CARROLLTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING and WORKSESSION MINUTES

FEBRUARY 7, 2006

The City Council of the City of Carrollton, Texas convened in a Regular Meeting and Worksession on Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 5:45 p.m. with the following members present: Mayor Becky Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Terry Simons, Councilmembers Tim Hayden, John Mahalik, Pat Malone, Ron Branson and Herb Weidinger. Councilmember Larry Williams was absent. Also present were City Manager Leonard Martin, Asst. City Managers Beth Bormann, Marc Guy, Bob Scott, Director of Managed Competition Tom Guilfoy, Assistant to the City Manager Erin Kasal, City Attorney Clayton Hutchins and City Secretary Ashley Mitchell.

Mayor Miller announced that Councilmember Williams was not present for the meeting.

* * * * PRE-MEETING* * * *

2. Receive supplemental staff information and responses to questions.

Item 35- Lori Levy, Planning Manager stated that this was a request for approval of a Special Use Permit for a 60-foot tall cellular tower for T-Mobile. The 500-square foot lease space is located east of Province Drive, on the north side of Rosemeade parkway and is zoned PD-60 for the (o-2) Office District. She said that on January 5, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the request. She said that written opposition had been received on this case. On January 12, 2006, the applicant submitted a request to appeal the Commission’s recommendation and since the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the request, a ¾ affirmative vote of the City Council was required to approve the application.

Councilmember Hayden asked if they had looked at other alternatives. Ms. Levy stated that part of the City’s requirements that towers must be 5000 feet apart from other towers. She said they also encourage co-locations and to her knowledge that work had not been done.

Councilmember Branson stated that if this request was rejected how long before they could bring up this request again. Ms. Levy stated since the Council normally rejects an item with prejudice it can’t come back for 1 year unless the Council decides otherwise. He said he did not think that this company had looked at other sites. Ms. Levy stated that this was not the reason for the denial but that it did not meet policy requirements of being adjacent to residential and land use. She said that if the Council did not specify without prejudice then it is presumed to be with prejudice then the rule applies.

Item No. 36, Lori Levy Planning Manager stated that this was a request for an amendment to PD-142 to allow lighting for the softball and baseball fields at Creekview High School. She said the 69.5-acre site is located north of Frankford Road, on the west side of Old Denton Road and is zoned PD-142 for the (SF-10/18) Single Family District. She noted that on January 5, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the request. She said on January 13, 2006, the applicant submitted a request to appeal the Commission’s recommendation to the February 7, 2006, City Council meeting and that they had received written opposition on the case. Since the Planning and Zoning REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 2 Commission recommended denial of the request, a ¾ affirmative vote of the City Council was required to approve the application.

Councilmember Branson stated that he had seen several emails are on this subject. He said that one thing he had heard through some of the emails there has been statements made and accepted as fact that there is a written agreement between the City and the neighborhood that there would never be lights on the field. He stated that he had also been told that this agreement does not exist. He said that there was a similar agreement that does address drainage and retaining walls but not the lighting of the field. Ms. Levy stated that included in the packet was a letter from the Architect addressing the stipulations that would be required of the case and for council review at that time. She stated that as far as the lights, it states that at this time they were not asking for the lights, however, they did not want the city to preclude the fact that in the future there may be a need to allow lights as the fields were expanded. She stated they were asking not to have to come back in order to have lights on fields and without having to have staff approval. Councilmember Branson stated that as a Council who represents the city is it a true statement to say that there would never be lights there. Ms. Levy stated that it is not necessarily a true statement and the fact that the zoning case was approved and at the time stated that they did not need the lights, but that does not mean that a zoning case can’t ever come back before the Council.

Councilmember Mahalik asked if the staff is approval and the school board is the one that owns the land and is requesting the change. Ms. Levy stated that was correct.

Councilmember Malone stated that people did not feel that the school district had adequately informed them about the lights and had not met with them about some of the problems they were going to have regarding this. She asked if the school district did everything they should have done. Ms. Levy stated that she was not sure what all has taken place as far as meeting with the neighbors and the city had notified everyone within a 200 feet of the zoning. She said that many of the parents and students were aware of what the school was asking for. Councilmember Malone asked if the school district had been involved in letting the neighbors know what was going on. Ms. Levy stated that she did not.

Johnny Hibbs representative of Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD said that when this was presented to them as a request they sent out a mailer to every adjacent home and he said he was not completely sure what every adjacent home that was but it did include all the homes that border on the property. He said they asked for feedback and provided them with an email address and a phone number. He stated that it was posted as an agenda item on their December 15th meeting which was an open meeting and hearing. He said that they did hear from those both for and against the proposal to be in lights. He said he was aware that some of the parents had done some surveys separate from what they did.

Item 37 Lori Levy, Planning Manager stated that this was a request for approval of a zoning change for the Thomas Center property from PD-145 for the (SF-7/14) Single Family District to (TC) Transit Center for the Urban Fringe District in order to develop townhouses. The 4.2-acre site is located at the northeast corner of Northside and Denton Drive and is zoned PD-145 for the (SF-7/14) Single Family District. She noted that on January 5, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Approval with stipulations. She said the ordinance reflects the Commission’s action. She said that although the case did receive unanimous approval from the Commission there was REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 3 written opposition filed. Therefore, the application had been placed on the agenda for Individual Consideration.

There were no questions from Council regarding this item.

Item No. 38 Lori Levy, Planning Manager stated that this was a request for approval of an amendment to PD-52 for the (MF-18) Multi-Family District with modified development standards for a condominium development and to revoke SUP-258 for a retirement complex. The 5.83-acre site is located south of Keller Springs Road, on the west side of Josey Lane and is zoned PD-52 for the (LR-2) Local Retail District with SUP-258 for a retirement complex. She noted that this would be an update and that on January 10, 2006, the City Council closed the public hearing and continued the case until the February 7, 2006 Council Meeting to allow the applicant additional time to address concerns regarding the technical details of the project layout. The revised staff report addresses the Council’s concerns regarding the building elevations, the amount of on-site parking, the incorporation of historical elements into the design, and possible cut-through traffic on the adjacent developed office and retail property.

• Building Elevations – Dennis Turnball, the city’s development partner in this project has agreed to incorporate the front and rear building elevations – which the Council has previously seen – into the property’s amended zoning requirements. As such they would be development stipulations to be met as a condition of building permit issuance.

• On-Site Parking – As shown, the proposed development requires 203 parking spaces. Through a combination of garage spaces, tandem driveway spaces and surface spaces, 290 total spaces are provided, exceeding the code-required parking by 87 spaces.

• Historical Elements – Numerous historical elements from the existing property will be included into the development of the proposed condominiums which include:

o “ARCH” form at the Porte-cochere is incorporated into the garage door design. o Millsap or leuters accent stone at existing Family Room is incorporated at entry on new buildings. o Rebuild original entry columns adjacent to Josey Lane in landscape area. o Combine replication of stone entry columns into wrought fence, at perimeter of property. o Build stone retaining wall adjacent parking and water feature to resemble existing retaining wall behind family residence. o Replicate stone rake block at the intersection of the roof line and the top of exterior wall at existing house into new structures. o Relocate concrete Figurine with shell to area of pool and water feature. o Install plaques noting historic significance of various elements at Josey Ranch. o Install Fountain to enhance the aesthetic qualities of the Lake.

REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 4 Cut-Through Traffic – In January 2006, the Engineering Department developed a trip generation and traffic circulation assessment for the proposed development. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for this type of development, a calculation of site traffic is presented in the Exhibit. The total (in/out) AM Peak hour site traffic is 44 vehicles-per-hour (VPH) and the total (in/out) PM Peak hour traffic is 54 vehicles-per-hour. Based on regional traffic model information, traffic was distributed in the four cardinal directions. The trip distributions are shown in other exhibits, which also show the resulting trip assignment along the adjacent streets for the AM and PM peak hours. From this information, staff can reasonably predict that during the morning rush hour, there is a potential for up to 21 vehicles to “cut through” the adjacent site. This number drops down to 13 vehicles during the evening rush hour. Due to the fact that traffic volumes drop off significantly between the morning and afternoon rush hour, the potential for “cut through” traffic will drop down to probably less than 5 vehicles per hour.

Based on the total number of trips generated and the proposed circulation, staff has designed a driveway feature at the entrance of the proposed development that is intended to discourage traffic exiting the proposed development from making a straight ahead movement through the adjacent tract rather than directly accessing Josey Lane.

Ms. Levy stated that Mr. Turnball had worked diligently with staff to try and address all of the concerns voiced in the previous council meeting. She stated that his business partner has committed to a minimum re-pitch of 9 to 12 and this has been placed on the elevations are incorporated now with site plans and the ordinance. She said that the developer is now bound by those elevations and roof pitch. She noted that there was a surplus of 87 parking spaces and there are 290 spaces on site. The business partner has clarified the originating location of all of the building materials and architectural elements that are to be incorporated throughout the site. She said that there was a traffic circulation assessment that was conducted by the engineering staff. She noted that there was a raised driveway feature to try and discourage some of the cut-through traffic. She stated that if the Council would like they could further make the drive access to the south which is now an emergency exit only a tenant exit only and revise that on the plan. She said this additional change should be added to the motion if the council decided to go with that additional exit plan.

Mayor Pro Tem Simons asked if there was a way to cut off the access to the property from the north. Ms. Levy stated no because there is a Developers Agreement in place.

Councilmember Mahlik asked if there no way to change that entry and asked if the developer’s agreement was for all of the property owners in that section. He asked what would happen if the property owner wanted it closed. Ms. Levy stated that she would presume that if it was going to be changed all parties would need to agree to relinquish it. Clayton Hutchins, City Attorney, stated that the City does not have any authority over a Developer’s Agreement to change it.

Consent Agenda

Item No. 23 Lori Levy, Planning Manager presented an overview of the Professional Services Agreement for the Proposed Plan Update and Market Strategy for Downtown Carrollton Station Area and Market Strategy for NTTA Property. She stated that the request to permit the City Manager to enter into a contract for professional services with REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 5 Dennis Wilson, Townscape, Inc for planning services. She stated that Anne Ricker, Leland Consulting Group would be doing the marketing strategies for the Downtown Carrollton Rail Station Area and the NTTA property. She said the fee would not exceed $120,844.00. She said that the City anticipates participation with 50% by NTTA and staff has their verbal agreement. She stated staff intends to bring back an Interlocal Agreement with this group with that 50% commitment to Council on the March agenda. She noted that 50% would equal to $24,000 which is the services for the market studies. She stated that the full amount was being requested at this time.

Councilmember Malone asked if Carter Burgess was hired to do this same thing. Ms. Levy stated that this group was a different contract and Carter Burgess was for the station planning. She said this new contract was to expand the planned area boundaries as has been learned to be the magnitude of the whole station and the HUB will be much larger than previously anticipated. She asked if Dennis Wilson was involved with this group. Ms. Levy stated not directly.

Councilmember Williams has been seated with the Council at 6:00 p.m.

Item No. 29 John Mahlik asked about the price of the physicals that would be administered through the renewed contract with Dr. Loehr. John Murphy, Fire Chief stated that this was the average dollar figure for the 135 personnel. He said that all of the requested items that are mandatory exams per NFPA 1582 Chapter 7, are included in a yearly physical are costly and the price for each one adds up. He also stated that this would include any of the voluntary exams that may be requested such as shots. Mr. Martin stated that the Electron Beam CT Heart Scan cost around $150 and along with other test the cost would be much more than what is being offered with this agreement.

Item No. 31 Councilmember Williams asked if hiring a Juvenile Case Manager was going to be done now or when the funds were available. Leonard Martin, City Manager stated it was on board and part of the budget.

Item No. 34 Councilmember Williams asked for a brief presentation by Cesar Molina, Director of Engineering. Mr. Molina gave an overview of the revision of the General Design Standards. He noted that among the changes proposed are: ƒ Allowing cracks to be sealed in pavement replacement projects instead of full panel replacements; ƒ Adding a section on traffic sign and sign post requirements; ƒ Adding a section on detention pond requirements which provide aesthetic standards; ƒ Allowing three different types of fire hydrants; ƒ Allowing HDPE recycled manhole adjustment rings.

He noted that staff was proposing the changes to the General Design Standards in an effort to improve the service life of infrastructure, maintenance, and to incorporate new materials that are now available to help meet those needs. He said there would not be any financial implications to the city’s operating budget as a result of the adoption of the proposed amendments.

Councilmember Williams stated that he was in favor of all these things and for the city to have this type of flexibility.

REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 6 3. Council convened in Executive Session at 6:14 p.m. pursuant to Texas Government Code:

• Section 551.071 for private consultation with the City Attorney to seek legal advice with respect to pending and contemplated litigation and including all matters on this agenda to which the City Attorney has a duty under the Texas Rules of Discipline and Professional conduct regarding confidential communication with the City Council, and. • Section 551.072 to discuss certain matters regarding real property • Section 551.074 to discuss personnel matters. - Boards and Commissions • Section 551.087 to discuss Economic Development

4. Council adjourned into open session at 6:57 p.m.

* * * * WORKSESSION * * * *

5. Briefing on DART Station Planning Study.

There was no presentation regarding this item as it was postponed to the February 21, 2006 meeting.

6. Briefing on Conflict Disclosure Statements.

There was no presentation regarding this item as it was postponed to the February 21, 2006 meeting.

INVOCATION by Pastor Roland Boyce of Redeemer Covenant Church.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE will be led by Boy Scout Troop 574.

PRESENTATIONS

7. Presentation of the 2006 City of Carrollton Outstanding Business Award.

Brad Mink, Director of Economic Development stated that in November of last year, the Dallas Business Journal announced the 100 Fastest-Growing Private Companies in the Metroplex. Three Carrollton companies were in the top 100. In fact, the number #1 company was Southwest Sanitary, Co, a distributor and redistributor of food products and chemicals. The other two Carrollton companies were listed as number #54-Geneva Aerospace Inc, a manufacturer of UAV flight control technologies and PDL Floor Designs, listed as #91 which is a floor covering sales and installation company. He noted in honor of these companies, the City would like to award them with the 2006 City of Carrollton Outstanding Business Award.

PDL Floor Designs was recognized as number #91 in the top 100 Fastest-Growing Companies and President Leon Daggerman was presented the 2006 City of Carrollton Outstanding Business Award.

REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 7 Geneva Aerospace Inc., was recognized as number #54 in the top 100 Fastest-Growing Companies and Dave Felleo, CEO, Vince Longey, Vice President, Sales and Marketing and Co-founder and Shaun Fitzgerald, Director of Operations were presented the 2006 City of Carrollton Outstanding Business Award.

Southwest Sanitary, Co. was recognized as number #1 in the 100 Fastest-Growing Companies and Camille Chaney, CEO was presented the 2006 City of Carrollton Outstanding Business Award.

Mr. Mink acknowledged Alex Voo a Senior High School student from Newman Smith High School who has worked as the Economic Developments Intern and congratulated him on the outstanding job he had done through gathering all the research and putting together the project for the award winners.

PUBLIC FORUM

8. Hearing of any citizen/visitor on items not listed on the regular meeting agenda. Citizens/visitors should complete an appearance card located on the table at the entrance to the City Council Chambers. Speakers must address their comments to the presiding officer rather than to individual council members or staff; stand at the podium, speak clearly into the microphone and state your name and address prior to beginning your remarks; Speakers will be allowed a maximum of 5 minutes for testimony; Speakers making personal, impertinent, profane or slanderous remarks may be removed from the room; Unauthorized remarks from the audience, stamping of feet, whistles, yells and similar demonstrations will not be permitted; No placards, banners or signs will be permitted in the Chambers or in any other room in which the council is meeting; In accordance with the State Open Meetings Act, the City Council is restricted from discussing or taking action on items not listed on the agenda. Action can only be taken at a future meeting.

Shirley Demus Tarpley 1507Milam Way stated that she was displeased with Mayor and Council members that rode in the Martin Luther King Parade. She said there was no proclamation given at the ceremonies.

Julie Hall 1320 W. Branch Hollow Dr stated that she had started a business in her home and she has noticed that Eisenhower Street had become a major thoroughfare with motorist driving rapid speeds. She noted that it was posted at 30 M.P.H. and there is only one stop sign between Hebron and Frankford. She recommended and asked that the City look into a 4-way stop sign at the intersection of Eisenhower and Branch Hollow Drive. She would like to see something done at this intersection to slow the traffic down.

CONSENT AGENDA (*All items marked with a single asterisk are part of a Consent Agenda and require no deliberation by the Council. Each Council member has the prerogative of removing an item from this agenda so that it may be considered separately. Contracts and agreements are available in the City Secretary’s Office.)

Councilmember Williams moved approval of Consent Agenda Items No. 9-34. Seconded by Councilmember Hayden. The vote was cast 7-0 in favor of the motion.

MINUTES

*9. Consider approval of the December 20, Special Meeting, January 10, 2006 Regular Meeting and Worksession Minutes, January 17, 2006 Regular Meeting and Worksession Minutes and January 23, 2006 Special Meeting.

BIDS AND PURCHASES

*10. Consider approval of the purchase of bid #06-005 for Fertilizer to various vendors as recommended in an amount not to exceed $45,000.00.

REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 8 *11. Consider approval of the purchase of bid #06-006 for Ground Maintenance Service to VMC Landscape in an amount not to exceed $255,000.00.

*12. Consider approval of the purchase of bid #06-009 for Concrete to various vendors as recommended in an amount not to exceed $787,000.00.

*13. Consider approval of the purchase of bid #06-012 for Type A, B and D Asphalt to various vendors as recommended in an amount not to exceed $89,000.00.

*14. Consider approval of the purchase of bid #06-013 for Bleachers at McInnish Park Soccer Complex to Sturdisteel Company in an amount not to exceed $52,958.00.

*15. Consider approval of the purchase for Replacement Vehicles and Mower using an existing Interlocal Agreement with the Houston Galveston Area Council (HGAC) in an amount not to exceed $84,498.78.

CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS

*16. Consider authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Birkhoff, Hendricks and Conway, LLP for the Development of a TOD Master Plan for an amount not to exceed $70,000.00.

*17. Consider authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment with Terra-Solve for Underground Storage Tank Site Assessment (UST) and UST Compliance Work in an amount not to exceed $170,502.27.

*18. Consider authorizing the City Manager to approve a Supplementary Engineering Services Agreement with Halff Associates for the Old Denton Road Replacement Project in an amount not to exceed $352,202.00.

*19. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to award a Construction Contract to RKM Construction for Miscellaneous Water and Sanitary Sewer Replacements in an amount not to exceed $1,391,580.00

*20. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to award a Construction Contract to Craig Olden, Inc for Josey Park Retaining Wall Improvements in an amount not to exceed $88,190.00

*21. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to award a Construction Contract to Craig Olden, Inc for Furneaux Creek Channel Improvements Section 3 in an amount not to exceed $4,380,300.00

*22. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to award a Construction Contract to RKM Construction for Crosby Estates Sanitary Sewer Replacement, Phase 2 in an amount not to exceed $754,655.00

*23. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Townscape, Inc. for Preparation of the Updated Plan Area around the Rail Station and Leland Consulting Group for Preparation of the Market Strategy for the Downtown Carrollton Rail Station Area and Market Strategy for the NTTA Property in an amount not to exceed $120,844.00.

REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 9 *24. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 1 to RKM Construction for Crosby Estates Sanitary Sewer Replacement, Phase 1 in an amount not to exceed $57,170.00, for a revised contract amount of $1,231,622.50.

*25. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 1 to Santos Construction, Inc for Miscellaneous Alleys 05-02P in an amount not to exceed $35,000.00, for a revised contract amount of $886,287.50.

*26. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Contract to Genuine Auto Parts Company (NAPA) to Manage Warehouse Operations and Supply all Necessary Products for Fleet in an amount not to exceed $550,000.00.

RESOLUTIONS

*27. Consider a Resolution Adopting an Amended Investment Policy and Investment Strategies and Repealing Resolution 2872.

*28. Consider a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Acquire Easements for the Crosby Road from Broadway Street to Josey Lane Street Reconstruction Project.

*29. Consider a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with Dr. Charles Loehr, M.D. to Administer Physical Exams to Certain Employees of the City of Carrollton for an amount not to exceed $66,605.00.

*30. Consider a Resolution Extending the TXU Settlement Agreement.

ORDINANCES

*31. Consider an Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Fee Ordinance to Allow for Collection of a Juvenile Case Manager Fee.

*32. Consider an Ordinance Amending Section 52.020 of the City of Carrollton Code by Adopting an Amended Water Conservation and Drought Contingency Plan.

*33. Consider an Ordinance Amending Title 11 of the Carrollton City Code by Amending Chapter 188 Regulating the Registration and Inspection of Residential Rental Property.

*34. Consider an Ordinance Adopting Revised General Design Standards.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

35. Hold a public hearing and consider approving a Special Use Permit for a cellular tower for T-Mobile. The 500 square-foot lease space is located east of Province Drive, on the north side of Rosemeade Parkway and is zoned PD-60 for the (O-2) Office District. Case No. 01-06SUP2 T-Mobile/Dave Kirk.

Lori Levy, Planning Manager and briefed the Council regarding a request for a 60-foot tall T-Mobile cellular tower. She indicated the 500-square foot lease space was located east of Province Drive, on the north side of Rosemeade Parkway and was zoned PD-60 for the (o-2) Office District. She indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 10 recommended Denial of the request on January 5, 2006. She said on January 12, 2006, the applicant submitted a request to appeal the Commission’s recommendation to the February 7, 2006 City Council meeting. She said written opposition on the case had been filed and since the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the request, a ¾ affirmative vote of the City Council is required to approve the application.

Dave Kirk, Representative of T-Mobile, 3078 Bishop Hill, Carrollton, Texas, stated that his request had been denied at Planning and Zoning meeting and he had requested a continuance because he had a conflict and could not attend that hearing. He stated that this presentation was the first time the city had heard what T-Mobile was proposing. He said that the need for this site is a challenge that all wireless carriers have at the present time. He said that when his networks were first launched they had all the commercial areas, highways and all the easier sites. He said as more and more people use phones they have a greater need for capacity and coverage. He said this area which they are proposing as their site is residential. He shared handouts with the Council and said much of the site is largely residential and the drawings showed where the existing tower sites were. He said that the neighborhood where the tower was being proposed was a critical area which was not receiving coverage. He said the opposition that he had seen coming out of the Planning and Zoning meeting was with the visual impact. He stated that he sees a lot of telephone poles, flag poles and other things up in the air along Rosemeade where his site was being proposed. He said that he pushed hard to get the tower down to 60 feet because the engineers push for 80 to 100 feet tall and the 60 foot tower gets the customers in this area the coverage they needed. He showed drawings of the coverage area as it was today and the coverage area as it would be if the tower were installed. He stated that all cellular tower carriers are enforced by the FCC and the E-911 which means that if there were an accident you place a call to 911 and because of the GPS units in the phone and the equipment it locates the exact location of the emergency and directs the caller to the correct 911 call center and gives the call center an immediate call back number. He said without coverage the 911 call could be directed to various locations. He commented on the set-backs and said with a 3 to 1 set back there is no property in this region where he could meet that type of set back. He said he had spoken to the previous Urban Development Director and he had said that Carrollton had reduced that set back from 5 to 1 to a 3 to 1 if it was justified. He stated that the option on this site was not available. He said due to parking requirements, the site did not allow enough space to screen the equipment and they have spoken with the property owner and he said there is room to add two more parking spaces if that would please the city then they would still be able to landscape and screen the equipment.

Shai Roos, 2307 Stone Glen Lane said she lived one block from this property. She stated that she was a city planner and worked for the City of Dallas as their Chief Planner and had experience with these types of cases. She said she is a T-Mobile customer and she wanted to share with the Council that she was concerned about her safety in that she did not have a land line and twice in emergency situations her calls had dropped and she was unable to contact someone to help her. She said with the manner of landscaping these sites are required to have, there would not be a problem with it being an eye sore in the neighborhood. She stated that this was a mono-pole and she was in favor of the tower. She stated that she had checked with other carriers but they are much more expensive.

Robert Boston, 2104 Avignon Dr. and stated that he lives in the property directly behind this field and he is opposed to the tower because he has researched these types of towers in residential neighborhoods and he states that the towers are a health risk. He said that REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 11 there is still going to be a fear and potential risk for home buyers in this area when they come and see a 60 foot tower in the backyard of one of the homes. He stated that the city has a 6 foot fence restriction and T-Mobile is talking about putting a 60 foot tower behind his house. He said there is no way he could look out of the windows of his home and not see this tower. He stated that the tower would become an eyesore.

Councilmember Williams stated that he would probably be in favor of this case if it met the set back requirements and with no screening and it being to close to the residential area. He said that the dropped calls are aggravating to anyone at any time. He said what was before the Council was the question of whether or not this was a good use of the land. He said based on the facts that the site is out of compliance in so many areas he was not in favor of the SUP.

Councilmember Williams moved to close the public hearing and DENY Case No. 01-06SUP2-T-Mobile. Seconded by Councilmember Hayden. The vote was cast 7-0.

36. Hold a public hearing and consider approving an Amendment to PD-142 to allow lighting for the baseball and softball fields for Creekview High School. The 69.5- acre site is located north of Frankford Road, on the west side of Old Denton Road and is zoned PD-142 for the (SF-10/18) Single Family District. Case No. 01-06Z1 Creekview High School Athletic Field Lighting/Johnny Hibbs.

Lori Levy, Planning Manager stated this request was for an amendment to PD-142 to allow lighting for the softball and baseball fields at Creekview High School. She the site is a 69.5-acre site and is located north of Frankford Road, on the west side of Old Denton Road and is zoned PD-142 for the (SF-10/18) Single Family District. She noted on January 5, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended DENIAL of the request by a vote of 7 to 2. She noted that written opposition had been filed and therefore, a ¾ affirmative vote of the City Council was required to approve the application.

Mark Hyatt, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services for the Carrollton/Farmer Branch ISD stated that School Board member Robert Harris and Nancy Strickland were present along with Nancy Cline, Lynn Shapfen, Board President John Tepper and Dr. Annette Griffen, Superintendent of the school. He said it was obvious by those attending that they had significant interest in the issue. He said that Councilmember Branson mentioned history earlier and he thought it was an issue in this instance. He said that 10 years ago this month the School Board went before the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the zoning for this high school and their plans for the school. He said in the discussion there was a lot of public discussion about what could and should and needed to do to put a high school in this area. He said that it was thought then that the location was not for a high school. He said there were lots of topographical issues and the neighborhood had grown around it. He said that the district had grown to the point that the space was needed for high school students to go to school. He said it was thought that a high school could be placed on this site and be good neighbors to the community and provide a quality program for the kids. He said he believes that those standards had been met and with the interest present he believes that those programs at Creekview High School were important to all present. He stated they were really proud of the athletic program at the school. He said for the most part it was his belief that the school had been a good neighbor. He stated that when you put 2000 students inside of approximately 40 acres there is going to be noise and other issues. He said it is the desire of the school to REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 12 always be a good neighbor. He said what the district, parents and students were asking for was to put lights on the baseball and softball fields.

John Tepper, 2101 Lemans, President of the School Board of Trustees for C/FB ISD stated he was there to represent the Board. He stated that the Creekview High School sits on a 70-acre site and currently operates under PD-142 which was established on May 15, 1996 by the City of Carrollton. He stated one stipulations of PD-142 was lighting for the purpose of conducting nighttime activities on any athletic field, tennis court or any other recreational areas shall be prohibited. He stated that in 1996 no C/FB baseball or softball facilities had any lighting provisions. He stated Hebron High School which is located in the City of Carrollton opened with lighted baseball, softball and a football field in August of 1999. He said that the City of Carrollton permitted and approved baseball and softball lighting at Kelly Field, Newman Smith High School and R.L. Turner High School in February of 2000. He stated that baseball and softball lighting was installed at the C/FB Ranchview High School in Valley Ranch in March of 2002. He stated that currently all of the high schools in Creekview’s competitive district which includes Hebron High School operate with lighted softball and baseball fields. He said that this past November of 2005 interested parents and students requested that the district consider providing lights at the Creekview baseball and softball fields. On November 29, 2005, C/FB ISD issued a letter to the surrounding residents of Creekview High School soliciting input pertaining to the lighting of the Creekview fields which included approximately 120 residents. He stated that they used the same list of residents that the City of Carrollton used for notification of zoning changes. He stated they received limited responses with 5 of the adjacent neighbors responding in favor and five opposed for the lights. He said the total correspondence that they received at the district from patrons included 38 letters and emails in support of the light and 9 in opposition. He noted at their regular meeting on December 15, 2005, we heard from many interested parties and at the meeting the C/FB ISD Board of Trustees passed a Resolution directing staff to take the necessary steps to proceed with installing lights on the softball and baseball fields of Creekview High School. He said during December their staff worked with the City to determine how lighting could be installed and meet the same requirements of lighting at other school district and city facilities. On January 5, 2006, the Carrollton Planning and Zoning Commission denied the zoning request posed by the school district despite a recommendation for approval by the city staff. He said on January 13, 2006, C/FB ISD submitted a request to the City of Carrollton appealing the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council. He said that their specific request to the City Council is that the zoning stipulations with regard to lighting athletic field at Creekview High School be made the same as at the other three high schools in the City of Carrollton which would thereby allow the installation of lights for both the competition softball and baseball fields in accordance with the City’s requirements.

Councilmember Hayden asked Mr. Tepper if the lights he was requesting to be installed were for school baseball and softball games. Mr. Tepper stated yes. Councilmember Hayden asked how many days per week are the fields played on. They responded that the season runs about 11 weeks and about 2 nights a week with a maximum of 22 events. Councilmember Hayden stated that softball and baseball play on the same and he asked if this was correct. They responded that it was correct that they do play on the same night occasionally. Councilmember Hayden asked how long it took to play a game. They responded approximately 5 hours.

REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 13 Councilmember Branson stated that there had been a great deal of input on this matter and this included those that opposed as well as those in favor of the lighting. He said that during this time there was a statement circulating that the city had made the statement that these fields would never be lit. He said that he had researched the city side of the matter and it failed to uncover anything related to that statement. He stated that he had spoken to some of the past Councilmembers who had stated they were part of the process and a statement like that was never made. He asked what the position of the school regarding this comment.

Mr. Tepper stated that in 1996 there were two current Board members who served on the board during that time. He said there were no written or verbal or other promises about the word “never”. He said that the process at that time was they went through the planning and zoning process and it was adopted with the prohibition of lighting with the intention that if the C/FB ISD ever light the fields then that option could be brought back through the process.

Mayor Miller stated that 167 people who were in favor of lighting the softball and baseball fields and 7 opposed with 2 that had no indication noted on their card.

Randall Chrisman, 1501 Broken Bow Trail, stated that he was around when the school district purchased this site. He stated that there have been many people move to Carrollton to raise their families which in turn prompted the need for an extra high school. He said that there was a limited amount of land available in which to build a school in the Creekview area. He said that most of the comments had to do with Peter’s Colony be extended through the site because it was on the city’s thoroughfare plan and most of the neighbors did not want the street. He stated that the school did not want the street because it affected the site for building the school. He stated that this site was the Town of Hebron when this was originally purchased and had to be annexed into the City of Carrollton. He stated that he was proud of the fact that the school had not pulled the rank and stated they were an agency and they could do whatever they wanted. He stated that C/FB ISD had done a great job cooperating with the city. He said there have been changes in Carrollton and now with Transit Oriented Development there will be more changes to come. He said the City of Carrollton is progressive and there have been some wonderful changes. He said this is not a broken promise about lights. He stated that many of the games are beginning at 4:00 p.m. and most parents are still at work meaning that parents are not there to support the kids. He stated that this was a quality of life issue in that the students were very proud of their athletic department and with lighting the fields it would allow for the parents, staff and students to support the department and their school. He stated that staff recommended this adaptation and he would like to see the city support the lights.

Robert H. Houston, 1208 North Slope and was in opposition of this item. He said that he received the letter from the city indicating that it was a public hearing and it was sent to those living 200 feet within the perimeter of the school. He stated that his first objection was that it was unfortunate that those outside that particular area would speak for or against lighting when they are not directly affected by the lighting. He stated that he had looked over notes where he had spoken to the zoning board and the school board and if those are particular are constructed at the Carrollton Creekview High School there will be various issues of obsolesces. He stated there are functional, technical, and economic obsolesces. He said that at the present time it appears that the lights intend to be 60 and REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 14 80 feet. He stated that those within the 200 foot distance will be complaining that the lights have a direct impact on the property value of the homes. He was opposed.

Keith Wood, 1601 St. James Street was in favor of the lights. He stated that he had a student at Creekview High School. He said he was coming before the Council as a school board and citizens of Carrollton, Texas to ask that the restriction be removed and allow parents, grandparents, neighbors, students and faculty to come out to watch their home school play on their home fields. He stated that other high schools in Carrollton including Hebron High School have lights and these schools are in neighborhoods. He said that the lights put up on the girls softball fields at Newman Smith were installed after the home were built and property values have not dropped. He stated that there were recent sales in December of this year that backs up to the softball field and the property value increased $7,000. He asked the Council to remove the restriction and add lights to the softball and baseball fields at Creekview High School.

Paula Graves, 1218 North Slope and was in opposition to this item. She stated that she drove by Turner High School and Kelly softball fields and the lights are ugly. She stated that there was nothing to buffer her house from the lights.

Charles Thrasher, 2225 Cedarbrush, in favor of this item. He stated as a parent of a former Newman Smith softball player, it is not just Creekview High School that is inconvenienced when we play away from home. He stated that in 1996 he was on the planning and zoning commission that voted 7 to 0 to approve this case with stipulation number 6 that talked about no lights on the fields. He said 10 years ago in the minutes the chairman was asked specifically if they wanted lights and his response was yes. Then one of the commissioners asked if the lights were denied on the case would they have the right to come back before this board and request lights. He stated he remembered the discussion about the different processes of the PD and at any time you can come back. He said the property owner can always come back and ask for something to be changed. He said this school needs those fields to be lit. He said he understood how those home owners who live on North Slope feel because they are directly affected by this issue. He said the fields are over 1000 feet away and they will not be able to see what is going on those fields. He said the people most affected are the Creek Bend folks on the northern side. He said those people are 180 feet away from the closest place. He said there was a big creek between them and the fields. He said he was in favor of the lights.

Ricahrd Jarrell, 3408 Silverwood Dr. and stated that he was opposed to the lights because his house backs up directly to the school. He stated that he bought the house last year with the understanding that there would not be lights on the fields. He said he had a concern about the additional lighting and the additional noise of the PA system that goes with this type of lighting. He said it would be a short time before the other fields at the school had lights. He said that the Planning and Zoning Commission stated in their decision to deny the request because it was the right thing to do that the school should honor the agreement that they originally made and noted that there were plenty of other facilities to have night games. He stated he agreed with the idea of parents being able to attend the games. He asked if this was the best use for $450,000 to benefit the students as a whole at the high school.

Colleen Hamilton, 3020 Silverado and stated that she was in favor of this item. She stated that she wanted to talk about the survey that was done back in November. She said people were asking why there were no lights at the ball fields and they were saying REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 15 because of a rule that was made a long time ago. She said as parents they took the Thanksgiving weekend and printed out surveys and walked around the perimeter. She said that in doing this they found that the majority of people who live right around the school were actually in favor of the lights and there were only 7 to 8 homes that were against them. She said they went to the school board and shared with them the results of the survey and asked the board to ask for lighting at the fields. She stated that the school board listened to the opposing the lights and those in favor of them. She stated that there had been more research done in the last two weeks and they turned on the PA systems at the softball and baseball fields and used meters to detect noise levels in the areas where people were opposed. She said those that were actually opposed to the lights lived in an area that is on the other side of the school with a building, parking lot, football field, track and everything in between made us wonder how lighting these fields would impact those in opposition. She said that those in opposition could not hear the PA system or hear the activities of the fields. She was asking the Council to approve the lights for the softball and baseball fields at Creekview High School.

Rich Mashaw, 1041 Creek Bend stated that he was in opposition to this item. He stated that his backyard backs up to the ball fields. He stated that he had lived at this address for 14 years and he was there before the school was built. He stated that he will be affected by the lights. He stated that the lights really don’t bother him that much because he can close his blinds. He stated that the noise will be bothersome. He stated that the sound check that they performed did affect his home. He stated that he was hearing music and thought he had left a radio on inside his house. He stated that he would be able to hear the music during the downtime between endings. He stated that they heard the surveys that were conducted by the parents and how the lights would not affect property values. He stated that the drainage between their homes and the school was considered to be a creek. He stated that this was not a creek, it was a drainage ditch. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-2 against allowing the lights. He said the reasoning behind this vote was a personal quote by Mr. Nesbit which he states” that although he wishes the kids to have lights there were promises made and he was not willing to break those promises. He then made other quotes such as Mr. Simpkins, “I would like to see the school have lights, but the city council agreed to put the high school here and they stipulated no lights. He continued with comments that were made by various members on the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated that he did not feel that the promise that was made was being kept.

Tony Pennington, 3110 Birch Dr and stated that he was in opposition to this item. He said that he had lived in Carrollton for 30 years and was a part of Creekview High School being built. He stated that the reason that Hebron got the workmanship was because they went out and bought land where it was available before people lived there. He said that Carrollton had two sites available, one in the Addison Airport fly zone which they would have rather had but Addison would not agree to not fly over the property. He stated that the other one was Creekview and they had to make promises and promise those neighbors that lights would not be placed on the fields. He stated that athletics was about integrity. He stated that he was asking this council to back up the planning and zoning board and hold up the integrity and have them keep their word.

Glenn Fisher, 1205 Mackie Drive, stated that he was in favor of this item. He said that as the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed their split decision on this issue last month, several commission members offered comments. He stated for each of the members that voted against the measure which was recommended for approval by their REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 16 staff, they referenced a promise that was made when the school was built. He said that this was one of the key reasons they ruled against this request. He stated that for months they had chased this illusive promise and it was asked who made the promise and to whom was the promise made. He stated that when the property was purposed that now houses Creekview High School, a minority of local residents opposed the building of the school on this site. He stated that in a spirit of compromise the P&Z rendered a decision at this time to place a restriction on the lighting of the sports fields at the new school facility. He noted a letter from PBK Architects to John Webb, of the Planning department that notes a comment and he quoted; “it is understood that the district does not plan to light the fields or tennis courts initially, but that in the future they might want to use the fields for evening events”. He further noted that the letter stated “the district does not want the possibility of lights precluded at this date as of 1996. He stated that this might have been relevant with the city and the use of this land at that time. He stated that Creekview has been built and it is a true asset to the community and source of pride for the students, the school district and the City of Carrollton. He stated while that some may want to silence the band on Saturday mornings or eliminate the potential for neighbors to hang out on tennis courts or sports fields, but these are noises and activities of vital vibrant community. He stated that after game events the kids take their shovels, rakes and tractors and they maintain those fields. He said that coaches give their time on Saturday to maintain these fields because these are their home fields.

Sheila Marlow, 3603 Flagstone and stated that she was in favor of this item. She said that Creekbend runs into Flagstone and that she was a huge supporter of baseball and softball and the lights. She is in favor of all sports and activities at the Creekview High School. She stated that residents who support the lighting at Creekview are supporting their school and this community. She stated that there had been comments made about after students graduate the parent and kids don’t care about the school or the fields. She stated she had two graduated athletes and she is a huge supporter of the lights. She said that there are approximately 300 Creekview households known to be in support of this measure based on the survey results. She stated that evening sports activities provide the youth and families with healthy activities and lighted fields will not only allow the students but also allow the families and communities to come out to support each other and have fund in a safe way to spend their evenings. She stated that it was her desire to see everyone pull together to make Creekview the most attractive school possible and keep our community one of the best to live and attend school.

Keith Osborn, 3300 Greenglen Circle stated that he was in favor of the lights. He said he backs up to the school. He said that he does not have a child who plays on the fields but he enjoys watching the games and would like to see some night games. He said he had seen various measures come before the Council and other boards where the turnout determines the outcome. He said that this was his third meeting and every time the turnout was in favor of the lights. He said that the parents being able to attend the games would be really a good benefit. He asked Council to place the lights on the Creekview fields.

Tessa Stearman, 3309 Rose Hill and said she was in favor of the lights. She said that our government was formed on the majority vote and that most of the people present were in favor of the lights. She noted that we live in a society of moral decay and she said that most parents want to be involved with their children’s lives. She stated that lighting the fields at Creekview High School would allow for evening activities in which parents and kids could come together in a safe and healthy environment. REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 17

Kathy Leuch, 1526 Sunnyslope, and stated she did not wish to speak but she was in favor of the lights.

Karla Balluch, 3822 Westminster Drive and stated she was in support of placing the lights at Creekview softball and baseball fields. She stated that she had a letter from Stephanie Freeman, who is the JJ Freeman softball coach. She stated that when they travel to Creekview High School they have to travel to play at 2:00 p.m. for JV and 4:00 p.m. Varsity. Most of the athletes’ parents and student body miss the games because they are still at work or .in school. She stated that everyone would benefit from the lights being placed at Creekview High School fields.

Gregory Delk, 1210 North Slope and states that he is in opposition to the lights. He stated that the previous residents of the area around the fields sold their homes under their knowledge that there would not be lights on the fields at Creekview High School. He said that he would never buy a house next to a baseball or softball field. He stated that the noise that comes from these types of activities can be heard five blocks away. He asked Council to disallow the lights at Creekview High School.

Sandy Delk, 1210 North Slope and stated that she was in opposition of the lights. She said that she is very concerned about the property values of her home. She stated when she bought the house two years ago she was told there would never be any lights on the fields. She stated that had she known that the fields would be lit someday, she would not have purchased a house in the area. She stated that lights being that high would be seen for many blocks away and therefore would become an eyesore. She stated that the kids could adopt a field to play on and call it their home field.

Doug Crews, 3303 Greenglen Circle stated that he was in opposition to the lights. He stated that there were a number of people present for this meeting who remember promises that there would never be lights placed on these fields. He said that people have lived in his home located in that area for the past 18 years and much of the reason that he chose his home and its neighborhood was because of its peace and quite of the area. He stated that the house was on a dead-end street and many people enjoy this atmosphere. He stated that there were other facilities available and willing to share their facilities. He stated that they were being told 11 to 16 nights out of week games might be played at night was a lot of light and noise. He said the money being spent to light these fields might be better spent on the 2000 students rather than on the 20-30 who want to play baseball or softball. He stated that he would appreciate the Council keeping the promise and maintain their earlier decisions to disallow the lights at Creekview High School.

John Martens, 3311 Greenglen Circle and stated that he was in opposition to this item. He stated that he had lived at this address for the past 16 years and attended all the school board meetings, the planning and zoning and Council Meeting when decisions were made regarding the lights. He stated that there were commitments made that were legally binding. He said that conditions have changed but do these changes mean that you throw some things out as soon as they are presumed to be inconvenient. He stated that he was concerned the noise and the bright lights. He said that he did not want to see bright lights burning in the night sky. He said he was in strong opposition of the lights being placed on the fields at Creekview High School.

REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 18 Lupe Gallo, 3302 Greenglen Circle and stated that she was in favor of the lights at Creekview High School. She said that she had two boys who play baseball and she would like to see them play.

Jesus Gallo, 3302 Greenglen Circle stated that he was in favor of this item. He said that his property backs up to the High School. He said he was not worried about devaluation of property, noise or the lights being bright. He stated he was in favor of the lights

Bryan Fischer, 1205 Mackie Drive and stated that he was in favor of the lights. He stated that he was the starting catcher for Creekview High School. He said that he spoke at a recent meeting regarding baseball and the fact that his dad works really hard for him. He said there was many times when his dad did not get the opportunity to play. He stated that there are probably lots of kids here that would agree with me in that their parents can not get off work early enough to watch their kids play ball. He stated he respects all those people who think this is a bad thing, but we ask that they respect the decision of the City Council in that it is the opinion of the kids to play night games. He said playing at Newman Smith is not an option and speaking for all his teammates he would like to see Council rule in favor of placing lights on the baseball and softball fields at Creekview High School.

Dana Diemer, 2001 Crestover Circle was not present but did complete a speaker’s card in favor of the lights at Creekview High School.

Glenn Cuccia, 1031 Ridgeview Circle and stated that he was in favor of the lights at Creekview High School. He stated that he had only been there six months and he had to fight to get his home. He said the devaluation of property is not true. He said he had four young boys who will eventually play at Creekview. He stated that he gives the Council tremendous respect for their courage to discuss this controversial issue. He says that these kids are so special and everything they sell; the parents purchase because it is all about the kids. He said that if there was money available to spend, then spend it on the kids and give them lights to play their games. He says that if this is what builds dreams for these kids then do it.

Mark Dallalio, 3809 Cemetery Hill and stated that he was in favor of this item. He stated that healthy community progress and growth is driven by innovative vision and cooperation. He said that he has lived for almost 20 years and have appreciated for the most part the care and concern exercised by our leaders to manage in the best interest of the city. He stated that it was his opinion that what was being said and done was the mutual appreciation that all citizens have for their community. He said that it is no secret that Carrollton is built out and therefore as citizens and leaders we must focus on ways to make the best use with what we have. He stated that because of this developmental shift our leaders are now required to revisit Ordinances and evaluate issues that were previously justifiable, practical and accommodating. He said because of limited land space, there is not a luxury of liberal land use unique to master plan communities as do our neighbors to the north. Therefore, our leaders have to work extremely hard to develop equitable solutions for all parties involved. It was in this spirit of cooperation and compromise that the leaders sought to invite bordered homeowners prior to February 3rd to a meeting with the school district representative and those favoring lights to see if equitable solutions beyond the lights could be discussed before the meeting tonight. He noted that they wanted to discuss issues related to the lights and most of the homeowners declined the meeting. He said he valued and respected the objections of his opposing REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 19 friends. He stated that he feels the Councils should approve the lights to maintain consistency with what has now been established as a vision and direction of our city.

Jim Boulware, 1204 North Slope was present in favor of the lights. He stated that his property was adjacent to Creekview High School and backs up on the south side of the property. He stated that a few years back he had a season pass to the Grand Prairie High School baseball the year that Kerry Wood and Kevin Walker played and finished 4th in the state. He stated that Kerry Wood’s was now with the Chicago Cubs and Mr. Walker has been up in the majors with Padre’s, Giants and the White Socks this last year. He stated that the pride that parents have in all players is outstanding. He stated that he had coached many a player and knows the pride that parents take in their children. He stated that players learn things by being a member of a team that they do not learn in academics and these lessons are carried on through a lifetime. He said that team players are closer as a group than any group in the academic world. He said he hopes that this Council would allow lights on the fields.

John Lynch, 3604 Chimney Rock and states that he is opposed to lights on the softball and baseball fields at Creekview High School. He said that his property is next to the school where the lights will be placed. He stated that he is a father of three boys, all of which have played at a high level of competitive baseball not only in the City of Carrollton but in two other cities throughout the United States. He stated that he is concerned that if the lights are installed on the field that in order for monies to be raised to fund the different level of sports that it will take to make the teams be competitive it will be a nuisance to the neighborhood. He stated that he would vote no for the lights.

Matt Baumberger was not present but did complete a card in favor of the lights at Creekview High School.

Jennifer Baumberger was not present but did complete a card in favor of the lights at Creekview High School.

Brad Thomas, 3637 Waynoka stated that he was in opposition to the lights at Creekview High School. He stated that he was on the Council where Councilmember Weidinger sits today. He said that he remembered talking about the Creekview issues when the land was first being discussed. He stated that he remembers at his last council meeting there was an audience of concerned parents about ball fields. He stated that the compromise was that the neighbors surrounding the area were going to reduce their opposition to the high school being built there if there were no lights. He stated that it was an agreement but no a promise. He stated that he oppose the lights at the high school because the people who surround the area did reduce their opposition to the building of the school if there was an agreement that no lights would be placed on the baseball or softball fields. He said he was in complete support of Creekview High School and his children attend school there.

Elizabeth Agpollo, 2110 Placid Drive and spoke in favor of the lights at Creekview High School. She noted the sound probably could be heard for quite a distance because she was present that day. She said that it was turned up to 90% and during a game the sound is at 30%. She stated that at 30% their outfielders can barely make out what the song is that is being played. She stated that she is part of the Tech Crew at the high school and the lights that she works with during plays are simple and not complex. She stated the REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 20 field lights would only be on 110 hours out of the entire year and this includes boys and girls teams.

Bradly Dardaganian, 3412 Silverwood Drive stated that he was in opposition to the lights at Creekview High School. He stated that he and his wife just purchased their home in the last year and do not have the historical view that many of the people who have spoken at the meeting. He said they do have a present and future view. He stated that his children are very young and the will be sleeping during the time when the games will be played. He stated that his home would be directly affected by the noise, activity and the lights on the ball fields. He stated that the value of home would be affected as well. He is in opposition of the lights.

Alan Overholt, 2216 Ridgewood was present and in favor of the lights at Creekview High School. He stated that he has been a long time resident and president of the Homeowners Association and a pass member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that it troubles him that it appears that there is a group of people on the P&Z who seem to have lost touch with the community. He stated to go against the recommendation of the city staff, Carrollton Farmers Branch ISD, and the support of the community really bothers him. He stated that it was his desire to see the leaders of this community support the Council and vote in favor of the lights on the baseball and softball fields at Creekview High School.

Dennis Hamilton, 3020 Silverado and stated that he was in favor of the lights. He stated that he had two letters from property owners who do live in the affect area and they are both in favor of the lights. He stated that Mr. Lyle Stanley, Real Estate Agent has experience in evaluating residential values. Mr. Stanley stated in his letter that he had appraised residential properties throughout the metroplex for the past 24 years. In his opinion the presence or lack of athletic field lights have no measurable affect on a single family’s home value in nearby subdivisions with proper buffering. Mr. Hamilton stated that although there seems to be other fields available that could be used by Creekveiw there are no fields available. He said that it would not be feasible to play games on fields that a team does not practice on. He said he was in favor of the lights.

Nicole Agpallo, 2110 Placid Drive was present and in favor of the lights at Creekview High School. She stated her one concern was missing classes and go back for morning tutorials to try to pickup what is missed in those classes by having to leave early for games. She stated that she is in favor of the lights because she could not have her parents there for her games because they were played so early. She asked the Council to consider the kids and what they are sacrificing to play ball at Creekview High School and approve the lights for the softball and baseball fields.

John Samuels, Creekbend was present and in opposition of the lights. He stated that when the Council committed to disallow lights on the ball fields at the school he was excited about being involved and serving in a political arena. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission made a promise. He asked if there was anything heard different tonight that would cause you to over-rule the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation. He said he might get comfortable with the lights if he believed that because it is a school district asking for lights should they be treated any differently than if it were another entity in Carrollton who wants lights. He secondly stated that Councilmembers needed to look at this recommendation in the light as if they lived in this neighborhood. REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 21

Brenda Altenhofen, 3607 Canyon Oaks was present and in favor of the lights at Creekview High School. She stated that her property was three houses up from Creekbend and she was in the Stonecreek neighborhood. She stated that the school board had come before Council tonight to help them right a wrong. She stated that they compromised to get the school in several years ago and they know now that changes need to be made. She stated that she knows that governments see a necessity to change rules after a time period goes by and that is why there are amendments to the Constitution. She asked the Council to support the school board and vote to approve the lights at Creekview High School.

Commissioner Jacobs stated that the reason she was present in the meeting tonight was to help celebrate Matthew Marchant as he gets sworn in. She stated that she is not a Carrollton resident at this time but she did live here from 1972 to 2003. She stated that she use to serve on the Council a long time ago. She stated that she was present to speak in favor of the kids and the lights at Creekview High School. She stated that she understands the super majority and has had the honor to speak with each one of the members over the years and have known you for more than 15 – 20 years. She stated that all these kids are asking for is 20 days of play. She stated that she understands the concerns of those homeowners who live in the affect area. She stated that this city has changed in the last 10 years and many of the Judges and Juvenile Counselors have stated that the one thing that keeps kids out of trouble is being involved in school. She stated the two other things that keep kids out of trouble were sports and family. She said she was encouraging all of Council to consider the situation and vote for the kids and their families.

The following people registered in opposition to the item: Linda Balenton Jordan, 1211 North Slope, Carrollton Janet Mashaw, 1041 Creek bend, Carrollton Kim Samuells Taylor Swadley, 1726 South Hampton, Carrollton Nick Bell, 1721 South Hampton, Carrollton Lynne Lewis, 3636 Waynoka Drive, Carrollton

The following people registered in favor of the item: Jennifer Bomberger, 1600 Silverleaf, Carrollton Mark Genard, 1621 Silverleaf, Carrollton Cyndi Boyd, 1305 Breamar Drive, Carrollton Guy Toliver, 1704 Woodbury, Carrollton Matthew Galla, 3302 Greenglen Circle, Carrollton Kelly Kehl, 1425 Palo Duro, Carrollton Leroy Mansanales, 5636 Turner, The Colony Joseph Martinez, 1520 Shonka, Carrollton Brittany Parker, 1037 Creek Bend, Carrollton Dick Stadler, 1023 Oxfordshire, Carrollton Bruce Teagarden, 2007 Bluestem Lane, Carrollton Julie and Paul Braden, 1509 Blue Mesa, Carrollton Scott Sears, 1138 Derbyshire Place, Carrollton Andrea Lantz, 1605 Chesterfield Drive, Carrollton Erin Marshall, 2927 Hunters Point Lane, Carrollton Kaylan and Joe Martinez, 1520 Shonka, Carrollton REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 22 Martin Lazo, 1205 North Slope, Carrollton Esther Sears, 1137 Derbyshire Place, Carrollton Brian Jones, 4719 North Galloway, Carrollton Robert, Joshua and Michelle Lane, 3620 Huffines, # 2315, Carrollton Felix Castillo, 4230 Fairway Drive, Carrollton Dan Ward, 2035 Lymington Road, Carrollton Debra and Jordan Dallalio, 3809 Cemetary Hill, Carrollton Paula McDonald, 1208 Clint Street, Carrollton Pat Robinson, 1208 Clint Street, Carrollton Bryan Bell, 1721 Southampton, Carrollton Jennifer Dell, 1721 Southampton, Carrollton Brandon Morgan, 1111 Navajo Circle, Carrollton Mary and John Marron, 1021 Oxfordshire, Carrollton Blake and Megan Goodwin, 2029 Panorama Drive, Carrollton Kelsey Foss, 2735 Colonial Drive, Carrollton Kristen Vallia, 2936 Winterberry Drive, Carrollton Kaycee, Taylor, 2918 Furneaux Lane, Carrollton Nancy, Michelle and Maggie Hamouch, 2904 Golden Gate Court, Carrollton Tony, Ariel and Donna Sims, 3308 Braddons Road, Carrollton Alison Baucom, 1921 Chamberlain, Carrollton Jennifer Cervenka, 3939 Briargrove Lane, # 4209 Beth Mauch, 1412 Santa Fe, Carrollton Chelsea McAnally, 1312 Barclay, Carrollton Candace Henderson, 2117 Highbury Road, Carrollton Allie Eaves, 1026 Hampshire Lane, Carrollton Jon and Susan Fox, 1525 Silverleaf Drive, Carrollton Stacy Higgins, 1737 E. Frankford Road, #3203, Carrollton Bryan Fischer, 1205 Mackie Drive, Carrollton Kelly and Krista Stamp, 1705 Turtle Rock, Carrollton Joe and Blanche Hollingsworth, 13455 Rawhide, Carrollton Frank Lightfoot, 1465 Jewels Way, Carrollton Mark Sullivan, 5625 Phoenix, Carrollton Vickie Wolff, 2037 Christie Lane, Carrollton David Cahill, 1700 Rosemeade Circle, Carrollton Rick and Kelsey Balluch, 3822 Westminster, Carrollton Colleen Brown, 1501 Cemetery Hill, Carrollton Donald Verstrapetie, 3115 Birch Drive, Carrollton Randy Lloyd, 1503 Palisades, Carrollton Les and Connie Folse, 1615 Brighton Drive, Carrollton Marques White, 2018 Cologne Drive, Carrollton Yvonne Glosson, 2217 Trinity Springs, Carrollton Kenneth Patterson, 1737 E. Frankford, Carrollton Don McCary, 1641 Bennington Drive, Carrollton Ed Sneedly, 1326 Mojosa Lane, Carrollton Sandra Cowan, 1837 Arundel Drive, Carrollton Pat and Leslie Warvock, 2947 Sinbad Circle, Carrollton Pat Ambrozy, 3832 Blue trace Lane, Carrollton Joan Abbey, 13740 Tanglewood, Farmers Branch Cindy Stubbs, 2524 Melbourne, Carrollton Matthew Smith, 1508 Brookhollow, Carrollton Monica Thrasher, 3619 Canyon Oaks Drive, Carrollton REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 23 Martha Morgan, 3709 Elizabeth Drive, Carrollton Shelley Bussey, 2128 Teton, Carrollton Vicki McClure, 3701 Elizabeth Drive, Carrollton Frank Carter, 1216 Apache Lake Drive, Carrollton Joe Carter, PO Box 206, Little Elm Sandy and Terry Taylor, 2918 Furneaux, Carrollton Colton Wood, 1601 St. James, Carrollton Al Sniadecki. 2928 Cambridgeshire Drive, Carrollton Renee Putter, 2129 Helmsford, Carrollton Debbie Agpalo, 2110 Placid Drive, Carrollton Ted Bailey, 1600 Deloford Drive, Carrollton Barbara Wood, 13509 Pyramid, Carrollton Diane Thrasher, 2225 Cedarbrush Drive, Carrollton Ginny Chrisman, 1501 Broken Bow Trail, Carrollton Ronda and Kacey Cowgill, 3208 Sugarbush. Carrollton Kay and Claire Smith, 3317 Luallen Drive, Carrollton James and Tori Wilde, 1504 Derby Run, Carrollton Jordan Stearman, 3309 Rose Hill, Carrollton Kim Kenney, 1603 St. James Drive, Carrollton Ann Osborn, 3300 Greenglea circle, Carrollton Sheri McKnight, 1745 Conrad Circle, Carrollton Amber Olvera, 2903 Arcadia Lane, Carrollton Harvey Leuck, 1526 Sunnyscope, Carrollton Melia Wood, 1601 St. James, Carrollton Jessica Judd, 1604 Concord Place, Carrollton Patricia Bachand, 12318 Veronica Road, Farmers Branch Patricia Matthews, 1432 Greenway Park Drive, Carrollton Joy Illingworth, 1818 Clear Creek, Carrollton Tracy Slaby, 1831 Addington Drive, Carrollton Leslie Evans, 13222 Glad Acres Drive, Carrollton Kyle and Karen Fischer, 1205 Mackie Drive, Carrollton Erna Fischer, 3120 Andrew Lane, Carrollton Nancy Frank, 3109Afton Drive, Carrollton Chrissy Selby, 3107 Afton Drive, Carrollton Angela Helaire, 3038 Cromwell Drive, Carrollton Dee Rodriguez, 3101 Afton Drive, Carrollton Dina Evans, 3230 Delaford Drive, Carrollton Anthony and Amanda Coker, 1846 East Rosemeade #281, Carrollton Karla Balluch, 3822 Westminster, Carrollton Susan and Kay Hollingsworth, 1305 Cameo, Carrollton Korey, Scott and Bryan Stamp, 1705 Turtle Rock, Carrollton Kodie Balwen, 5877 Westminster, Carrollton Defae Weaver, 1103 Wiltshire, Carrollton Karen Bailey, 1600 Delaford Drive, Carrollton Mike Stearman, 3309 Rose Hill, Carrollton Cheryl Judd, 1604 Concord, Carrollton Nick and Sharon Walker, 3316 LuAllen Drive, Carrollton Shane and Kathy Dinger, 3005 Pacifica, Carrollton Austin and Elisha Burton, 3005 Pacifica, Carrollton Carley Walker, 1108 Yorkshire, Carrollton Elizabeth deBerjeols, 1617 Steenson, Carrollton REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 24 JoAnn Hernandez, 2903 Arcadia Lane, Carrollton Bianca Marlow, 3603 Flagstone, Carrollton Allison Hathaway, 1820 E. Peters Colony, Carrollton David Parker, 1037 Creek Bend, Carrollton Chris Johnson, 3300 McDeleine, Carrollton Greg wood, 2121 Kings Road, Carrollton Raychelle Tucker, 1810 Peters Colony, Carrollton Pam Johnson, 1417 W. Peters Colony, Carrollton Glenn and Ann Hale, 1016 Bellflower Drive, Carrollton Fred Tucker Sr., 1810 Peters colony, Carrollton Kyle and Carole Gray, 1731 San Francisco, Carrollton Nick Leuck, 1526 Sunnyslope, Carrollton Adam Altenhofen, 3607 Canyon Oaks, Carrollton Ron Tschida, 1609 Reunion, Carrollton Steve Ball, 2911 Fort Point, Carrollton Pat Hughes, 2702 Devonshire, Carrollton Jackie Cox, 1500 Sunnyslope, Carrollton Greg and Monica Gralema, 2600 Buena Vista Court, Carrollton Sue Pagel, 2015 Grenoble Drive, Carrollton Brigitte Holde, 1036 Magnolia, Carrollton Dave Pagel, 2017 Lyon Court, Carrollton Tanisha Seamster-White, 2218 E. Peters Colony, Carrollton Billy Harrison, 2407 Sparling Way, Carrollton

Councilmember Hayden stated that he appreciated all the kids, parents and school board members, teachers and coaches. He said he knows how difficult it is to get up and talk in public. He stated that essentially it is a zoning issue and the question is, are lights appropriate on this piece of property and how does it affect the neighborhood. He said that daytime games you have noise and nighttime games there will be lights. He said the way the lights are set up there will not be that much spill-over the way the lights are designed now. He said there is going to be a visual affect at 60 and 80 feet. He said the difference in this case and the last one is that there are standards for mobile towers and they are very specific. He said the last case before this one did not meet those specific standards and therefore it did not pass. He stated that there are three issues: the visual part of the lights, the spill-over noise and the lights in general. He stated that there could be some stipulations placed in the Ordinance that would match exactly what the school district said that the lights would be used for. He stated that they are to be used for school events only, 2-days per week and the lights could be turned off at 10:00 p.m. at night. He stated if there was overtime or an extra inning game there could be an extension to 10:30 p.m. He said that during the regular season there could be limits put in place that could be seen as a compromise to state that the school district would live up to what they say the lights would be used for. He stated that after a decent hour around 8:30 p.m. through would be no loud music blasting over the speakers.

Councilmember Weidinger stated that one of the problems that he has heard mentioned several times were regarding the promises that supposedly were made. He asked the City Attorney to define zoning as a definition relative to whether promises are made or what stipulations you can or can’t place on zoning.

Clayton Hutchins, City Attorney stated that zoning is a legislative matter and a city can not contract away it legislative authority. REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 25

Councilmember Weidinger said that if three people were to say they entered into an agreement relative to zoning then it is not binding, is that correct? Mr. Hutchins stated that yes that was true.

Councilmember Malone stated that she lived next to Newman Smith High School and recently the school district put in a tennis court at the school. She stated that she had lived in the house for a long time and she does not think her property value has gone down. She stated that she loved living in the house and that her children had gone to school at Newman Smith. She stated that the sounds of the school signified life in her neighborhood and community pride.

Councilmember Branson stated that this request was a zoning issue. He said that he had researched the issues and one of the items that came out was promises were made. He stated that it was his thoughts that the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission made their decision based on the belief that promises were made. He stated that the City did not need to hold up promises from the developer, real estate agents, but the city should uphold the promises that it is thought to be just and right. He said that one of the speakers referred to the difference between a politician and statesman which sounds like decisions are either popular or wrong. He said they could be popular and right. He stated that the decision to use the property to give the youth the proper healthy outlets for their time is a good thing.

Councilmember Williams stated that their decisions are based on what is best for the zoning issue and best use for the property. He said in the planned development there is the avenue and outlet that the owner can come back at any time and make this request. He said that is what has happened at this time. He said that if the school district chooses to put lights on the tennis courts, football field or anything other than these two items specifically mentioned, they would need to come back and go through this process again. He stated that he resides close by and hears the music and he thinks the school district and the athletic group could do a better job at controlling the noise sometimes but that is not what this case is about. He stated that it is about the appropriateness of lights and he concurs with his fellow councilmember’s in favor of installing the lights.

Councilmember Mahlik stated that this is a very important issue. He said that council’s job was to decide what is fair and figure out what promises were made. He stated that he has yet to see a promise that was made. He stated that the owners of the property have requested this zone change and the city staff recommended approval of the lights. He stated that this is a 5A school and it does not have the same quality as some of the other schools in that some of the other schools do have lights and etc. He stated that students did not need to miss classes in order to attend games and parents need to see their kids participate in sports. He said that it was his recommendation that the school decides what the stipulations should be and he thinks they will do the right things. He stated he lives in the neighborhood across the street from the high school and this is a tough decision to make.

Councilmember Mahlik moved to close the public hearing and Approve Case No. 01-06Z1 (Creekview High School Athletic Field Lighting). Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Simons.

REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 26 Mayor Pro Tem Simons stated that he would like the public hearing to remain open for discussion for restrictions as mentions by Councilmember Hayden. He said that there were several key issues brought forth during this meeting that need to be addressed. He stated that this is the right time to make this decision.

Councilmember Williams stated that it was Council’s task to determine the appropriateness of this item and the school, local campus and the school board should there be that kind of involvement to restrict themselves as needed based on harmony with the community. He said he would not like to see Council place to many stipulations that could not be enforced or that would be difficult to enforce.

Mayor Pro Tem Simons stated as Councilmember Hayden had stated earlier that as far as restrictions should go that it was council’s responsibility to look out for the citizens that live in this area. He said that if Council restricts the games to 10:00 p.m. and to restrict the extra innings to 10:30 p.m. that this would be appropriate.

Councilmember Weidinger asked Mr. Tepper if he could see any problems that may arise if council places these restrictions on the lights. Mr. Tepper stated there would not be any serious problems but the problem that he would have as a district is that there are four other high schools. He said one is in Irving and others in the City of Carrollton. He said they would not be in favor of any restrictions on one high school that does not apply to any other high schools that are in the city but not in the school district. He said that it was a matter of equity and ease in enforcing the rules.

Councilmember Hayden stated that he had heard enough from the residents but he thinks that there was some sort of deal struck at one time. He said that he agrees to light the fields but this is a different situation in that people have lived in this neighborhood 10 years and the school came in and promised not to put lights in and now they are. He said he thought there should be some sort of compromise. He stated that he would like to remind the Council that this is a super majority needed and there is a risk of loosing all the chips right now. He stated that it is important to realize that there are people who live around this area and that they should have some sort of voice and protection that there are not going to be tournaments every other night. He said he does not believe that this will happen but all the same there are ways that the city could place stipulations in zoning like other stipulations on any other city land use.

Councilmember Williams stated that he cautions council not to create restrictions that are very hard to enforce from a police standpoint enforcement or if the restriction would be enforced by the school board. He said that if this council chooses to place restrictions that limits the time at night that the light are on perhaps a better way to do this would be to place a restriction on when a game can start. He said perhaps that the restriction might state that no games can start after a certain time in the evenings.

Leonard Martin, City Manager stated that Councilmember Williams was making a valid point. He said that if a game was going on pass the restricted time would a call come in to the dispatch to enforce the restriction. He said would the police department be mobilized to go out and clear the field in the middle of the ninth inning. He said that the people that this type of restriction would fall on to enforce it would be the Carrollton Police Department. He said that there could be unintended consequences that may come from the police department being the people who would end up enforcing these restrictions. Ms. Levy stated that Mr. Martin was correct in that it would not be an REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 27 immediate remedy as far as enforcement. She said it would be on a complaint basis to be looked into at a later date. She said that there are some stipulations that could be enforced. She stated that there may be limitations on the height of the lighting standards and the amount of glare that can spill over onto the adjacent property. She said this could be controlled and added into the stipulations. She said there could also be stipulations on whether or not the lights were for the baseball and softball fields only.

Councilmember Hayden stated that it was his recommendation that there be some sort of protection for the people who live in the affected area with placing some stipulations into the ordinance regarding the time issue with the lights being on at the fields. He said that there was always the possibility of schools renting those fields out to other sporting events or that tournaments may be played on the weekends and he feels that it is the council’s responsibility to place some restrictions upon this issue.

Mayor Pro Tem Simons stated that he would like to amend his motion to stated that a stipulation be placed in the Ordinance that a game could not start after 9:00 p.m.

Councilmember Mahlik stated that he would like to amend his motion to include the recommendation of Mayor Pro Tem Simons. Seconded by Councilmember Branson.

Councilmember Mahlik moved to close the public hearing and Approve Case No. 01-06Z1 (Creekview High School Athletic Field Lighting) to include the stipulation that a game could not begin play after 9:00 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Branson. The vote was cast 7-0.

37. Hold a public hearing and consider approving an ordinance for a Zoning Change to the (TC) Transit Center for the Urban Fringe District for the Thomas Center in lieu of the (SF-7/14) Single Family District. The 4.2-acre site is located at the northeast corner of Northside Drive and Denton Drive and is zoned (SF-7/14) Single Family District. Case No. 01-06Z2 Thomas Center (In-Town Village)/Richard Howe.

Lori Levy, Planning Manager stated that this request was for approval of a zoning change for the Thomas Center property from PD-145 fro the (SF-7/14) Single Family District to (TC) Transit Center for the Urban Fringe District in order to develop Townhouses. The 4.2-acre site is located at the northeast corner of Northside Drive and Denton Drive and is zoned PD-145 for the (SF-7/14 Single Family district. She noted positive financial implication on the current and future operating budgets regarding this request. She stated on January 5, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Approval with stipulations. She stated that although the case did receive unanimous approval from the Commission, written opposition has been filed and the application has been placed on the agenda for Individual consideration.

Richard Howe 1428 Clarinet Dr, Plano stated that the application before the Council was to change the zoning on the Thomas tract to coincide with the zoning of a larger mixed use townhouse/condominium development that is to be constructed on the adjoining property to the west and south. He stated that they felt it appropriate to have the zoning the same throughout the project. He stated that his company had experienced with other area around Dallas that are close to Transit Districts and felt his company could offer a quality product to attract citizens to the downtown area. He stated that it was important to have roof tops near the retail to make the downtown a viable entity.

REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 28 Judy Scamardo 1517 Northridge Drive and stated that she was in favor of what Mr. Howe was wanting to do with the Thomas Center. She stated that this was her home place and her family gave it to the City and she had many wonderful times and memories in the house. She stated that the property has no purpose anymore. She stated that things must move forward and she thought it was be very remiss to demand that the city invest $4 million dollars to repair something they have no use for. She stated that it is in accordance with what the Renaissance Committee had looked at, the TOD that is planned for the city and she thought this was a wonderful use and the Thomas Family is very supportive.

Doug Hrbacek, 1406 N. Main stated that he was present to represent the A.W. Perry Neighborhood Association. He stated that had met with several of the developers including Mr. Howe regarding this tract and the adjacent tract. He stated that they welcome them to their neighborhood and assured them all that they wish to proactively contribute to their success. He stated that they are in support of the zoning change at the Thomas Center as it logically contributes to vehicular access to Denton Drive. He stated that they certainly understand that the streets in their neighborhoods are for public use but he wanted the city to understand that they are barely capable facilitating the minimal traffic that they have in the neighborhood today. He stated that they feel traffic should be directed toward the street that is capable of facilitating the traffic that will come with the addition of 254 units. He stated that in past discussion that their neighborhood was to be used as an access point for emergency vehicles, not resident traffic and they would hope that this was an oversight in exhibit “B”. He stated that on February 5, 2005 he and the A.W. Perry neighborhood received a document from city staff reflecting proposed roads going through the middle of their homes. He stated that they had requested a traffic plan for the Transit District and had heard that this was being worked on but they have not received a copy. He stated that this places the neighborhood in a reactive position, trying to cooperate and support the new development without seeing how it would fully impact the neighborhood. He stated that the discussion has shown pedestrian and bicycle access to the DART station, and he stated that they have been made aware of this but it was hard to provide quality feedback without knowing how this would impact their neighborhood.

Debbie Gingles, 1409 Rosemon were not present and her card indicated that she was in opposition to this item.

Martin Gingles, 1409 Rosemon were not present and his card indicated that he was in opposition to this item.

Councilmember Williams stated that Council had looked at this tract and had discussed this matter numerous times. He stated that if this request moves forward it was his hope that staff would pay careful attention to the residents concerned about traffic. He stated that he would want staff to make sure that the City did act in good faith with a good plan.

Councilmember Williams moved to close the public hearing and Approve Case No. 01-06Z2 Thomas Center (In-Town Village). Seconded by Councilmember Weidinger. The vote was cast 7-0.

OTHER BUSINESS

38. Consider approving an ordinance Amending PD-52 for the (MF-18) Multi-family District and revocation of SUP-258 for a retirement community. The 5.8-acre site is REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 29 located south of Keller Springs Road, on the west side of Josey Lane and is zoned PD-52 for the (LR-2) Local Retail District with SUP-258 for a retirement complex. Case No. 11-05Z1 Villas at Josey Ranch/Dennis Turnbull.

Mayor Miller noted that this item had already been considered by Council during the January 10, 2006 Council Meeting and Council closed the public hearing. The case was tabled for staff to answer specific questions regarding the issues raised by the Council. The items that were concerns included parking, cut-through traffic, building elevations and historical sensitivity.

Lori Levy, Planning Manager briefed the Council on the issued raised as concerns during the January 10, 2006 Council meeting. She stated that in order to address the concerns regarding the building elevations for this project the city’s business partner Dennis Turnbull has agreed to include the elevations discussed in that meeting. He also stipulated that the minimum roof pitch would be 7to 12. She stated that this stipulation will be attached to the Ordinance and made as part of the entire Planned Development. In order to address the onsite parking, it has been calculated that the total requirement for this site 203 spaces and there are a total of 87 surplus parking spaces for a total of 290 spaces on this site. She said that the development partner has clarified the originating location of the building materials and the architectural elements as to where they originated on the existing homes for the Josey Ranch and has detailed where they are to be located and incorporated into the project site. She stated those elements are several types of building materials to be replicated on the new buildings through out the site as well as installation of plaques noting the historical significance at various elements along the Josey Ranch trail. She said that there would be an installation of a fountain to enhance the lake and this is also attached to the Ordinance and the Planned Development. She stated that the staff in the Engineering Department has conducted a trip generation and traffic circulation assessment in order to address the cut-through traffic concerns. She said in order to discourage potential cut-through traffic a raised driveway feature or median would be placed at the drive opening. Additionally at Council’s discretion the southern most driveway that is currently labeled as “emergency or fire department access only” could be made into a “tenant exit only” where the cars would exit south bound on Josey Lane. She noted that all of the items had been incorporated into the Ordinance as well as additional items could be stipulated in Council’s motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Simons stated that this case was presented to Council with the rendition drawings and they have been viewed. He stated that he would like to make a recommendation that the roof pitch be changed to a minimum of 9 to 12 and to have the south entrance/exit changed into a “tenant exit only”

Councilmember Williams asked if the plaques that are being incorporated were one plaque or numerous plaques through out the property on various buildings. Ms. Levy stated that staff did not know the number of plaques established at this time. She noted that this could be determined in Council’s motion.

Councilmember Hayden moved to approve Case No. 11-05Z1 Villas at Josey Ranch with the additional stipulations of the 9 to 12 roof pitch, the south exit will be a “tenant exit only”, Archway for the existing Josey Ranch be replicated into the site plans and to incorporated historical significance through out the development along with plaques or other means of retaining the historical significance of the property.

REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 30 Councilmember Hayden further stated that this is a quality development on a very difficult site and it is a piece of land that the City bought with the intention to see if it would fit into the Parks plan or for other uses. He stated that as a city this is sufficient land that the City could officially operate with it being on Josey Lane. He said that the location of the land being between a railroad track and a drug store it was not applicable for a park. He added that he appreciated the developer and the product they have brought to the City. He noted that he thought this would be a quality development long-term for the citizens of Carrollton.

The motion was seconded by Councilmember Malone.

Councilmember Williams stated that this case had been difficult one both in an emotional and concerns about traffic especially on the north side of the property in relation to the property owner to the north and to the Walgreens. He said in his opinion is a congestion problem and he has been concerned that this would make matters worse. He said he is very concerned about the historical perspective. He stated that the house is in bad shape and must be torn down. He stated that this would become a historical site for the city. He wanted to make sure that the developer is putting enough items in this development so that a person not familiar with Carrollton and the history of this part of town can come in the future and realize the historical significance of Josey Ranch.

Councilmember Weidinger stated that he agrees with Mr. Williams. He stated that when the City initially bought the property it was purchased for the historical significance that the property contains. He said that the City had looked at many things to put on the property including Restaurants and other enhancements that did not seem to work on this piece of land. He asked if the developer would agree to work with the Historical Board to ensure that the historical significance of the property was maintained. Councilmember Weidinger asked for this to be incorporated into the motion. Mayor Miller asked Councilmember Weidinger if he would like to amend the motion.

Councilmember Hayden commented that the amendment was not a concrete item and he thought in spirit they would all want this to happen and he was sure that the developer in spirit would meet with them to so what they could do. He said that it was opinion to have concrete items that could be documented in the Ordinance versus meet with them and discuss the options.

Mayor Miller stated that had already been done.

Mayor Pro Tem Simons stated that in the last meeting on this case it was brought to the Council’s attention that the developer was going to recondition the entrance gates that exist going into the Josey Ranch property as they are today. He suggested that he would be willing to recondition those gates and rebuild the top arch of those entrance gates where it does say “Josey Ranch Properties”. He stated that he would like to request that Councilmember Hayden amend his motion to request that this be included in the motion. Councilmember Hayden stated he was in favor of amending his motion to include this item.

Councilmember Branson stated that this was a very soul searching case and the case was discussed from every aspect. He said that traffic was a problem and staff did an excellent job to come up with some options that will hopefully work. He said his family had been in Carrollton 23 years and their history goes back farther than that and once you find what was there, it is extremely interesting to know what was once there. He said the largest Rodeo in REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 31 the United States was held on that land and he understood that former Mayor Gravley’s wife was Belle of the Ball. He stated that he would like to encourage the students who are doing a lot of history on Texas and the United States to dig closer to home and it would surprise them what they would find out about their own town.

Mayor Pro Tem Simons stated that in the previous meeting there were some reservations and questions about the cut-through traffic as far as what could and could not do at the entrance going into the commercial property to the north of this area. He asked Ms. Levy to address the reasons why the City is doing the driveway entrance. Ms. Levy stated that there is a Developers Agreement currently in place and has been in place for about 10 years that necessitates or legally binds this property owner as well as the adjacent property owners to have this mutual access through this area and that is why the City must have this access point.

Councilmember Hayden moved to approve Case No. 11-05Z1 Villas at Josey Ranch with the additional stipulations of the 9 to 12 roof pitch, the south exit will be a “tenant exit only”, Archway for the existing Josey Ranch be replicated into the site plans and to incorporated historical significance through out the development along with plaques or other means of retaining the historical significance of the property. Second by Councilmember Malone. The vote was 6-1, Councilmember Williams voted no.

38. Administer the Oath of Office and Certificate of Election to Matthew Marchant for Council Place 4.

Mayor Miller recognized Mayor Pro Tem Simons for his service on the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Simons stated that it has been a great privilege to serve the City of Carrollton for the past four years. He said during this time the Council had accomplished some great things for Carrollton as future. He said that a few things that had been accomplished during his service was the Gravley Center, two new Fire Stations, expanded the Rosemeade Recreation Center, Josey Ranch Lake Library, Carrollton Senior Center, renovated both Golf Courses, purchased Home Depot for future development around the DART light rail stations, managed competition service at that has been implemented has and will continue to be a great accomplishment for Carrollton, past the Bond program that will benefit all the citizens of Carrollton and maintain a budget that provides great services for Carrollton. He thanked the citizens of Carrollton for supporting him in place 4 for the past four years and thanked the employees for their support. He thanked the present and past City Manager’s for producing the information that was needed for him to do his job. He said that the hardest job that a City Manager has is keeping his staff. He thanked Mayor Stokes, Mayor Miller and all the Councilmembers for supporting him through his terms.

Mayor Miller presented Mayor Pro Tem Simons with an appreciation plaque for his dedicated service to the citizens of Carrollton.

Matthew Marchant’s Oath of Office to represent Council Place 4 was presented to him by his father Representative Kenny Marchant. Councilmember Marchant stated that he looked forward to being part of the team and working with everyone.

REGULAR MEETING & WORKSESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PAGE 32 Mayor Miller adjourned the Meeting at 10:30 p.m.

______Becky Miller, Mayor

ATTEST:

______Ashley D. Mitchell, City Secretary