Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Good evening and welcome to the work session for the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Rowlett. As authorized by Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code, this meeting may convene in the closed executive session for the purposes of seeking confidential legal advice from the City Attorney on any agenda item herein. The City of Rowlett preserves the right to reconvene, recess, and realign. The regular session are called executive session or order of business at any time prior to adjournment. For public input, there's forms inside city hall, door. If you would, go ahead and fill those out and give them to me. Okay. I don't know if you carry them around. For in-person comments, registration forms and instructions are available inside the door of the city council chambers. For public input, if you can't, Attendant person you may complete the citizens input form on the citizens website by 3 30 p.m The day before the meeting all those forms will be forwarded to the planning design commission prior to the start of the meeting We do have a quorum. So we'll go ahead and call the work session to order First item on the work session is to receive a presentation on rdc section 77-510 lighting standards and a comparative analysis of

Good evening, Michael King, City of Raleigh Community Development. The purpose of this work session is a continuation of the previous work session on lighting standards. We're going to clarify some residential and non-residential standards, talk about the exemptions that were brought up in the last meeting, talk about some holiday lighting. background on this previous council on January 5th presented this staff presented this council had a recommendation on residential standard of 0.25 foot candles at the property line and make sure everything's shielded and angled away to prevent glare staff presented on this topic on April 14th and it leads us and you guys had some questions so that brings us here today The current code, RDC Section 77510, controls lighting and glare. I want to read this because this is a really good intent that I want to carry forward no matter what we do. It's one of the best intent statements or purpose statements of all the cities I've looked at. The intent of this code section requires outdoor lighting that is adequate for safety and convenience in a scale with the activities to be illuminated and its surroundings. directed to the surface or activity to be illuminated and designed to clearly render people and objects and contribute to a pleasant nighttime environment. Specific to the residential lighting standards in 77510B1B, the RDC states the following lighting standards are exempt, soffit or wall-mounted luminaires that are permanently attached to single-family residential dwellings not to exceed the height of the E and that do not produce glare onto adjacent properties or public streets. That's our shortcoming that we're dealing with in this current code is there's no maximum lighting output standard for residential properties. There are limited definitions, and no way to really consistently measure for compliance. So that's what we're attempting to do. This is my favorite illustration. So we've got key terms all in one. So we have luminous flux. This is the actual output of light, and it's measured in lumens. And then you have luminous intensity, and that's the output of light in a specific direction. That's measured in candelas. And then when it hits a surface, you have illuminance, and that's measured in foot candles. This is where, when it talks about 0.25 foot candles at the property line, that's where you're measuring illuminance. And then luminance, that's the light that hits your eyes, and that's going to be glare. It's measured in candles and foot candles, and it's a little more complicated. But we'll get to that. So staff recommendation, we actually went back and looked at other cities. We looked at what we had. We want to keep the current purpose statement, kind of add some applicability, definition, presumptions, affirmative defenses and exemptions. when we come to illumination computation that's what we do at plan review when they actually provide a photometric diagram and we look at the site and determine does it comply so that's the before and then luminance calculation that's a that's a section or subsection that we want to add where that's that's where our code enforcement officers come in they do their site visit they make a calculation based on the measurements they take and can determine if you're in compliance or not. So then we go into like general requirements, plan submittal on appeal, offensive offenses, enforcement penalty, all the normal things that go along with code enforcement actions. The allowable maximum intensity measured at the residential property line shall be 0.25 foot candles. So that's what we want to take forward in the ordinance language. The design standards and field enforcement are there. We have definitions that provide clarity and it applies to all residential and non-residential property. So this is a comprehensive lighting ordinance rather than one that focuses more on the commercial properties. So when we talk about exemptions, so we want to talk about security lighting, lighting for emergency repairs or construction. When you talk about security lighting, you want to see how long is that lighting going to be on? Is it on a timer? Is it excessive? How bright is it? Is it pouring over on adjacent properties? Is it creating a glare? Is it creating an unbearable situation for your neighbors? Lighting for emergency repairs or construction, A lot of this is we put in the city exemption. You see the work they're doing. I've got a photograph of what they're doing out on I-30 when they're working at night, and also some work that's being done on a parking lot at night. So you can see two different ideas of what lighting is at night. Cities and, of course, the state are exempt. But when it comes to commercial or homeowner work, We want to talk about getting prior approval first and actually having some review on that. So let's talk about security lighting first. We couldn't find a city that set a time limits on security motion sensor lighting. Don't really know how to do that. I don't know what a good time limit should be. I think it should be reasonable. What's industry standards for security lighting? Most timers are set between one to three minutes. you go three minutes yeah many surrounding texas cities follow a general curfew model on lighting on security lighting in effect talks about security lighting all lighting in general this general curfew is set at 11 p.m or one hour of the close of business it gives everybody enough time to close up clean up and employees make it safely get to their cars What we want to really kind of push maybe after this goes into effect is reaching out and saying, hey, if you have a motion sensor, let's make sure that it has a sensor that defaults to off rather than turns on and stays on, but it turns off after a few minutes. It's the best way to, best, most effective way to maintain security if it just turns on eventually. People who don't want to do well, thieves, crooks, whatever you want to call them, are just going to ignore the security lighting because you're probably ignoring the security lighting too. I think some public outreach on that is going to be the best way to work on that. What we found was a lot of cities subscribe to what they call Lights Out Texas. It's a bird migration lighting campaign where they want the lights, especially the lights that face upwards, to turn off around 11 o'clock at night so that birds that migrate at night or fly at night can successfully navigate by the stars or however they do it. So when I looked at other cities, Grand Prairie, they actually have a lighting curfew from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Dallas has a voluntary lights out initiative for 11 p.m. Fort Worth doesn't really have one time for lighting. for commercial businesses or residences, but they have one that they self-imposed. So they go from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. All city buildings turn down their lighting or turn off their lighting. Plano, Flower Mound, Voluntary, Frisco's Voluntary, 11 to 6. Heath actually has one that's 10 p.m. for all non-residential purposes. they actually have a light curfew.

When you say a light curfew, you're talking about like the parking lot? They have to turn their lights off at the parking lot?

Yes, as long as they're not open. They turn off their parking lot lights, they turn off their sign lighting, all that stuff.

And this is different than the line item in front of that, which was lights out for bird migration, right? Right. Okay.

So when we talk about security lighting, we talked about brightness. I know that was a big issue that we talked about in the last meeting. Plano's statement was luminaires directed toward a viewer must be aimed so that a person's eye at least five feet above grade, so standing height, at or beyond the property line is not exposed to the direct floodlight beam. So if you're standing at the property line, you should get some indirect light from a floodlight, but not be able to see it directly. In Garland, they've banned multiple types of lights, mercury vapor, HID, standard fluorescent lights. They're restricted for exterior use. Interesting thing is ours, we actually just prohibit mercury vapor, so they went a step further. And then fixtures generally cannot exceed the height of the main building's highest roof line. our ordinance choose wants to do the same our houses the same thing as the lights need to be mounted on soffits on the building not on poles well that's that's different than the highest want the height of the main building because

your peak of your roof is obviously higher than your eve you need to define it to ease in fact that was a discussion that came up i think at a council so we want to limit it to the eve the height of which you need though because yeah because if it's right yeah it depends on how your roof is structured so my lights are going to be at my gable

So visibility, so this was an interesting one from Garland that is hard to work with. They say lights over 60 watts must not be visible from public view or residential areas. When we talked previously about definitions, we didn't talk about watts because a 60 watt mercury vapor, or okay, they're not using mercury vapor, a 60 watt LED bulb is far brighter than a 60 watt incandescent bulb. don't know if they how they're addressing that but we don't use watts for that specific reason we're using lumens uh because that's the output that's measured with a light meter well that's 20 watts that puts out 100 watts worth of light but uses 20 watts worth of energy if that makes sense right right well well it's an equivalent to yeah and a laser pointer uses half a watt of energy and it puts out

So just out of curiosity, there are visible lights over 60 watts. Let's just say 60 watt ball. Where can you do that 60 watt ball if you can't view it from public view or residential areas. So I'll be visible from public view or residential areas.

Right. And that's why we wanted to present what other communities, what we could find that they do and then realize, well, there are discrepancies in there. How do they even... How do they even enforce it?

What they're saying is you've got to have your lights out.

Your lights are out. And so we wanted to bring that to the forefront so we could talk about realistically and rationally what should the proposed ordinance look like for our lights.

I would think that their intent was probably to have shielding on lights so that you only have indirect lighting. Right. But even then, you can't have it on, according to that, if it's greater than 60 watts.

If it's greater than 60, then you can't.

Right. and then so we talked about planos where they light at five feet can't be shining directly in your eyes garland uses three feet at the property line uh is a violation so they want to make sure the kids are okay too okay so i i want to interject at this point and you can look at my phone if you want to because i took pictures of my lights

sitting out on the front. I have three tiers.

We're sending code enforcement.

And there's 60 watts each. So there's a cluster of three and a cluster of cross... So if you're eliminating, or if you're going for 60 watts, then I wouldn't comply, for instance. But if you're talking about looms, then that becomes a whole different, because if you combine the looms of three 60s on one pole, three on the other, it's a crossroad.

that didn't get a problem and that i don't think that is any different than a lot of homes in in the city so when you when you look at it you measure the light output at the property line and not necessarily what's shining from the pole so if the light on your poles are not shining so bright that they're crossing a property line or crossing into your neighbor's property line and creating a glare. I think that's what our ordinance is trying to prevent, is let's prevent the glare. That's the bothersome part, the part that's bad. And it's part of our code enforcement that we're going to have to go out and measure.

The intrusive aspect of lighting is what we're talking about. This is what the garden does. So we're just trying to provide some light.

And I understand that, but what I want to see out of these ordinances when we pass this to city council, I want the ordinary citizen, we already kind of discussed that, but the ordinary citizen to be able to read this and understand what the expectations is. I don't want them to have to go hire an attorney or go hire an engineer to come out and say, gee, am I in compliance with what I put up and all of my decorative poles that's six foot tall and my sidewalk, am I gonna be in compliance? I wanna be able to read it and understand. I don't wanna get too technical.

I can understand that.

I understand that and I think that's the,

unfortunately with some components of ordinances they are technical and you cannot avoid it however that's why we have plans examiners that's why we have a building team that's why we have code enforcement officers who can guide now this ordinance isn't just going to be thrown out there there's going to be a process of education as well and to be honest with you if somebody called code enforcement on your lights

and code came out there and took the measurements that we're going to provide or the go through the process we're going to provide in the in the ordinance and finds that you are higher than what's allowed then take some spray paint tape off a little bit and get it shielded so that you're within those because i think there are two components and they haven't got the second component that's shielding and and that's what i have the biggest problem with is that

I'd say 90% of the houses in Rowlett violate the proposal. I don't disagree.

In fact, that was one of the statements that staff, I believe, brought up at prior discussion was, you know, let's discuss the, so to speak, elephant in the room. Is this one that's going to be retroactive if there's a violation? Absolutely it is. It is going to be complaint-based. So if somebody complains and says, hey, I'm seeing an issue here.

I'll say this now. I really, really object to laws and ordinances that are so broad that everybody or many, many people are in violation. And it's just selective enforcement. And I don't like to have laws where everybody is in violation. If you walk down any street in my lab, 80 90 of the houses will be in violation of a retroactive i mean forget about how bright things are if you it does not shield it if that porch light is not shielded based in the street you're in violation and this would be

You've got to go across the street, his property line, and take those measurements.

No, it's not a measurement. It's a shielding issue. No, no, no.

What I'm saying is I don't think that that light fixture will produce sufficient amount of light.

It doesn't matter how much light it produces. It also says it has to be shielded, regardless of how bright or not bright it is.

And so, Commissioners, I do want to point out these are merely discussion items. That's why we're having the work session.

absolutely whatever your recommendation is related to this ordinance is what's going to go forward to city council when we talk about exemptions for emergency lighting this is a great example because you can actually see the glare coming from that globe and if you've driven by highway construction you've been blinded by it if you have any bit of this stigmatism So all surrounding cities, city of Rowlett, Dallas County, state of Texas, all their temporary emergency lighting is exempted from standard glare and shielding ordinances. For emergency repairs to utilities or roads, they work on a guideline that unshielded lights are permitted, provided they do not shine directly into the eyes of passing drivers. We can take that for what we see every night we drive by it. Construction after hours, nighttime work, the associated lighting. This has kind of been how things have been handled in the past by Rowlett. And it's not really codified. Nighttime work associated with lighting, only permitted by the building official if he grants written approval. But there has to be an urgent necessity. It's public health safety welfare. If you're trying to get some plumbing work done on a house before tenants arrive or before just because you've got a water leak or something like that. Yeah, we understand the idea of having lighting. But also, the building official is going to say, try to prevent glare from going onto the adjacent property. Use shields. Use correct lighting. Don't go overboard. So in this case, we leave it to the building official.

Can I interject for just one second? So what Michael is alluding to is we need to have more defined and refined after hours construction, which we're actually, the chief building official is actually performing that exercise now because there is no requirement in the building code, it's in the environmental code that talks about possible work in the right of way, that's in the right of way, but after hours work as well. So that is an ordinance that needs to be tackled in itself. So we want to make sure we stay on target as it relates to lighting, as it relates to after hours construction or emergency construction and those definitions and what have you. Yes, they do have an impact on this, but I want to make sure we also recognize this is a more comprehensive assessment of commercial and residential lighting standards.

Now we're going to go on to residential versus non-residential. I really like this illustration because it gives you an idea as you work your way around each one you can see this is your your business campus they like to light up their building be very you know show off that they can afford up their light bill but if you notice down here near their water feature they've actually got lights that are shielded directed only at the walkways and kind of the light does shine out but it's it's made to be less obtrusive When we come over here, this is a good example of just security lighting on a building at night. They've lit up their facade, but not very much. They've lit up their parking lot for the safety of their employees. But it's not lit up like the shopping center in the background, where you can see every building, every nook and cranny. This is built for the safety of the occupants of the shopping center. This is for the safety of the staff just getting to their cars at night. And it's a lot less intrusive. When we come over here, we look over at, this is residential lighting, but it's an apartment complex. And you can see that with multi-family lighting for the safety of the occupants, you have more people moving about at night, you're gonna wanna have a little bit more lighting, but they still have shielding and it's directed downwards and not towards people's windows. I think that's pretty admirable. uh national association of realtors calls this the perfect lighting for a home at night so if you want to look next door you don't really see the house next door it's not really lit up but they've got some down lighting it's a warm color it's not extremely obtrusive hopefully it turns off after when everybody goes to bed or at least most of it turns off Talking about warm light, this is a good idea of what we have here in the center. I'm going to turn this off. You can kind of see the difference between warm white and cool white. The cool white is that kind of bluish color a lot of people see that some people find that they don't like. I think most of the time what they say is about 6,500 Kelvin, it's a color temperature, is what starts to turn people off. So cool white around 6,000 is probably the most tolerable. And then we wanted to talk about this, which is the future's here. We have LED lighting. People can change the lighting for the season, for the mood. And so you end up with landscape lighting that's not your traditional white light anymore, or like warm white, yellowish color. People can do any color under the sun. So just looking at that and thinking about that, I think that's what we can look at through here. So we're going to talk about holiday and seasonal lighting first. The good question for y'all is how much is too much? Do we need to consider hours of operation for holiday lighting? Do we need to consider dates of operation, 45 days before, 30 days before, 15 days after? When are we going to make our neighbors take down their Christmas lights? Is Valentine's Day just a little too late? And yeah, is Valentine's Day something that we want everybody to light their houses up for? Is it just Halloween and Christmas? Or is there other holidays? The picture at the bottom of the trees, this was actually for Easter. So City Park, they decorated there for Easter, these multicolor pastel lights. It was interesting. But not a specific holiday. Well, springtime I think was the official, but it was right around Easter. So we need to consider if somebody wants to do a Griswold-style Christmas display, Do we have a permit for special lighting displays for extreme cases, something like what's in the above, the top photo, where the customer will agree to time and date, the adjacent neighbors need to agree to the display, and also the traffic that's coming with it? Give us a concept plan. It doesn't have to be perfect. Just give us an idea of how bright it's going to be, what it's going to be, moving lights, stationary lights, music. It would be good to have, if we had a special lighting display permit, I'm open to hearing what y'all have to say about that. It's also going to allow the police and emergency services to prepare for and enforce traffic controls. If you've driven around and seen the people driving through neighborhoods looking at Christmas lights, sometimes neighbors get fed up with the amount of traffic. It was a big thing in the news this year over in Dallas. I don't want it to be a big thing here. Let's try to get in front of it if we can. we're going to talk about non-conforming lighting like this non-conforming lighting nobody's got a bat signal yet but if they do it's going to be non-conforming so any new non-conforming lighting not allowed so we're not going to write the ordinance that allows non-conformance existing non-conforming so where are we going to I'd like some advice from you all. How are we going to set a timeline for performance?

I'm sorry, I'm going to jump in there. So this goes back to what we're saying. It is retroactive in the sense that if there is a complaint, then that lighting would have to come into conformance. If there is an existing situation, we will not go back and say, you need to correct this. So that ordinance has to be written again. This is where it becomes, let's say you look at my lighting and you say, well, all your lighting is horrible, somebody go out and look at it, and I am non-compliant, then I would have to make it compliant.

I think you would get that complaint not because it's irritating, but because somebody doesn't like you. I don't like vigilante enforcement.

I don't disagree with you. We need to have another conversation, too, because our code team, yes, we are proactive. However, if there are complaints, we have to address the complaints. We have to verify, is the complaint valid? And then what is the course of action? Or the complaint could be invalid, too. So, yes, absolutely that would happen. Absolutely it still happens.

Yeah. See, my issue is on the fixture itself and the shielding requirements. I think that if you have a non-conforming unshielded light that doesn't violate the human requirement, I think that should be okay.

Up to the Commissioner to make a recommendation.

which would adjust his life. He could, he could keep his life.

I don't disagree with that one bit earlier.

So, um, I guess the last part is talking about replacement lighting. Um, if somebody is going to go back through and they've got a 150 watt led spotlight that shines up their entire backyard and shines their neighbor's backyard and lights up the lake. When that light bulb burns out, we might want to say it's time to take it out. You're not going to know that. Unless it's complaint driven.

These formats will have to be complaint driven for compliance and new development. New development will comply, commercial and residential, should this move forward.

Well, until a homeowner moves in and puts a light up that he wants because of security.

And then, again, if there's no complaint. Exactly right.

I wanted to finish this slide talking about non-conforming lighting. You know, how people view Rowlett and the lake. So when we look at this photo here, this is the view of Rockwall from Rowlett. So it's from a boat looking out on the water across the water towards Rockwall, but they're not shielding lighting going out on the lake. Some would say it looks festive. But some people feel like maybe that's a touch too much. The next photo over, this is from Rockwall looking over at Rowlett. Oh, come on. The time of night was this. See, and this is where things are subjective. Subjectivity, exactly. And getting those calculations. Rowlett's little. can see that there's no great big glaring lights coming from roulette out onto the lake other than traffic across lake parkway i think it's a good indicator of the attitude of people that are living on the lake that they want to keep it looking more natural less less well but the other thing there too is you're looking at a residential strip versus a commercial strip

There's a big spotlight.

I think every house should have a lighthouse that shines a light. Okay, we digress.

Let's continue.

So let's talk about spotlight for a second. I would have no objections if we addressed a spotlight or spotlights and I can see that there would be a a specific time and place for that in the city. I remember at my son and daughter's proms, their senior proms, that we had a couple of spotlights. If that was at Rowlett High School, for instance, that you could troll it that says at dusk to 9 p.m. and it'd shut them off. I wouldn't have a problem with that. But we had spotlights, two of them, that they went around and all kinds of things.

Would that not be on an event permit?

We could do a special event permit for that. I think it's proposed in the ordinance that you could secure a special event permit or won't have it through the community development department. Okay, if you did that, that's fine.

Because we want to be cognizant of that. That you need to shut it down at a reasonable time.

Mr. King, is that all you have for us before you? That's all I have. I just want your input now. Okay. But before we do that, I'm going to go ahead and we have one person who wants to speak to this. So Mr. Mark Tashik, you have three minutes if you want to go up there and talk. We'll start a timer.

Tommy, let Mark know when he can start.

I'm trying to get your presentation up, so.

Oh, did you get some of that?

I think, no, that's, the council's, the PNC has received that. You don't have to put that up. The PNC has received that. Okay. This is the, yeah. This is good.

You good? Good. Okay. Okay. All right, good evening, commission. The need to update the city's RDC 77510 is an imperative. Let me stop you for a second, please.

State your name and your city of residence, and then continue.

Bartasic, Brawley, Texas. Good evening. The need to update the city ordinance 77-510 is imperative. Too long have the citizens been bothered by or having to deal with excessive lighting or misuse thereof. The need to correct wording in the 77-510 update cannot be stressed enough. Attention to detail must be addressed which is severely lacking in its current form. Attention to glare, light trespassing, over lighting for the needs, and illumination limits must be held to the high standards with no subjectarity. I've included two cities, Heath and Plano. Both have strong rules. Heath, which is a lakefront you know, city has some of the best and strongest limits for single family neighborhoods. The need for strong rules in neighborhoods is especially needed on lakefront homes are even more dire. Lakefront homes should not be any more than .10 foot candles. I know the council said .25, I sent a video to everybody today and all has it. It was actually my neighbor's short video of a commercial property, a nursing home, glaring into his backyard. The mayor took care of it, Expresso. It's been fixed, but he has video of it with a light meter. It's only .12. So I think we need to consider You know, commercial, residential. If that's too bright in commercial, then it's going to be too bright in residential. The following must be addressed and have firm definitions and not be subjective. Glare, Webster's Dictionary, to shine with a harsh, uncomfortable, bright light. It should not be subjective. Light trespassed over the property lines cannot be allowed to happen. If there is a shadow produced, it's trespassing. Overlining, too much light for the normal use. If you're, and this is where I think maybe the ordinance could do better, right? If it's a front entry home or a rear entry home, you could have different lighting savings. Obviously a driveway would be one, a rear yard, you would have different requirements, especially at the lake, you know, it's a very dark environment, okay? Lights need to be pointed down 45 degrees perpendicular to the slope. Thank you, sir. Please look at the material. Does anybody have any questions?

Thank you.

Anybody else want to speak? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close that address.

By the way, I have not seen...

so this ordinance is scheduled for a public hearing at your next planning and zoning commission meeting which is the 26th Elements associated with the discussion tonight if there any additional recommendations that the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to Put forth in the proposed ordinance again. It's merely a proposed ordinance at this time We value that input Again I'm going to throw this out there. If we're still not ready and you desire another work session, we can do that too. So we're seeking your input now.

I'm going to send everybody a draft of the Word document of the ordinance. So if y'all have any edits, y'all can add to it. and send it back to us. I hope y'all can do that in about a week so we can get something done.

We could also have a work session prior to the public hearing that same night should you choose to do that.

If there's any hard and fast things you want us, you want to recommend right now, I'd love to take your advice. Go ahead.

so just let me make sure i got this right so we're going to have a public hearing on this item on the 26th it is scheduled for the 26th yes when can you give us a word document tomorrow tomorrow so it would be nice if everybody could review that word document make any changes they want and get it back to mr king by the 18th is that would that give you enough time take all 27 inputs or however, actually seven inputs and kind of try to come up with the final document. If you would please, it would be nice to go ahead and send that out to us along with the package for the 26th so that we have time to read through it and then have a working session right before the 26th meeting where if we have any additional comments or whatnot.

Clarification, you'd like the draft ordinance in your inboxes tomorrow morning. We will have a work session on the 26th and we will hold the public hearing should you be ready. Right. We've noticed notification requirements are far more stringent because of text amendment. That's the reason why I'm making these comments or providing this commentary. We have to install physical signs on our property to ensure we comply with the text amendment changes. We will be doing that tomorrow, if I'm not mistaken. Signs for text amendment for the 26th.

Okay.

So we'll get you what you need tomorrow morning.

And I ask that the commission return it by the 18th?

Yes.

If you could go ahead.

I used to have a question for my own education. Why does this come to us first and then why does it go straight to city council?

Well, because we're planning.

THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ASSIGNED AND CREATED A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. ANY DEVELOPMENT CODE, ANY ZONING CODE REQUIRES A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

YES, SIR. AGAIN, MY ONLY ISSUE, THE ISSUE I CARE MOST ABOUT, I GUESS, AS I READ IT, AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING FIXTURE. that's not shielded is okay as long as it passes the lumen test at the property line. It's okay. It's okay.

Until somebody says... No, no.

Even if somebody complains that your porch light is not shielded, they can go out and measure and as long as it's below .25, it's okay. to really take care of the majority of houses right now and that's not non-conforming it wouldn't create a lot of conformity if if you go out and measure the fact that the lake's not shielded is is what you're thinking is is out of it as i read the draft everything needs to be shielded You cannot have any light that's not shielded facing the street. On new construction. New construction. But existing. Well, that would be existing too, right? It applies to existing houses. This is why we're having this discussion.

What is the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission?

And I would agree with them that shielding in the residential, that it should be new construction and not back up. Because my house, the one light you didn't see is on the brick as you come up on the porch. It's not shielded. Well, it's shielded just like the others. It's a matching deal. but straight out, it's not shielded from the street.

The question would be, what's the intensity of your property line? If it doesn't exceed the .25 foot candles, it doesn't need to be shielded.

If that's the way it reads, that's fine. I know we're all going to give him different answers, but I would like to get a consensus here. Basically, if We're saying no matter how old your home is, you need to be within compliance, but you don't have to change it unless someone complains, correct? Is that what I'm understanding? Pretty much, yeah.

Oh, no. No, that's not not. I don't want to rely on people vigilantes going around.

I'm just trying to get a consensus of what this group feels like as far as that goes. I know what you feel like. He and I agree. So there's two guys.

He must really upset a lot of people.

Yeah, so we're basically, if nobody complains, don't fix it. I mean, if every member on your block has a front porch light that they leave on all night, and somebody's gonna moan because yours is not shielded,

Again, I don't like laws or rules or ordinances that on their face, people are in violation of it.

Let's look at it this way. The reason why we need an ordinance is so that we don't have... an intense light or a disturbance, right?

Any form of pollution, right?

Well, light pollution, I don't know.

The intent of the ordinance is defined above. Now, if you determine the intent, now the commissioners need to identify what is their recommendation in terms of the amendments that have been presented to you.

I'm very happy with having it judged on the intensity of the light. It's a nuisance.

And what I'm saying is as long as it doesn't create a nuisance. It's okay. It's all right. It's fine. Who's going to be calling up and saying your light's too intense now?

If the light is too bright. He may get upset because he put his trash can, so I'm going to report you because your light has nothing to do with that. He's upset about something else.

I get where you're coming from. Yeah, but the code, of course, would go up.

But it's drafted if that light doesn't have a shield. You're in violation. Is that correct? No, I didn't read that at all.

Let me rephrase. For new construction, yes. Existing has to, if there is a complaint, it will be complaint based. We're not going to go out and send notices to everybody saying you have to conform with current regulations. If there is a complaint as identified as there's a nuisance complaint in terms of the glare and illumination, from that fixture, they would have to address that, not necessarily replace the fixture.

But can they make a complaint because it's not shielded, it has nothing to do with Tish and Claire? We will codify the ordinance to address that.

I understand exactly where you're coming from. So we need to have a section in there that identifies

I mean, the whole idea behind shielding a light is to prevent it from being outside of whatever level of intensity you want in whatever place. Okay, so again, a porch light, I have, just like I have in the front of my house, I've got two large lights that usually stay on. But at the street level... What's your address? Yeah, I was just

I mean, for example, there's people that have just a bulb. You know what I'm saying? So that's, you know. What I said last time, Michael, you've done a hell of a lot of work. Yes. This is not an easy subject. It's not. Not an easy subject at all. And while we're all here discussing, because I'm trying to get a consensus here, so let's talk about holiday lighting just for a quick second. Oh, yeah. So... you know first we have to determine whether or not what are we considering a holiday light are we going to require special permits is it going to be where let's like let's say if it is a holiday the lights can't be on they have to start at least 30 days prior to the holiday and be down 15 days after the holiday you know not any earlier than 30 days i would like to tighten that

As far as I'm concerned, Christmas starts on St. Patrick's Day. No, no, St. Nicholas Day. It starts on St. Nicholas Day, which is December 6th. It ends on Easter Epiphany, which is January 6th.

So to Jason's point, I was going to say for Christmas, it could be from Thanksgiving to until January 5th.

I don't think you have to pick a certain, I don't think you can pick a certain holiday. I think it has to be more generalized. Yes.

Because there's different holidays for everybody. There are denominations and other holidays, et cetera, et cetera.

But you can't just use Texas State holidays. You can't just use Texas State holidays. And avoid picking and choosing. Exactly. Just say Texas State holidays. State holidays plus Halloween. Nah.

We have a lot of people in our community who are not Christians. So you have the Indians having their festival of lights in October. That's a big one. You have Chinese New Year. It's a huge one also.

We just had, think of the mile. People had, the Indians had them in red, green, blue, or red, green, whatever. So I mean, Yeah, so I'm trying to get a consensus of what everybody's thinking.

So if you're going to have a community that's going to be at large, if you're going to have lights, you're going to have to go a lot broader if you don't do exhibit holidays.

This is pretty broad. This is the Texas State holiday calendar.

Right. But the more general, the better.

People are addressing their houses more and more now.

Commissioners, we have to be very cognizant of enforcement. Cognizant of what? Enforcement.

Well, I think one of the other things is that if we can't figure out what days and what holidays or what not, I'm not exactly sure asking what they're going to do and how much intensity and all the rest of that is even, because who's going to say, oh, no, that's 10 lumens beyond the Griswold level, okay, so you can't do it. I think the best thing to do would just be to limit the time frame during the day that they can be on, you know.

so and that is exactly we brought this up deliberately because it came up so we wanted to provide you some info it is staff's recommendation that it remain as general as possible and i almost feel like because i think i think we have a code of course with the sound like after 10 o'clock right so these department addresses so i almost feel like that could be coinciding with you know lighting after 10 i'm just talking out loud again trying to get consensus here you know that for 10 o'clock 10 o'clock you shut it off

Well, let's go back one step further. We saw a slide there that most of the city says outdoor lighting, 11 o'clock. So if we do 11 o'clock, then they say lighting.

Show us that slide. I think that was your second slide. Second or third slide? Okay, it was your ninth slide.

Yeah, so this is not specific to residential or commercial. Some is mandatory, some is not. So it's very generalized.

I just wanted to point out when you look at that timing that it's... And I think we're talking about holiday lighting. We're not talking about the front porch light.

I understand, but why don't you make it simple and understandable for everybody. Typically... you take your regular lights down at 11 o'clock yes why not holiday but this these are other cities so right if that's the case why don't we just say 10 o'clock well i think it's not that's when when you have to come back when you go to a time like that 11 o'clock i think 10 is is If you're out looking at holiday lights at 11 o'clock at night, you know something better to do. No, but at 10 o'clock, you know, you could still be driving through some areas.

Well, it looks like 11 o'clock is sort of a good time. But then again, if we're not going to limit the amount of illumination, you need to consider the people who live next door to you. I understand.

And they're not out driving, so... I don't know too many people. Of course, I'm retired. I don't have to get up at 5 o'clock like I used to to go to work, but nevertheless, even when I did that, I didn't go to bed until midnight.

I know a lot of neighbors. I don't call after 9 because they're in bed.

recreational and sporting so we'll push the draft ordinance to the commissioners we would love track changes but if you want to pencil your thoughts in we accept that too okay anybody have anything else to say about it well seeing none then we'll go ahead and close the work session and we'll read

I'm sorry, that's straight. We have the budget request in fiscal year 2027. My recommendation would be the same as it was last year. Wonderful. Well, don't you want to go somewhere this time? Yeah. Only this year we want to go.

In fact, I had that conversation. Just the other day, the city manager and I were talking about this. If we're going to have funds that are budgeted, we need to start using them. We have Focus North Texas, we have local APA, American Planning Association. We have other opportunities that do come up and we would love to, I think, and I've had a short period where I've not been here, but I think you're the only one who's been to maybe Focus North Texas one time. I'm not sure. So we really need to, we would love to encourage that, and we can start scheduling that for you guys.

As I've read the background on this commission, it's required of us.

Yes, the charter requires you to attend.

One of my questions is,

There was going to be an APA that allowed you to do things by, I think it's this fall, this August or so, by computer. and take courses there?

So APA has several, the Texas chapter and the national chapter have several resources on their website. We can definitely source those and send them to you. But I would strongly encourage, like other planning and zoning commissions in other municipalities or communities, they actually physically attend some of these. And it is very useful because there's so many panel discussions that are very beneficial to all of us. So we can do both.

I'd say if you sit it out, give us enough notice.

Yeah, we're going to start working on this and get back on track.

I think that's the key to it because not everybody here is savvy, not necessarily savvy enough, but more of the time. to look at ADA training and what's available, et cetera, et cetera. But if you guys know something, especially those in the local area, this is coming up, you know, give us a three day heads up.

We will start working on that once the new budget kicks in. and new fiscal year.

Well, we could start working on that now. We don't have to wait for the new budget because we have money in the budget this year. Absolutely. And we haven't used yet.

We can source that and identify that. Is there a council, a council, is there, sorry, wrong, wrong, wrong. Is there a commission consensus to proceed with the same amount of $15,000 for the registration? Yes. Okay, lovely. We will then move forward and coordinate the other action items, which I clearly understand.

excellent with that being said then we'll go ahead and um if there's something here locally i i'm not opposed to going to one of these conferences i'm not opposed to going out of town but i want to be frugal with the city's money taxpayer money too sure absolutely and you know if the commission goes together we'll post the agenda and we'll make sure that you know

Okay, we'll convene in the regular session at 7 p.m. Good evening and welcome to the Rowlett Texas Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Tuesday, May 12, 2026. As authorized by Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code, this meeting may be convened into closed executive session for the purposes of seeking confidential legal advice from the city attorney on any agenda item herein. The city of Rowlett reserves the right to reconvene, recess, realign the regular session or call the executive session or order business at any time prior to adjournment. For public input, if you're unable to attend in person, you may complete a citizen's input form on the city website by 3.30 p.m. the day before the meeting. All forms will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the start of the meeting. For in-person comments, registration forms and instructions are located inside the door of the city council chambers. We do have a quorum, so we'll call the meeting to order. And the first item on our agenda is going to be citizens input. At this time, three-minute comments will be taken from audience on any topic. No action can be taken by the Commission during citizens input. Do we have any comments? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the citizen's input. Next item of business is a consent agenda. The following may be acted upon in one motion of Planning and Zoning Commission, or a citizen may request items be removed from the consent agenda for individual consideration. Our consent agenda consists of item 4A, consider approving minutes for April 14th, 2026 regular meeting. Item 4B, consider approval of the merit crossing preliminary plat. I guess I'll read the whole thing in the record. The approximately 23.673 acres is located at the corner of Merritt Road and Fayetteville Avenue, situated in the James M. Hamilton Survey, abstract number 544, City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. Item 4C, consider approval of an amended plot, consider approval of an amended plot of Lot 11R, Block 3 of Rowlett Business Park 2, the approximately .3 acre lot located at 4450 Industrial Street, situated in the Thomas Paine Survey, abstract number 1165, City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ITEM 4D, CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AMENDMENT. CONSIDER AN APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO COIL LAKES TOWN HOME PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE 11 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF MAIN STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 1,250 FEET WEST OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH STURMPIKE. IDENTIFIED AS BLOCK A, LOT 2 OF FBC ROW LET ADDITION IN THE CITY OF ROW LET, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. I would like to go ahead and remove item 4A and 4B from the consent agenda. Are there any other? To remove something from the consent agenda?

Yes.

What would you like to remove?

I would like to have.

I'm sorry, Mr. Pollard. Let me turn your mic on.

OK. I would like to have each item individually.

so you want to remove the consent agenda all items any other requests sorry you're too late they're all gone okay well with that being said then we'll um i would like to go ahead and rearrange these so that we talk about Item 4 C consider approval of an amended plot For lot 11 are block 3 of the Rowlett Business Park to the approximately 0.3 acre lot is located for 450 industrial streets situated in the Thomas Paine survey abstract number one one six five city Rowlett Dallas County, Texas This morning. That's nice.

Good evening, commissioners, Lilliana Morejon, senior planner. THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED PLAT FOR LOT 11R BLOCK 3 OF THE RAILLET BUSINESS PARK 2. THE APPROXIMATELY .30 ACRE LOT IS LOCATED AT 4405 INDUSTRIAL STREET IN DOWNTOWN. THIS IS ZONE FORUM BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS THAT THE PLAT IS TO CORRECT A VARIABLE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LINE THAT ENCROACHES ONTO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. And as you can see in the plot provided, the existing plot shows the easement underneath the building, and now it's being moved right by the east side of the facade. And that's why this amendment is being requested tonight.

Seat number four, that's you.

Liliana, for the edification of the commissioners and our audience, please use your pointer and show where that variable with Eastman is.

It wasn't working, that's why. Apologies. So, I'm looking at it differently than you all. The side, so if you're looking at the North Arrow, so east of the property line, that's where you see that. 10-foot utility easement. It's still a little bit difficult to see, but there should be a 10-foot utility easement should be reflected. Apologies.

Unfortunately, it's not working. Commissioner, is there any questions for staff? You pulled it.

Well, that's because it would have been left by itself. Because I do have a question on that.

Oh, OK. Commissioners, any comments, any questions? No?

I'm trying to make a motion.

Put your finger on this. How come yours doesn't work? You broke it. OK. I can't. Oh, there you go. Now you're in. Go ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move to approve this plat.

We have a motion to approve item 4C. with a second from Mr. Hernandez. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote, hopefully. Yeah, we'll hear in a minute. I've got to finish my notes. Evidently, technology one, staff zero. By a show of hands, the motion on the floor with a second is to approve item 4CS presented with a show of hands. All in favor, raise your hand.

That passes seven to zero.

Moving on to item 4D. Consider approval of an amendment to the Coyle Lake Townhomes Preliminary Platte. The 11-acre site is located north of Main Street, approximately 1,200 feet west of the President George Bush Turnpike, identified as Block A, Lot 2 of FBC Rowlett, addition in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. Liliana. Liliana.

Commissioners, the next item in front of you is another amendment to the Coyle Lakes Townhomes Preliminary Plat, which was originally approved by you all on April of 2024. The City Council approved this PD in January of 2024, establishing the development of 61 townhomes. As you can see in the preliminary plat in front of you, the amendment is basically to create a phased development so that the The first phase will consist of 45 lots, with three open space lots and approximately 5.9 acres. The second phase will consist of about 16 lots, two open spaces at approximately five acres. And that's essentially the reason why the preliminary plat has been amended today.

Commissioners, any questions for staff? Push the button.

No questions. I thought you said you had a question on this. I've got a comment.

Oh, okay. Any questions for staff and commissioners? Thank you, Liliana. Any comments? Do we want to make a motion before you make a comment?

I'll make a motion. Please. To approve the request of the amended or the preliminary plant amended.

Second.

We have a motion by Mr. Pollard, second by, oh my gosh. Mr. Jobe. Mr. Jobe, yeah. Discussion on the motion? Yes.

Mr. Pollard. I wanted to give a public explanation about this. This was approved before I came on the commission, but I came and in public input spoke against this. this development and because it is a plant and because it does meet with the requirements the state requires, I will be voting for it.

Any other discussion on that motion? We have a motion on the floor with a second to approve item 4D as presented. Hearing no more discussion, we'll call the vote. I didn't say by hand yet, did we? Okay. All in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? That passes seven to zero, thank you. Item 4A, consider approving the minutes for April 14th, 2026, regular meeting. And I wanted that item pulled because I would like to have item 5C, the second line of item 5C, which the chairman adjourned the meeting at 8.32 stricken, and just leave item 6, adjournment. Commissioner chair adjourned the meeting at I believe it was 832 okay So with those two changes any other comments on the minutes Oh, mr. Hernandez It's dick oh You're absolutely correct So with those three changes, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes. Would anybody like to do that? Mr. Michael Hernandez. Do we have a second? Second. With the amendments. Second on the amendments. Well, okay. Mr. Blades was the second.

Oh, good.

Show of hands. There's a motion on the floor to approve the minutes as presented with the corrections. By a show of hands, all in favor, raise your hand. That passes 7-0. At this time, I'd like to go ahead and convene into executive session for the purposes of discussing consent agenda item 4B and individual consideration item 5A. Good evening. It's 7.46. We'll reconvene into regular session. At this time, we'll consider item 4B, consider approval of preliminary plat. Consider approval of the Merritt Crossing preliminary plat. The approximately 23.673 acres is located at the corner of Merritt Road and Fayetteville Avenue, situated in the James M. Hamilton Survey, abstract number 544, City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. Lillian.

Commissioners, in front of you is to consider the approval of the Merritt Crossing Preliminary Platte. This is in approximately 23.6 acres, and it's located at the corner of Merritt Road and Fayetteville. This is zone form-based commercial center, and this preliminary platte is necessary to facilitate the development of 186 townhomes, eight open space lots, and the infrastructure to carry out this development. And in front of you is the plat. So as you can see, you have, and it's not working. Oh, it is. As you can see, the townhomes are scattered across the development with your open space lots located at the corner and throughout the perimeter of the development. And this is what you'll be recommending approval or denial or condition. over this preliminary plot.

Commissioners, any questions for staff? Seeing no questions, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Hernandez.

I'll make the motion to approve the preliminary plot for the merit crossing.

We have a second. Mr. Pollard. So we have a any discussion on the hopes was that a second or was that a comment or are you waiting.

I'll second it, but I'll let you do it. Good golly, you do it. They have come.

Okay, what's your comment?

Okay, so the only reason I am voting for this this evening is because it meets the requirements laid out. I do have a message that I want on the public record to the council. I was chairman of the last comprehensive plan committee back in 2018-19. I made a presentation to the city council and February 2019, and we dealt with North Shore, all of the North Shore, as well as four other areas. And I made a comment to the council then, and no council has done it since, including this one, and that is that you needed to rezone the entire North Shore to meet with what the comprehensive plan, what we wanted as citizens to do with the North Shore. And so I'm calling on the city council, don't kick this down the road anymore. Go and rezone the entire district and get rid of what we have. Thank you.

Any other comments on the motion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. By hand. All in favor raise your hand. And that passes seven to zero. Moving on to item for individual consideration. The public may make comments, yeah, public comments may be made in person and will be limited to three minutes. Registration forms and instructions are available inside the doors of city council chambers. Item 5A, consider to make a recommendation to the City Council for the approval of a tree removal permit application on property zone form-based commercial center district. The approximately 23.673 acres is located at the corner of Merritt Road and Fayetteville Avenue, situated in the James M. Hamilton Survey, abstract number 5444, City of Ural at Dallas County, Texas. Liliana.

Commissioners, as you heard me say prior to this presentation, this is the same exact project as a preliminary plan that you just approved. In this case, it's the approval of a tree removal permit to allow for, again, the construction of this 186 townhomes with eight open spaces, and again, the infrastructure to carry out this development. You've heard me talk about the zoning, and in addition to that, there is a regulating plan tied to this project, which was approved administratively January 28th of this year. Article 2.11 of the form-based code modifies the tree preservation requirements set forth in section 77504H of the REL-Ed Development Code. This section of 77504H of the RDC requires that tree removal permits be approved by the City Council if more than three trees are planned to be removed. As defined in the form-based code, the only protected trees are 8-inch or greater of oak, elm, and pecan trees. That said, throughout the site, you have about 147 total trees. Out of those 147, 66 trees are protected. 54 of those 66 protected trees are proposed to be removed, and 12 are proposed to be preserved. The applicant is, in addition to what they're preserving, they're proposing to plant an additional 147 trees on site, totaling 441 caliber inches. They are also proposing to keep seven unprotected trees on site, equating to 73.2 caliber inches. In the form-based code, the trees required to meet the landscape requirements also count towards mitigation. And as you can see on the image to my left, Is it working? So the applicant is planning on planting trees obviously across Merritt Road, which is required by code, and throughout the perimeter of the project. Same with the open space areas. And just as a summary, There is approximately 66 protected trees on site. Out of those 66, 54 is planned to be removed, 12 are planned to be kept on site. The form-based code provides a credit of three to one credit for caliper inches between eight and 24, and a three to six credit, a five to one credit for caliper inches over 23, I believe. That equates to about 1,114.2 caliber inches added to this amount. That said, the proposed to be planted is 154 trees, meaning that in all, the applicant does not have to pay anything into the reforestation fund or does not have to mitigate any of the trees proposed to be removed. Now you as the recommending body may approve, approve with conditions, or deny this request.

Commissioner, questions for the staff? Seeing none, we'll entertain, this is, excuse me. This doesn't require a public hearing, so I'll entertain a motion.

But actually, I think there is.

Is there a public comment? No? Okay. So I'll go ahead and entertain a motion. Somebody got to push the button. There you go. Mr. Hernandez. I'll go ahead and make the motion to approve the tree removal permit. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Ms. Williams. We have a motion to approve the item as presented. Any discussion on the motion? Let's call the vote. And that passes five to two. With that being said, we will adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, whatever time it is, 7.56.