[3. WORK SESSION ] [00:56:48] >> FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS, CARDS ARE LOCATED INSIDE THE [00:56:51] DOOR OF THE CHAMBERS. FIRST ITEM OF AGENDA IS TO CALL [1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:56:57] MEETING TO ORDER. AND THE SECOND ITEM IS CITIZENS [00:57:01] INPUT. AT THIS TIME THREE MINUTE [00:57:04] COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE ACTION NOT TAKEN FROM THE [00:57:08] COMMISSION DURING CITIZEN'S INPUT. [00:57:10] DO WE HAVE ANY -- ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS [00:57:16] THE ZONING COMMISSION? HEARING NONE. [00:57:19] SEEING NONE WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE CITIZEN'S INPUT. [4. CONSENT AGENDA ] [00:57:23] IO THEM 3 WAS A WORK SESSION TOOK PLACE EARLIER A CONSENT [00:57:28] AGENDA AND MOTION THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION OR CITIZEN MAY [00:57:33] REQUEST ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM EXTENT AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA WE HAVE ONE ITEM OF THE MARCH 10TH, 2026 REGULAR MEETING WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO REVIEW THAT? OKAY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. HERNANDEZ. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. >> WE HAVE MOTION TO ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ONLY THING I WILL ADD IN THE PACKET THE ITEM WAS THE MINUTES HAS BEEN AMENDED TO INCLUDE THAT. SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 7-0. [5A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request to amend the zoning ordinance and map of the City of Rowlett, as previously amended, by amending the zoning from General Commercial/Retail (with an existing Special Use Permit approved through Ordinance (C-2 – SUP-Ord. 018-25) to General Commercial/Retail with a Special Use Permit allowing newly defined unmanned aircraft systems hub use for a portion of an approximately 2.85 acre tract commonly known as 5408 Kenwood Drive and described as a portion of Lot 6RA, Block A of the amending replat of Lukes Landing Lots 5ARA and 6RA, Block A, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.] INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AND WILL BE LIMITED THREE MINUTES REGULATION FORM INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ITEM 5A CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST TO AMEND. THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT BY AMENDING ZONING FROM COMMERCIAL RETAIL WITH AN PERMIT APPROVED THROUGH THE ORDINANCE CEUCP WORD.01 -- 25 TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL WITH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING NEWLY DEFINED UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS, HUB USE FOR A PORTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 2.85 ACRE TRACT COMMONLY KNOWN AS 5408 KENWOOD DRIVE AS A PORTION OF LOT 64A BLOCK A OF THE AMENDING REPLOT OF AR BLOCK A AND CITY OF ROWLETT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS MR. KING. [01:00:05] [INAUDIBLE] START OUT WITH GIVE ME ONE SECOND. LET'S GET THIS PRESENTATION UP. >> SHOULD BE ON. OH. YOUR MIC, YOUR PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS A REZONING REQUEST. WE'RE ACTUALLY JUST TAKING THE EXISTING SUP WE'RE GOING SCRAP IT AND CREATE A NEW S.U.P. USES ELEMENTS OF THE EXISTING SITE PLANNING, EXISTING S.U.P., AND EXPANDING. SO THAT'S REALLY ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO. SO THIS IS A UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM HUB, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 11 DOCK TOWERS. THERE'S 10 DOCK TOWERS ALLOWED UNDER THE CURRENT S.U.P. THERE'S APPLICANTS INSTALLED EIGHT EXISTING DOCK TOWERS SO THEY WANT TO ADD ONE MORE ABOVE WHAT REQUIRES. THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR GRAVEL PAVING, CURRENTLY HAVE AN EIGHT FOOTED WILDING MESH FENCE THEY WANT TO EXPAND THAT FENCE AROUND THE EXPANDED AREA AND AVOID SOME LANDSCAPING PRIMARILY BECAUSE UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS DON'T DO WELL AROUND TREES WITH BIRDS FLYING AT THEM. SO THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING A FOLLOWING WAFERS AND DEVIATIONS IS PART OF THEIR S.U.P. REQUEST. THEY'RE REQUESTING PAVING. WE REQUIRE CONCRETETE PAVING. THEY'RE REQUESTING GRAVEL PAVING FOR UP TO 18 MONTHS AFTER WHICH THE APPLICANT WILL REPLACE THE GRAVEL WITH THE REQUIRED CONCRETE. THE LANDSCAPING WE REQUIRE THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS PER SECTION 77504RDC TREES AND SHRUBS. THEY'RE REQUESTING NO PAVING FOR UP TO 18 MONTHS AFTER WHICH THE APPLICANT WILL BRING THE SITE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH 77504. JUST NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME TO DO IT. UNDERSTAND HOW NATURE IS GOING TO IMRACT WITH THEIR SITE. FENCING THEY'RE REQUESTING AN 8 FOOT RUBBER COATED CHAIN LENGTH FENCE. THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY AMENDED APPROVAL ON A PAVING WHERE CONCRETE PAVING WAS REQUIRED, THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL GRADUATED PAVING FOR UP TO 12 MONTHS OR GRAVEL PAVING FOR UP TO 12 MONTHS. AND AFTER WHICH THE APPLICANT WILL REPLACE GRAVEL WITH CONCRETE AS FAR AS THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, THE COUNCIL OR COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED NO PAVING FOR UP TO 12 MONTHS AFTER WHICH THE APPLICANT WILL BRING THE SITE INTO COMPLAINS WITH SECTION 77504. SO AS FAR AS FENCING GOES, THE RECOMMENDED THEY GRANTED REQUESTED FOR 12 MONTHS AFTER WHICH REPLACE THE CHAIN LENGTH FENCE WITH ROD IRON FENCE. THERE WAS A TEMPORARY CONTAININR ON THE SITE WHEN THEY INITIALLY STARTED. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND IS TEMPORARY CONTAINER BE REPLACED WITH A PERMANENT STRUCTURE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH CITY BUILDING PERMITS WITHIN 12 MONTHS. SO WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATION FOR THIS WITHIN 11 NOTICES WENT OUT TO PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET. WE GOT NO RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR AND 500 FEET AS A COURTESY. WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR. >> SO RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL WITH A REQUEST OF COMMISSIONS, COMMISSIONER RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR NORMAL CONDITIONS -- [INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU. DO YOU RECALL WHEN WE APPROVED THE INITIAL? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS MAY OF LAST YEAR. >> MAY SO ALMOST A YEAR. >> ALMOST A YEAR. THEY GOT SINCE NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ANY QUESTIONS MR. POLLARD. >> MR. KING? IF YOU'LL PUT BACK COUPLE OF YOUR SLIDE THERES THERE ONE IS E PASSED LAST YEAR. [01:05:06] AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS: HAS THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED ANYTHING TO CHANGE THE FENCING? AND GO TO THE CONCRETE VERSUS GRAVEL? [LAUGHTER] >> ONE SECOND. CAN YOU BACK IT UP? >> THAT WILL DO. >> NO, NOT YET. I THINK THEY'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF WHEN THEY REALIZE THEY WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE OF MORE DOCKING STATIONS. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TEAR IT UP. TEAR UP ANY CONCRETE BY PUTTING IN NEW DOCKING STATIONS. >> I HAVE SUBMITTED ANYTHING FOR THE PERMANENT APPLICANTS. FOR THE PERMANENT STRUCTURE THAT THEY HAVE -- WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TEMPORARY STRUCTURE FOR. >> THAT IS YET I BELIEVE THEY'RE HERE TO ANSWER IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. THAT WILL DO. THANK YOU. >> MY QUESTION IS, IT SAYS 18 MONTHS I'M ASSUMING WE'RE REFERRING TO JUST THIS NEW TOWER. SO THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TOO GET THE OTHERS DONE WITH THE CONCRETE PAD WITHIN 12 MONTHS. OR IS THIS TALKING ABOUT ALL -- >> S.U.P. WILL SCRAP THE OLD S.U.P. AND START -- >> START THE CLOCK WITH NEW -- >> BASES IS OFF THE CERTIFICATE. >> SO THE ORIGINAL S.U. SP. FOR THE ENTIRE SITE OF THAT FACILITY WHICH IS 2.5 ACRES IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, HOWEVER, THE S.U.P. SHOULD BE SPECIFIC TO THE USE WHICH IS THE HUB OR THE ZIP LINE WHICH IS THE OPERATOR. AND THAT IS WHY THIS APPLICATION IS COME FOR THE FORWARD IN THIS MANNER SHOWING THE EXIST NOW THIS REQUEST S.U.P. IS ONLY FOR THE 15,000 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT LOCATION AND OF THAT SPECIFIC USE WITHIN THAT OVERALL SHOPPING CENTERS IS THE BEST WAY TO DEFINE IT. SO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT CURRENTLY WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE EIGHT HUBS PLUS ADDITIONAL 11 THEY'RE ADDING TO COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING AND PROPOSED. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY WE HAVE TO START ALL THE WAY WHAT'S THE PURPOSE STARTING ALL THE WAY OVER FOR 18 MONTH WHEN IS WE'VE ALREADY HAD 11 MONTHS TO DO THE ORIGINAL? >> MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION -- >> WHICH IS YOUR PREROGATIVE IT HAS A COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND HOW YOU CHOOSE WITH THE CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE S.U.P.. WE WERE JUST ELABORATING WHAT THOSE CONDITIONS FOR. FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. -- >> GENERALLY SPEAKING I LIKE -- I DON'T LIKE CONCRETE BECAUSE OF THE RUNOFF AND WHY WOULD THE, WHY GRAVEL NOT BE PREFERABLE TO CONCRETE FOR RUNOFF PURPOSES ON A SITE LIKE THIS? >> IT IS NOT A APPROVED SURFACE IN THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT'S WITHIN Y'ALL'S PREROGATIVE IF Y'ALL WANTED TO KEEP GRAVEL YOU COULD. >> I JUST DON'T LIKE ALL OF THE RUNOFF THAT'S CREATED BY CONCRETE WHEN IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT IS NECESSARY HERE. AND MAYBE I'M WAY OFF-BASE. BUT -- >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> APPLICANT, WOULD YOU LIKE -- >> I'M SORRY. DIDN'T SEE YOU THERE, MS. WILLIAMS? >> WHEN IS THE 12 MONTHS UP? IS IT FROM NOVEMBER? NOVEMBER TO NOVEMBER OR FROM JUNE TO JUNE? >> THE LAST 12 MONTH ONE THAT WE APPROVED IS ALL GONE. OKAY? IT'S -- IF THIS IS APPROVED THIS WILL SUPERSEDE THE LAST. >> NO, BUT IF THIS ISN'T APPROVED 12 MONTHS IS UP WHEN? >> 12 MONTHS WILL BE UP IN NOVEMBER. >> IN NOVEMBER. >> IF THIS IS APPROVED, IS THIS 18 -- >> HOLD ON MS. WILLIAMS HANG ON ONE SECOND. >> MICHAEL WE NEED TO CLARIFY FOR THE AUDIENCE AND, OBVIOUSLY, FOR THE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION THE 12 MONTHS IS BASED ON THE ORDINANCE JUNE 27TH, 2025; CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. >> MS. WILLIAMS. >> SO THE 12 MONTHS IS UP IN JUNE. 18 MONTHS WOULD JUST EXTEND THE [01:10:05] JUNE DEADLINE FOR SIX MORE MONTHS OR WOULD IT EXTEND THE JUNE DEADLINE FOR 18 MONTHS? >> NO. >> BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW S.U.P. THAT IS A PREROGATIVE OF THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL IF HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO SET THAT AS A CONDITION. >> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR 18 MONTHS SO -- >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? >> HELLO EVERYONE. MY NAME IS REAGAN WITH ZIP LINE I HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF OUR HISTORIAN GET THROUGH IT QUICKLY BECAUSE I THINK YOU KNOW WHEN WE ARE BY NOW AND I UNDERSTAND QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD AND DISCUSS THOSE AS WELL. SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND TAKING US THROUGH. OH I HAVE A CLICKER. THANK YOU EVEN BETTER. OKAY. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF VIDEOS THEY'RE VERY SHORT. >> COULD YOU HANG ON JUST ONE SECOND PLEASE BECAUSE YOUR MICROPHON DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ON. >> A LOT CLOSER IF THAT'S BETTER. IS THAT ON NOW? YOU CAN HEAR ME NOW. GOOD. OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> A COUPLE OF SHORT VIDEOS I THINK SOMETIME WHEN IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DRONES IT DOES HELP TO SEE THEM IN FLIGHT SO HERE WE GO. AND THEN -- SHOULD IT PLAY? HERE WE GO. SO THIS IS OUR ORIGINAL AIRCRAFT THIS IS WHERE WE STARTED OVER TEN YEARS AGO IN AFRICA DELIVERING BLOOD AND CRUCIAL MEDICAL SURPRISE A HEALTH CARE LOGISTIC COMPANY BECAUSE THAT WAS N NEEDED BY THE FOLKS WHEREE WERE. SINCE THEN WE'VE FLOWN OVER TWO MILLION DELIVERIES OVER 115 AUTONOMIST MILES THAT MEANS OUR AIRCRAFT GO OUT AND COME HOME ON THEIR OWN AND CHANGED HOW WE FLY SO THIS IS HOW WE FLEW IN RURAL AFRICA AND NOW THE AIRCRAFT FLIES HERE IN TEXAS. THIS AIRCRAFT NEVER LANDS WHEN IT'S OUT IN THE FIELD. IT ONLY DOCKS DISCHARGING HUB LIKE THERE IN ROWLETT IT DROPS DOWN A POD TO THE GROUND TO DO PICKUPS AND DELIVERIES AND WE DO THAT THE INTENTION TO STAY OUT OF FOLK'S WAY REALLY. YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE FOLKS THAT OPERATE ON THE GROUND WE HAVE MAINTENANCE FOLKS BASED OUT OF THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH REGION AND DELIVERING TO FOLKS IN ROWLETT DAILY. WE SEE THIS IS IMPROVING FOLKS WITH A HARD TIME LEAVING THE HOUSE CAN'T PACK UP TO GET SOMETHING DELIVERED. IT'S A SOLUTION THAT BRINGS LESS CARS ON THE ROAD, AND ALLOWS FECK TO GET DELIVERIES FASTER BECAUSE AS CROW FLIES IT IS FASTER THAN DEALING WITH TRAFFIC. THIS IS JUST AN IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE WORLD WE ARE ALL OVER IN SEVERAL NATIONS IN AFRICA. JAPAN, ARKANSAS WAS OUR FIRST HOME HERE IN THE U.S. AND THEN WE CAME DOWN TO TEXAS AND WE'VE BEEN IN ROWLETT SINCE NOVEMBER. THIS IS KIND OF AN IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE THROUGHOUT THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH REGION AND WE'RE EXPANDING DAILY. AND LIKE I SAID WE SEE THIS AS A WAY FOR FOLKS TO GET THINGS THEY NEED WITHOUT HAVING TO GO AND GET IN THE CAR AND SIT IN TRAFFIC. WHEREVER WE ARE, WE'RE IN COMMUNICATIONS CONSTANTLY WITH FIRST RESPONDERS, WE HAVE THEM OUT ACTUALLY TO THE ROWLETT SITE FOR TOURS ALL OF THE TIME THE ROWLETT SITE IS OUR HOME IN TEXAS WE BRING JURISDICTIONS OUT TO SEE IT. AND ON THAT END, WE LOVE BEING A PART OF THE COMMUNITY HERE WE HAVE FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY OUT TO THE SITE FOR TOURS RELATIVELY FREQUENTLY. LIKE I SAID WE HAVE OUR FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING THAT COMES OUT TO THE ROWLETT SITE FOR MANY JURISDICTIONS HERE AND HOLIDAY CHEER FESTIVAL AS WELL. AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW WE'VE SEEN THE PARTNER BUSINESSES THAT WE WORK WITH SEE A 50% UP NICK DELIVERY SO WE SEE OURSELVES DRIVING BUSINESS TO THE MANY RESTAURANTS THAT EXIST IN THEHEN TOWN ALREADY. I KNOW A LOAN CHAIN AMELEAH IS ONE OF OUR CUSTOMERS AND NATIONAL CHAIN, WAL-MART CHIPOTLE. AND OUR SYSTEM IS ALWAYS BEEN DESIGNED WITH SAFETY IN MIND FIRST SO I MENTION AT THE BEGINNING THAT OUR AIRCRAFT ONLY TAKES OFF AND LANDS AT ITS CHARGING HUB. AND THAT'S INTENTIONAL. IT UNDOCKS, IT GOES STRAIGHT UP TO 300 FEET AND STAYS THROUGHOUT ITS PICKUP AND DELIVERY. THAT'S FOR SAFETY AND IT IS ALSO FOR SOUND. WE WANT TO STAY SEEMLESS IN PEOPLE'S ENVIRONMENTS WE KNOW WE'RE IN THE TOWN CENTER THERE. WE ALSO BUILD ALL OF OUR DRORONS IN THE U.S. THEY'RE ALL BUILT WHERE I HAVE MY OFFICE? SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA I GET TO BE IN THE SAME BUILD CHG IS UNIQUE. WE'RE RIGOROUSLY TESTED BY THE FAA THEY WERE OUT AT OUR HEADQUARTERS LAST WEEK. I GOT TO MEET A LOT OF FOLKS. THEY COME OUT PRETTY OFTEN SO WE'RE RIGOROUSLY TESTED BY THEM AND WE'RE IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH THEM. AND WE ALSO HAVE OUR OWN TESTING FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE U.S. WE HAVE A FEW IN CALIFORNIA, A FEW IN OREGON, WE EVEN HAVE A [01:15:04] MOST TEST RIG THAT TRIES TO FIND THE WORST WEATHER IT CAN. THIS IS AN IDEA OF HOW WE COMPARE TO C COMMON NEIGHBORHOOD SOUNDS YOU'LL RECOGNIZE A SIMILAR DOCK AT ROWLETT AND A HUNDRED FEET AWAY FROM THAT THAT WOULD BE LIKE STANDING IN YOUR LIVING ROOM AND HEARING YOUR DISHWASHER AND IT EXTENDS IMHA YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ME IT MAKES MORE SENSE IS CAR TRAFFIC GOING BY. SO IF YOU'RE NEXT TO A ROAD, AND YOU'RE ABOUT 300 FEET AWAY FROM THAT ROAD THAT IS GOING TO BE LOUDER THAN OUR DRONES ARE WHEN THEY'RE FLYING. HERE'S ANOTHER VIDEO OF HOW THINGS WORK FOR OUR OPERATORS AND THIS IS ACTUALLYY FILMED IN ROWLETT YOU'LL SEE THE TOWN IN THE BACKGROUND. OH -- I THINK I HAVE THE WRONG LINK YOU'VE SEEN THAT VIDEO. THAT'S TOO BAD. I LIKE THAT VIDEO BUT IN THAT VIDEO YOU'LL SEE THERE'S AT THE WENDY'S BY OUR SITE AN OPERATOR WALKS OVER TO A ZIPPING POPGHT IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER THAT GOES TO WORK AND IF IT IS RAINY THAT PERSON DOESN'T HAVE TO STAND OUTSIDE AND WAIT FOR OUR PICKUP. IN THE MEANTIME, OUR DRONES ARE GETTING THE CUE TO DELIVER AND YOU'LL SEE THE NEW 12 DOCK STRUCTURES. THOSE WOULD BE TWO OF THE STRUCTURES WE'RE LOOKING TO INSTALL, EXCUSE ME THREE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THERE IT FLYINGS UP TO THE 300 FEET HOVER ABOVE WENDY'S DROP DOWN THE POD PECK UP THE DELIVERY AND MAKE ITS DELIVERY. YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE WE CAN REACH THE COMMUNITY. AND THIS IS THE SITE WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT. YOU'VE SEEN THE PLANS ALREADY WE CAN TALK ABOUT THEM AT LENGTH WE'RE LOOKING TO A ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE BACK OF THE ENCLOSURE WE'RE LOOKING TO ADD THREE TOWERS. ONE OF WHICH IS ON THE CURRENT SITE, THE CURRENT S.U.P. AND OTHER TWO IN THE INITIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND I MIGHT JUST LEAVE THIS, THIS SLIDE UP IF THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE MOST I SUPPOSE I COULD COME BACK TO IT. YEAH. THANK YOU SO MAYBE WE'LL KEEP THAT SLIDE UP FOR DISCUSSION. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. [LAUGHTER] I WANT TO START WITH BEFORE I LET YOU G GUYS TAKE IT. I CAN RECALL THE INITIAL REQUEST COMING IN FOR THIS, AND WE WENT AHEAD AND APPROVED HESITANTLY APPROVED THE GRAVEL AND THE FENCING CHAIN-LENGTH FENCING AND THE VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS, LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS I SHOULD SAY. NOT EVERYBODY EATS TREES FOR A 12 MONTH PERIOD BECAUSE IT W WAS PRESENTED TO US THAT THIS WAS PRETTY MUCH GOING TO BE A PROOF OF CONCEPT ITEM AND THAT, OBVIOUSLY, IF IT DIDN'T WORK OUT, THEN YOU'LL SPEND A LOT OF MONEY FOR NOTHING. AND NOW YOU'RE HERE ASKING TO EXPAND, WHICH WOULD INFER TO ME NOT BEING AS SMART AS WHAT -- OTHER PEOPLE THAT, OBVIOUSLY, THE PROOF OF CONCEPT PANNED OUT. SO WHY ARE WE ASKING TO ESSENTIALLY EXTEND THE ORIGINAL, TEMPORARY FENCING, TEMPORARY LANDSCAPING, TEMPORARY SURFACE MATERIAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL 18 -- 16 MONTHS? >> AS YOU POINTED OUT THERE WAS THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. I MIGHT ASK FOR JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY ON THE TIMELINE FOR THAT I WAS UNDER PERCEPTION SEPTEMBERER IS TIFF KATE IS WHEN THE YEAR STARTED. >> CLARITY WOUND WOULD BE 12 MONTHS FROM WHEN IT SAID 12 MONTHS. >> IT WAS BASED ON OUR -- ON OUR CONDITION OF OCCUPANCY. >> OKAY. >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE TODAY. I THINK WHAT'S, IT WAS VERY HELPFUL FOR US TO START WITH GRAVEL I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. WHEN WE GET THESE BIG INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS OFF THE GROUND IN ADDITION TO SETTING OURSELVES UP THERE, WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH THE LOCAL UTILITY AND POLLING POWER, AND HAVING THE ABILITY TO BECOME ACTIVE ON A SITE USING THE GRAVEL RIGHT AFTER INSTALLING THE UTILITY IS VERY HELPFUL. AS YOU'RE WE'RE EXPANDING THIS SOOT WE WANT TO BECOME MORE OF THE ROWLETT COMMUNITY AND NOT LESS AND TEMPORARY APPROVAL ARE GENEROUS AND WE WOULD LOVE TO CONTINUE THOSE HERE IF POSSIBLE IT HELPS US GET UP AND SERVING [01:20:02] OUR CUSTOMERS SOONER. WE HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF COMPLYING WITH THEM IN THE LONG RUN AS YOU'LL NOTICE IN SEPTEMBER WE GOTTER IS TIFF KATE CERTIFICATE AND WE NEED MORE ON SITE BASICALLY WITHIN THE SIX MONTHS OF GETTING THIS APPROVED FOR THIS APPLICATION WE HAVE HAVING GOOD CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR PARTNERS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WE KNEW WE WANTED TO SERVE MORE AND KNEW THIS PROCESS OFTEN TAKES TIME. SO HERE WE ARE IN APRIL. A FEW MONTHS LATER AFTER WORKING WITH STAFF TO MAKE THIS SITE BRING IT FORWARD IN AN IDEAL WAY. WE'RE HOPING THAT ONCE WE GET SITE BUILT OUT AND WORKING IN THE COMMUNITY WE'LLLL BRING FORWARD THE SITE AS YOU WANT TO SEE IT. WHETHER THAT IS KEEPING THE GRAVEL AND PREFERRED CHOICE TODAY THEN WE'RE WE HAVE PUT IN THE LANDSCAPING. THERE WAS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WE HAVE ALREADY COMPLIED WITH. SIMILAR WITH THE FENCING, WE UNDERSTAND IT IS A TEMPORARY SITUATION AND WE CAN ABSOLUTELY MAKE FENCES MORE PALATABLE TO COUNSEL. OR TO THE COMMISSION, RATHER. >> SOO WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS YOU DON'T REALLY NEED THE EXCEPTIONS FOR ANY OF THOSE ITEMS? >> WE BELIEVE THE EXCEPTIONS HELP US GET UP AND RUNNING FASTER AND SERVING THE COMMUNITY FASTER. JUST AS WE DID IN THE FIRST ROUND. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> I'M STILL HAVING A HARD TIME -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE CAN'T JUST HAVE THE EIGHT TOWERS THAT WE HAVE NOW, WE NEED WHETHER IT IS NOVEMBER, WE HAVE THAT DONE AND THEN WE HAVE THIS FOR THE NEXT TWO TOWERS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED ANOTHER 18 MONTHS TO DO WHAT WE ORIGINALLY PLANNED THE FIRST GO AROUND. THAT IS JUST ME. >> MR. POLLARD? >> FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY MY NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR LOVES YOU GUYS. HE LIKES TO HAVE THEM PLACED AT DIFFERENT PLACES AROUND HIS PROPERTY. BUT WITH THAT SAID, MUCH LIKE THE CHAIRMAN, I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM. UNDERSTOOD THAT THE CONCEPT, WE DIDN'T WANT YOU GUYS TO SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY AND FALL THROUGH, DIDN'T WORK OUT. BUT NOW IT HAS, EVIDENTLY. SO I, TO, WOULD PREFER TO SEE THE PERMANENT FENCE AND THE CONCRETE PARKING LOT. NOW, DO HAVE A QUESTION. IF I AM LOOKING AT THIS DIAGRAM AND THIS PICTURE, YOU GUYS ARE BUYING A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS DISJOINTED FROM YOUR OTHER PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> WE LEASE PROPERTY AND IT IS CONTINUOUS, IT IS TOUCHING THE SITE. SO THE WHITE, GRAYISH AREA IS EXISTING AND THEN THE BLACK ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS WHAT IS BEING ADDED. >> OKAY. BECAUSE I'M ALSO SEEING IN ONE OF THE THINGS WE GOT IN OUR PACKET ON PAGE 2, THAT THE AREA THAT YOU ARE PURCHASING OR RELEASING PROPERTY, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, IT IS GREEN AND THERE IS A PIECE THAT IS NOT PART OF IT. I'M SORRY, YOU ARE RIGHT. AND THE PACKAGE WE RECEIVED, THIS PINK SECTION WAS ALMOST ALL THE WAY TO THE DENTAL OFFICE. OKAY. ANYWAY, I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY THERE WAS THAT PIECE THAT WAS LEFT. BECAUSE IT WILL BE -- IT WAS JUST MESSED UP. THAT ANSWERS THAT, THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] >> MR. HERNANDEZ? >> MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU TO TYPICALLY -- HOW LONG DID IT TAKE TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT THE TOWERS THAT YOU PUT IN? >> THE TOWERS THEMSELVES ARE ACTUALLY PREFABRICATED SO ALL OF OUR WORK IS SITE WORK. THE ACTUAL TIMELINE FOR THIS ONE, I WOULD NEED TO CHECK WITH ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, I'M NEWER TO THE COMPANY, I DIDN'T GET TO BUILD THIS ONE, BUT WE WERE APPROVED IN SPRING OF LAST Y YER AND WE HAD CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT FALL. I WOULD ASSUME A DECENT AMOUNT AT THAT TIME WAS MOBILIZATION AND GETTING ON-SITE. >> BECAUSE I GUESS FIVE THINKING ABOUT HERE WAS I RECALL YOU GUYS GETTING UP AND RUNNING PRETTY QUICKLY. PROBABLY WITHIN A MONTH OR TWO. SO I WONDER IF WE ARE TO GRANT A [01:25:01] TEMPORARY PERIOD FOR THE GRAVEL AND FOR THE LANDSCAPING OF THE FENCING, IF IT SHOULD NOT JUST BASICALLY COVERED THE TIME YOU GUYS NEED TO PUT EVERYTHING UP? >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MS. WILLIAMS? >> I'M VERY HAPPY FOR YOUR SUCCESS. AND RAO LET IS VERY HAPPY YOU ARE HERE. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO GET THE ADDITIONAL HOURS? TWO MONTHS, THREE MONTHS, FIVE MONTHS? >> FOR THE INSTALLATION ITSELF OF THE CONSTRUCTION? YOU KNOW, IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT FOR TODAY. THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN APPROVALS TO BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN MOBILIZATION CAN TAKE A FEW MONTHS. I WOULD SAY AT LEAST SIX MONTHS WOULD BE AN IDEAL TIMELINE TO GET FROM ACTUAL INITIAL CONSTRUCTION TO SIGN OFF TO PERMITS. >> OKAY, BECAUSE THE EXISTING WORK TAKES YOU TO NOVEMBER. IS THAT ADEQUATE TIME? >> THAT MAY BE ADEQUATE TIME TO GET OUR S SITE PHYSICALLY CONSTRUCTED, DEPENDING ON STAFF AVAILABILITY. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS ENOUGH TIME TO GET SIGN-OFF, THAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS ITSELF. THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO GET TO OPERATIONS AND SERVING OUR PARTNERS, THAT IS ALSO A FUNCTION OF OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR PARTNERS. I WISH I COULD PROVIDE YOU A BETTER ANSWER BUT I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION FOR OUR COMMERCIAL TEAM JUST YET. >> IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, IT COULD BE A WHOLE LOT LESS THEN 18 MONTHS. >> POTENTITIALLY, HOPEFULLY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO GET OPERATIONAL AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AND SERVING AS MANY OF OUR PARTNERS AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED STILL. BECAUSE WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION AND MOBILIZING PEOPLE AND WHATNOT TO GO OUT THERE, YOU HAVE TO MOBILIZE TO SET UP THE CHAIN LINK FENCE. SO WHY NOT JUST MOBILIZE AND PUT IN THE PERMANENT FENCE? YOU HAVE TO MOBILIZE TO DIG AND SET UP-FOOTERS FOR YOUR TOWERS. JUST MOBILIZE THEM TO GO AHEAD AND POUR THE CONCRETE AS WELL. SO AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE WHY, BECAUSE WE ARE BEYOND PROOF OF CONCEPT, WHICH WAS THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU WERE GIVEN THE LENIENCY OF 12 MONTHS TO MEET CODE. ARE CODE REQUIREMENTS, OKAY? WE ARE NO LONGER DOUBTFUL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS SUCCESSFUL, SO IF YOU WERE GOING TO BUILD IT, WHY NOT BUILD IT RIGHT FROM THE START? ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE PERMANENT STRUCTURE INSTEAD OF HAVING THE BOX OUT THERE WERE THE PORTABLE BUILDING. SO THAT IS WHERE I'M STANDING ON THIS. THANK YOU. I WILL ENTERTAIN A -- I'M SORRY, MISS WILLIAMS? >> I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. CAN YOU GET EVERYTHING DONE THAT YOU NEED TO GET DONE BY NOVEMBER? >> I WISH I COULD COMMIT TO SAYING YES, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE LEAD TIME FOR EVERY SINGLE TOWER THAT WE WOULD BE DEPLOYING. WE MIGHT NOT EVEN INSTALL ALL THREE TOWERS AT ONCE, WE MAY STAGGER THAT START BECAUSE THE TOWERS THEMSELVES ARE A LARGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT. SO WE MAY BRING ONE TOWER OUT AND THEN EXTEND TO THE NEXT TWO. WE WOULD LIKE SOME OF THE FLEXIBILITY IF THAT IS POSSIBLE. >> WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY THAT WOULD HELP YOU? >> IF WE COULD HAVE ANOTHER YEAR, IF YOU COULD HAVE ANOTHER 18 MONTHS, THAT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO ALLOWS TO STAGGER THE START OF THE PROJECT. BUT WE ARE OPEN TO THE COMMISSION'S FEEDBACK TODAY. >> I GUESS I'M STILLLL JUST VERY CONFUSED BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT WAITING FOR ANYTHING TO BE OPERATIONAL, YOU WERE OPERATIONAL RIGHT NOW. YOU WERE JUST EXPANDING, OKAY? SO THERE SHOULD BE NO -- THERE SHOULD BE NO GRACE PERIOD AGAIN, BECAUSE PROOF OF CONCEPT IS ALREADY THERE, YOU ARE HERE, YOU WANT TO BUILD IT. SO LET'S BUILD IT. I MEAN, MY FEELING IS THAT WE BUILD IT PER CODE REQUIREMENTS. [01:30:05] ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? LAST CALL, MISS WILLIAMS. [LAUGHTER] NO? THANK YOU. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. JOE, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE PUSH THE MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. >> I HAVE NO PROBLEM IN AMENDING THE CURRENT MOTION. HOWEVER THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. AND THAT THE CURRENT EIGHT TOWERS NEED TO BE COMPLETED WITH WHAT WAS REQUIRED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OF NOVEMBER AND THEN THE THREE NEW TOWERS GIVING THEM AN ADDITIONAL 18 MONTHS FROM NOW FOR THOSE THREE TOWERS. AT THE CURRENT EIGHT TOWERS NEED TO GO WITHIN THE GUIDELINES. >> SO THAT WASN'T REALLY A MOTION. [LAUGHTER] >> I MAY BE DOING IT WRONG. >> WE DON'T HAVE TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL BECAUSE THAT IS GOING AWAY, OKAY? IF THIS ONE IS APPROVED IN WHATEVER FORM IT IS APPROVED, THE OLD ONE WILL GO AWAY. >> AND THEN THIS ONE, THE NEW ONE. >> SO WE CAN APPROVE IT AS WRITTEN, WE CAN APPROVE IT WITH CONDITIONS OR WE CAN DISAPPROVE IT. I WOULD PREFER A MOTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, BECAUSE ELSE WISE TO GET YELLED AT BY THE LAWYER. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT WITH AN AMENDMENT OF COMPLETING ALL REQUIRED CODE COMPLIANCE WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. >> I HAVE NO PROBLEM IN MAKING A MOTION TO AMEND -- >> IT IS NOT AN AMENDMENT. DON'T AMEND ANYTHING, OKAY? JUST SPIT IT OUT. >> A MOTION TO REQUIRE THAT THE CURRENT EIGHT TOWERERS MEET CODE AS ORIGINALLY STATED AT THE END OF NOVEMBER. >> OKAY. THERE YOU GO. >> COMMISSIONERS, WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A SPECIFIC -- YOU SCARED ME FOR A SECOND. [LAUGHTER] >> YOU SEE, I WAS WORRIED ABOUT GETTING YELLED AT BY THE LAWYER AND I GOT YELLED AT ANYWAY. BEFORE I KNOW I WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO A PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? HEARING NONE, THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOW, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION -- >> HELLO. I'M JUST GOING TO THROW A COUPLE GUESSES OUT HERE FOR WHY THEY ARE PROBABLY ASKING FOR AN 18 MONTH EXTENSION. I'M ASSUMING THAT WHAT THEY DID IS PREFABRICATED MEANING THAT THE STUFF IS NOT AVAILABLE AND READILY THERE FOR THEM TO MAKE. THEY MAKE IT TO ORDER. RIGHT NOW, SUPPLY CHAIN IS A BIT BACKED UP AND THIS GOES ACROSS ALL TRADES AND ALL INDUSTRIES. SO IT IS NOT AS EASY AS THEM PUTTING IN AN ORDER FOR IT AND IT SHOWS UP THE NEXT DAY. THERE IS PROBABLY A VERY REALISTIC CHANCE THAT IT WILL TAKE MONTHS BEFORE THEY GET ANYTHING IN, LET ALONE FINALLY FABRICATED ENTRY SHIP IT. ADDITIONALLY, YOU TYPICALLY DON'T WANT TO PUT UP YOUR PERMANENT, NICE THING UNTIL YOU ARE COMPLETELY DONE WITH THE SITE. BECAUSE SOMEBODY WITH AN EXCAVATOR OR SOMETHING WILL MOW OVER THAT THING AND YOU WILL HAVE TO FIX IT. THIRDLY, THEY PROBABLY HAVE DIFFERENT UTILITY AND POWER REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE TO GO TO THE THREE ADDITIONAL DAYS WHICH WILL REQUIRE THEM DATING AT THE GROUNDWORK AND DOING ALL OF THAT, REWORKING AT WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY THEY HAVEN'T POURED CONCRETE. AND WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION SO THEY CAN GET THE THREE DAYS PUT IN. REALIZING THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET ALL THREE BAYS AT ONCE, IS GOING TO COME STAGGER IT SO THE 18 MONTHS IS REALLY A CONSERVATIVE TIME FRAME. >> THANK YOU. AND I WOULD RESPOND KNOW, I DON'T AGREE. [01:35:02] MR. JOB, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? GO AHEADAD AND JUST -- >> I WITHDRAW MY MOTION. >> VERY WELL. ARE YOU ABLE TO REMOVE THAT MOTION? MISS WILLIAMS, YOU HAVE A COMMENT?T? >> NO, I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, IF YOU ARE READY FOR A MOTION. >> I THINK MR. POLLARD WAS TRYING TO MAKE A MOTION. IT SEEMS TO BE STUCK IN Q. THANK YOU. WHOEVER HITS THEIR BUTTON FIRST CAN MAKE THE MOTION. WE BROKE THE EQUIPMENT. IT IS NOW OPEN. WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS ORALLY THEN. MR. POLLARD? YOU NEED TO PUSH YOUR -- THERE YOU GO. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY MR. POLLARD. >> LET ME TELL YOU THE MOTION. RECOMMENDATION BY THE -- THAT WERE PRINTED BY STAFF ON PAGE 5, IT INCLUDES SIX DIFFERENT ITEMS UNDER THEIR RECOMMENDATION BEFORE ISSUE P. HOWEVER, I WANT TO CHANGE THOSE. THE PROPERTY SHALL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE CONCRETE PAVING IN PLACE BY NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR, OF 2026. NUMBER 2. THE PROPERTY SHALL HAVE A SCREEN ON INSTALLATION OF AN 8-FOOT TALL, MODERN FENCE BY NOVEMBER OF 2026. NUMBER 3. THE TEMPORARY CONTAINER PLACED ON THE PROPERTY WILL BE REMOVED BY NOVEMBER, 2026 IN LIEU OF A PERMANENT STRUCTURE. NUMBER 4, -- NUMBER 4, NUMBER 5 AND NUMBER 6 I WILL LEAVE AS IS. MR. CITY ATTORNEY, YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I JUST DID? THAT IS FOUND ON PAGE 5 OF THE RIGHT UP BY STAFF. >> CAN YOU GO OVER THAT WITH THE MONTHS -- HOW MANY MONTHS AFTER? BECAUSE THIS WILL ALL BE PREDICATED ON WHEN IT GETS PAST. >> CONSIDERING THIS IS APRIL, SEVEN MONTHS WILL PUT IT INTO NOVEMBER, CORRECT? SO THAT WILL SUBSTITUTE NOVEMBE. IS THAT ALL I NEED TO DO OR DO I NEED TO READ IT AGAIN? IT WOULD BE EASIER TO SAY THAT YOU ARE MAKING A MOTION AS PRESENTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHANGING THE TOLL MONTH TITIMETABLE TO SEVEN MONTHS. >> CORRECT. BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY RUN QUITE A FEW MONTHS. >> OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHANGING THE TOTAL MONTH GRACE PERIOD TO SEVEN MONTHS. AND EIGHT IS SECONDED. [01:40:05] IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTOTION? MISS WILLIAMS? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT WILL GIVE THEM ENOUGH TIME TO GET THEM WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO. >> I THINK IT GIVES THEM A WHOLE LOT OF TIME. >> IT DOES? >> MR. POLLARD? >> IN ADDRESSING MISS WILLIAMS, THE APPLICANT OBTAINED ACO, IF I UNDERSTOOD IT CORRECTLY, IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR. SO THEY HAVE HAD FROM NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, TIME IS TICKING ON THE 12 MONTHS. THEY WENT AHEAD AND APPLIED FOR THE EXPANSION AND DECEMBER AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, FROM THE APPLICANT. AND SO GIVING THEM SEVEN MONTHS MORE, I THINK TO BE IN COMPLIANCE -- IF YOU CAN INSTALL AN 8-FOOT CHAIN-LINK FENCE, YOU WERE GOING TO POOR FITTINGS AND EVERYTHING FOR THE POST FOR YOUR FENCE. WHY CAN'T YOU JUST GO AHEAD AND BUILD UP THE WROUGHT IRON? WHY GO THROUGH THE EXPENSE OF PUTTING UP CHAIN LINKS TO TAKE IT BACK DOWN AND THEN REDO IT IN A FEW MONTHS TO PUT UP YOUR PERMANENT WROUGHT IRON FENCE? YOU HAVE HAD FOUR MONTHS NOW AND YOU WILL HAVE SEVEN MONTHS AND WE GAVE THEM 12 AND THEY AGREED TO THE 12 MONTHS, THAT IS WHAT THEY WANTED ORIGINALLY, TO REPLACE THE TEMPORARY STRUCTURE BUILDING. WHY DID THEY NEED 18 MORE MONTHS? THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. SO I'M GLAD THAT THEY WANT THIS, I DON'T JEOPARDIZE IT BUT AT THE SAMEME TIME I DON'T WANT TO KEEP PUSHING ON A DRIVEWAY, I DON'T WANT TO KEEP PUSHING OFF THE FENCE BECAUSE MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT TO EXPAND AGAIN AND THEN GET THE SAME THING AND KEEP PUSHING IT DOWN. IT IS ALREADY THERE. AND IT SEEMS LIKE GO AHEAD AND FOLLOW IT. >> MY THINKING IS THAT THE EXPANSION IS IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, NOT IN THE FRONT. MEETING IF THEY PUT IN ANYTHING PERMANENT, THEY WILL HAVE TO GO OVER IT TO GET TO THE AREA THEY WANT TO DEVELOP. MY CONCERN THERE IS THAT IF WE ASK THEM AND IT ESSENTIALLY RUINS OR THEY HAVE TO TAKE IT DOWN, THAT WOULD BE THE REASON FOR THE ADDITIONAL TIME. JUST SIMPLY OKAY, IF THEY PUT UP THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE ALREADY, KNOW THEY HAVE TO DISMANTLE IT, POSSIBLY DID THAT THE FOUNDATION POINTS THAT THEY PUT IN. JUST TO GET TO THE REAR OF THE SECTION. THEN DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN. >> THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS TO. THERE IS A LOT OF SUPPLY ISSUES GOING ON. SO THAT'S WHY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MAY BE A LITTLE EXTENSION, MAYBE NOT 18 MONTHS, MAYBE SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS. TO GET EVERYTHING UP AND GOING AS WEAKLY AS POSSIBLE, LOOK OF OUR THEY'VE ALREADY COME. >> I'M THINKING WE IT IS A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. WE DON'T PUT TIMELINES, WE DON'T HAVE GRACE PERIODS, WE DON'T GIVE MULTIPLE EXCEPTIONS TO MEET CODE ON ANYBODY ELSE'S CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. WHY IS THIS ONE SO SPECIAL? AGAIN, ONLY REASON WE DID IT INITIALLY WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A PROOF OF CONCEPT. OKAY? AGAIN, I THINK THEY PROVED THEMSELVES AND WE DON'T GIVE ANYBODY ELSE GRACE ON MEETING CODE REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIODS. SO I DON'T KNOW. THAT IS MY POINT. >> I WOULD JUST SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES IF YOU'VE GOT THE [01:45:02] ELECTRICAL -- ELECTRICAL IN AND EVERYTHING ELSE FOR THE FRONT PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY ALREADY BUILT, SEEMS TO ME LIKE YOU WERE GOING TO TAG ONTO THAT TO THE EXTENT OF THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, THE ONLY THING THAT THEY WOULD NEED ACCESS TO HIS TO TAKE A SECTION OF FENCE DOWN TO ALLOW TRUCKS TO GO IN TO THE BACK. BUT THEY CAN PUT UP A SECTION OF FENCE. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THE REST OF IT IS ALREADY DONE UP FRONT. AND YOU WERE JUST ADDING ON TO THE REAR. IT IS NOT RECONSTRUCTING ALL THE WORK. ELECTRICAL IS ELECTRICAL AND IT IS ALREADY THERE. AND THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY TICKETED THE ELECTRICAL. IT IS ALREADY IN THERE. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION AS WRITTEN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHANGING THE TOTAL MONTHS TO SEVEN MONTHS. LET'S CALL A VOTE. AND THAT PASSES 5-2. [5B. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request to amend the zoning ordinance and map of the City of Rowlett, as previously amended, by amending the zoning from Limited Commercial/Retail (C-1) district to a Planned Development district with Single Family Residential uses (PD-SF5) for an approximately 1.8 acre tract commonly known as 2345 Fuqua Road, and being more particularly described as Block 1, Tract 1 of La Costa Addition, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.] MOVING ON TO ITEM FIVE BE. AND DUCK A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL REGARDING THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE MAP OF THE CITY OF RALEIGH IS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED BY AMENDING THE ZONING FROM A LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, PDS F5 FOR 1.8-ACRE TRACK, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2345 -- AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS BLOCK ONE TRACK ONE OF THE COST OF AN THE CITY OF RALEIGH, DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS. MR. KING? >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. WE LOOK AT A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS 1.8 ACRES. YOU WILL BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS BECAUSE WE HEARD THIS MONTHS AGO. AND THEY BROUGHT IT BACK WITH YOUR RESPONSES AND CAME BACK WITH I THINK IS A BETTER PLAN. THE 1.8-ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF GARNER ROAD. IT IS SURROUNDED BY THE FOLLOWING USES. THERE'S SOME LAND TO THE NORTH, THERE'S A RELIGIOUS USE TO THE NORTH. AND THEN THE REST OF IT IS SINGLE-FAMILY USE. SF EIGHT, SF 20 AND THEN THERE IS TO PD FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WHICH ARE THE NEW USES. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE PROPOSED REZONING IS ACTUALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN MAP DESIGNATES THE PROPERTY AS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNDER SEVERAL THOUSAND SQUARE-FOOT LOTS. THE PROPOSED DISTRICT ALIGNS WITH THAT FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THIS ZONING CHANGE TAKES THE EXISTING C-1 ZONING THATT NO LONGER ALIGNS WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING AND ALLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT ZONING MAKES US RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE ALONG RESIDENTIAL USES. THE APPLICANTS PROPOSING THE FOLLOWING. IT'S TOTAL OF 12 LOTS WITH SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, IT IS A DENSITY OF EIGHT DWELLING UNITS AREA OF 1500 SQUARE FEET, MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 5002 SQUARE FEET SO IT ALL FALLS WITHIN THE ZONING. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE IS 75%. THIS IS A BETTER VIEW OF THE CONCEPT PLAN. IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THERE'S ACTUALLY JUST -- IF YOU LOOK AT IT YOU WILL SEE THE THREE OF THE HOUSES ACTUALLY HAVE OVER 9000 SQUARE FEET. SO THE AVERAGE HOMESITE IS CLOSER TO 6600 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CODE. YOU CAN SEE THE COMPARISON CHART OF AN SF FIVE BASE ZONING DISTRICT WHICH IS WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING, TO WHAT THEY ARE REQUEST IS, THEY HAVE TWO-DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [01:50:04] THAT THEY WANT TO ADDRESS. ONE IS A REDUCTION MINIMUM LOT DEPTH FROM IT DOWN TO 94 FEET PRIMARILY DUE TO SITE CONSTRAINTS. THE REDUCTION OF A MINIMUM REAR SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 10 FEET. THEY ARE OFFSETTING THAT WITH A DEEPER FRONT SETBACK OF 20 FEET. THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN ALLEYWAY AND THE STREET FRONT ENTRY GARAGE, OPEN SPACE IS NOT PROVIDED FOR ON THIS LOT AROUND THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY% OWNERS WILL PROVIDE FEES IN LIEU OF LAND DUE TO THE LACK OF OPEN SPACE. SO WE CAN ACCOUNT FOR THAT WITHIN THE CODE. AND THEN NUMBER 5, THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE SUBDIVIDE -- REST FOR THE SUBDIVISION ENTRYWAY ON THE WALLS AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT NOT TO BE REQUIRED. IF WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, WITH ALL OF THESE HOUSES FACING OUTWARD, THERE IS NOT REALLY A SUBDIVISION PERIMETER FENCE THAT CAN BE BUILT. THE ONLY PLACE WE CAN DO IT WOULD BE ALONGSIDE THE DRIVE ON THE SIDE YARD AND YOU WOULD HAVE A 70-FOOT LONG, SIX OR 8-FOOT TALL MASONRY FENCE AND IT WOULD MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE. THESE ARE THE PROPOSED BUILDING FACADES. THEY HAVE THESE FRONT ENTRY GARAGE IS, TWO STORY STRUCTURES, THEY PROVIDED A LANDSCAPE PLAN, THIS WAS A CONCERN THAT WE TALKED EARLIER, THEY WEREN'T REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A LANDSCAPE PLAN BUT THEY WENT AHEAD AND DID IT. TO GO AHEAD AND SHOW US HOW THEY WERE GOING TO TRY TO PRESERVE THE TREES INSTEAD OF JUST CLEARING IT ALL OUT, THEY WERE GOING TO TRY TO MANAGE THE SPACE A LITTLE BETTER. IT SOME EXISTING TREES ON THE PROPERTY. AND I THINK YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE STAFF REPORT A LOT BETTER THAN YOU CAN ON THIS SLIDE. THERE WILL BE THE PERIMETER TREES WITH A LINE OF SHRUBBERY IN THERE AS WELL. BUT ALSO THE NORTH CORNER WILL SEE A LINE OF SHRUBS ON THE BACKSIDE OF LOT NUMBER 3. THE RDC REQUIRES RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS ON REZONINGS BE BASED ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE TEN CRITERIA ITEMS OUTLINED IN SECTION 77805C. WE HAVE ADDRESSED THOSE TEN ITEMS IN THE STAFF REPORT. WE SENT OUT A PUBLIC NOTIFICATION ON MARCH 27TH, 2026 ARE 200-FOOT PUBLIC NOTICES, WE SENT 37 OF THEM OUT. WE GOT ONE NEUTRAL RESPONSE, WE DID NOT GET ANY RESPONSES IN FAVOR. WITHIN 500 FEET, WE SET OUT 140 NOTICES, WE GOT TO AN OPPOSITION AND WE GOT TO WIN FAVOR. WE ALSO GOT THREE OUTSIDE OF THAT 500-FOOT BUFFER THAT WERE OPPOSITION RESPONSES. THOUGHT I CLARIFIED THAT ON THE SLIDE. STUFF LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND YOU MAY APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALSO THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO PROVIDE AN APPLICATION ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, MR. PAUL HER? >> IS THIS AREA CONSIDERED PART OF THE POINT? >> NOT SPECIFIC WAY BUT IT IS ADJACENT. >> DOES IT HAVE ITS OWN MANAGER HOA? AND THIS ISS NOT PHONE THE CONFINES OF THE HOA? >> AS PART OF IT, WE REQUIRE AN HOA. >> OKAY. SO I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION IN REGARDS TO -- YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THERE IS NO TO HAVE AN ENTRY, IF YOU WOULD, FOR THIS. SINCE IT IS A SEPARATE, TECHNICAL SUBDIVISION. >> YES, SIR. >> IS THERE A WAY TO WORK THAT WITH THE EXISTING HOA, THAT SITS ADJACENT TO IT TO MAY BE FIXUP THE ENTRYWAY TO THE POINT, WHICH [01:55:03] IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE PART OF THE STREET? >> I DON'T KNOW IF THE POINT WOULD BE HAPPY WITH THAT. JUST LAST YEAR THEY REDID THEIR ENTRYWAY AND LANDSCAPING. A LITTLE ISLAND. >> RIGHT. SINCE THEY ARE REQUESTING GIVING UP THE ALLEYWAY, WHY IS IT THAT THEY CANNOT MEET THE 100-FOOT MINIMUM LOT DEPTH? >> BECAUSE THE WIDTH OF THAT LOT IS ONLY 188 FEET, BASICALLY -- ROUGHLY. SO THEY CANNOT GET THE 200 FEET FOR EVERY LOT. IF THEY WANTED TO MAKE -- OUT OF THOSE 12 LOTS, THREE OF THE LOTS ARE IN COMPLIANCE. THE REMAINING NINE LOTS WOULD REQUIRE IF YOU TOOK HALF OF THEM, FIVE OF THE LOTS AND MADE THOSE 100 FEET DEEP, WE HAVE THE OTHER LOT FACING INTO THE COVE, THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE LESS. >> CAN YOU BACK THAT UP -- BACK YOUR SLIDE SHOW -- THERE YOU GO. AND ALSO BECAUSE POTENTIALLY GIVING UP THE ALLEYWAY, WHY DO THEY NEED A 10-FOOT MINIMUM REAR SETBACK AS OPPOSED TO THE 25? >> BECAUSE THEY INTEND TO PUSH THE HOUSES BACK FURTHER FROM THE STREET INSTEAD OF BEING REQUIRED TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE STREET, THEY'RE ACTUALLY ASKING TO BE 1R S.A.P. 25. THE FRONT SETBACKS. >> SHE CAN PUT YOUR DRIVEWAY UP THERE. >> YOU CAN PUT YOUR DRIVEWAY AND THE GARAGE AND IT OPENS THAT UP, THAT WE DON'T HAVE CARS PARKED ACROSS THE SIDEWALK. >> AND ONE I BELIEVE, FINAL QUESTION FOR STAFF, IS THAT ON PAGE 3 IN OUR PACKET, ON THIS ITEM, YOU HAVE A CHART THAT SHOWS THE SURROUNDING -- AND IT IS CALLED TABLE TO COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS OF THE SURROUNDING ZONING REQUIREMENTS. >> YES. >> OKAY. SO TO THE NORTHEAST, YOU'VE GOT AN SFA, TO THE NORTHWEST YOU HAVE AN SF 20, TO THE EAST YOU GOT AN SF EIGHT, TO THE SOUTH YOU HAVE THE PD UP TO THE POINT, I BELIEVE. AND FOR THE TWO USES TO THE WEST , PDR USES AND BOTH OF THOSE ARE 7800 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUMS. AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR AN SF FIVE, 5000 INSTEAD OF 7800. WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY HAD TO GO 7800? HOW MANY LOTS WOULD WE LOSE, TO YOU NOW? >> I'M A BIT CAUGHT OFF GUARD HERE. I THINK YOU WOULD LOSE AT LEAST THREE UNITS. >> COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD PREFER THAT QUESTION BE ASKED OF THE APPLICANT, THEY WILL BE BETTER SUITED TO ANSWER THAT THAN STAFF. WE'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> THANK YOU.% >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES? MISS SNIDER? >> HOW LONG HAS THIS LOT SAT EMPTY WITH THE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS ALREADY BEING BUILT AROUND IT? >> OVER 40 YEARS. >> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? >> THANK YOU MR. KING. >> MR. PAUL HER? >> ONE OF THE REASONS IS THAT IT IS A C2 AND THAT'S THE WAY IT CAME IN AS A COMMERCIAL PIECE. THAT'S THE REASON IT SAT EMPTY. >> THANK YOU. APPLICANT ONE PROVIDE A PRESENTATION? >> WE'RE BACK WITH A NEW PLAN [02:00:24] AND A NEW DESIGN. AND WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS LAST TIME WE ARE HERE. SO WE WORKED ON THE NEW PLAN AND MADE THE LOTS LARGER 6600 AVERAGE SQUARE FOOT SIZE. WE MEET THE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE ARE HERE TO SHOW A PRESENTATION THAT SOME AND PUT TOGETHER AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> GOOD EVENING, I AM REPRESENTING AND HELPING THE DEVELOPER WITH THIS PROJECT. S MICHAEL ALREADY EXPLAINED -- >> I'M SORRY. WAIT FOR THE SIDEBAR TO QUIT. UNFORTUNATELY I AM HARD OF HEARING. GO AHEAD, THANK YOU. >> AS MICHAEL EXPLAINS, WE ARE HERE ON THE FEBRUARY TENTH MEETING WITH A PROPOSAL THAT WAS FOR 17 LOTS FOR THIS 1.8 ACRES WITH MINIMUM 3400 SQUARE FOOTAGE PER LOT AND AN AVERAGE OF 46. GIVEN THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THE LOTS WERE TOO SMALL, EVEN THOUGHH THE PREFERENCE SEEMED TO BE RESIDENTIAL FOR THIS PROPERTY. WE READ ADDRESSED, REANALYSED AND THEN CAME UP WITH THE BETTER AND IMPROVE PLANS THEN SET OF 17, 12 LOTS WITH A MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 5000 SQUARE FEET THAT IS BASICALLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SF FIVE ORDINANCE. MOST OF THE REQUIREMENTS ON THE ORDINANCE ARE BEING MET. THE ONLY DEVIATIONS WE HAVE, AS MICHAEL POINTED OUT, WAS THE 10. THE REAR SETBACK FROM 25 TO TEN, JUST SO WE COULD HAVE PUSHBACK FOR THEM THE FRONT SETBACK AND HAVE ROOM FOR THE DRIVEWAY OVER THE COURSE TO PARK THERE AND THE ENTRY GARAGES. THE OTHER -- IT LOOKS LIKE -- WAIT. IT APPEARS THAT WE ARE MISSING THE LANDSCAPING, WE ARE P PREPAD A PLAN SHOWING ALL 12 LOTS, SHOWING THE LANDSCAPING THAT WE ARE OFFERING. WE WILL TRY TO PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE THAT ARE IN THE CURRENT SITE. WE ARE ALSO OFFERING A LANDSCAPING BUFFER. THERE IS A 15-FOOT LANDSCAPING BUFFER WITH ALL NEW LANDSCAPING TO CREATE A BUFFER ON THAT STREET, WHICH HOUSES ONTO THAT STREET. AND ALSO ADDITIONALLY, IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND IN OUR MEETINGS, WE ARE PROPOSING ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ISLAND THAT IS ON A DOLPHIN ROAD. THAT IS CURRENTLY VACANT. IT HAS NO LANDSCAPING SO WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO ADD A LITTLE BIT OF LANDSCAPING TO ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY. SO THAT IS BASICALLY ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT WE WANTED TO POINT OUT. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. >> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. POLLARD. >>> NOW? [02:05:02] GOOD. THERE WE GO. >> SAME QUESTIONS I ASKED OF STAFF. SO THEY DID THIS CHART OF WHAT ALL IS BUILT AROUND YOU, BUILT AROUND THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND THE SMALLEST LOTS IS AT THE POINT OVER THERE. AND IT IS 7800 SQUARE FOOT AND YOU ARE AT FIVE. WHICH IS THE SMALLEST AROUND. NO REASON YOU CAN'T PUMP THAT UP TO 7800 SQUARE FOOT. [INAUDIBLE] GOING THIS IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THE VALUE AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OF RESIDENCES IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. AND YOU NEED TO EXPAND ON THAT. >> THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, WE WERE ASKED BECAUSE LOTS WERE UNDER 5000 FEET. WE WERE ASKED IF WE COULD GET IT TO A MINIMUM OF 5000 FEET, THAT WAS THE QUESTION AT THAT TIME. SO WE TOOK THAT QUESTION AND HAD IT REDESIGNED TO MEET THAT REQUEST. AND THAT WAS THE REQUEST THAT WE GOT ON FEBRUARY TENTH. SO WE MET THAT REQUEST, WE'VE COME BACK WITH A 6600 AVERAGE SIZE LOT. TO COME BACK AND TRY TO GET TO 7800, AS MICHAEL SAID, WE WOULD LOSE A MINIMUM, I THINK, OF ABOUT THREE LOTS. >> SO YOU ARE ASKING US TO GIVE IN ON THE ALLEYS, NOT REQUIRE THE ALLEYS. THAT IS IN THEIR, THAT SAFETY SOME PROPERTY THERE. SAVES YOU SOME COST. YOU ARE NOT HAVING TO PUT -- OR YOU REQUESTING HAVING TO NOT PUT AN ENTRANCE AND THAT IS UNDERSTANDABLE AS WELL. AND GIVING SOME OF THE STANDARDS THERE THAT IS REQUIRED, WE EXPLAINED TO ME, BESIDES 5000 SQUARE-FOOT LOTS AND GOING UP AT A MINIMUM OF THE HOUSE SQUARE FOOTAGE, I THINK THAT WAS WHAT, 1100 OR 1300 SQUARE FEET? >> FIFTEEN. >> YOU ARE AT 15. SO WHAT'S THE TRADE-OFF? >> THE TRADE-OFF IS YOU HAVE HAD A PROPERTY SITTING THERE FOR 40 YEARS THAT ISN'T BEING DEVELOPED THAT IS ZONED COMMERCIAL THAT THE CITY DOESN'T WANT COMMERCIAL, THEY WANTED TO BE RESIDENTIAL. IT MEETS THE FUTURE PLAN OF THE CITY TO HAVE IT AND I BELIEVE MICHAEL SAID, UNDER 7000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT WAS WHAT THE FUTURE PLAN CALLS OUT FOR. SO WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING THAT LOOKS TO ME THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DO WITH THIS REDO. AND WITH 12 HOUSES, THOSE ARE PROPERTY TAXES FOR 400 YEARS, TE CITY HASN'T RECEIVED, THEY WON'T START RECEIVING. I THINK IT IS A PRETTY BIG TRADE-OFF, WE WILL BUILD A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE, WE WILL TREAT THE NEIGHBORS WELL DURING CONSTRUCTION, WE HAVE 32 YEARS OF EXPERINCE. I WAS SURPRISED THAT WE DIDN'T GET THE 17 LOTS APPROVED. BUT WE ARE HERE TO BACK ZONED PROPERTY, NOT UP ZONE. IT IS SOMETHING THAT CITIES AND ROW LET SHOULD BE HAPPY WITH. I THINK WE PROVIVIDE A GOOD PRODUCT AND INCOME TO THE CITY. >> AND DO APPRECIATE THAT YOU UPPED THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND HOME SIZE. ONE OTHER THING. EXHIBIT D. AND I BELIEVE THAT IS SOMETHING -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAME FROM THE CITY OR IF THIS CAME FROM Y'ALL AS AN EXHIBIT AND WHAT YOU SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. >> CAN I APPROACH THE BENCH WITH THAT? >> IT IS THEIRS. OKAY. I WAS JUST TOLD THAT THIS EXHIBIT IS Y'ALL'S. AND D, B, DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. [02:10:05] A 5000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT MINIMUM. BUT DOWN AT G, THE MINIMUM LIVING AREA IS 1350 SQUARE FEET. ARE YOU WILLING TO CHANGE THAT? >> WE APOLOGIZE -- I NEED THAT IN WRITING. >> YES, 1500 SQUARE FEET. >> YOU ARE WILLING TO PUT THAT IN WRITING? >> YES, SIR,, ABSOLUTELY. >> THAT WILL GO TO -- 1500 SQUARE FEET. >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SIR, YOUR NAME, YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE PLEASE. AND THEN YOU CAN -- >> MY NAME IS LEONARD PEEPLES. -- >> HOLD ON, SIR. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE MIKE? >> I CAN GET CLOSER, NO PROBLEM. >> THANK YOU. >> AS STATED -- STATED, I'M LEONARD PEEPLES, THIS IS MY WIFE VIVIAN. WE OWN THE PROPERTY -- I THINK IT IS 2503. A RELIGIOUS PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND MY CONCERN IS THAT I THINK IT WAS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, YOU MAY HAVE TO CHECK WITH YOUR CITY ENGINEER, BUT THERE WAS A -- I BELIEVE IT WAS A STORM SEWER WENT RIGHT THROUGH THE CENTER OF THAT PROPERTY. AND I'M WONDERING IF ANYBODY HAS CONSIDERED THAT. I MEAN CHECK WITH YOUR CITY RECORDS FOR TWO YEARS AGO, I WAS OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF ACTIVITY AND PUTTING A STORM SEWER RIGHT THROUG THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY. AND ANOTHER THING I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT, IS THAT A FEW YEARS AGO, THAT THE CITY OF ROW LET HAD ALLOCATED -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S CALLED, FUTURE PLANS FOR A CITY DEVELOPMENT. AND LEFT VACANT AREAS LIKE THIS IN VARIOUS POINTS OF ROW LEFT. AND IT WAS ALL ZONE COMMERCIAL. AND I SUPPOSE FOR 40 YEARS, IT STAYED VACANT. SO MY CONCERN IS -- MAY BE, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU GET 12,000 THERE. YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS? >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO START OVER WITH YOUR 3 MINUTES? OR DO YOU WANT TO JUST TAKE ONTO YOUR HUSBAND'S? >> MY CONCERN IS -- >> COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FIRST? >> I OWN THE PROPERTY IN TEXAS. AND MY CONCERNS ARE IF THEY PUT IN HOUSES BACK I WAS LOOKING -- CAN WE PUT THE -- K PUT THE SCREEN BACK UP WHERE THEY SHOW THE PROPERTY? IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT MY PROPERTY? IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT T THE WY TO GET THE GARAGES IN? IS THAT GOING TO TAKE WAY FOR MY PROPERTY? IS THAT ON THE LINE, THE BLUE LINE THERE? THE EASEMENT THERE? >> THE EASEMENT BETWEEN THESE TWO PROPERTIES. >> THERE'S THE WHITE LINE AND THERE IS THE BLUE LINE CONNECTED [02:15:01] THERE. IS THAT GOING TO TAKE AWAY FROM MY PROPERTY? ON THE OTHER ONE WHERE THEY SHOWED THE BODY WAS BLUE. IT EXTENDED OVER THE WHITE LINE. >> WHATEVER THAT DRAWING SHOWS, IT IS JUST A DRAWING. BUT THEY CANNOT BUILD OUTSIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY LINE, OKAY? >> THE DEVELOPMENT IS GREAT FOR BUT IT IS GOING TO PUT THAT MANY HOUSES THERE AND WHEN GOD BLESSED US TO BUILD THE CHURCH, WILL COMMUNITY SOON. IT IS FOR THE BODY OF. BUT WILL OVERCROWD THAT PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? NOT SEEING ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IS IT PROPER TO ASK A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION FOR FURTHER PROPERTY USE? >> EXCUSE ME, SIR? CAN YOU TELL US WHERE YOUR PROPERTY IS, YOUR PROPERTY THAT YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT, WHERE IT IS LOCATED, THE ADDRESS? IS THAT THE PROPERTY WHERE SOMEONE IS BUILDING NOW? SO YOU ARE BETWEENEN THIS PROPEY AND THE PROPERTY THAT IS BEING BUILT ON? OKAY. THANK YOU. THERE IS A LITTLE PIECE RATE HERE AND THEN RIGHT AT THE TOP THERE IS A FOUNDATION BEING BUILT. UNTIL ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO. OKAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. BLADES? [INAUDIBLE] SO YOUR MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION? APPROVE THE ITEM IS RECOMMENDED? THANK YOU. MR. HERNANDEZ SECONDS THAT MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION. CAN I DO THAT? >> GO AHEAD. >> I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION AND TAG ONTO WHAT THE MOTION WAS, THAT EXHIBIT D NEEDS TO BE CHANGED IN WRITING, THAT IT BE G, MINIMUM LIVING AREA FOR 1350 SQUARE FOOT TO 1500 SQUARE-FOOT. >> AS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION I ACCEPT THAT. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO ACCEPT THE ITEM AS PRESENTED, WITH EXHIBIT D AMENDED WITH 1500 SQUARE-FOOT LIVING SPACE. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. BLADES? THEN DON'T PUSH YOUR BUTTON. [LAUGHTER] MR. POLLARD? >> OKAY. CLARIFICATION TO THE PUBLIC THAT SEES THIS, I HAVE LIVED HERE FOR 37 YEARS ALMOST, NEXT MONTH. AND I USED TO LIVE ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN, NOT VERY FAR FROM THIS. AND YES, THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. [02:20:03] AND KNOWING PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN WHAT THEY COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS VOODOO LOCK. GO FIGURE. BUT TO A BIGGER POINT, THAT THERE WAS COMMERCIAL, THERE WAS ORIGINAL. THERE IS A LOT OF THOSE HOMES THAT THOSE PEOPLE OWN ON THEIR THAT HAVE REALLY FIXED UP THEIR HOMES. IT WAS 15 YEARS AGO, NICE AREA, SO TO SPEAK. THOSE PEOPLE PUT MONEY IN THEIR HOMES. THE CITY WENT DOWN THERE AND WIDENED THE STREET A LITTLE BIT, PUT THE SEWER. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT SEWER RUNS, IF IT RUNS IN T THERE, I GUESS IT NEEDS TO BE CHECKED OUT. BUT I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A STORM SEWER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET THAT RUNS DOWN THROUGH THERE AND MOST PEOPLE THAT HAVE A THOUSAND SQUARE-FOOT LOTS ON THEIR, THAT WAS ALL DONE ON THEIR SIDE OF THE STREET. AND I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT FROM COMING BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT IS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER AND HOPEFULLY NICE ENOUGH THAT IT WON'T DETRACT FROM THOSE PEOPLE WHO STEPPEDED IT UP AND REALLY FIXED THEIR HOMES UP OVER THERE. YOU HATE TO SEE ANYTHING AFFECT THEM NEGATIVELY. THAT'S IT. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MISS WILLIAMS? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE 7800 SQUARE-FOOT LOTS. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, THEN THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH THE CORRECTION ON EXHIBIT D TO BE AMENDED IN THE LIVING SPACE. LET'S CALL A VOTE. THERE WE GO. AND THAT PASSES, 6-1. ITEM 5C HAS BEEN REMOVED, HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.