Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

the working session and we will convene the regular meeting. Do I need to read all that stuff again?

I'M BEING TOLD YES.

SO HERE GOES. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED IN THE CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS OR REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION OR CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT. IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITIZENS INPUT FORM ON THE CITY'S 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 AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

We have a quorum, so we will go ahead and call the meeting to order. First item is citizens input. At this time, three-minute comments will be taken from the audience on any topic. No action can be taken by the Commission during citizens input. And I would request that if you want to speak on an agenda item, that you wait until we call that agenda item. We'll give you an opportunity to speak then. Obviously, somebody's here to speak on the agenda items. Do I have a non-agenda item?

Yes, we have one. Dave Hall.

Mr. Hall, come on down.

Dave Hull, Rowlett. Last year, during a PNZ public hearing for 6811 Chardonnay, during my citizen input, I was interrupted and asked how often I used my ingress, egress, access, easement. I was not allowed to fully answer, so now I'm back. Mr. Hull. Yes, sir. Hold on one second for me, please.

Technical difficulty.

Go ahead. Please start over. Start over? Dave Hole, Rowlett. Last year, during a PNZ public hearing for 6811 Chardonnay, during my citizen input, I was interrupted and asked how often I used my ingress-egress access easement. I was not allowed to fully answer, so now I'm back. Earlier this year, I used this access easement about 20 times. It is no longer usable. Exhibit one shows the easement unmaintained by the HOA. Exhibit two shows a section of the HOA bylaws requiring that the body to maintain the easement The attorney for the developer highlighted the section in yellow and stated, Dave, begin, quote, this documents the HOA's responsibility to maintain your easement next to your property, end quote. I really don't mind the unmaintained five foot high grass and weeds. I would be happy if all the Rowlett grass areas were restored to their original black limb prairie. However, this is an example. of the two decades of mismanagement and bad decisions originating from not all, but a majority of Rowlett's staff, boards and commissions, and city council. On exhibit one, to build the accessory structure, I had to provide an engineered foundation and structure report. The brick and roof had to match my house. I had to prepare a PD. Then to rotate the structure 90 degrees, I had to present a second PD. All I wanted was an accessory building which would fit in the new neighborhood and add value. The cost to build this accessory structure were extraordinarily high, too high, but I like the way it turned out. Rowlett is an uninvestable city. The whole process is broken. You, PNZ, are part of the problem. In the past, you have disrespected those coming to you to add to Rowlett and acquiesced to those trying to take shortcuts and advantage of the resident city, my city, Rowlett. And let's not forget, You allowed the developer to build the retaining wall in exhibit one on my ingress, egress, easement. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing no, we'll close the public hearing. I'm sorry. Yeah, citizens input.

Thank you.

Hi, Allison Felderhoff, Rowlett, Texas. I'm here tonight regarding the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, North Shore Framework Plan, Master Thoroughfare Plan, and the zoning for a 67-acre track in the North Shore. Over the past year, many of us have appeared before city council and other public bodies discussing the same underlying issue. Growth must be balanced with infrastructure, fiscal responsibility, and the long-term vision that residents were promised. whether we are discussing transportation road capacity public safety or city services the message has been consistent rallet cannot continue approving projects in isolation without considering the cumulative impact on taxpayers in our community tonight's request is significant because it does not simply ask for a zoning change it asks the city to amend multiple planning documents that were carefully created to guide the development in the north shore area As residents, we should ask a simple question. If these plans needed to be amended at every step, what was the purpose of creating the plan in the first place? The North Shore area represents the absolute last area that we have for future commercial tax base and is one of Rowlett's most important opportunities for thoughtful and strategic growth. It was envisioned as a carefully planned district to create long term economic value. When a proposal requires amendments to the comprehensive plan, framework plan, thoroughfare plan, and existing zoning all at the same time, it suggests that the project may not be consistent with the original vision that the community adopted. I am also concerned about the long-term fiscal impact. New homes certainly generate tax revenue, but they also create ongoing demands for roads, police, fire services, parks, utilities, and maintenance. They generate a much lower tax rate than that of commercial opportunities that are driven with economic development. Many residents have recently voiced concerns about the city's ability to fund critical infrastructure and services. Before approving additional residential density, we should have confidence that the development will contribute more than it costs over the long term. Traffic and mobility must also be considered. Changes to the thoroughfare plan affect not only future residents, but everyone who lives nearby and uses the roadways every day. I support growth and I support property rights, but I also support keeping the promises made through our planning process. The question before you is not whether this land should be developed. The question is whether changing four separate planning documents to accommodate a single project is truly in the best interest of all of Rowlett's long-term future. We have an incredible opportunity in the North Shore and we cannot lose sight of that vision. Residents are often told that the city faces growing demands on infrastructure, public safety, and public services. If that is the case, THEN WE SHOULD BE PRIORITIZING DEVELOPMENT THAT BROADENS OUR COMMERCIAL TAX BASE AND STRENGTHENS THE CITY'S FINANCIAL POSITION BECAUSE WHERE WE'RE NOT AT, IT'S JUST NOT WORKING. SO SAVE THE NORTH SHORE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

Dan Hapt, Rowlett. The first thing I want to bring to the Planning and Zoning Board is the signs that are placed in front of properties when they're going to be changed. You can't read them unless you lose your life. Like on George Bush Frontage Road, there are two different properties. One at the church right behind Covington's. It's turned. not sideways, but forward. You really have to stop to try to look the all the signs are placed. Like if you were looking out your front door, you're looking at it like this. That's wrong. They need to be placed like real estate signs. We cannot stop on a thoroughfare like that to be able to get the number of the zoning change unless we park at the Q T and walk down the frontage road to see what the sign is because you don't want to stop there. You could literally die because everybody speeds there. I do. So anyway, I want to point that out. So but it's that way everywhere. Whoever's putting them out is putting them out wrong. That should be put out like real estate signs where we can see them and engage that department in the future. It would help immensely. The next thing is I am absolutely for, like the last speaker said, staying the course on North Shore. We don't need more apartments. We don't need more homes. We need businesses and trades for people to work at and visit and patronize. Please leave the code as it is. Thank you.

Is there anybody else who would like to address the Planning and Zoning Commission on anything except for an item that's on the agenda which we will allow you to speak for when we get to that agenda item? Everybody good with that? Okay, we'll close the citizens input. NEXT ITEM IS CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOWING MAY BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER OR ANY CITIZEN MAY REQUEST ITEMS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS CONSIDERING THE APPROVING MINUTES OF MAY 12, 2026 REGULAR MEETING. ANYBODY WANT TO PULL THAT? MR. BLADES.

SINCE I BELIEVE IN COMPLAINT BASED, I NEED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE MINUTES. THEY NEED TO SPELL MY NAME RIGHT. ACTUALLY, THEY SPELL BLADE RIGHT, BUT MY NAME IS SCOTT AND IT HAS Y IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S GREAT. MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

I'D LIKE THE MINUTES TO BE AMENDED TO SHOW THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING IN THOSE MINUTES. So do we have a motion? Can we get a motion? By Ms. Wilson. Go ahead and press your RTS as well. Go ahead.

Okay. I make a motion that we approve the minutes. I guess amending the spelling of your name.

AS WELL AS INCLUDING THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

THAT'S RIGHT. INCLUDING THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR SECONDED BY MS. WILLIAMS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, CALL THE VOTE. YEP, THERE WE GO. AND THAT PASSES 7-0. Moving on to individual items for consideration. I'm going to reorder the order. I'm going to hear item 4B first, then 4A, then 4C and D. So 4B, conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council regarding a special use permit to allow an accessory structure and carport greater than 500 square feet on a property zone single family SF 40 district. The approximately one acre property is located at 4002 Toler Road, also described as part of lot four, block four of Rowlett Ranch Estates 2 in the city of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.

Good evening, commissioners. The request in front of you tonight is for the approval of a special use permit for an accessory structure that is over 500 square feet, specifically asking for a building that is about 2,400 square feet, including a 1,800 metal building and a 600 square foot attached carport. The site is located east, of Liberty Grove and Toller Road, and it's specifically addressed for 4002 Toller Road. And as you can see on the image to my right, it's showing the location, if my pointer wants to work. Over here. The subject property is zoned SF40. This is a one acre platted lot. And just for clarification, the property owner does own the lot to the rear of this property. which is currently zone SF9. We did not include it as a part of this request. We just included the survey provided to us by the applicant, which is that one acre lot. The property is located within the Rowlett Ranch Estates 2, which is an established residential neighborhood with lot sizes about 4,300 square feet or larger. The property has direct access to Toller Road, and it is developed with an over 2000 square foot home and an attached garage that is a little over 500 square feet. The property also includes a pool area of about 780 square feet and a metal building that's about 288 feet, which will be replaced by this new building being proposed. SECTION 77303 OF THE ROULETTE DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIFICALLY TALKS TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. IN THIS CASE, WE'RE LOOKING AT LOCK COVERAGE, THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE OWNERS ARE MEETING ALL THESE STANDARDS PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN AN SF40 DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION, WE'RE LOOKING AT A REAR LOCK COVERAGE OF 35%. CURRENTLY PROPOSED IS ABOUT 13% OF THAT LOCK COVERAGE BEING MET. The height is not higher than the primary building at 15 feet. And you are looking at a setback requirement of three feet from the side and the rear. They're proposing to place a property about six feet away from the nearest property, side property line, which is the Northwest property, side property line, and to the rear, it's over 50 feet. When it comes to carports, the code is also very specific in the requirements. IT CANNOT MEET, IT CANNOT EXCEED THE REQUIRED FRONT AND REAR SIDE SETBACK. IT CANNOT EXCEED 8 FEET, THE CEILING HEIGHT. THE CARPOR HAS TO HAVE A PITCH ROOF EQUAL TO THE PRIMARY BUILDING. AND IT CANNOT BE LOCATED, IT CANNOT EXCEED 500 SQUARE FEET AND IT CANNOT BE LOCATED 20 FEET BEYOND THAT FRONT AND EXTERIOR BUILDING LINE. IN THIS CASE THE AFFIDANCE IS MEETING TWO OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THEY'RE EXCEEDING THE SIDE SETBACK. they're exceeding that site setback. So rather than 15 feet required by this property, they're proposing six feet. And the ceiling height, they're proposing 15 feet to align with the metal structure. They're required as eight feet. Because this is an accessory structure, It is incidental to the primary use. The applicant is primarily using it for the maintenance and storage of vehicles, as well as a workout area and a storage facility for their garden equipment, UTV utility trailer, a dirt bike, and seasonal decorations. So it is clearly incidental to that primary use. We did send out public notifications May 25th. We received one in opposition within our 200 buffer and one in opposition within our 500 buffer and zero in favor. So our staff recommendation, the accessory structure complies with applicable RDC standards for lot coverage, height, and setback requirements. The attached carpet does deviate from the RDC standards outlined in section 77303. by encroaching into the required side yard setback and exceeding the maximum permitted ceiling height. However, these deviations are not anticipated to affect the surrounding area and remain generally consistent with the intent of the accessory structure regulations. Now, due to the size of the lot, limited visibility from toilet road, and compatibility with the surrounding development patterns, we still find that the request is generally consistent with the intent of the RDC. Staff recommends approval subject to the installation of gutters directing the runoff away from the adjacent properties. And you, as the Planning and Sowing Commission, may take the following actions. Recommend approval, approval with conditions or the denial of this request.

Thank you. Commissioners, questions for staff? Mr. Pollard.

Liliana. the on the drawings the carport is not wider than the building is that correct no and so even though the building fits the side setback of six feet is in compliance the cover for a a carport has to be 15. yes the requirements are slightly different for a carpet carport versus a But his driveway is compliant as well.

Can you repeat that?

His driveway is compliant as well.

The driveway? Yes.

Okay. So in this particular instance, the awning is not wider than the building that is permitted and it is over the driveway, which is okay too. It's just that ordinances is going to be 15 feet shifted over.

If it has to be so that the site set back for NSF in this case this lot is 15 feet it cannot pass those that is it can over X exceed those 15 feet.

Any other questions for stuff. Does the applicant want to say anything, provide a presentation, say hello?

Good evening, Jeremy Hicks.

Please state your name and your city of residence.

Jeremy Hicks, Rowlett, Texas, 26 years.

Thank you.

So regarding the awning or just more of an awning on a carport, it's going to match the roof and pitch line of the structure. So it's going to have the gable in that's coming out. So it's not going to be any wider, any left of each side of the property line. so it's going to be built out of a red iron metal so it's going to be a you know beautiful structure that we're planning you know what the gentleman said before it's a pricey investment so uh you know we're going to make it look good but um we're um also like uh lily on mission now we got the other Point a one acres in the rear as well and we're planning to have the guttering to drain for that direction It's been natural flow 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 on the left side? Okay the signs on our property on Okay. All right.

So is there one of the comments was that it was going to cause traffic, a high degree of traffic on the roads? You're not doing anything to do auto repair or anything, are you?

No, sir. Just reading what that person read in the comments, I think they sent in the wrong survey because they meant for the other survey that we're going to be discussing later tonight.

Okay.

It's because we're not having any water, and they mentioned water pressure and things like that. We're not going to have water plumbing to the building.

Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

I'll entertain a motion.

Oops, I'm sorry.

You're absolutely correct. Thank you. This is a public hearing, so at this time we'll open the floor to a public hearing. Anybody want to comment on this item? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Now, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Hernandez.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. DO YOU HAVE ANY CONDITIONS? WITH THE CONDITION OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE GUTTERY. THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE SUP WITH THE ADDITION OF THE GUTTER REQUIREMENT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MR. JOBE? SECOND. SECOND. ANY COMMENTS? MR. POLLARD?

or whatever it's worth for anybody may be watching or those that wrote the opposition to this this is no different than many many others on tuller road those are all acres this is to me this is no-brainer if you know guys got the property and so i'm all for it any other comments

Hearing none, we have a motion to approve with the addition of gutters and a second. So we'll call the vote.

Well, that was quick.

And that passes 7-0. MOVING ON TO ITEM 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 FORM excuse me, zoning from form-based commercial center district to single family SF 40 district form-based rural neighborhood FBRN district and form-based urban neighborhood FBUN DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH SINGLE FAMILY USES PDSF 5 FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 67.543 ACRES AND THE REASON CHRIST SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 225 OF THE JOHN M. THOMAS SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 1478 CITY OF ROWLAND DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS AND BEING ALL OF THAT TRACK OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO HOME BOYS ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED AS RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 2003157-303202, DEED RECORDS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING ALL OF THAT TRACK OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO WOLF RE MANAGEMENT LLC AS RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 202300064833, DEED RECORDS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. LULIANA.

COMMISSIONERS, THE NEXT ITEM IN FRONT OF YOU IS A REQUEST TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATELY 67 ACRES SITE FROM A FORM BASED COMMERCIAL CENTER, SINGLE FAMILY SF40, FORM BASED RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD, FORM BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF5 USES. TO ALSO 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 coverage located primarily along the eastern and western portions of the site. So as you can see on my pointer, it's primarily around closer to Liberty Grove, along the perimeters of the site, and also to the western property. There's also two existing barns along the southern corner of the site and also a 20-foot wide sanitary sewer easement running nearby Liberty Grove along the tree canopy where I'm pointing at in the image in front of you. The property also has a frontage to Liberty Grove of about 222 feet. Now we're looking at the surrounding land use patterns. North of the property is primarily zoned form-based commercial center. The land is currently undeveloped. Northwest of the property is zoned form-based new neighborhood with a medium density residential development. To the east, it also contains a form-based commercial center zoning classification, again, undeveloped land. To the south, you have a zoning classification of SF-40 and single-family SF-9, currently developed as single-family properties. And to your west, you have a zoning office of 40 currently developed for single family properties as well. When doing a compatibility analysis within the surrounding subdivisions to the northwest, you have the North Haven subdivision with lot areas of about 7,200 square feet and an average dwelling unit site of over 3,000 square feet. South of the property, Again, it's a zoning of SF-40 and SF-9. This is the Ranch Estates 1 and 2 and the Lake Ridge Estates 1 with an average lot size of about 40,000 square feet and over 10,000 square feet with an average dwelling unit of over 3,000 square feet and 2,400 square feet. West of the property, again, SF-40 zoning. There's a Chandler Park 1 and 4 subdivision with lots approximately approximately 33,000 square feet and a dwelling unit of 26,000 square feet. The proposed minimum square dwelling units of 1,500 square feet is substantially smaller than the surrounding neighborhoods where the average dwelling size ranges from approximately 24 to 3,200 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 not align with the current future plan designation for this area. The property is also governed by the North Shore South framework plan. The framework plan also identifies a 100-foot buffer to the residential properties to the south. The applicant is proposing a 25-foot open space buffer with a six-foot ornamental fence in lieu of the planned transition area. The Master Thoroughfare Plan also identifies a two-type C two-lane undivided roadway, as you can see. Alex, can you go back to that slide for me? Shown on the image in front of you. highlighted in orange, the applicant proposes a concept plan that does not conform with the required street network as identified in this master thoroughfare plan. Therefore, an amendment to such is required. Now, as part of the concept plan, the applicant is proposing a two-phase development delineated by the red line shown in the concept plan. Phase one is intended to develop with 136 lots and phase two with 90 lots. There are approximately four primary areas where the applicant is proposing open space and they're closer to Liberty Grove and the perimeters of the property to the south and at the corner near Larson Lane. There's also two detention ponds being proposed, one closer to Liberty Grove and one closest to Larson Lane. AS FAR AS ACCESS, THERE'S PRIMARY ACCESS AGAIN FROM LIBERTY GROVE. AND AGAIN, ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO LARSON LANE, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE NORTH HAVEN SUBDIVISION. BERRYMAN ROAD CONNECTING TO THE TOLER ROAD AND ALSO A FUTURE CONNECTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. AND INTERNAL RESIDENTIAL STREET NETWORK IS PROPOSED AT A 50-FOOT RIDAWAY, INCLUDING A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FOR COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS WITHIN THEIR LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE CODE REQUIRES A 15-FOOT BUFFER, ALSO ONE CANOPY TREE PER 35 LINEAR FEET WITHIN THE RIDAWAY. and 10 evergreen shrubs per 30 linear feet. And this is all, again, in the right-of-way. So when we're thinking about right-of-way, we're thinking what's fronting Liberty Grove. There's also a required for a primary entryway landscaping, which the code requires 9,600 square feet divided between the two entry points. Now, the applicant is proposing to keep the existing tree line as is, instead of providing that buffer requirement. They're planning to keep the trees as is, instead of providing the trees required by the code and the shrubs required by the code. And they're also proposing to only landscape one side of the entryway. They're also proposing a six-foot ornamental fence, which is labeled in green on the plans in front of you. And so they're showing along the north, south, and western property lines. As far as the dimensional requirements, the applicant is primarily deviating from the minimum rear setback from the 25 feet required to 15 feet proposed. And also the minimum site setback for the corner lots and key lots. They're proposing 15 feet. The code requires them to be equal to the required front setback of the SF5 district. The applicant is also proposing a reduction of the lot width when lots are located within a cul-de-sac or knuckle turns to be reduced five feet within their minimum lot width of 50 or 60, and 10 feet when the 10 feet within the minimum log depth. Now, as far as modifications, in general, the applicant is requesting modifications to the SF5 zoning district, which includes increasing the allowable street length from the 12 feet required the 12,000 square feet required to 12,075 without a change in direction, eliminating the required alleys and providing front entry garages only to include a number of J swing and side entry garage configurations, reducing the required right-of-way width from 60 to 50, modifying the required primary and entry landscape area, reducing the minimum yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet and modifying the required side yard setback for corner lots, including key lots. So moving deeper into these modifications, Section 77303 requires that all residential developments be served by alleys. The intent of this is to accommodate utility placement, trash pickup, prevent over-parking, and also engaging the public realm by not compromising the street width. and to 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 J-swing and side-entry configurations. Now the elimination of these alleys shifts the utility placement and reduces the trash pickup functions to the front street. The applicant's justification for not providing alleys is that it would affect the feasibility of the project due to high infrastructure costs per lot. Now section 77508 speaks to L and J hook driveways when no alleys are provided. The requirement is to provide a J hook approach. The intent is to prevent vehicles from encroaching onto the pedestrian realm. and into the right-of-way by providing longer driveways curving into the garage. The applicant did not provide a justification for not providing all of the lots with this requirement. The code also requires minor residential streets to be 50 feet in width. The intent of such is to provide space for utilities, again, automobile circulation and emergency access. The applicant proposes to decrease this width from 60 to 50 feet. Their justification is placed due to mentioning the consistency with the local subdivision, which they reference North Haven, and allows for the additional 20-foot landscape buffer along the southern property line that they're proposing as a part of their development. Staff doesn't see any site constraints that have been presented to justify that 50-foot right-of-way request. The Railroad Development Code also articulates requirements for primary and secondary entryways. These entryway features are intended to provide traffic calming transitions from high-travel thoroughfares and local residential streets, as well as to provide a visual amenity that creates a sense of place for these new communities. And it's specific to what it's asking for in terms of the required measurements. As you can see on the image in front of you, the entryways are to be 80 feet by 40 feet, which is highlighted in red in the image in front, and an additional 1,600 square feet, which is highlighted in the blue. The proposed PD does not meet the primary weight entry requirements, including landscaping and entryway median. The applicant proposes landscaping only one side of the primary entryway and eliminating the median to preserve the existing channel, vegetation, and tree grove. Staff does recognize that while preservation of the natural features does support the RDC's intent, the applicant should still consider entryway improvements to the greatest extent possible. THE CODE ALSO REQUIRES A SPECIFIC REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR SF5 DISTRICTS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION FROM 25 FEET TO 15 FEET TO THAT REAR SETBACK. THE JUSTIFICATION IS THAT THE REDUCTION ALIGNS WITH TYPICAL SETBACKS FOR THIS PRODUCT TYPE AND OFFSETS THE INCREASE AND IS OFFSET BY THE INCREASE IN THE FRONT YARD WHILE MAINTAINING THAT, KEEPING THAT LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT. As a reminder, the intent of the rear setback is to allow adequate building placement, usable yard space, privacy between homes, and proper drainage. It is possible to have a 15-foot rear setback as a backyard, but typically when alleys are dedicated within the SFI district requirements. The last modification is the side yard setback on corner and key lots. The RDC does require the primary, the lots to match the primary front setback and provide a secondary front setback equal to or half of the required front setback for corner lots. But for key lots, it must have the required front setback. The applicant is requesting a 15 foot side yard setback for those corner lots and key lots, and no justification was provided. Again, these standards are intended to keep consistent with the streetscape, provide separation between residential structures and the public realm, and to preserve visibility at intersection points to support the traffic safety. Staff, again, has not identified a site-specific condition that would necessitate the modification of the corner and key lot setback required as standards proposed. Notifications for this item was sent May 26. STAFF RECEIVED WITHIN THE 200-BUFFER FIVE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION AND WITHIN OUR 500-FOOT BUFFER, TEN LETTERS OF OPPOSITION. AND RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR WITHIN THE 200-BUFFER. AS A RECOMMENDATION, THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALIGN WITH THE RELATIVE DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE NORTH SHORE SOUTH FRAMEWORK PLAN AND THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN. WHILE THE PD DISTRICTS PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FROM THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, THE PROPOSED EVIATION DOES APPEAR PRIMARILY TO OR INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RATHER THAN ADDRESSING SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS. SO OVERALL THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT PUBLIC, SUFFICIENT PUBLIC BENEFIT TO JUSTIFY THE REQUEST PDE FOR SF5 USES AND STANDARDS. ADDITIONALLY THE PROPOSED MAY LIMIT THE SITE'S LONG-TERM ECONOMIC POTENTIAL. particularly in terms of commercial investment, job creation, sales tax generation under the form-based commercial center designation. Planning and zoning commission, you may recommend approval, approve with conditions or denial of this request.

Thank you, Lilliana. Questions for staff? Mr. Pollard.

Lilliana, is there anything... that they comply with, that they're asking for in the zoning classifications. It seems like everything, setbacks and everything else, didn't even comply with what they're requesting in 5,000 square foot lots or 7,200 square foot lots.

They comply with some of the dimensional requirements. And again, what's presented to you, it's what they're not complying with. That's not to say they do comply with other aspects of that zoning district. What's just being presented to you is what they're recommending and also what they're deviating within the zoning district that they're working with.

But street widths, no alleys, no J-hooks, L-hooks, or L-turns, no, not even the entryway complies with the requirements. Okay.

Commissioners, any other questions for staff? Thank you, Lillian. Is the applicant here?

Yes, and they have a presentation. Okay, good.

Chairman, commissioners, my name is Bruce French. I'm vice president of TriPoint Homes, 6201 West Plano Parkway. I'll make it really easy. I don't even need to go further in my presentation. I can kind of take an indication of where this is going. obviously we're not welcomed in this city and i've also was before this pnz about 12 years ago with another company and not much has changed i guess so with all due respect i'll i'll turn it over to you for a vote commissioners any questions

That's not too late.

Would you mind coming back up to the podium? OK. One moment, please. I'd like to give you, if that's the way you feel, I'd like to give you the opportunity to withdraw your application.

No.

OK. Thank you. Commissars, any questions for the applicant? Mr. Joe.

How can I put this delicately? With that type of attitude, I would say you're not welcome in this city. To not even want to come up here and to try to justify what you've asked for just astonishes me. So you must know you're wrong in the first place. So that's all I'm gonna have to say on that.

Yeah, we have met several times with staff. I thought we were aligned. I was surprised to see a denial recommendation from staff on Monday morning. We developed several thousand lots in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. We're actively in 15 communities. We're in highly amenitized Hillwood communities, Huffines communities. When I was division president of Beezer, we built in the subdivision up in the north side of Rowlett. But anyway, we've 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. But obviously, we're falling short. And I apologize if we've 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 the one, the zoning on the ground. And two, all of the requests that you want that doesn't meet the minimal requirements, such as street width. You want smaller streets. You don't want this. You don't want that. If you could, this is your chance to sell us on the idea of 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. So obviously...

I think you would probably have an extremely hard uphill road if you wanted to stay here tonight.

I concur.

So if you want to withdraw your application, I'm more than willing to accept that.

No, I would like for the P&Z to vote on it, please.

Oh, absolutely. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? OK. Thank you, sir. This is a public hearing. So at this time, I'll open the floor. We have quite a few. Ms. Dietrich, 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 finish and the next person come up, hold your applause until the end or whatnot. It would help all of us get out of here before midnight. If not, I'm willing to stay.

Okay, first we have Jim McDowell. McDowell, sorry about that. And behind him would be Milton Wooddahl.

Good evening. My name is Jim McDougall. I reside at 3205 Larkin Lane in Rowlett. And I learned about this proposal from a little sticker that someone on Toler put on my window or my door. And as I checked into it, I was taken aback to 10 years ago, 12 years ago, when this same process my neighbors and I went through with the North Haven development. When I went to the packet, And I looked at this plat that they have submitted. I was astonished again at the absurdity of the developers. We defeated three developers before we finally got one approved, or we actually agreed to it. I'm never astonished by the fact that developers don't read the code. They ask for seven or eight deviations because they can't read the code and know what's required. want to commend the staff for noticing that the 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's what these developers do. If you look at page 90 in the packet you'll see this map and if you look on the far left side you'll see larkin road and you'll see our lots that are one acre just like the lots on toller right across at the rear of us was the final the lot that got approved it's a third of an acre but when they first filed it they filed this crap with zero lot lines But we beat them back because it's 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. I also want to commend the staff for noticing that. This is 60 acres, if it's approved, we lost commercial development. You already lost North Haven, 60 acres, and then there's all this area to the north. In five years, there's not going to be anything left. It's just going to go all the way to Merritt, Liberty Grove, and over. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next.

Thank you. I'm Milton Woodall from Rowlett, 4705 Toller Road. This is the first time I've seen anything about the plan, but I think it was obvious to me what was obvious to you. That ain't what we want there. So thank you for voting that down. We take just a minute to say, as you think about other things, other plans for some of the open land in Rowlett, remember, there's things living there now. And I don't know if Rowlett's even done a study of that. I back up to that property. I've been hearing coyotes out there since I've lived here 35 years ago. They're still there, but there's not as many because every time you build a bunch of houses, those animals got to go somewhere. Well, used to, I'd see one every now and then. Now I've got a path up the side of my yard because they got to go to the neighbors across the street out in that other subdivision to try to find something to eat. Where do you think they're going to go? We need to have a plan for that kind of stuff. There's all kinds of wildlife out there that are going to be gone. No, they're not going to go away. They're going to go across the highway and come back at night. And people are going to be calling, hey, something's eating my dogs and cats. It's because you're throwing them out of their own house. We got to have a plan to preserve some of the green space in this city. Otherwise, it's going to be like living in downtown Dallas. It's all concrete. Tolar Road can't stand, we don't have any sanitary sewer for the flood water runoff. It just goes down bar ditches. And they flood now because there's just no place to go. We've got to do something about that. You can't just keep pouring more water through our yards into that one little drainage creek. Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have James Reynolds and Jesse Perales. Moving on to Gregory Odom.

Followed by

Go ahead, sir. I'm sorry. Thank you.

Well, hello, all. My name is Gregory Odom, and I'm the son of Judith and Joel Rubenstein. And they're the property owners at 3601 Larkin Lane is where the street ends. And their home was built there 43 and a half years ago as they no longer wanted to live in a congested neighborhood. We strongly oppose the development as it would make it impossible for us to continue living here. Our custom homes on a one acre lot and this development would be built on both sides of our acre where our home was located and a road would be built directly next to the property line with no buffer zone. This will be the same for the residents of the whole road. Building of 226 standardized non-custom homes would greatly decrease the property values in our area as other homes are unique custom homes on one acre lots. Presuming that at least two cars per home for 226 homes, this would create a dangerous traffic situation. The infrastructure here doesn't support this development. All the roads in this area, Toller, Larkin, Hickox, Liberty Grove, they're all two lane roads. No sidewalks, no curving, just bar ditches. And there's no signal lights. And this would significantly increase road noise and light pollution. The tree line proposed to be removed that's kind of at the end of Larson there. This houses many different species, such as red-tailed hawks, which are protected, owls, herons nesting in the trees, blue jays, cardinals, in addition to rabbits and squirrels and raccoons and opossums and other various creatures. So once again, as previously mentioned, all of them will be displaced. On our property line, there's also two professionally engineered radio towers for FCC license operator, call sign, November 5, Juliet Romeo, N5JR. They have anchor posts with guy wires located within the proposed development area. They cannot be moved without destroying the towers. The towers would fall. Furthermore, Rowlett just doesn't need any more housing. We need shops. We need grocery stores. We need other businesses to bring greater economic viability to our community. And that'll be all for me.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you all.

Okay, next we have Treasurer Hightower and Nam Pham.

Thank you very much for this time. My name is Treasurer Hightower. I'm at 3001 Toller Road. I'm right there on the end of the road. I want to thank you for your time and just point out that I obviously, as much as everyone else, has concerns about infrastructure, how it would be sustained with plumbing, multiple issues. I came here four years ago from Royce City, seven and a half acres in Royce City. I came here because I wanted to be in Rowlett. The reason I had to leave Roy City is because it was the same thing unchecked, just development everywhere. Next thing you know, you have no water pressure. You can't get out of your driveway and it's just completely overrun, overrun just with everybody. All right. So the unchecked growth just can't can't coexist. I don't know if this is about tax revenue. I don't know if it's about trying to create more homes for people, if that's what's being sold here. But I think we all know these are going to be built right on top of each other. They're going to be cheaply done. They're going to be done in a day and a half, and they're going to start at 420 each. All right? That is not a young starter family home. And that's about the only thing I'd be willing to be walking my poor dog across all this extra traffic for is if somebody actually had a chance. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening, I'm Nam Pham from Rowlett. I oppose this project. We need to preserve the vision for North Shore as a commercial center. What good is a plan if we never give it a chance to take root? Rowlett kept jumping at the first opportunities that comes along, populating the area with short-sighted projects instead of holding out for something worthy of community's future. The city spent time, effort, getting public input. It produced a detailed, ambitious plan for a commercial center, hyped it up, and now it's slowly allowing developers to chip away that vision piece by piece, calling it progress. In any serious field endeavor, abandoning a hard-won plan in favor of short-term thinking has a name. It's called insanity. Consider the bigger picture. Garland is about to build an H-E-B at Firewheel. Sachse already have the station. The neighboring city are attracting all kinds of development that generate cell tax and community pride. Why can't Rowlett be bold and do the same? Every new residential project approved in place of a commercial vision add more to residents who strain our road our utilities, and our city services. We're spending our dollars in Garland, Sachse, and Rockwell. We better cross our neighbor, reap the reward. That is not progress. That's civic failure. Please give North Shore Plan a chance. Thank you.

Thank you. DONE. LAST CALL. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT? HEARING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, MR. HERNANDEZ. IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AS PRESENTED. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

Mr. Pollard, I'm sorry.

For the purposes of moving this along to a vote and discussion, more discussion than the vote, then I'll second it.

We have a motion on the floor and a 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 ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT IT'S ASKING US TO BASICALLY IGNORE. I REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT A PLAN DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST AS GOOD AS WHAT'S IN THE AREA, IF NOT BETTER. THIS IS GOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR NO ALLEYS, NO TO DO THE REDUCTIONS. AS A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA, I'M JUST FLABBERGASTED THAT THIS IS EVEN CONSIDERED, WE EVEN WANT TO CONSIDER THIS.

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 some friends. There's a subdivision going up not far from them. 5,000, 6,000 square foot homes, single family homes, huge Mediterranean style. And we get this. And not only is it this, but this is in the North Shore District. The 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 this city to be able to diversify its tax base. We finally got a business or developer that came in. I know people don't like the warehouses, but, but at least it's 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. And I'll have more to say later, but not in favor of reducing this. And then everything that's requested is exempted or less than what the standard was.

Any other comments by commissioners? I just have to echo what Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Pollard 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 requirements for 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 residents, which is something good, as well as supplying some local employment. Definitely a call for economic development to look at that. For those who don't know, we have somebody from the economic development board here. I THINK IT'S ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT SHOULD WE END UP DISAPPROVING THIS BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE, IT CAN ONLY PASS WITH A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE FROM COUNCIL. SO NOT WITHDRAWING IT MADE IT KIND OF EASIER. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED. with a second. We'll go ahead and call the vote. And again, this is a, the motion is to approve. So vote accordingly. Let's call a vote. And hold up. FAILS TO PASS, ZERO TO SEVEN. MOVING ON TO ITEM 4C. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 77-10 OF THE RALLOT DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING EXTERIOR LIGHTING. MR. KING, HOPEFULLY WE CAN MAKE THIS FASTER THAN THE WORK SESSION. AND AS YOU LEAVE, PLEASE BE MINDFUL, THIS IS AN OPEN MEETING, SO WE NEED TO LEAVE THE DOORS 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. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 77-510 OF THE ROW LET 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 ordinance to include a standard of 0.25 foot candles at the property line for residential uses and ensure that all lighting is shielded and angled away from adjacent residential property owners in such a manner that does not result in impacts to neighbors. SO STAFF PRESENTED ON THE TOPIC DURING THE APRIL 14TH, MAY 12TH AND TODAY. DURING THE PLANNING AND ZONING WORK SESSIONS COMMISSIONERS WERE SENT IN THEIR EDITS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CAME IN AFTERWARDS ON MAY 18TH AND 19TH AND TODAY. I APPRECIATE THAT TOO. SO THE CURRENT CODE HAS A VERY STRONG INTENT STATEMENT. and the uh but it doesn't have the uh lighting output standards uh it doesn't have the definitions and is not very consistent for measuring and gaining compliance with section 77510 so staff created with the help of the commissioners A REVISED RDC SECTION 77-510 ON EXTERIOR LIGHTING.

MR. KING.

YES, SIR.

COULD WE, SEEING AS WE JUST WENT OVER THIS IN THE WORK SESSION, KIND OF MOVE IT? YES, SIR. YES, PLEASE.

What we have before you and worked on in this work session, I'm bringing to you now. So this ordinance would create a residential standards with proper review criteria and tools for enforcement. That's our staff recommendation. The recommendation for this governing body, you may make the following actions. You can recommend approval, recommend approval with conditions, and recommend denial. I ask 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'll move on.

I'll entertain a motion.

No. This is a public hearing, so at this time I'll go ahead and open. The floor for public hearing, do we have any comments? Having none, I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Joe, please press your RTS, thank you.

I move to approve the motion as read with the adjustments that we made. During the work session? During the work session, yes, sir.

OK. We have a second by Ms. Wilson. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. And that passes six to one. Moving on items for the conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council regarding a text amendment to section 77 dash 5, 0, 4, hotel of the rally development code and the repeal article to section 98 of the code of ordinance containing tree removal permit review and approval procedures.

The last item on the agenda for tonight. SO THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 77504 OF THE RELATE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND TO REPEAL ARTICLE 2 SECTION 98 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES CONTAINING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESSES. STAFF STARTED EVALUATING THE CITY'S EXISTING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PROCEDURES AND THE CURRENT REVIEW PROCESS REQUIRES YOU ALL Recommend approval or denial of a tree removal permit and then City Council has a final approval Staff identified an opportunity to approve the efficiency while maintaining the discretionary review And the proposed amendments are intended to streamline streamline the term permitting processes and approve regulatory clarifications Now when we're comparing what the current ordinance is is asking us to do as staff and what we're proposing is THE CURRENT ORDINANCE REQUIRES IF THERE IS A TRUE REMOVAL PERMIT WITH LESS THAN THREE TREES, IT CAN BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY. WHEN THERE'S MORE THAN THREE TREES, IT RECOMMENDS, IT BRINGS IT UP, IT'S BROUGHT UP TO YOU FOR RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN THE COUNCIL APPROVES IT OR DENIES IT. IN THIS CASE, WE'RE LOOKING TO REMOVE THE CURRENT THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT FOR TRUE REMOVAL PERMITS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND YOU BE THE FINAL APPROVING BODY. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO REMOVE OR REPEAL SECTION 98 AND KEEP SECTION 77504 AS THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT THESE ARE DUPLICATE ORDINANCES OR REQUIREMENTS. NOW, AGAIN, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 98, WE'RE LOOKING TO REPEAL. And this section regulates the same tree removal permit requirements as addressed in Section 77.504. Now the RDC serves as that primary land development regulation and repealing maintains consistency, keeps away redundancy. So repealing this section would make that Section 77.504 of the Raleigh Development Code that regulatory authority governing tree removal permits. So the proposed amendments are expected to streamline the tree removal permit review process, reduce unnecessary processing time, eliminate duplicate regulations within the city code, reduce the potential for conflicting interpretations, maintain oversight of significant tree removal requests, and support the city's goal for improving operational efficiencies. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 77-504 OF THE RDC REGARDING TRUE REMOVAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS AND THE REPEAL OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 98 OF THE COURT OF ORGANIZATIONS. AND YOU AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THIS REQUEST.

THANK YOU, LILLIAN. COMMISSIONER, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. POLLARD.

LILLIAN, WHY CAN'T WE JUST STRIKE In the existing ordinance, why can't we just strike city council and leave the rest of it as is?

So there's two items, things that we're doing here. So when you speak to striking city council as the approving body, we are doing that. We're keeping everything else the same. The only thing that we're doing is we're also trying to not BY REPEALING SECTION 98, WE'RE LOOKING TO NOT DUPLICATE AN ORDINANCE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE, WHICH IS IN SECTION 77504. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

LILIAN, IF I CAN ELABORATE ON THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT. THE ROULETTE DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WRITTEN REQUIRES EVERY SINGLE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT GO THROUGH CITY COUNCIL ACTION. POST RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THIS MODIFICATION ALLOWS FROM AN EXPEDIENCY PERSPECTIVE, FROM A REVIEW PERSPECTIVE, IF THERE ARE NO MITIGATION PARAMETERS ASSOCIATED WITH FEES, FEE WAIVERS OR ANYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT COMPONENT OF MITIGATION, THAT STAYS BECAUSE ONLY CITY COUNCIL CAN TAKE THAT ACTION. SO YOU WILL REVIEW A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. HOWEVER, ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, IF THERE IS A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO PAY IN LIEU OF PLANTING OR TO REQUEST A REDUCTION IN THOSE MITIGATION FEES, THEN THAT ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE ACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS MODIFICATION.

I CAN SEE IF THEY'RE ASKING TO WAIVE THAT FEE. it should be a city council issue but if it's a if it's a you know i'm going to save x number of inches i'm going to plant this number it's just i do have to pay for you know waiving fees or reducing fees absolutely okay so if they want to go ahead and pull 400 000 trees and pay for them all we can approve that right okay

now i'm sorry just one more point of order i guess we can't stop talking tonight but again your recommendation will go forward to city council i just want to point that out so they may have modifications associated with your recommendation tonight if there's a fee associated with it or no i'm just saying this item is being heard on the january 16th city council meeting so Oh your recommend right.

Mister Joe.

And just for the for the public if this were to pass and City Council approves ever a person after we vote. Yeah, you're now whatever it might be they could still go to for the Board of Adjustments. After the fact after.

Like what I'm saying is once we make that final this let's say this is approved And we and so it's done we are the final say so so they cannot go into okay Mr. Hernandez Mike my question has to deal with what about permits that we see That are after the fact like they've removed the trees and now they're coming for forgiveness You'd still be the final decision-maker So if we were to deny that, what does that result in?

It would have to be denied under, so the RDC has specific standards for denial. It will have to fall under those categories in order to be deemed denied.

No, do you want to? Yeah, because I don't.

Let's assume because this never happens. Yes, I know. Let's assume trees are removed without the requisite permit requirements. Then that becomes a zoning violation, and the property owner is fined and cited every single day for that violation. The recourse, again, is retroactively submit for a tree removal permit, still pay fines, and pay for either mitigation or replanting. And that has happened in the past on a couple of occasions here.

BUT IF WE DENY THAT PERMIT, I'M KIND OF WONDERING, HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?

IF YOU DENY THE PERMIT, IT JUST RESULTS IN FINES.

IT WOULD BE A MUTE POINT, THOUGH. I MEAN, THEY'RE GONE. MIGHT AS WELL MAKE THEM PAY FOR THEM. MR. DEMERON.

YEAH, MART DEMERON, ALTERNATE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER. MY QUESTION TO THE STAFF WOULD BE, DOES THIS PUT US MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING?

Thank you for the question, actually. We should have talked about that a tad. Every city does absolutely do it differently. I've, in my little bit of experience, and Allison is shaking her head, I've just seen it, go to Planning and Zoning Commission and stop at that point. So, yes.

Oops, I'm sorry. You already answered the question.

Mr. Pollard. Moving on. So, the Again, I can understand dropping the duplication, if it's truly duplicate. And what I've read is virtually all of it's duplicate. But I'm just concerned that I don't want to give up any rights, if you want to put it that way, of the PNZ to do some things. And therefore, that's the reason why I said use the existing law and just strike city council out of that. And that's it. There's no need to rewrite it. If we become the final on approval with the exception of those things where they are asking for a complete waiver, OF MONEY, THEN WHY NOT JUST WHERE IT SAYS PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL JUST STRIKES CITY COUNCIL?

MAYBE WE ARE SAYING THE SAME THING, THAT YES, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL STOP. HOWEVER, SHOULD THEY BE IN THE ASSOCIATION WITH FEE WAIVERS, THEN THAT HAS TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL.

TRUE.

THE WAY THAT IT READS NOW IS YOU'RE JUST THE RECOMMENDING BODY. YOU'RE NOT THE FINAL APPROVAL BODY. SO IT DOESN'T SAY APPROVED BY PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL. IT'S A RECOMMENDATION FROM YOU AND THEN FINAL APPROVAL FROM CITY COUNCIL.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. OH, WAIT A MINUTE. IS THIS A PUBLIC HEARING?

NO.

IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE WHO WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. MR. HERNANDEZ. MR. HERNANDEZ. MR. HERNANDEZ. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO MAKE THE MODIFICATIONS COUNCIL TO MAKE THE MODIFICATIONS COUNCIL TO MAKE THE MODIFICATIONS TO 77504 AND MAKE PLANNING AND TO 77504 AND MAKE PLANNING AND TO 77504 AND MAKE PLANNING AND ZONING THE FINAL APPROVER FOR THE ZONING THE FINAL APPROVER FOR THE ZONING THE FINAL APPROVER FOR THE TREATMENT MOVEM

Seeing none, we'll call the vote. And that passes six to one. With that, we are adjourned. Oh, wait, wait, yes. Mr. Pollard, push your button. You're going to ask.

So I mentioned to you prior to and I just want to put it on the record before we adjourn. I would like to see us have an agenda item in the next meeting or the meeting after next that we request that city council allow us to start a rezoning and examine the zoning of North Shore.

Yeah, I do too.

Let's just have it put on the next agenda. We can't take action tonight.

No, but what we can do is answer our phone. What we can do is put on the agenda a discussion a recommendation to City Council to rezone the North Shore area good right yes so in terms of

The request to receive a presentation on I'm just seeking clarification on the zoning's in North Shore in the North Shore area and recommend it would be your recommendation to then have City Council initiate city initiated zoning on these properties to reason them because.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE CAN START A ZONING REQUEST ON OUR OWN. IT HAS TO BE BY CITY COUNCIL REQUEST TO US.

I'M PURELY SEEKING CLARIFICATION ON THAT AGENDA.

A WORK SESSION SETTING. WHAT I WANT TO DO IS TO DISCUSS AND GO OVER THE CURRENT ZONING AND DETERMINE A ZONING RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO CHANGE IT.

GOT IT.

SO THAT WE GO TO COMMERCIAL AND NOT HAVE, FOR INSTANCE, NEW NEIGHBORHOOD FORMATION.

SURE, AND WE CAN NOT THEN OPEN THAT UP FOR WORK SESSION AT THE MEETING, BUT WE KNOW WHAT TO BRING FORWARD. I didn't want to start talking about it here.

Mr. Blades. I was just going to add, I thought that was already presented that we were going to get a presentation on the North Shore. And I think after that presentation, Mr. Pollard, is when we would then make any sort of suggestions. Because I think to say let's have a presentation and have a recommendation to rezone, we should get the presentation first and then decide what we should do.

Well, you can get a presentation in the work session.

Yeah. That's all I'm saying. Let's get the presentation.

Yeah. Work session is fine. Just something to get moving toward a resolution so we don't keep seeing.

But by the same token, we can have that in a work session and then make a motion or reach a consensus during the meeting to present.

And it's not that I'm trying to bypass recode. I'm looking at just the north shore, not the entire city, just that area. And again, I don't know that we know when recode will start back.

Any other inputs or suggestions? Minnell? Hearing none, then we'll adjourn the meeting.