[4B. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow an accessory structure and carport greater than 500 square feet on a property zoned Single Family SF-40 District. The approximately 1-acre property is located at 4002 Toler Road, also described as part of Lot 4, Block 4 of Rowlett Ranch Estates 2, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ]

>> MOVING ON TO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION.

I WILL REORDER THE ORDER. I WILL HEAR ITEM 4 "B," THEN "A" REQUEST IS FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCK THAT -- STRUCTURE THAT IS OVER 500 SQUARE FEET.

ASKING FOR A BUILDING THAT IS ABOUT 2400 SQUARE FEET INCLUDING AN 18 HUNDRED METAL BUILDING AND 600 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED CAR PORT. THE SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF LIBERTY GROVE AND IS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED FOR 4,000... AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS SHOWING THE LOCATION. THIS IS A ONE ACRE LOT.

THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES OWN THE LOT TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED S.F.9. DID IN THE INCLUDE AS PART OF THE -- DID NOT INCLUDE AS PART OF THE REQUEST.

[00:15:06]

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ROWLETT ESTATES TWO.

WHICH IS AN ESTABLISHED WITH RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE PROPERTY HAS DIRECT ACCESS TO TOLLER ROAD.

AND IT IS DEVELOPED WITH AN OVER 2000 SQUARE FOOT HOME AND ATTACHED GARAGE THAT IS A LITTLE OVER 500 SQUARE FEET.

INCLUDE AN AREA OF 780 SQUARE FEET AND METAL BUILDING ABOUT 288 FEET WHICH WILL BE REPLACED BYTHE NEW BUILDING BEING PROPOSED. SECTION 77, 303, TALKS TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. LOOK AT LOT COVERAGING HEIGHT AN SET BACK REQUIREMENTS. OWNERS ARE MEETING STANDARD.

BUT BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN AN S.F.40 DISTRICT CLASSIFYCATION, LOOKING AT ARREAR LOT COVERAGE OF 35%.

PROPOSED ABOUT 13% OF THAT LOT COVERAGE BEING MET.

THE HEIGHT IS NOT HIGHER THAN THE PRIMARY BUILDING.

AT 15 FEET AND THEY ARE -- WE ARE LOOKING AT SET BACK REQUIREMENT OF THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE AND THE REAR.

THEY ARE PROPOSING TO PLACE A PROPERTY SIX FEET AWAY FROM THE NEAREST SITE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS THE NORTHWEST PROPERTY.

AND TO THE REAR, OVER 50 FEET. WHEN IT COMES TO CAR PORTS THE CODE IS VERY SPECIFIC IN THE REQUIREMENTS.

IT CANNOT MEET -- CANNOT EXCEED THE REQUIRED FRONT AND REAR SITE SET BACK AND CAN IN THE EXCEED EIGHT FEET, THE CEILING HEIGHT.

THE CAR PORT HAS TO HAVE A PITCH ROOF EQUAL TO THE PRIMARY BUILDING AND CANNOT BE LOCATED -- CANNOT EXCEED 500 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT IS MEETING TWO OF THE REQUIREMENTS. THEY ARE EXCEEDING THE SIDE SET BACK -- NOT EXCEEDING THAT -- EXCEEDING THAT SIDE SETBACK, RATHER THAN 15 REQUIRED BY THE PROPERTY, THEY ARE PROPOSING SIX FEET AND THE CEILING HEIGHT, PROPOSING 15 FEET TOY A LOAN WITH THE METAL STRUCTURE T. BECAUSE THIS IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IT IS INCIDENCE TALL TO THE PRIMARY USE.

USING IT FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE OF VEHICLE AND WORK OUT AREA AND STORAGE FACILITY FOR THE GARDEN EQUIPMENT, UTILITY TRAILER, DIRT BIKE AND SEASONAL DECORATIONS.

SO IT IS CLEARLY INCIDENTAL TO THAT PRIMARY USE.

WE DID SEND OUT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION MAY 25TH.

RECEIVED ONE IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 200 BUFF ERR ONE IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 500 BUFFER.

OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE R.D.C. STANDARD FOR LOT COVERAGE HEIGHT AND SET BACK REQUIREMENTS. THE ATTACHED CAR PORT DOES DEVIATE FROM THE STANDARD IN 77, 303 AND EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM CEILING HEIGHT, HOWEVER THE DEERFOOT UNDEVIATION ARE NOT TO AFFECT THE SURROUNDING AREA AND REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE STRUCTURE REGULATION. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT, LIMITED VISIBILITY FROM TOLER ROAD AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE PATTERNS WE STILL FIND THE REQUEST IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE R.D.C. .

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. SUBJECT TO THE INSTALLATION OF GUTTER, DIRECTING THE RUN OFF AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. YOU AS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION, RECOMMEND APPROVAL, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR THE DENIAL OF THIS

REQUEST. >> THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> MR. POLLARD. >> LILLIAN THAT, ON THE DRAWINGS THE CAR PORT IS NOT WIDER THAN THE BUILDING, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NO. >> AND SO EVEN THOUGH THE BILLING FITS THE SIDE SETBACK, OF SIX FEET, IS IN COMPLIANCE, THE COVER FOR A CAR PORT HAS TO BE 15.

>> YES. >> THE DRIVEWAY IS COMPLIANT AS

WELL? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?

>> HIS DRIVEWAY IS COMPLIANT? >> THE DRIVEWAY?

[00:20:06]

YES. >> OK.

IT IS OVER THE DRIVEWAY WHICH IS OK, TOO.

THE ORDINANCE SAYS 15 FEET SHIFTED OVER.

>> IT HAS TO BE SO THE SIDE SET BACK FOR IN THIS CASE THIS LOT IS 15 FEET. IT CANNOT PASS THOSE FEET.

CANNOT OVER EXCEED THE 15 FEET. >> OK.

OK. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FOR STAFF? DOES THE APPLY CAPITANADA -- APPLICANT TO SAY ANYTHING? SAY HELLO?

>> GOOD EVENING. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR CITY

OF RESIDENCE. >> JEREMY, ROWLETT TEXAS, 26

YEARS. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO REGARDING THE AWNING OR MORE OF AN AWNING THAN A CAR PORT IS GOING TO MATCH THE ROOF AND PITCH LINE OF THE STRUCTURE SO IT WILL HAVE THE -- IT WON'T BE ANY WIDER, ON EACH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. SO GOING TO BE BUILT OUT OFFED ARE IRON METAL SO IT IS GOING TO BE BEAUTIFUL STRUCTURE THAT WE ARE PLANNING. THE GENTLEMEN SAID BEFORE, IT'S PRICEY INVESTMENT SO WE WILL MAKE IT LOOK GOOD.

BUT ALSO, WE HAVE GOT THE OTHER .8 ACRES IN THE REAR AS WELL AND PLANNING TO HAVE THE GUTTERING THE DRAIN FOR THAT

DIRECT. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. POLLARD? >> SO I WAS OUT THERE BY THERE TODAY, THE SIGN IS IN BETWEEN TWO DRIVEWAYS.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SIGN, IS YOUR HOUSE TO THE RIGHT OR TO

THE LEFT? >> LEFT SITE.

>> THE SIGN IS ON OUR PROPERTY. TO THE LEFT.

>> OK. IS THERE ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS THAT I WAS GOING TO CALL -- IT WAS GOING TO CAUSE A HIGH DEGREE OF TRAFFIC ON THE ROADS. YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO DO AUTO REPAIR OR ANYTHING, ARE YOU?

>> NO, SIR. READING WHAT THAT PERSON READ IN THE COMMENTS I THINK. THEY SENT IN THE WRONG SURVEY.

THEY MEANT FOR THE OTHER SURVEY, WE WILL BE DISCUSSING LATER TONIGHT. WE ARE NOT HAVING ANY WATER AND THEY MENTIONED WATER PRESSURE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WENT HAVE A WATER PLUMING TO THE BUILDING

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE ON APPLICANT?

THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> SORRY.

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOW, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. HERNANDEZ. >> MOTION.

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY CONDITIONS?

>> WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF PTHE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF TH GUTTERING. > A MOTION TO APPROVAL THE S.U.P. WITH THE ADDITION OF A GUTTER REQUIREMENT.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MR. JOBE.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND.

ANY -- EXCUSE ME, ANY COMMENTS? MR. POLLARD?

>> FOR WHATEVER IT IS WORTH, FOR ANYBODY MIGHT BE WATCHING OR THOSE THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS, THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN MANY, MANY OF OTHERS ON TOLER ROAD.

THOSE ARE ALL ACRES. I'M ALL FOR IT.

>> ANY OTHER DEPECOMMENTED? QUESTION WILL CALL THE VOTE.

THAT PASSIONS, 7-0. >> ITEM FOUR "A."

[4A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on a request to amend the zoning map, the North Shore South Framework Plan, the Comprehensive Plan and the Master Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Rowlett, all as previously amended, by amending the zoning from Form Based Commercial Center (FB-CC) district, Single-Family (SF-40) district, Form Based Rural Neighborhood (FB-RN) district and Form Based Urban Neighborhood (FB-UN) district to a Planned Development District with Single-Family uses (PD-SF5) for an approximately 67.543 acres in the Reason Crist Survey, Abstract No. 225, and the John M. Thomas Survey, Abstract No. 1478, City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas and being all of that tract of land described in Deed to Homeboy’s Enterprises, Inc., as recorded in Document No. 2003157-03202, Deed Records, Dallas County, Texas and being all of that tract of land described in Deed to Wolfe RE MGMT., LLC, as recorded in Document No. 202300064833, Deed Records, Dallas County, Texas. ]

[00:25:21]

FORM BASED RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD, FBRN DISTRICT AND FORM BASE URBAN NEIGHBOROOD, FBUN. DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH SINGLE FAMILY USES PDSF5, FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 67,543 ACRES IN THE REASON CIST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 225 OF THE JOHN MIT WAS SOME MASSEUR VEY, CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING ALL OF THAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO HOMEBOY'S ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED, AS RECORDED IN THE DOCUMENT NUMBER 2003157-03202, DEED RECORDS DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS AND BEING ALL OF THAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO WOLF R.E. MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. AS RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 202300064833, DEED RECORDS LAST COUNTY TEXAS. LILLIANA?

>> COMMISSIONER, THE NEXT ITEM IS A REQUEST TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATELY 67 ACRE SITE FROM A FORM BASED COMMERCIAL CENTER, SINGLE FAMILY S.F.40, FORM BASE RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD, TO A PLANNED DISTRICT FOR FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 226 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND FOUR COMMON AREA LOTS TO AMEND THE NORTH SHORE SOUTH, FRAMEWORK PLAN, TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO AMEND THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

THE SUBJECT SITE CURRENTLY CONTAINS MATURE CANOPY TREE COUGH EAND LOCATED ALONG THE EASTERN AND WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, ON MY POINTER IT IS AROUND CLOSER TO LIBERTY GROVE ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE AND ALSO, TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINES.

THERE IS ALSO TWO EXISTING BARNS, ON AN LONG THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE SITE. AND ALSO A 20 FEET WIDE SANITARY SEIZEMENT RUNNING NEARBY ALONG THE TREE CANOPY, WHERE I AM POINTING AT IN THE IMAGE IN FRONT OF YOU.

THE PROPERTY ALSO FRONTS -- HAS A FRONTAGE DELIVERY GROWTH OF 222 FEET. WE ARE LOOKING AT SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN, ZONE FORM GAS COMMERCIAL CENTER.

THE BAND IS UNDER DEVELOPED, NORTHWEST OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED FORM BASED NEW NEIGHBORHOOD.

WITH A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

TO THE EAST, YOU ALSO HAVE -- CONTAINS A FORM BASED COMMERCIAL CENTER ZONING CLASSIFICATION. AGAIN ON DEVELOPED LAND.

SO THE SOUTH -- SINGLE FAMILY S.F.#, DEVELOPED FOR SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES AND TO YOUR WEST YOU HAVE A ZONING 40 CURRENTLY DEVELOPED FOR SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES AS WELL.

WHEN DOING AN COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS WITHIN THE SURROUNDING UGH SUBDIVISIONS, TO THE NORTHWEST YOU HAVE THE NORTH HAVEN SUBDIVISION, WITH LOT AREAS OF ABOUT 7200 SQUARE FEET.

AND AVERAGE DWELLING UNIT SITE OF 3 -- OVER 3,000 SQUARE FEET.

SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, AGAIN, IT IS A ZONING S.F.40 AND S.F.9, THIS IS ROWLETT RANCH ESTATES ONE AND TWO.

AND THE LAKE RIDGE ESTATE ONE WITH AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF ABOUT 40,000 AREA FEET AND OVER 10,000 SQUARE FEET.

WITH AN AVERAGE DWELLING UNIT OF OVER 3,000 AREA FEET AND 2400 CHOIR FEET. WEST OF THE PROPERTY, S.F.40 ZONING, THERE IS A CHANDLER PART PARK ONE AND FOUR SUBDIVISION WITH LOTS APPROXIMATELY 33,000 SQUARE FEET AND DWELLING UNIT OF 26,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS PROPOSED MINIMUM SQUARE DWELLING UNIT OF 1,500 SQUARE FEET, IS SUBSTANTIALLY SMALLER THAN SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. AVERAGING FROM 24 TO 3200 SQUARE FEET. NOW WHEN LOOKING AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE LAND USE PLAN SHOWS THE PROPERTY INTENDED FOR EMPLOYMENT CENTER, ESTATE RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE.

THE REQUEST DOES IN THE ALIGN WITH THE CURRENT FUTURE PLAN

[00:30:06]

DESIGNATION FOR THE AREA. THE PROPERTY IS ALSO GOETTSCHED BY THE NORTH SHORE NORTH -- SOUTH FRAMEWORK PLAN.

THE FRAME, WITH PLAN ALSO IDENTIFIES 100 FEET BUFFER TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 2,500 OPEN SPACE BUFFER WITH A SIX FOOT ORNAMENTAL FENCE IN LIEU OF THE PLANNED TRANSITION AREA.

THE MASTER DURING ROE FAIR PLAN IDENTIFIES A TWO TYPE "C" UNDIVIDED ROADWAY. ALEX CAN YOU GO BACK, TO THAT SLIDE FOR ME? SHOWN ON THE IMAGE IN FRONT OF YOU. HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONCEPT PLAN THIS DOES IN THE CONFIRM WITH THE REQUIRED STREET NETWORK.

AS IDENTIFIED IN THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

THEREFORE AN AMENDMENT TO SUCH IS REQUIRED.

NOW AS PART OF THE CONCEPT PLAN APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO PHASE DEVELOPMENT. DELEN YATED BY THE RED -- DELINEATED BY THE RED LINE. PHASE ONE IS INTENDED TO DEVELOP WITH 136 LOT AND PHASE TWO WITH 909 LOTS.

THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY -- 90 LOTS.

THERE ARE FOUR PRIMARY AREAS WITH OPEN SPACE AND CLOSER TO LIBERTY GROVE. AND THE PERIMETERS OF THE PROPERTY, TO THE SOUTH, AND AT THE CORNER NEAR LARSON LANE.

THERE IS TWO PONDS BEING PROPOSED.

ONE CLOSER TO LIBERTY GROVE AND ONE CLOSEST TO LARSON LANE.

AS FAR AS ACCESS, THERE IS PRIMARY ACCESS AGAIN, FROM LIBERTY GROVE, AND AGAIN, ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO LARSON LANE WHICH IS THE PROPERTY WHICH IS THE NORTH HAVEN SUBDIVISION, BARRYMAN ROAD, CONNECTING TO THE TOLER ROAD AND ALSO A FUTURE CONNECTION TO THE DEVELOP -- FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. AND INTERNAL RESIDENTIAL STREET NETWORK IS PROPOSED AT 50 FOOT RIGHT AWAY.

INCLUDING A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FOUR COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS WITHIN THEIR LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THE CODE REQUIRES A 15 FOOT BUFFER.

ALSO ONE CANOPY TREE PER 3500 LINEAR FEET WITHIN THE RIGHT AWAY. THIS IS IN THE RIGHT AWAY SO WE ARE -- WHEN WE ARE THINKING ABOUT RIGHT OF WAY, WE ARE THINKING WHAT IS FRONTING LIBERTY GROVE? THERE IS ALSO A REQUIRED FOR PRIMARY ENTRY WAY LANDSCAPING WHICH THE CODE REQUIRES 9600 SQUARE FEET DIVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO ENTRY POINTS. NOW THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO KEEP THE EXISTING TREE LINE AS IS.

RATHER THAN INSTEAD OF PROVIDING THAT BUFFER REQUIREMENT.

PLANNING TO KEEP THE TREE AS IS INSTEAD OF PROVIDING THE TREES REQUIRED BY THE CODE AND THE SHRUBS REQUIRED BY THE CODE AND THEY ARE PROPROPOSING TO LANDSCAPE ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE ROADWAY. ORNAMENTAL FENCE IS LABELLED IN GREEN ON THE PLANS IN FRONT OF YOU AND ALONG -- SO THEY ARE SHORING ALONG THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WESTERN PROPERTY LINES.

AS FAR AS THE EXCEPTION DIMENSIONMENT REQUIREMENT THE APPLICANT IS DELINEATING FROM THE REAR SET BACK FROM THE 25 FEET REQUIRED TO 15 FEET PROPOSED.

AND ALSO THE MINIMUM SIDE SET BACK FOR THE CORNER LOTS AND KEY LOTS. THEY ARE FROM POSING 15 FEET, THE CODE REQUIRES THEM TO BE EQUAL TO THE REQUIRED FRONT SET BACK OF THE S.F.5 DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS FROM POSING A REDUCTION OF THE LOT WIDTH WHEN LOTS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE CUL-DE-SAC OR -- TO BE REDUCED FIVE FEET WITHIN THEIR MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 50 OR 60 AND TEN FEET WHEN THOSE -- THE TEN FEET WITH THE MINIMUM -- NOW AS FAR AS MODIFICATIONS, IN GENERAL, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MODIFICATION TO THE S.F.5 ZONING DISTRICT WHICH INCLUDES INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE STREET

[00:35:01]

LENGTH FROM THE 12 FEET REQUIRED TO THE 12,000 FSQUARE FEET -- ONLY TO INCLUDE A NUMBER OF JAY SWING AND SIDE ENTRY GARAGE CONFIGURATIONS. REDUCING WIDTH FROM 60 TO 50.

REDUCING MINIMUM YARD SET BACK FROM 25 FEET TO 15 FEET AND MODIFYING IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SET BACK FOR CORNER HOSPITALS INCLUDING KEY LOTS. SO MOVING ON -- MOVING DEEPER INTO THIS MODIFICATION SECTION 77, REQUIRES ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BE SERVED BY ALLIES. THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO ACCOMMODATE UTILITY PLACEMENT, TRASH PICKUP, PREVENT OVER PARKING AND ALSO ENGAGING THE PUBLIC BY NOT COMPROMISING THE STREET WIDTH AND ENSURE THAT POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION ACCESS IS AVAILABLE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE THIS ACCESS REQUIREMENT AND PROVIDE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES WITH SOME JAY SWING AND SIDE ENTRY CONFIGURATIONS. NOW THE LEM NATION SHIFTS THE PLACEMENT AND REDUCES THE TRASH PICKUP FUNCTIONS TO THE PUBLIC -- FRONT STREET. THE APPLICANT JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT PROVIDING ALLEY IS IT WOULD AFEZ EFFECT THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT DUE TO HIGH INFRASTRUCTURE COST PER LOT.

NOW SECTION 77508, SPEAKS TO L.AND Y. HOOK DRIVEWAY.

THE REQUIREMENT. TO PROVIDE A YJAY HOOK APPROACH.

PREVENT PEDESTRIANS FROM APPROACHING ONTO THE REALM AND PROVIDING RIGHT OF WAY, PROVIDING LONGER DRIVEWAY.

THE APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE A JUSTIFICATION FOR PROVIDING ALL OF THE LOTS WITH THIS REQUIREMENT.

THE CODE REQUIRES MINOR RESIDENTIAL STREET TO BE A FEET IN WIDTH. THE INTENT OF SUCH IS TO PROVIDE SPACE FOR UTILITIES, AUTOMOBILE CIRCULATION AND EMERGENCY ACCESS. THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO DECREASE THIS WIDTH FROM 60 TO 50 FEET.

THEIR JUSTIFICATION IS PLACED DUE TO THE MENTIONING OF THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE LOCAL SUBDIVISION, WHICH THEY REFERENCED NORTH HAVEN, AND ASK FOR ADDITIONAL -- ADDITIONAL 250 FEET LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING AS PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT.

STAFF HASN'T -- DOESN'T SEE ANY SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO JUSTIFY THAT 50 FOOT RIGHT AWAY REQUEST.

>> THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICULATES REQUIREMENT FOR FRONT -- PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ENTRY WAY.

THE ENTRY WAYS FEATURES ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC CALMING TRANSITIONS FROM HIGH TRAFFIC THOROUGH FIRES AND LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS, AS I WELL S PROVIDE A VISUAL AMENITY THAT ACREATES A SENSE OF PLACE FOR THE NEW COMMUNITIES AND IT SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT IT IS ASKING FOR IN TERMS OF THE REQUIRED MEASUREMENTS, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE IMAGE, IN FRONT OF YOU, THE ENTRY WAYS ARE TO BE 80 FEET BY 40 FEET, HIGHLIGHTED IN RED AND ADDITIONAL 16 HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE BLUE.

THE PROPOSED -- DOES NOT MEET THE PRIMARY ENTRY REQUIREMENT INCLUDING LANDSCAPING AND ENTRY WAY MEDIAN.

PROPOSED LANDSCAPING ON ONE SIDE AND ELIMINATING THE MEDIAN TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING CHANNEL, VEGETATION AND FREE GROWTH.

-- TREE GROWTH. THE APPLICANT SHOULD STILL CONSIDER ENTRY WAY IMPROVEMENT TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.

THE CODE REQUIRES A SPECIFIC REAR YARD SET BACK REQUIREMENT FOR S.F.5 DISTRICT. CAN WITH A REDUCTION FROM 25 FEET TO 15 FEET TO THE REAR SET BACK.

JUSTIFICATION IS THAT THE REDUCTION ALIGNS WITH TYPICAL SET BACKS FOR THE PRODUCT TYPE AND OFFSETS INCREASE -- -- OFTEN SET BY THE INCREASE IN THE FRONT YARD WHILE MAINTAINING TO -- KEEPING THAT LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT.

REMINDER THE INTENT OF THE REAR SET BACK IS TO ALLOWED A QAT BUILDING PLACEMENT, USABLE YARD SPACE, PRIVACY BETWEEN HOMES AND PROPER DRAINAGE. IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE A 15 FEET

[00:40:04]

REAR SET BACK AS A BACKYARD BUT TYPICALLY, WHEN ALLEYS ARE DEDICATED WITHIN THE S.F.5 DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS.

THE LAST MODIFICATION IS THE SIDE YARD SET BACK ON CORNER A.

KEY LOT. THE R.D.C. REQUIRES THE LOTS TO MATCH THE PRIMARY FRONT SET BACK AND PROVIDE A SECONDARY FRONT SET BACK. EQUAL TO OR HAVE OF THE REQUIRED FRONT SET BACK FOR CORNER LOTS BUT FOR KEY LOTS MUST HAVE THE REQUIRED FRONT SET BACK. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 15 FEET SIDE YARD SET BACK FOR THE CORNER LOT AND KEY LOTSEN AND NO JUSTIFICATION WAS PROVIDED. AND THE STAND AROUNDS ARE INTENDED TO KEEP CONSISTENT WITH THE STREET SQUARE, PROVIDE SEPARATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND STRUCTURES AND THE PUBLIC REALM AND TO PRESERVE VISIBILITY TO SUPPORT THE TRAFFIC SAFETY.

STAFF AGAIN HAS IN THE IDENTIFIED SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT WOULD NECESSARY TAINT THE MODIFICATION OF THE CORNER AND KEY LOTT SET BACK STANDARDS.

NOTIFICATIONS FOR THIS ITEM WAS SENT MAY 26.

STAFF RECEIVED WITHIN THE 200 BUFFER FIVE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION. AND WITHIN OUR 500 FOOT BUFFER 10 LETTER OF OPPOSITION AND ONE FAVOR WITHIN 200 BUFFER.

AS A RECOMMENDATION, THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALIGN WITH THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, NORTH SOUTH PLAN AND MAST AR FRAMEWORK PLAN. WHILE P.D. PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY.

-- INTENDED TO I A -- SO OVER ALL THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT PUBLIC BENEFIT TO JUSTIFY THE REQUEST FOR S.F.5 STANDARDS. ADDITIONALLY ARE THE PROPOSED MAY LIMIT THE SITE'S LONG-TERM ECONOMIC POTENTIAL, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT, JOB CREATION, SALE -- UNDER FORM BASED COMMERCIAL CENTER DESIGNATION.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION YOU MAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL, APROVENED WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST.

>> THANK YOU, LILLIAN. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

MR. POLLARD? >> LILLIANA, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THEY COMPLY WITH, THAT THTHEY ARE ASKING FOR IN THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION? SEEM LIKE EVERYTHING SETBACK, DOESN'T COMPLY WITH WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING AND 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT OR 7200 SQUARE FOOT

LOTS. >> THEY COMPLY WITH SOME OF THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. WHAT IS PRESENTED TO YOU IS WHAT THEY ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THEY DO COMPLY WITH OTHER ASPECT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU IS WHAT I THEY ARE RECOMMENDING AND DEVIATING WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT THEY ARE WORKING WITH.

>> STRAIGHT WIDTH, NO ALLIES, NO "J" HOOKS OR "L" HOOKS O"L" TURNS. NOT EVEN THE ENTRY WAY COMPLIES

WITH THE REQUIREMENT? >> YEAH.

>> OK. >> COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU, LILLIANA.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? >> YES AND THEY HAVE A

PRESENTATION. >> OK, GOOD.

>> CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, I AM BRUCE FRENCH.

I WILL MAKE IT REALLY EASY. I DON'T EVEN NEED TO GO FURTHER.

I CAN KIND OF TAKE AN INDICATION OF WHERE THIS IS GOING.

OBVIOUSLY WE ARE NOT WELCOMED IN THIS CITY.

AND I HAVE ALSO WAS -- BEFORE THIS P.N.Z., ABOUT TWELVE YEARS AGO WITH ANOTHER COMPANY AND NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED I GUESS.

SO WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU FOR A VOTE.

>> COMMISSIONERS /*? [APPLAUSE]

ANY QUESTIONS? >> THAT IS NOT TOO LATE.

[00:45:01]

YOU KNOW. WOULD YOU MIND COMING BACK UP TO THE PODIUM? OK.

ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU -- IF THAT IS THE WAY YOU FEEL, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW YOUR APPLICATION.

>> NO. >> OK.

THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. JOBE?

>> HOW CAN I PUT THIS DELICATELY? WITH THAT TYPE OF ATTITUDE, I WOULD SAY YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN THE CITY.

DO NOT EVEN WANT TO COME UP HERE AND TO TRY TO JUSTIFY WHAT YOU HAVE ASKED FOR, JUSTASTONISH ME. YOU MUST KNOW YOU ARE WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT IS ALL I WILL HAVE TO SAY

ON THAT. >> WE HAVE MET SEVERAL TIMES WITH STAFF. I THOUGHT WE WERE ALIGNED.

I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THE DENIAL RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF. ON MONDAY MORNING.

WE DEVELOPED SEVERAL THOUSAND LOTS WITH DALLAS FORT WORTH AREA. WE REIN HILL WOOD COMMUNITIES.

WHEN I WAS VISION PRESIDENT OF BEEZER WE BUILT IN THE SUBDIVISION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ROWLETT.

BUT ANYWAY WE HAVE GOT VERY GOOD INTENTIONS.

WE THOUGHT WE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE A GOOD PLAN FOR THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY. AS A BUFFER TO POTENTIALLY COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS TO THE NORTH.

OBVIOUSLY WE ARE FALLING SHORT. I APOLOGIZE IF I -- IF WE WASTED THE CITY'S TIME. WE HAD GOOD INTENTIONS.

>> MR. POLLARD? >> I DON'T MEAN TO BE SHORT OR HARSH, IN THIS, THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SELL US IF YOU WILL, ON WHY YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT DOESN'T COME CLOSE TO THE STANDARDS OF UP WITH THE ZONE ON THE GROUND, AND TWO, ALL OF THE REQUEST THAT YOU WANT, THAT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS. SUCH AS STREET WIDTH.

WANT SMALLER STREET. DENT WANT THIS, DON'T WANT THAT.

IF YOU YOU COULD -- THIS YOUR CHANCE TO SELL US ON THAT.

WHY I SHOULD EVEN LOOK AT IT. >> MAYBE WE SHOULD TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW IT, CHAIRMAN AND COME BACK LATER

WITH A REVISED PLAN. >> NO.

HAVE AN EXTREMELY HARD UPHILL ROAD IF YOU WANTED TO STAY HERE

TONIGHT. >> I CONDITION CONCUR.

-- -- I CONCUR. >> IF YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW YOUR APPLICATION I AM MORE THAN WILLING.

>> NO, I WOULD LIKE FOR THE P.N.Z. TO VOTE ON IT, PLEASE.

>> OOH, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT? OK. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR.

>> WE HAVE QUITE A FEW. >> IF YOU WOULD PLEASE, CALL OUT THE FIRST PERSON AND THEN THE SECOND PERSON, SO THEY CAN BE READY TO COME UP IF THOSE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD BE SO KIND AS TO JUST LET PEOPLE FINNISH AND THE NEXT PERSON COME UP, AND HOLD YOUR APPLAUSE UNTIL THE END OR WHATNOT.

I WOULD WHO HELP US GET OUT -- IT WOULD HELP US GET OUT OF HERE

[00:50:05]

BEFORE MIDNIGHT. IF NOT, I'M WILLING TO STAY.

>> OK. FIRST WE HAVE JIM MCDOWELL.

AND BEHIND HIM WOULD BE MILTON WOODALL.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JIM MCDOUGALL.

3205 LARKIN LANE IN ROWLETT. I LEARNED ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL, FROM A STICKER ON SOMEONE ON TOLER PUT ON MY WINDOW, ON MY DOOR. AS CHECKED INTO IT, I WAS TAKEN BACK TO TEN YEARS AGO, TWELVE YEARS AGO, WHEN THIS SAME PROCESS -- MY NEIGHBORS AND I WENT THROUGH WITH NORTH HAVEN DEVELOPMENT. WHEN I WENT TO THE PAQUETTE AND LOOKED AT THIS PLAN THEY SUBMITTED, I WAS AN ON TOISHED AG --S A ON TO TISHS OF THE ABSURDITY OF THE DEVELOPERS. WE REPEATED THREE DEVELOPERS BEFORE WE GOT ONE APPROVED OR WE AGREED TO IT.

I'M NEVER ASTONISHED BY THE FACT THAT DEVELOPERS DON'T REALED CODE. THEY ASK FOR 7, 8 DEV EWINGS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T READ THE AND KNOW WHAT IS REQUIRED.

I WANT TO COMMEND THE STAFF FOR NOTICING THAT MODIFICATIONS, QUOTE, APPEAR TO BE DRIVEN MORE BY THE APPLICANT'S BUSINESS MODEL, THAN BY SITE SPECIFIC PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS.

THEIR BUSINESS MODEL IS SIMPLY THIS.

NOT JUST A FAIR PROFIT. AN OBSCENE PROFIT.

THAT IS WHAT THE DEVELOPERS DO. IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 90, INMENT PACKET YOU WILL SEE THIS MAP. IF YOU LOOK ON THE FAR LEFT SIDE YOU WILL SEE LARKIN ROAD AND OUR HOSPITALS THAT ARE ONE ACRE JUST LIKE THE LOT ON TOLER. IT IS A THIRD OF AN ACRE.

WHEN THEY FIRST FILED IT, THEY FILED THIS CRAP WITH ZERO LOT LINES. BUT WE BEAT THEM BACK BECAUSE IT IS CALLED A TRANSITION ZONE. YOU DON'T GO FROM ONE ACRE LOTS TO HAVING THREE ZERO LOT LINE HOUSES BEHIND YOUR HOUSE.

I HAVE ONE HOUSE BEHIND MINE NOW.

I CAN LIVE WITH THAT. THEY TOOK ALL THIS CRAP AND PUT IT ON THE BACKSIDE OF NORTH HAVEN.

WANT TO COMMEND THE STAFF FOR NOTICING THAT THIS IS 60 ACRES IF APPROVED. BE A LOT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. ALMOST LOST NORTH HAVEN, 06 ACRES THEN ALL THIS AREA TO THE NORTH -- 60 ACRES.

IN FIVE YEARS THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING LEFT.

IT WILL JUST GO TO MARRETT, LIBERTY GROVE AND OVER.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. I AM MILTON WOODALL.

>> THIS IS THE FIRST THING I HAVE SEEN ANYTHING ABOUT THE PLAN BUT THIS IT WAS OBVIOUS TO ME WHAT WAS OBVIOUS TO YOU.

THAT AIN'T WHAT WE WANT THERE. SO THANK YOU FOR VOTING THAT DOWN. YOU TAKE JUST A MINUTE TO SAY, AS YOU THINK ABOUT OTHER THINGS, OTHER PLANS FOR SOME OF THE OPEN LAND IN ROWLETT, REMEMBER THERE IS THINGS LIVING THERE NOW.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF ROWLETT EVEN DONE A STUDY OF THAT.

I BACK UP TO THAT PROPERTY. I HAVE BEEN HEARING COYOTES SINCE I LIVED HERE 35 YEARS AGO. THEY ARE STILL THERE.

BUT THERE IS NOT AS MANY BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU BUILD A BUNCH OF HOUSE, THOSE ANIMALS GOT TO GO SOMEWHERE.

WELL, USED TO SEE ONE EVERY NOW AND THEN.

NOW I GOT A PATH UP THE SIDE OF MY YARD BECAUSE THEY GOT TO GO IN THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET OUT IN THAT OTHER SUBDIVISION TO FIND SOMETHING TO EAT.

WHERE DO YOU THINK THEY ARE GOING TO GO? YOU GOT A PLAN FOR THAT? WE NEED TO HAVE A PLAN FOR THAT KIND OF STUFF. THERE IS ALL KINDS OF WILDLIFE THAT WILL BE GONE. IN THEY WON'T GO AWAY AND THEY WILL GO ACROSS THE HIGHWAY AND COME BACK AT NIGHT AND PEOPLE WILL BE CALL, HEY, SOMETHING IS EATING MY DOGS AND CATS.

IT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE THROWING THEM OUT OF THEIR OWN HOUSE.

WE GOT TO HAVE A PLAN TO PRESERVE SOME OF THE GREEN SPACE IN THE CITY. OTHERWISE IT WILL BE LIKE LIVING IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS. ALL CONCRETE.

SANITARY SEWER FOR THE FLOOD WATER RUN OFF.

JUST GOES DOWN BAR DITCHES AND THEY FLOOD NOW.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLACE TO GO. GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

CAN'T JUST KEEP POURING MORE WATER THROUGH OUR YARDS IN TO

[00:55:03]

THAT ONE LITTLE DRAINAGE CREEK. THANKS.

>> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]

. >> OK NEXT WE HAVE JAMES REYNOLDS AND JESSIE PARALIS.

>> MOVING ON TO GREGORY ODAM. >> THANK YOU.

>> FOLLOWED BY. >> I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT IS.

GO AHEAD, SIR. I'M SORRY.

YA THANK YOU. MY NAME IS GREGORY OEDMONTON -- GREGORY ODAM. MY MOM AND DAD'S HOME WAS BUILT THERE 43 YEARS AGO. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT. OUR CUSTOM HOME IS ON A ONE ACRE LOT AND THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE BUILT ON BOTH OF THE ACRE WHERE OUR HOME IS LOCATED AND A ROAD WILL BE BUILT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINE WITH IN BUFFER ZONE.

THIS WILL BE THE SAME FOR THE RESIDENTS ON TOLER ROAD.

BUILDING OF 226 STANDARDIZED NON-CUSTOM HOMES U WOULD DECREASE THE PROPERTY VALUE IN THE AREA AS OTHER HOMES ARE UNIQUE CUSTOM HOMES ON ONE ACRE LOTS.

PRESUMING THAT AT LEAST TWO CARS PER HOME FOR 226 HOMES, THIS CREATED A DANGEROUS TRAFFIC SITUATION.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE HERE DOESN'T SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT.

ALL THE ROADS IN THE AREA, THEY ARE ALL TWO LANE ROADS.

IN SIDEWALKS. NO CURVING.

JUST BAR DITCHES. AND THERE IS TO SIGNAL LIGHTS.

AND THIS WAS SIGNIFICANTLY INCR INCREASING ROAD NOSE AND LIGHT POLLUTION.

THE TREE LINE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED THAT KIND OF AT THE END OF LARSEN THERE, THIS HOUSES MANY DIFFERENT SPECIES SUCH AS RED TAIL HAWKS, OWLS, HER RONS, BLUE JAYS, CARDINALS AND RABBIT AND SQUIRRELS AND RACK COUPES ANDS SO ALL OTHER CREATURES.

WILL BE DISPLACED. THERE ARE TWO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERED RADIO TOWERED FOR F.C.C. CALL OPERATOR.

THEY HAVE ANCHOR POSTS WITH GUIDE WIRES LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA. THEY CANNOT BE MOVED WITHOUT DESTROYING THE TOWERS. THE TOWERS WOULD FALL.

FURTHER MORE, ROWLETT DOES IN THE NEED ANY MORE HOUSING.

WE NEED SHOPS, GROCERY STORES, OTHER BUSINESSES TO BRING GREATER ECONOMIC VIABILITY TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND THAT WILL BE ALL FOR ME. .

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU ALL.

TOWER AND NAM PHAM. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS TIME. MY NAME IS TREASURE HIGHTOWER, AT 3001 TOLER. RIGHT THERE AT THE END OF THE ROAD. WANT TO THANK YOU FEW YOUR THE TIME AND POINT OUT THAT I OBVIOUSLY AS MUCH AS EVERYONE ELSE HAS CONCERNS ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE, HOW IT WILL BE SUSTAINED, WITH PLUMBING, MULTIPLE ISSUES.

I CAME HERE FUR FOUR YEARS AGO FROM ROY CITY BECAUSE I WANTED TO BE IN ROWLETT AND THE REASON I HAD TO LEAVE ROY CITY IS BECAUSE IT WAS THE SAME THING. UNCHECKED.

JUST DEVELOPMENT EVERYWHERE. YOU HAVE NO WATER PRESSURE . CAN'T GET OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND OVER RUN. JUST WITH EVERYBODY.

SO UNCHECKED ROADS JUST CAN'T CO-EXIST.

>> THESE WILL BE BUILT RIGHT ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.

THEY WILL BE CLAIM D-- CHEAPLY DONE.

THAT IS NOT A YOUNG STARTER FAMILY HOME.

THAT IS THE ONLY THING I WOULD BE WILLING TO BE WALKING MY POOR DOG ACROSS ALL THE EXTRA TRAFFIC FOR IS IF SOMEBODY HAD A CHANCE. ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

[01:00:01]

>> GOOD EVENING. I'M NAM PHAM FROM ROWLETT.

I OPPOSE TO PROTECT >> WE NEED TO PRESERVE THE VISION. WHAT GOOD IS THE PLAN IF WE NEVER GET A CHANCE TO TAKE ROOT.

ROWLETT KEPT JUMPING AT FIRST OPPORTUNITIES THAT COMES ALONG.

PRODUCE A DETAIL AMBITION PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL CENTER, HYPE IT UP AND NOW IT ISLY ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO CHIP AWAY THAT VISION, PIECE BY PIECE. CALLING IT PROGRESS.

IN ANY SERIOUS ENDEAVOUR -- IN FAVOUR OF SHORT TERM THINKING IS A NAME CALLED INSANITY. CONSIDER THE BIGGER PICTURE.

GARLAND GARLAND ABOUT TO BUILD -- THE NEIGHBOURING CITY ATTRACTING ALL KINDS OF DEVELOPMENT THAT GENERAL RATES SALES TAX AND COMMUNITY PRIDE, WHY CAN'T ROWLETT BE THE SAME? EVERY NEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT APPROVED IN PLACE OF THE COMMERCIAL VISION, AT MORE TO RESIDENTS WHO STRAIN OUR ROAD, OUR UTILITIES AND CITIES SERVICES. BY SPENDING THE DOLLARS, IN GARLAND, AND ROCK WELL. WE BETTER CROSS OUR NEIGHBOR -- THAT IS NOT PROGRESS. THAT IS CIVIC FAILURE.

PLEASE GIVE NORTH SHORE PLAN A CHANCE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. DONE? LAST CALL. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT? HEARING NONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. MR. HERNANDEZ.

>> IN THE AFFIRMATIVELY MAKE A MOTION TO THEY PROVE THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS PRESENTED.

>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? FOR THE PURPOSESES OF MOVING THIS ALONG TO A VOTE, AND WE HAVE MOTION ON FLOOR AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED. DISCUSSION.

MR. HERNANDEZ. >> YEAH.

THIS PLAN IS RIDICULOUS. I HONESTLY CANNOT BELIEVE THIS IS BEING PRESENTED WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT IS ASKING US TO IGNORE. I REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST AS GOOD AS WHAT IS IN THE AREA. IF NOT BETTER.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR NO ALLEY.

THE REDUCTION AS A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA, I'M JUST FLABBERGASTED WE EVEN WANT TO CONSIDER THIS.

>> MR. POLLARD? >> NUMBER ONE, I WILL ECHO WITH WHAT MR. HERNANDEZ SAID AS FAR AS BEING AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN WHAT'S NEXT DOOR. I WAS UP IN MURPHY YESTERDAY VISITING FRIENDS. THERE A DEVELOP DIVISION GOING UP NOT FAR FROM THEM. FIVE, 6,000 AREA FOOT HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY HOME. HUGE, MEDITERRANEAN THE STYLE, AND WE GET THIS. AND NOT ONLY IS IT THIS, BUT THIS IS IN THE NORTH SHORE DISTRICT.

NORTH SHORE DISTRICT PRECEDED IN NAME BY THE TECHNICAL RESEARCH DISTRICT GOES BACK TO '96.

AND IT WAS SET ASIDE, ALL THAT AREA UP THERE, TO HAVE FOR THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO DIVERSIFY THE TAX BASE.

WE NTIMELY GOT A DEVELOPER THA CAME IN AND I KNOW PEOPLE DON'T

[01:05:03]

LIKE THE WAREHOUSES BUT AT LEAST IT IS A START FOR COMMERCIALISM UP IN THAT AREA. AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING TAKEN OUT OF IT. AND I WANT TO SEE THAT WE REZONE THIS THING. SO I WILL HAVE MORE TO SAY LATER. BUT NOT IN FAVOR OF REDUCING THIS AND THEN EVERYTHING THAT IS REQUESTED IS EXEMPTED OR LESS THAN WHAT THE STANDARD WAS.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER? I JUST HAVE TO ECHO WHAT MR. HERNANDEZ AND MR. POLAND SAID. THIS IS BASICALLY JUST SOMEBODY SITTING DOWN AND DRAWING UP THEIR PLAN AND THEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW OR WHAT THEY NEED TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS ON.

BECAUSE IT OBVIOUSLY WASN'T -- NONE OF THE REQUIREMENT TEMPERATURES THE CITY WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

WHEN THIS PLAN WAS DEVELOPED. AND PRESENTED TO US.

I DO THINK THAT THIS IS KIND OF A WAKE-UP CALL, THOUGH, FOR TWO THINGS. LIKE YOU SAID, MR. POLLARD, ONE IS WE NEED TO REZONE THE NORTH SHORE AREA APPROPRIATELY FOR THE USE WE WANT, WHICH IS COMMERCIAL.

BECAUSE THAT COMMERCIAL ASPECT WILL DEFINITELY HELP THE TAX BASE. WHICH THEN HELPS EVERY ONE OF US RES TENTS. WHICH IS SOMETHING GOOD.

AS WELL AS SUPPLYING SOME LOCAL EMPLOYMENT.

D A CALL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO LOOK AT THAT. FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW.

WE HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WARD HERE.

SO I THINK IT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT SHOULD WE END UP DISAPPROVING THIS VOTE, IT CAN ONLY PASS BY SUPER MAJORITY VOTE. NOT WITHDRAWING IT.

MADE IT EASIER. BUT ANYTHING ELSE? OK WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED. WITH THE SECOND.

WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE AND AGAIN, THIS IS A -- THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE, SO VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

CALL A VOTE.

FAILS TO PASS. ZERO TO SEVEN.

[4C. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding text amendments to Section 77-510 of the Rowlett Development Code regarding exterior lighting. ]

MOVING ON TO IAYE 4 YORK 403. CONDUCT A HEARING HEARING REGARDING TEXT AMENDMENT TO 775 # 0.

REGARDING EXTERIOR LIGHTING. MR. KING, HOPEFULLY WE CAN MAKE THIS FASTER THAN THE PREVIOUS SECTION.

AND AS YOU LEAVE, PLEASE BE MINDFUL THIS IS AN OPEN MEETING SO WE NEED TO LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN.

SO ANY DISCUSSION IN THE HALLWAYS, PLEASE KEEP IT TO A

MINIMUM. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

I'M MICHAEL KING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

PRESENTING ON THE GLARE AND LIGHTING STANDARDS.

PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 77-510 OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING EXTERIOR LIGHTING. SO BACKGROUND ON THIS, COUNCIL HAD A WORK SESSION, ON JANUARY 5TH, DISCUSSED RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING STANDARDS, THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDED CHANGING THE ORDINANTS TO INCLUDE A STANDARD OF O.25 FEET CANDLES AT PROPERTY LINE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND ENSURE THAT ALL LIGHTING IS SHIELDED ANDLED AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS IN IS UP A MANNER THAT DOES NOT RESULT IN IMPACT TO NEIGHBORS. STAFF PRESENT ON THE TOPIC DURING THE APRIL 14TH, MAY 12TH AND THEY.

DURING THE PLANNING AND ZONING WORK SESSIONS.

COMMISSIONERS WERE SENT IN THERE AND RECOMMENDATIONS CAME IN AFTERWARDS. ON MAY 18TH, 19TH AND TODAY.

I APPRECIATE THAT, TOO. SO THE CURRENT CODE HAS A VERY

[01:10:06]

INTENSE STATEMENT AND DOESN'T HAVE THE LIGHTING OUT PUT STANDARDS, DOESN'T HAVE THE DEFINITIONS AND IS NOT VERY CONSISTENT FOR MEASURING AND GAINING COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 77-510 SO STAFF CREATED WITH THE HELP OF THE COMMISSIONERS, A REVISED R.D.C. SECTION 77-510 OR

EXTOOER YOUR LIGHTING. >> MR. KING.

SEEING WE JUST WENT OVER THIS. AND --

>> YES, PLEASE. SO WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU AND WORKED ON IN THE WORK SESSION, I'M BRINGING TO YOU NOW SO ORDINANCE CREATE STANDARD FOR TOOLS FOR ENFORCEMENT.

THAT IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS GOVERNING BODY YOU MAY MAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION, RECOMMEND APPROVAL, RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, AND RECOMMEND DENIAL.

I CAN THAT IF YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, YOU REFERENCE THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT THAT WE AMENDED.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

STAFF -- OR COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE WE WILL MOVE ON. ENTERTAIN A MOTION? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO AT THIS TIME I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? HAVING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. JOBE, PLEASE, THANK YOU. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MOTION AS READ WITH THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE MADE.

>> THEY ARE IN WORK SESSION. >> WORK SESSION.

>> WE HAVE SECOND BY MS. WILSON.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE WE WILL CALL THE VOTE. AND THAN PASSES 6-1.

[4D. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding text amendments to Section 77-504(H) of the Rowlett Development Code and the repeal Article II Section 98 of the Code of Ordinances containing tree removal permit review and approval procedures. ]

MOVING ON TO ITEM 4 "K," CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY REGARDING TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 77-504 HOTEL AND ROWLETT DEVELOP CODE AND A REPEAL ARTICLE TWO SECTION 98 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES CONTAINING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES.

ASK THE LAST AGENDA, SO THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU HAVE TO CONDUCT A

>> REGARDING AN AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND TO APPEAL ARTICLE TWO AND THE APPROVAL -- -- THE APPROVAL PROCESS.

THE STAFF STARTED EVALUATING FROM PROCEDURES AND IT REQUIRES YOU ALL TO APPROVAL OR DENIAL IN THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO FINALIZE APPROVAL. AND THEN TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE TO STREAMLINE. NOW WHEN WE ARE COMPARING AND WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IF THERE IS IT COULD BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY.

AND THEN IT IS PRODUCT YOU FOR RECOMMENDATION THEN THE COUNCIL APPROVES IT OR DENIES IT. AND IN THIS CASE WE ARE LOOKING TO MOVE THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT FOR THEIR PERMITS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE FINAL APPROVAL BODY WE ARE ALSO LOOKING TO REMOVE OR REPEAL BECAUSE WE FOUND THE'S ARE DUPLICATE ORDINANCES OR REQUIREMENTS.

NOW AGAIN A LOT ARTICLE 11 SECTION 98 WE ARE LOOKING TO DEAL WITH THIS SECTION TWO REMOVAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AS

[01:15:03]

ADDRESSED IN SECTION 77504. NOW THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REPEALING AND IT KEEPS AWAY REDUNDANCIES A REPEALING THE SECTION WOULD MAKE THAT SECTION 7750 FOR A REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE EXPECTED TO STREAMLINE THE PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS AND ELEVATE DUPLICATE REGULATIONS WITHIN CITY CODE, REDUCE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS. MAINTAINING OVERSIGHT OF SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AND A GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SECTION 77504 OF THE RDC WITH ARTICLE TWO SECTION 98.

AND THE US THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CAN APPROVE OR

DENY THE REQUEST. >> WHY CAN'T WE JUST STRIKE THE EXISTING ORDINANCE AND JUST LEAVE THE REST OF IT AS IS?

>> THERE ARE TWO ITEMS THAT WE ARE DOING HERE.