[1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:07] >> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR JULY 28TH, 2026. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.1 THIS MEETING MACON SCREEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HERE IN AND THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECESS, RECONVENE OR REALIGN OR CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER BUSINESS PRIOR ADJOURN MINUTE FOR PROCESS PUBLIC INPUT. IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITIZENS INPUT FORM ON THE WEBSITE THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING AND ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING FOR IN-PERSON COMMENTS INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. IT IS 6:00 AND WE HAVE A QUORUM AND WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE WORKSESSION TO ORDER. >> FIRST ITEM ON THE, WELL THE [2. Receive a presentation regarding Section 77-811 [Minor Modifications] of the Rowlett Development Code. ] ONLY I ONLY THE WORKSESSION IS TO RECEIVE A PRESENTATION REGARDING SECTION 77811 MINOR MODIFICATION OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS. TONIGHT I WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SECTION 7711 IN TITLED MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT DISCUSS REASONING BEHIND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND [00:07:12] COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? LET ME GIVE YOU SOME SCENARIOS. RTS. IF THE CODE SAYS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT EACH LOT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TWO TREES. AND THE DEVELOPER COMES IN AND SAYS I'D RATHER BECAUSE THERE ARE SMALLER LOTS I'D RATHER PUT ONE TREE. AND ON THE FRONT ENTRY WAY INSTEAD OF PUTTING PLANTINGS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PRIMARY ENTRY STREET, THEY SAY I JUST WANT TO PUT PLANTINGS ON THE RIGHT SIDE BUT NOT THE LEFT SIDE. IS THAT A MINOR MODIFICATION. >> THAT'S WHERE THE DISCUSSION COMES UP. WE COULD NOT DEFINITELY ANSWER IF THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A MINOR MODIFICATION. >> ALRIGHT. SO IF YOU REPEAL 77-811, WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION? >> I'M GOING TO JUMP IN. FORGIVE ME. I KNOW THIS IS NEW SO LET'S TALKING ABOUT YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION. THE FIRST ONE WHICH WAS MODIFICATIONS TO TREE PARENTINGS OR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE A LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE THAT DEFINES THOSE PERIMETERS AND YOU HAVE A VARIANCE PROCEDURE THROUGH AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN SO THAT'S ALREADY A PROCESS WHICH ALLISON WAS REFERRING TO IN HER PRESENTATION WAS THE ABILITY FOR MINOR MODIFICATIONS IS ELABORATED UPON DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST. THIS SECTION IN ITSELF, 811 IS INDEED SO AMBIGUOUS THAT YOU CAN USE IT VERY SUBJECTIVELY FOR ANYTHING. AND THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND IT ALSO DIMINISHES THE ABILITY FOR INPUT ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH REQUEST. >> OKAY. SO IF YOU REPEALED IT, SO IF YOU REPEALED IT, WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT AN EXCEPTION? >> WONDERFUL QUESTION. [00:10:02] >> THANK YOU CHAIR. TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IT DEPENDS ON NATURE OF THE REQUEST. SAY IT IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND IN THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LOTS READY FOR DEVELOPMENT BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO COMPLY WITH THE SET-BACK REQUIREMENT OR A LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT AS IDENTIFIED IN THE BASE ZONING OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THEN THEY CAN REQUEST AN AMENDMENT THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. APPOSED GOING THROUGH THIS MINOR MODIFICATION PROCEDURE. >> MR. WHITE? >> SORRY. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RULE AMENDMENT APPEARS TO BE VAGUE. WHAT WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THE INITIAL, WHO PUT IT IN PLACE INITIALLY? IF WE ELIMINATE THIS I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE LOOKING AT THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THE INITIAL RULE AND THE SPIRIT OF THE RULE THAT IT WAS TRYING TO PUT IN PLACE BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE LANGUAGE IS CLUNKY BUT WHAT ABOUT THE INITIAL RULE? >> THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND ANY DEVELOPMENT CODE IS TO PROVIDE A DEVELOPER A HOMEOWNER, ANYBODY THE FLEXIBILITY IF THERE ARE TRUE CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED TO HAVE AN AVENUE TO SEEK RELIEF. UNFORTUNATELY IN THIS INSTANCE YOU WILL NOTICE IN MOST PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS OR REZONING DISTRICTS THERE ARE DEFINITIONS OF MINOR MODIFICATIONS AND WHAT THAT MEANS. HOWEVER, THE PURPOSE IS TO ALLOW AND ENABLE AND THAT PROCESS AND SYSTEM ALREADY EXISTS AND RESIDES WITH EXISTING GOALS AN ORDINANCES. THIS FURTHER DILUTES THAT PROCESS HAVING THIS SECTION SO IT ALREADY EXISTS >> WHY DON'T WE JUST, BY ELIMINATING THIS RULE, JUST A THE SECOND QUESTION WAS WHAT IT WAS SPIRIT PLAN BEHIND THIS RULE? IF IT WAS THAT AMBIGUOUS WHY DIDN'T WE JUST MODIFY IT COMPL COMPLETELY? >> IT'S REDUNDANT. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> TO BEGIN WITH IT'S JUST REDUNDANT TO EVERY OTHER PROCESS YOU HAVE. EVERYONE OF THOSE PROCESSES HAS A WAY TO ADJUST THE REQUIREMENTS. SDWROI SEEK RELIEF. >> YES. THIS THROWS IN ANOTHER ONE. WHICH WAY YOU WANT TO GO AND BECAUSE IT'S SO AMBIGUOUS. IT'S DEFINITELY NOT A DESCENT RULE. >> MR. JOE? >> BASICALLY YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION. THERE ARE ALREADY MECHANISMS IN PLACE THAT IF ANY MINOR THING COMES UP ON ANYTHING ELSE, IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY DEFAULT TO ONE OF THOSE OTHER AREAS AND THIS IS JUST AN OVERLAP OF A DUPLICATE BUT THERE'S MECHANISMS IN PLACE FOR EVERY SINGLE THING THAT COULD COME UP WITH THE DIFFERENT AREAS? >> WELL, I MEAN. WITHIN REASON. >> MR. BLAYDES? >> CURRENTLY OR IN THE PAST WHO WOULD MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER IT GOES THROUGH THE MINOR MOD SECTION OR THE OTHER SECTIONS? >> SO JUST FROM THE CASE THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STOOD OUT. THERE WASN'T A PURE DETERMINATION. DETERMINE WHY MINOR MODIFICATIONS WERE SPECIFICALLY SELECTED. KIND OF GIVES THAT FLEXIBILITY WHEREAS THAT TAKES AWAY >> WOULD THE APPLICANT CHOOSE INITIALLY? WOULD THE APPLICANT INITIALLY CHOOSE WHICH DOOR THEY WANT TO GO THROUGH? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO SPECIFIC CASES BECAUSE WE US NOT HERE YET BUT FROM MY EXPERIENCE IT WILL BE STAFF WILL ADVISE THEM ON WHAT PROJECT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO APPLY FOR HOWEVER IF THEY WERE TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR THAT AS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT >> MR. POLLARD? >> OKAY. SO I GUESS WHERE I'M GOING WITH MY ORIGINAL QUESTION AND SOME OF THE OTHER DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD, WHAT I DO NOT WANT TO SEE IS THAT BY ELIMINATING THIS SECTION OF THE CODE THATP A [00:15:15] PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION IS BY PASSED AND THAT STAFF IS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS AND IT SKIPS COMING THROUGH THIS COMMISSION AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY. BECAUSE THE P&Z IS MADE UP OF RESIDENTS AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS, THE RESIDENTS LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHATEVER IS BUILT IN THIS TOWN. GOOD, BAD OR UGLY OR WHATEVER. SO THE CITIZENS PARTIALLY THE REASON FOR P&Z TO BE SET UP LIKE IT IS SO THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE INPUT AND I JUST DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT GIVEN UP. I HONESTLY THINK BY ELIMINATING THIS SECTION YOU ARE GOING TO REENFORCE HAVING TO GO TO P&Z VERSES USING AN ALTERNATIVE THAT MAY BY PASS IT ALL TOGETHER BY GOING TO CITY COUNCIL AND ASKING FOR A MINOR MODIFICATION >> THIS AGAIN, THIS BASICALLY ELIMINATES A PERSON'S ABILITY TO SIDE STEP THE SYSTEM. OKAY? >> WELL IF THERE IS ASSURANCES T THAT, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WILL OCCUR, THEN I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE THEN I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THAT. LET ME ELABORATE ONE MORE TIME. >> DO YOUR RTS FOR ME. >> ONE FURTHER THING AND NONE OF YA'LL WERE HERE WHEN THIS OCCURRED. AND SOME OF YA'LL LIVED IN TOWN AT THAT TIME BUT MAY NOT KNOW THIS. SO WE REDID THE BUILDING REGULATIONS IN 2005 AND 20 OF AND I WAS GOING OFF, AS WELL AS MR. CLICK GOING OFF THE P&Z AT THE END OF 2005 BUT WE WERE ASKED TO STAY SINCE WE HAD STARTED. THE ATTEMPT BY THE MANAGER OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND I'LL NAME NAMES. SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE A REFERENCE OF TIME AND PLACE. MR. CEASE. WHAT WE HAD IN THERE, ESPECIALLY, MOST ESPECIALLY WITH THE TREE ORDINANCE, AND SOME OTHER THINGS. IT WENT TO P&Z. WHAT MR. SEES DID IS TAKE IT OUT AND EVERYTHING WAS APPROVED BY STAFF AND BY THE TIME YOU GOT TO THIS UNIFIED CODE THAT WE WERE REDOING, IT WAS BASICALLY P&Z WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING. THEY MIGHT HAVE A MEETING MAYBE ONCE A MONTH BECAUSE STAFF THEN HAD APPROVAL TO APPROVE VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING IN THAT DOCUMENT. LARRY AND I READ THROUGH THAT AND WE MADE THE PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME AND TOLD THEM, NO. WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS P&Z WILL VIRTUALLY NOT EXIST. BUT IN NAME ONLY. AND SO I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT GIVEN UP AND THAT'S THE DRIVING FORCE BETWEEN MY THOUGHT PROCESS AND THIS. >> COMMISSIONERS, SPECIFICALLY COMMISSIONER POLLARD I ABSOLUTELY AND STAND WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM BECAUSE YOU'VE REALIZED THAT PERHAPS THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TRANSPARENCY WITH THE PROCESS. ON THE CONTRARY WHAT ALLISON AND OF COURSE WE'RE PROPOSING AS A TEAM IS TO ENSURE THERE IS MORE TRANSPARENCY WITH PROCESSES TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE STEPS ARE TAKEN TO ACHIEVE SOME FORM OF AMENDMENT VARIATION OR WARRANT. SO AGAIN, IF WE USE AN EXAMPLE OF LANDSCAPING, ANY MODIFICATIONS TO AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN WOULD COME TO YOU FOR RECOMMENDATION. IN THIS INSTANCE, APPROVAL FOR EXAMPLE. IF THERE WAS A CHANGE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND THE ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD COME FORWARD AS A PUBLIC HEARING AND GO TO YOU FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. IN TERMS OF BUILDING SETBACKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOT THAT CAN PERFORM WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MODIFYING SETBACKS, WOULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, SO ALL THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SET IN PLACE WOULD EACH HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY BACK TO MAKING [00:20:03] SURE THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN THESE, IN THIS PROPOSED REPEAL, OPPOSED TO HAVING AMBIGUITY AND DECIDING, WE MAY SEND IT TO COUNCIL OR P&Z OR MIGHT DO A NOTIFICATION. ALL THOSE ELEMENTS WOULD BE ELIMINATED WITH WHAT IS PROPOSED IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. >> COMMISSIONERS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU, ALLISON. AND WITH THAT I'LL CLOSE THE WORK SESSION AND WE'LL RECONVENE THE REGULAR MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. AND I ASK COMMISSIONER - OH WELL IF YOU WOULD LIKE. I TAKE ALL OF THAT BACK. WE'LL KEEP THE WORK SESSION OPEN. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE? MR. JOB? >> WE'RE VOTING? >> WE'RE NOT VOTING. WE'RE JUST TALKING. >> AND THIS WILL GO UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL? >> CORRECT. GO AHEAD. >> COMMISSIONERS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THERE IS CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SAID PROPOSAL BY STAFF WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WE WOULD COME FORWARD WITH A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD THEN BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COU COUNCIL. >> ANY COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? >> LIKE IT? DISLIKE IT? OF COURSE MR. POLLARD WILL GO AHEAD AND START OFF >> I'LL JUST WITHOUT REITERATING CALL ME SKEPTICAL AND I ACCEPT WHAT ALL WAS SAID BUT I WILL PHRASE IT LIKE THIS. NOT THAT I DOUBT WHAT SHE IS SAYING OR WHAT ALLISON HAS PRESENTED BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS AS A 35 PLUS, YEAR RESIDENT HERE IN ROWLETT WITH NO, UNLESS I LEAVE THIS PLANET, NO INTENT ON LEAVING, WHAT I WANT TO SEE IF THERE IS FROM STAFF IF THIS WAS TO BE ELIMINATED, THAT THERE IS SOMETHING VERBIAGE THAT IS PUT IN THE CODE OR IN SOME SEMBLANCE THAT NOWHERE IN OTHER CODES IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES WHAT WOULD COME BEFORE P&Z OR CITY COUNCIL THAT IT WILL BE BY PASSED AND STAFF APPROVED BECAUSE STAFF COMES AND GOES AND SOME OF US ARE STILL HERE. I DON'T MEAN TO DEMEAN ANYBODY. >> ALLISON COULD YOU GO AHEAD AND PULL UP LIKE YOUR FOURTH SLIDE THAT SHOWED THE PROCESSES AND WHAT, HOW YOU VARY THOSE PROCESSES OR THE PROCEDURES FOR VARYING THE PROCESSES? >> THE RESEARCH LOOKING THROUGH MINOR MODIFICATIONS PROJECTS I THINK ALL BUT ONE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED TO BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND MORE OFTEN THAN NOT THEY ALSO DID REQUIRE COUNCIL OR PUBLIC HEARING IS A WELL, SO IT IS FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN WITHIN CITY RECORDS THERE WERE LITTLE TO KNOW MINOR MODIFICATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE JUST, IF USING ALTERNATIVE ESTABLISHED REVIEW PROCESS WOULD HAVE BY PASSED ANY BORDER COMMISSION. >> OKAY. THIS IS BASICALLY JUST TAKING OUT A POTENTIAL LANE FOR DEVELOPER TO USE THAT DOESN'T TIE HIM TO THE RULES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE SO I THINK THAT IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO ELIMINATE THAT. MR. WHITE? >> SINCE WE'RE [00:25:03] SO JUST REVIEWING MULTIPLE SESSIONS TO SEEK CONSISTENCY AND ELIMINATE REPETITIVENESS. >> HAVE YOU FOUND OTHER? >> MY FIRST YEAR I DID BRING FORWARD THE TREE REMOVAL PROCESS. THAT'S WHERE I KIND OF KICKED IT OFF AND FROM HERE WE'LL SEE WHAT COMES NEXT. TAKING A LOOK AT EVERYTHING. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS? IS THIS FAVORABLE? ARE YOU AGAINST IT TOTALLY? I DON'T KNOW. GENT GENTLEMEN? >> I MEAN - >> RTS. MR. JOB? >> BASED ON WHAT I SEE I AGREE WITH STAFF THAT THERE ARE MECHANISMS IN PLACE THAT SHOW IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN IT WOULD BE THROWN TO ANOTHER AREA SO EVERYTHING THAT I'VE LOOKED AT AND READ FOR ME I'M ON BOARD. >> OKAY. MR. BLAYDES? >> LOOKING FOR A MOTION? >> NO. JUST LOOKING FOR WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE BEHIND THIS? >> THUMB'S UP. >> MR. POLLARD? WELL I'LL ASK YOU LAST. MS. WILLIAMS? >> I'M IN FAVOR OF ANY PROPOSAL THAT INCREASES EFFICIENT IS AND CLARITY AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS DOES. >> MR. WHITE? >> IT APPEARS TO REDUCE OVERLAP SO I'M APPOSE, I MEAN I APPROVE IT. IT APPEARS TO REDUCE OVERLAP SO SOUNDS LIKE IT MAKES SENSE TO DO. >> MR. DAMERON? >> I'M 100 PERCENT ALL FOR THIS. YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD MANY TIMES YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS JUST, THE SYSTEM IS JUST TOO COMPLEX. IT'S TOO MUCH TO NAVIGATE SO ANY EFFORT TO REALLY JUST TAKE A LOOK AT EVERYTHING I'M WITH IT 100 PERCENT IN MY BOOK. >> MR. POLLARD? >> OKAY. WELL. WITH THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY STAFF AND THE ASSURANCES THAT THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN THAT THINGS WOULD NOT BE BY PASSED I WOULD BE FOR IT. >> MS. ALLISON I THINK IT WOULD BE WORTH YOUR WHILE TO WORK SOMETHING UP TO PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SO THAT WE CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY AND COUNCIL. >> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS >> WITH THAT SAID WE'RE DONE WITH THE WORK SESSION AND WE'LL CLOSE THAT OUT AND WE'LL RECONVENE FOR REGULAR MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. I WOULD REQUEST COMMISSIONER TO NOT GATHER IN GROUPS OF MORE THAN TWO SO THAT WE DON'T BREAK ANY QUORUM RULES, OKAY? SO YOU CAN ONLY GO TO THE BATHROOM IN TWOS. WE'LL * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.