Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the City of Rowlett Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for July 28, 2026. As authorized by Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code, this meeting may be convened into 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, REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION OR CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESSES ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. FOR PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT, IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITY'S INPUT FORM ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE BEFORE 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, INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. It is seven o'clock. We do have a quorum, so we will call the meeting to order. Next item is citizen's 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 citizen's input. Tammy, do we have any input? Okay. Last chance. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the citizen's input. Next item on the agenda is consent agenda. The following may be acted upon in one motion, the Planning and Zoning Commissioner or a citizen may request items to be removed from the consent agenda for individual consideration. Our consent agenda consists of consider approving the minutes for the July 14th, 2026 regular meeting Consider an action to approve a tree removal permit on the property located at 2801 Main Street. The site is zoned planned development with a base zoning of M2 General Manufacturing and C2 General Commercial Retail, consisting of approximately 1.47 acres. And consider the action to approve the trails of Cottonwood Creek Phase 5 final plat, the approximately 41.8 acres. 7, 8-acre site as part of the William Blevins Survey, abstract number 8, and the ML Price Survey, abstract number 257, located in the city of Rowlett and the city of Garland, Rockwall County, Texas. Commissioners, would anybody like to pull an item? Seeing none, then we'll go ahead. I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Jobe has made a motion. Push your RTS and let's just make that legal. Yes, I move to approve the as read. Consent agenda is read. Mr. Dameron has seconded that motion. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. And that passes five to zero. Who's?

Who's?

Well, then again, maybe it'll be six to zero.

It doesn't register. Mr. Blades.

It says not working.

Push it with your finger. BY A SHOW OF HANDS. ALL IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL OPPOSED. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 6-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOVING ON TO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON. WILL BE LIMITED THREE MINUTES. REGISTRATION FORMS AND STRUCTURES ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ITEM 4A. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT to allow for an accessory structure with an area greater than 500 square feet on a property zone, single-family SF-40. The approximately 1.24-acre property is located at 1925 Stallion Circle, also described as part of Lot 24, Block 2 of the Dexham Estates, No. 2, in the city of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. Liliana.

Good evening, commissioners. Liliana Morejon, senior planner. The request in front of you tonight is for the approval of a special use permit for an accessory structure exceeding 500 square feet. The accessory structure has already been constructed. Because it exceeds the maximum size permitted by right, an SUP is required to bring the property into conformance. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER INTERSECTION OF STALION CIRCLE AND PALOMINO DRIVE, SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 1925 STALION CIRCLE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONE SF40. OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THE STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED FOLLOWING THAT PERMIT APPROVAL. FOLLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION, STAFF DETERMINED THAT THE STRUCTURE EXCEEDED 500 SQUARE FOOT THRESHOLD. and required a special use permit. The property owner was notified and subsequently was required to apply for an SUP application. The request in front of you tonight is specifically to bring this existing structure into compliance with no additional site improvements or changes to the proposed site. This 1.24 acre lot, it lives within the Dexham Estates number one subdivision. The primary residence is about 2,700 square feet. There's also an attached garage at approximately 667 square feet. The existing permitted structure at 2,200 square feet and three additional structures that staff was able to observe when we went out to the site. And we think it's approximately 200 square feet. THERE ARE NO PERMIT RECORDS FOR THESE THREE STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. THE APPROVED BUILDING PLANS AGAIN SHOW A 2200 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BUILT OVER CONCRETE FOUNDATION. PER SECTION 77303CA OF THE RDC, THERE ARE STANDARDS THAT APPLY FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND AS YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY BEFORE, WE LOOK AT LOCK COVERAGE, HEIGHT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. The maximum lock coverage for this SF40 district is 35% of the rear lock coverage. Based on the information available, the total rear yard coverage represents approximately 15%, so it complies with those standards. Per the building permit, the accessory structure is 16 feet tall. The applicant provided information related to how high the house is, and it's about 21 feet. therefore complying with the height requirement. The building, as you can see in the site plan in front of you, it's over three feet from the rear property yard and, according to the applicant, 33 feet west of the property line. And these are current photos on how the accessory structure looks from the front, the stallion circle. and as you can see also the accessory structures nearby the building in question. The code also defines accessory buildings or accessory structures as a permanent building or structure affixed to the ground subordinate to that primary structure, the use in which is incidental to that dominant use of the primary structure or premise. The applicant did cite using the structure for parking of personal vehicles. In this instance, staff finds the structure to be subordinate to that primary residence and incidental to the residential use of the property. Staff sent out notices July 17th, and as of today, we've received two in opposition and one in favor within our 200-foot notices. And within our 500-foot courtesy notice, we received two in opposition and zero in favor. The requested SUP would allow this exist, approving this requested SUP would allow for the existing 2,200 square foot accessory structure in a property zone as a 40. Although the structure has already been constructed, it complies with all applicable RDC requirements for lock coverage, height and setback requirements. So based on these findings, staff does recommend approval of the requested special use permit. COMMISSIONS, YOU ASK THE RECOMMENDING BODY MAY APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUEST. THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM.

I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

OKAY.

AND THIS MIGHT BE KIND OF A HARD ONE. BUT YOU SAY THIS WAS A PERMIT WAS PULLED TO BUILD THIS STRUCTURE? THAT'S CORRECT. YES. A 2,200-square-foot structure when anything over 500 square feet requires the SUP. I mean, if it was 510, I could see we might have overlooked it. Ms. Molyneux.

Commissioners what I can say is that upon review it was realized that the permit was pulled prior to a cold reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a sup through the public hearing process. You raise a question on how did that happen. Unfortunately, it was a staffer and we have to follow the procedures in the rally development code and that is why we are here today.

Appreciate that. And just to reiterate the fact that the permit was pulled, all inspections were performed, plans reviewed, and everything was satisfactory. Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any further questions for staff? Mr. Pollard.

Mine is almost exactly what the chairman asked, but I would like one other bit of clarity. Was there any, in your finding out or investigation of this, while there was a mist coming forward for an SUP, was there anybody that presented, I'm trying to figure out how to put this, Any promises or any anything that was stated to the applicant that he did not need an issue P or any that he complied or was there any any red flags that they came up.

It's anybody misled. The small.

Commissioners, I cannot speak to what conversations transpired between prior leadership in the Community Development Department with the applicant. Obviously, the applicant submitted after coordinating and speaking with the staff to determine what the procedure is. So, I'm not in a position to answer that question because I do not have that answer. I do not have that historical reference.

Thank you. The reason why I ask is because we've had one other, since I was on BOA and PNZ come, that was supposed to have some things done, and it's become a shooting war between neighbors. And that's the reason why I ask. Go ahead, Manuel.

I understand the purpose of the question. If I had that information, I would definitely divulge it. The applicant is present, and I'm sure they'll be able to explain how they got to the point that they got to. I do want to iterate that the staff before you is actually following the rules and regulations as identified and articulated in the Rowlett Development Code.

Any other questions, Commissioners, for staff? Is the applicant here? Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

I don't believe so. He's just here if you all have any questions.

Okay.

Commissioners, do we have questions for the applicant?

No? Okay. That's fine.

Would you like to come and speak? Okay, so this one talk. Okay, excellent. This is a public hearing. So at this time, I will open the floor to the public hearing. Tammy.

Greg Craig, please.

My name's Gregory Craig. I live at 1914 Stallion Circle. And done already?

I think your time's up.

OK. So I wanted to speak a little longer than three minutes. My wife wanted to speak, but she's not here. So if that's OK, it will run just a little longer.

Could you go ahead and reset the clock five minutes? OK.

I live in the corner house of Stallion Circle. I want to first thank the mayor. I want to thank Manal, the interim city manager, and the folks with the city planning department. I can relate to being on your side of this podium. I was once on PNZ. I've been on Park Board. I've been involved with a lot of things out in the city of Rowlett. And I'm also a landscape architect. I have 46 years of experience. So I'm used to dealing with ordinances and some things like this, right? How local ordinance determine how things get built. So brief history about Dexma States. Our neighbor has been under intense pressure from developers of adjoining properties since 1990 when my family moved here. That's 36 years of dealing with stuff, of people trying to do things. I'll mention a few. The city wanted to build a sewer monitor back in the 90s, right? DART wanted to build the right-of-way and tear out all our trees along our development. There was a subdivision across Dexham Road that wanted to put in small homes, casitas. There was a massive three-story warehouse that was going to be built along Dexham Road and 66. The last one was a rental developer that wanted to put on south on Dexham Road, he wanted to add twice as many rental homes on less property than is at Dexham Estates. The reason I mentioned this is because we fought them. We came to council, we came to PNZ as a group. And we were able to keep them from affecting our quality of life and our home values, because that's where it boils down to, right? Your home values, your home is the most important thing you own, right? And now we have to fight internally with one of our neighbors because he's decided to erect a massive barn and I appreciate the fact that you have some pictures but that doesn't really have how many of them have you gone out there and looked at that barn all right it's massive 2200 square feet you realize that our subdivision we have sf40 it's a minimum 2400 square feet it's only 200 square foot less than one of our houses If you approve this red barn, this accessory building, which is already erected on his property, you will open up Pandora's box. Why? Because you are setting a precedence. All homeowners will ask, well, if they can build it, why? Or any neighborhood in Rowlett. That building a large metal building in a nice residential subdivision like Dexum Estate is going to lower property values, period. Many of my neighbors, including myself, have lived there and paid property taxes for over three decades. But what happens if they want to retire? What happens if they want to sell their house? By approving this metal barn, you have effectively lowered the home values of everybody at Dexum Estates. And you've opened up the city for legal action. The metal barn belongs on a farm. And that's the only thing I could call it is a metal barn. And all you have to do is go out there and look at it. And I sent pictures, right? It's not attractive. It's red, it's ugly, it's big, it's metal. This metal barn belongs out in the country. It belongs on a farm. At one of the homeowners meetings, my neighbor discovered that our covenants, where we live, were not going to be renewed. So he thought he would have the freedom to build what he wanted. I don't believe he was ignorant of city requirements. He has lived here longer than I have. And he once had a commercial auto lube store in Rowlett, off of Rowlett Road. After submitting a request for city records, I reviewed the following two documents from the city. The remodel permit clearly states that an SUP is required. It clearly states on the remodel permit. I don't know how a mistake could be made. It clearly states that. Secondly, on the building permit, it states that it's subject to the city of Rowlett requirements. He built this metal barn before it was approved, before this required public hearing. The massive metal barn, as we've already said, it's 2,200 square foot, 16 foot tall, 44 foot wide, 50 foot long, cost him over $32,000 to build it. And like I said, we're zoned SF 40. So he's built a barn almost as big as our house's minimum. He already has multiple storage buildings on his lot and I think it's more than four. I think it's more like six. You got to go out there and look. The other thing I want to mention is I'm a landscape architect. Those are canopy trees that are deciduous. They're going to drop their leaves. I wish I would have taken a picture when he first built it I sent you one of it under construction, but when he first built it and had it completed, I wish I would have taken a picture in the winter because everybody's going to see it. Everybody's going to see it. There's not going to be any leaves around the trees to block it. How would you feel if this happened to you and your neighbors? It does not take a brain surgeon to understand why a metal building doesn't belong here. We have always relied on the city to help us, and I hope...

Any other speakers? Okay, at this time, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And I'll entertain a motion, preferably in the affirmative for the purposes of the legal counsel. Chair, if y'all would like to ask me some questions, I would be happy to. Understand. Thank you. Well, do the commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Sir, if you would come forward, then please. If you would, state your name and city of record. Thank you, sir. Mr. Pollard.

Can you explain to us, when you went, well, I guess first of all, did you go personally down and get the building permit?

The first contact I made was with Derek Hall, and it was by email. Derek Hall immediately passed it on to Deidre, I forget her last name. I have it in here somewhere. And from there, I would ask for help. At each point, you might look at the time period on this. This started last summer, and this was a very difficult task. I didn't realize it would be that difficult. Derek moved it to Deidre. Deidre turned it over to Michael King. Michael King called me and dealt with it there on after. And each time I asked Michael King, what do I do next? And I'm not sure they understood.

Okay, so let me go back for a second, because I'm not sure that we're understanding each other. So when you got to building permit, did the contractor go pull it for you? Or did you personally go down and I did marches you did I did at the time that you went in to get the building permit? Did it anytime somebody tell you, you needed to have an issue?

No.

Okay.

All right. Like I said, my first contact with Derek Hull, and that was only by email. I never physically saw him or spoke with him. He passed it to Deidre. Deidre passed it to Michael. And from there, it was just whoever showed up. And in your earlier question, there were no promises made. I was begging just to get it done. And I... Hate to point out some incompetence, but these ladies weren't part of it.

I'm sure they appreciate that.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Thank you, sir. Is there anything else you want to say?

I would like to throw out one other thing. Dexam Estates was started by a developer. And his point in building that was to make it a horse community. streets are named, Dexham Estates is the main one, Stallion Circle, Clydesdale, and Palomino. And when you go through the deed restrictions, it says the larger lots can't have horses. How can you have a horse without something to put the horse in? I don't plan on having a horse. In fact, that was one of Michael King's questions to me. But What the area was designed for was just the purpose I'm using it for. I'm probably the oldest tenant in the neighborhood, 38 years. 48 years and all that. I have no intention on ruining my property values or anyone else's. When DART came through, same issue came up, gonna ruin our property values. Our property values have continued to climb. when the city built the park behind us. We had people leave our neighborhood because it's going to make our property values go down. I disagreed. I stayed. Property values have gone up. I can't help with the color. Maybe if Greg had discussed it with me, we could have picked a different color. I don't know. But I walked in this trusting the planning and zoning. and did everything they asked me to do. There was no backside, backroom conversations. Like I said, it was difficult to get anything out of them. During that time, people were quitting, people were leaving. I don't know what was going on. But if you look, I didn't get it approved finally, and I have documentation from approval on January 20th, and it started in September of 2025. I could have had the building up in two months. but it was waiting on the city to tell me what to do and get their approval.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Once again, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Chairman, I move for the purposes of moving this to a discussion to approve the SUP as the applicant has requested.

We have a motion to approve the SUP as requested. We have a second by Mr. Jobe. Discussion? Mr. Jobe.

So what happens. I know this is a recommendation, but what happens if it's not approved is I mean tears to build them. So look to I mean to me based on what we're seeing here is just a unfortunate failure. He did everything by the book. He asked those questions. What do I need to do? What do I need to do? What do I need to do? Unfortunately, on the city end, we failed on what was required for him. So that's that that time looking at here is that it's a very bad situation on both ends I can see it I appreciate the comments from both the individuals and I can understand totally. We're each individual is coming from but I I have a hard time not approving it for the fact that we messed up on the city and to approve the permit and allow it to get to the point it's at. So that's my thought.

Thank you.

Mr. Pollard.

In many areas of this city, We have SF-40, SF-20 lots. The provision of the building code has been for many, many years that anything over 500 square feet, you get an SUP. But there is a requirement that you have to have certain size or larger lot. for me to put a 2,200 square foot facility in addition to my house on a 10,000 square foot lot wouldn't fly. But it is permissible with an SUP, 20,000 and a 40,000 square foot lot. We have, and I could go through streets after streets. We've approved them in Tolar Bay, or not Tolar Bay, but Tolar Road facilities and other places. And this is an acre lot. And... If I lived in Dexam Estates, I'm not sure that I'd like the red, even though that's my favorite color. I'm not sure that that's what I would have painted it. But nevertheless, the guy meets the requirements of what we typically approve in other places in this city with a 40,000 square foot lot. I mean, he's not taller than his house. It's smaller than his house. It's setback rules were complied with. So I don't see any... reason that he can't have a facility. We just approved one on Teller Road, and it's not the only one. There's a bunch on Teller Road that's got barns, if you will, and they're on one-acre lots. So that's what I'm looking at.

mr dameron so he pulls the permit was told he did not need an sup was so before it was built he didn't have to come to bnz no no well the true process for this would have been had he submitted his permit

They should have picked up on the fact that it's greater than 500 square foot. OK, in addition to submitting this permit, you need to get an SUP before we can approve the permit. OK, so he would have come right. So he didn't have to come here because it wasn't an issue because they didn't tell him or they didn't provide him that information. Any other comments from commissioners? OK. It's unfortunate that the staff kind of dropped the ball on that because that's exactly what happened here. Had he been told, he would have come in front of us before he poured any concrete or set the foundation or anything. And we could have had this discussion. We could have listened to the neighbor's inputs. We could have made a decision, which, to be honest with you, based on the fact that it meets all the criteria, that the city has established. We're unable to dictate materials of construction. According to the state law, correct? My lawyer backs me up on that one. And that changed two years ago, I think.

Two or three years ago.

Five years ago? Okay, time flies. The state said we are no longer able to dictate the material construction. So it meets all of the requirements. We would have ended up more than likely approving it or recommending its approval. And right now, again, it still meets all the requirements and we're really just trying to backfill the process by now submitting an SUP and there's really nothing that I see that would tell me that I can't or that I should disapprove this. So, I mean, that's the way I have to look at it. Mr. Pollard.

Let me say this, and city attorney can tell me you can't say that. But, and hopefully things are kosher here, but the point is that I, too, as one of the neighbors mentioned, I would have been extremely upset to have the applicant disregarded being told you need an SUP, and he just fragrantly went out and built it and then said, I'll build it and then ask forgiveness later. Probably would not support this, but that's not what happened. And I can't penalize the guy for city dropping the ball and not telling him, hey, you gotta have an SUP, but everything else meets the building criteria that we've approved many times.

Or I think another thing would have been, had he not pulled a permit at all and built the structure, it would definitely be a different story as far as approval or recommending approval or not, on my part at least. Mr. Blades.

Which he has done on three other occasions at least.

No, they're all under 200 square feet.

But evidently the city said there was no records of any permits.

Don't need one.

I think one of the oddities of this situation is that Looking at the plat, he has a large lot that's larger than all the other lots in the area, especially the neighbors on Stallion Circle, it seems like. And it's not like a situation where every house on the neighborhood is acre plus. But I'm also in accordance with what everyone else is saying is that He meets all the criteria except for whatever reason he didn't come, the city didn't tell him to, he needed an SUP. And he probably would have been approved. In my short opinion here, I think we've approved two or three auxiliary structures greater than 500 feet. So.

Any other comments? Seeing none, then we have a motion on the floor to approve the SUP as presented with a second. So we'll call the vote. And that passes six to zero. And with that, we're adjourned. Thank you.