLETT WILL HOLD EVERYBODY ACCOUNTABLE FOR WOO IS GOING ON IN THIS TOWN. -- WHEN THEY PUT THE SUBDIVISION, THEY GOT NO DETENTION PONDS UP THERE. AND EVER SINCE THE SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN IN, THE ONE ADJACENT TO PROPERTY LOAD. ANY PROPERTY HAS BEEN FLOODING, IT HAS NEVER FLOODED BECAUSE THERE IS NO DETENTION. THERE IS 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAN THAT GOES DOWN AND IT'S PRETTY EXTENSIVE, IT COMES UP FROM. CENTER LINE AND THE CREEK UP, 60-80, 100 FEET FROM BOTH SIDES. IT'S VERY LARGE. AND FROM WHAT I SEE, THERE IS NO FEMA PLAN. FEMA IS GOING TO BE, STUDIES AND ALL OF THIS STUFF ON IT.

THIRD TO TRAFFIC. THERE IS MORNINGS I CANNOT EVEN TURN TO GO LEFT TOWARDS LIBERTY GROVE BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH TRAFFIC THAT COMES UP DALROCK ROAD.

AND THEN WHEN YOU GO TOWARDS GEORGE BUSH, IT'S A 15-MINUTE HIKE TO GO TWO MILES.

AND SO, WITH THE TRAFFIC STUDY THERE, BUT I WISH THEY WOULD LOOK IT AND MAYBE THEY CAN GO SET ON LIBERTY GROVE. IT'S A TWO-LANE ROAD. SO MY CLEAR REQUEST IS TO DENVER THIS PROPOSED TO THE CITY. I SIT HERE, 28 YEARS AGO, IN FRONT OF SAME COMMITTEE AND I PROMISED GARY, HE WAS THE PLANNING AND ZONING GUY, THAT I WOULD NOT DO, WHAT THIS PROPOSAL IS ASKING TO BE DONE. I, I ADHERE TO MY WORD, TO THE CITY, I PRAY THE GOD THAT THE CITY ADHERES TO THEIR WORD TO THE WAY THIS IS SUPPOSE TO BE.

[APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO OTHER SPEAKERS, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONERS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR.

HERNANDEZ. >> I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE THE PROPERTY AND THE

OTHER DETAILS AS LISTED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS LISTED, WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. WHITE. DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS?

MR. JOBE? >> I HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS AND JUST TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS ON WHAT IS GOING ON. BASICALLY, EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED, SO I'LL BE OTING NO. I DO HAVE, I KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPER DOES NOT WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY RIGHT NOW, FOR BRINGING THINGS AS FAR AS TREE MITIGATION BUT I FEEL THOSE ARE MISSING ELEMENTS AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT.

I FEEL LIKE IT'S MISSING. I DID DRIVE OUT THERE TO THAT PROPERTY THERE IS A LOT OF

[00:50:02]

I'LL BE VOTING NO AGAINST THIS. >> MR. WHITE? >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? IS IT ACCESS TO THE ROAD? OR MOVING TRUCK AROUND?

>> IT'S THE LENGTH OF THE CUL-DE-SAC IT CANNOT EXCEED OVER 600 FEET WITHOUT.

>> IS THAT A SAFETY CONCERN WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? >> YES, THAT IS A SAFETY

CONCERN. >> OKAY. THAT WAS IT.

>> MR. BLAYDES. >> IS SHARE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS CONCERN.

I'M PERPLEXES WITH THE PROPOSAL THE 1200 SQUARE FOOT AND THE APPLICANT SAYS IT'S 3000.

THAT'S A PRETTY BIG CHANGE. THERE IS A LOT OF PROBLEMS LIKE HE SAID, BUT JUST, IT'S A

MATTER OF PROCESS, THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A BIG JUMP. >> SO I HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION.

I'VE BEEN ASKING, I'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH WITH THE APPLICANT AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DON'T REQUIRE AT THIS POINT, IS A TREE MITIGATION SURVEY.

WE DO NOT REQUIRE THAT. THAT'S WHY I TOLD THE APPLICANT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ASK AT THE TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO THAT'S WHY HE DID NOT PROVIDE THAT.

HE DID HAVE AS PART OF THE SUBMISSION THAT HE GAVE US STAFF BUT IT WAS NOT PART OF THE PACKET FOR THAT REASON. THE SECOND ITEM, PERTAINING TO THE DWELLING UNIT, WE CAN SO, THE APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE US AT THE FINAL SUBMITTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOMES.

A PREVIOUS EDITRATION OF THE SUBMITTAL, SHOWED THE DWELLING UNITS THAT I'M SHARING WITH YOU ALL. IF THE APPLICANT IS NOW LETTING US KNOW THAT IT'S 3000 SQUARE FEET. WE CAN DEFINITELY MAKE THAT CHANGE.

>> MR. HERNANDEZ. >> I TOO JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS HOW MUCH HOW TROUBLED I AM WITH THIS APPLICATION, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S NOT COMPLETE. THERE IS SOME, SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ISSUE WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC IS PRETTY MAJOR IN MY MIND. AND THEN, THE DETENTION POND, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A FULL PLAIN, BECAUSE IT'S, I THINK IT'S, THIS AREA JUST SPEAKS THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE ISSUES IF EVERYTHING IS NOT CORRECTLY ADDRESSED FOR US TO EVEN CONSIDER THIS, THIS WOULD

BE, THIS CONSIDER THIS AS SOMETHING TO APPROVE. >> MR. ENTERRON IF YOU CAN

PLEASE SPEAK TO THE MIC AND MAKE YOUR COMMENTS. >> YES, AS EVERYBODY WHO DRIVES THROUGH HERE EVERY DAY. IS, THERE WILL BE HOMES THERE, AT SOME POINT FOR SURE, BUT IT CAN'T BE SUCH A COME PAT SITUATION. MUCH BIGGER NICER HOMES AND WITH DEFINITELY, AT LEAST TWO IF NOT THREE, YOU KNOW, ACCESS POINTS TO THAT PROPERTY.

[APPLAUSE] >> COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

DISCUSSION? MR. POLLARD? >> OKAY, I TOO HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. THE PROBLEMS ARE, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR US TO GO AHEAD AND REZONE THIS PROPERTY. AND BEFORE, I'M WILLING TO REZONE ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT IS, I WANT TO KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IS GOING IN THERE. WE HAVE IN OUR PACKTHAT IT'S MENTIONED 1220 SOME ODD LOTS, HOUSES TO 1226 MINIMUMS, UP TO 1700 AND SOMETHING.

[00:55:08]

I HAVE PROBLEMS BECAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, HE'S ASKING FOR A STREET THAT IS BASICALLY ALMOST TWICE AS LONG AS WHAT THE REGULATION SAYS. IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO TWICE.

AND, THAT'S JUST IT'S A STRAIGHT BASICALLY A STRAIGHT SHOT WITH ONE WIDE EPING SPOT TO GET A FIRE TRUCK IN THERE AND OUT OF THERE AND TURN AROUND AND THAT'S, THAT'S I THINK THAT THAT IS A PROBLEM. THE GENTLEMAN THAT LIVES RIGHT NEXT DOOR, THESE HOUSES ARE GOING TO BACK UP TO HIS FENCE. BUT I WAS GOING TO, AND I HAD SENT A SUNDAY IN AN EMAIL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND I'VE TALKED TO MR. OMOJN THIS MORNING, AND THAT'S TO GET YOU INFORMATION AFTER I HAD GONE UP THERE SATURDAY AND LOOKED AT IT. A BETTER MAP OF SEEING WHAT IS SATELLITE VIEW INSTEAD OF WHAT WAS IN OUR PACKET. AND, AS SOME OF THE VALUES, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. BY THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE BY THE WAY, BOUGHT THEIR PROPERTY IN 24 COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

MAYBE NOT QUITE TWO AREAS AGO. SOME OLDER THAN THAT. SOME IN THE 80S, BUT THE POINT I'M BRINGING THAT UP IS, I GO OUT AND SPEND THE MONEY, HARDENED MONEY THAT I SAVED AND I PUT UP A VERY NICE HOME AND SWIMMING POOLS AND SEVERAL OF NEIGHBORS HAVE THEM OUT THERE.

AND I THINK THIS IS ALL ZONED SF40, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE THAT WAY A WHILE.

AND THEN I HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT COMES IN NEXT DOOR TO ME THAT WE HAVE IN WRITING ANYWAY IN OUR PACKETS OF STARTER HOMES. GET DOWN TO THE POINT OF THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

1200 SQUARE FOOT HOME, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT I PUT IN MINE. I'M P GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH THE TAXES I'M PAYING AND WE'LL ASK AGAIN, REDUCE OUR OR CHANGE THE ZONING FROM WHAT WAS THERE WHEN HE BUILT. WHAT WAS THERE WHEN THEY PUT THE MONEY INTO THEIR HOMES.

AND YES, THAT DOESN'T GUARANTEE THAT WILL CHANGE. BUT IF WE ALLOW THIS TO GO IN THE VACANT RESIDENTS OR THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT IS NOT, THAT IS NOT DEVELOPED IN THERE, WILL SOON TOPPLE AND YOU'LL HAVE A MISH MASH OF THE HOMES AND THE OTHER. WATER VIEW HOMES-

AND I'M JUST, I'M NOT FOR THAT. [APPLAUSE] >> I PROBABLY SPENT TOO MUCH TIME LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE THINGS AND I WAS ALSO STRUCK BY WHAT YOU WERE STRUCK BY.

THAT AND IN ADDITION TO THE ZONING, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE FUTURE USE, IS EVEN GOES, GOES THE OTHER WAY FROM ITS CURRENT ZONING. AND I FIND IT HARD TO GO AS FAR AS THEY'RE GOING, ANYWHERE NEAR WHERE THEY'RE GOING. THAT'S ALL.

[APPLAUSE] >> I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MR. BLAYDES, IT'S AN ESTATE RESIDENTIAL FUTURE USE AND CURRENTLY, SEVERAL ESTATES RESIDENTIAL IN THAT AREA.

[01:00:04]

WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE DOES NOT ONLY MEET A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS, BE IT FIRE CODE OR SF8 PARAMEET PEZER, THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES IT OR, YOU KNOW, COMPELS ME THAT IT'S A MUCH BETTER BUILT ENVIRONMENT THAN JUST A STANDARD SF8. SO, I'M NOT INCLINED TO SUPPORT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? HEARING NO OTHERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED. LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.

DO WE NEED TO DO IT AGAIN? THERE WE GO. [APPLAUSE] AND THAT FAILS PASS 0-7. AND WHAT THAT 4D WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH 24TH, SO

WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. >> CAN I MAKE ONE QUICK ASK OF YOU. YOU TABLED ITEM 4B TO 3/24 MAZE WE --MAY WE ASK YOU TO MOVE IT TO MARCH 10TH. THEY'VE HAD THEIR SIGN UP SINCE JANUARY 15TH AND WE WANT TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT OF SOMETHING TO HOPE FOR IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.

>> HOW LONG THAT'S BEEN COVERED? >> TWO DAYS. >> IT'S BEEN LONGER THAN TWO DAYS. THAT FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY LINE HAS BEEN UP SINCE LAST

WEEK. >> OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS LAST UP BUT I KNOW IT'S BEEN UP LONG ENOUGH THAT I THINK IF THEY UNCOVER IT TOMORROW, THEY'LL

HAVE A GOOD TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. >> THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE

CITY ATTORNEY. >> AND WHAT IS OUR LEGAL OPINION?

>> IT ONLY HAS TO BE SHOWN FOR TEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE 4B UNTIL MARCH 10TH.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND WITH

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.