[Call to Order]
[00:00:04]
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: GOOD EVENING.
IT'S 6:00 P.M. WELCOME TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON MARCH 9. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM OF COUNCIL PRESENT. WE'LL BEGIN TONIGHT WITH INVOCATION AND PRAYER LED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAYNE SIBLEY.
>> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: LET'S PRAY.
HEAVENLY FATHER WE THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY AND THANK YOU FOR THE WEATHER YOU BROUGHT TO US AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TONIGHT TO DO THE BUSINESS OF THE GREAT COMMUNITY.
WE ASK YOU TO BE WITH US TO MAKE DECISIONS SOME PEOPLE WILL NOT LIKE AND OTHERS WILL LIKE WELL. LET US BE HOUR TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT IN YOUR EYES. DIRECT US.
>> AMEN. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG; I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND
INDIVISIBLE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU, MR. SIBLEY. A COUPLE OF QUICK HOUSEKEEPING NOTES BEFORE WE BEGIN. AGAIN, WE ARE -- AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 114 HAS BEEN PULLED TONIGHT SO IF YOU ARE HERE FOR THAT AGENDA ITEM, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DISCUSSED THIS EVENING.
ALSO, I WANT TO MAKE MENTION THAT OUR MAYOR IS NOT HERE BUT HE IS HERE. HE'S NOT HERE PHYSICALLY BUT HE IS HERE BY TELEPHONE AND HE WILL BE ENGAGING IN CONVERSATION AND PLACING VOTE AS WELL. AS HE IS ON THE PHONE.
CAN YOU HEAR US MAYOR? >> MAYOR RENO: YES, I CAN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE, MAYOR. LASTLY I WANT TO MENTION WE HAVE A PRETTY LONG AGENDA TONIGHT, SO I WANT TO ASK FOR PATIENCE FROM THE COUNCIL AND FROM THE FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL AS WE ATTEMPT TO TREDGE THROUGH THE 1,400-PAGE AGENDA IN TIMELY MANNER AND ALSO GIVING ADEQUATE TIME TO EACH AND EVERY SINGLE CASE THAT -- GIVE IT THE TIME IT DESERVES.
WITH THAT SAID, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP AGENDA ITEM 2021-096, RECEIVE RACIAL PROFILING AND JUVENILE CURFEW ANNUAL REPORTS. I BELIEVE CHIEF SMITH IS GOING TO COME TELL US ABOUT THAT. I APOLOGIZE.
ONE MORE HOUSEKEEPING NOTE WHILE HE COMES UP.
I WANT TO MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENT TONIGHT THAT WE HAVE REFRESHED THE WEBSITE AND IT'S BEEN LAUNCHED.
TODAY THE CITY WENT LIVE WITH A NEWLY REFRESHED WEBSITE DESIGN FOR THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. THE WEBSITE REFRESH AS IT'S CALLED HAS A MORE VIBRANT AND DYNAMIC LOOK AND FEEL.
THE REDESIGN INCLUDES UPDATED HOME PAGE DESIGN THAT HAS NEW PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY THE CITIZENS AND THE COORDINATING INTERIOR PAGES. WITH THE LAUNCH OF THE REFRESH, REDESIGNED WEBSITE WE'LL PROMOTE FEATURES THAT ENCOURAGE CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT; SUCH AS, NOTIFY ME FUNCTION, THE NEW DESIGN WAS PRODUCED AT NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE BY THE CURRENT WEBSITE SERVICE PROVIDER UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE WEB TEAM LORI LUNDBURG, DIRECTOR OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS, MARY MCDONALD, THE DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY AND TERRY GRENELL, THE CITY TECH COORDINATOR. WE USE TO ENHANCE THE COMMUNICATION TO THE COMMUNITY. AND IT LOOKS GREAT.
THANK YOU TO THE TEAM. NEW EFFORT TO BETTER COMMUNICATE TO THE CITIZENS OF MIDLOTHIAN AND CONNECT THEM TO THE ORGANIZATION. THANK YOU TO THE TEAM.
WITH THAT, CHIEF, OPEN NUMBER 96.
[2021-096]
>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL AND MAYOR.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME THE FIRST IS A RACIAL PROFILING REPORT. THIS WAS -- THERE WE GO.
THE LAW WAS PASSED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE EARLY OR THE LATE 1990S. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF LAW TRACKING THE CONTACT THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS MAKE IN THEIR SHIFT. IT FOCUSES ON THE TRAFFIC RELATED INCIDENTS WHERE THE OFFICERS HAVE AUTONOMY TO MAKE THE STOPS. GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN YOU GET PULLED OVER BY A POLICE OFFICER, WE ARE TRACKING THAT DATA.
SO, TWO YEARS AGO, OR THE LEGISLATURE CHANGE AND REQUIRED THAT WE CONTACT, CONTRACT WITH AN ORGANIZATION GENERALLY SPEAKING A UNIVERSITY TO DO AN AUDIT AND DO AN ANALYSIS, COLLEGE GRADE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA THAT WE PROVIDE.
SO WE HAVE CONTRACTED FOR SEVERAL YEARS WITH DR. DALE
[00:05:02]
CARMEN ONE OF THE FOREMOST AUTHORITIES ON THIS AND HAS BEEN, SPOKE ALL OVER THE NATION AND THE WORLD ON RACIAL PROFILING. SO WE ARE LUCKY HE WAS WITH THE UTA AND IS NOW WITH TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY IN THE CRIMINOLOGY DEPARTMENT. THE WAY WE PROVIDE IT TO HIM IS QUARTERLY BASIS. WE TAKE A SAMPLING AND PROVIDE THAT TO HIM. HE GOES THROUGH THAT, VALIDATES THE DATA AND MAKES SURE THERE ARE NO ANOMALIES AND TAKES THE DATA, THE LAST DATA WE PROVIDE AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND CREATES THE REPORT TO OUR DOCUMENTING AGENCY.IT'S A THICK REPORT, GOES THROUGH THE HISTORY OF THE RACIAL PROFILING, THE LAW ITSELF AND PROVIDES OUR POLICY AND HOW OFFICERS WOULD, OR PEOPLE WOULD COME IN TO MAKE A COME PLANT SHOULD THEY FEEL LIKE THEY WERE RACIALLY PROFILED.
SO ALL OF THAT IS AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE.
ONCE WE MAKE THE PRESENTATION, THAT REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE ON OUR WEB PAGE AS WELL. SO WHAT I WANTED TO DO TONIGHT IS YOU HAVE HAD THE REPORT FOR A WEEK.
I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
WE CAN GO OVER SOME OF THE DATA PRETTY QUICKLY.
IN 2020, AS YOU CAN SEE, I ALWAYS LEAVE ABOUT FIVE YEARS OF DATA IN PARAGRAPH FORM TO LOOK BACK HISTORICALLY ON THE TYPE OF STOP, THE NUMBER OF THE STOP AND HOW THE RACIAL BREAKDOWN MAKES.
AS MIDLOTHIAN CHANGED IN THE LAST 15 YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF CHANGE IN THE DATA BUT NOT SIGNIFICANT SWINGS.
SO IT'S BEEN MIGRATION OVER THE YEARS WHICH THANKS TO DALE CARMEN'S ANALYSIS IS NOT OUT OF BALANCE, SO TO SPEAK.
LAST YEAR, WE MADE 11,536 MOTOR VEHICLE CONTACTS.
THE CONTACTS RESULTED IN ABOUT 4,956 CITATIONS.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, 95 INDIVIDUALS WERE ARRESTED IN THOSE CONTACTS. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, LAST YEAR, COVID PROBABLY AFFECTED THAT A LOT IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTACTS WE HAD IN THE INITIAL LOCKDOWN.
OF THAT NUMBER, WE MADE CONTACT WITH ON CITATIONS.
THIS IS NOT ALL THE FOLKS WE TOUCH.
BUT CITATIONS. THEER ARE THE NUMBERS -- HERE ARE THE NUMBERS 2. ,891 FOR CAUCASIAN.
1,039 MEXICAN AMERICAN OR HISPANIC.
868 WERE AFRICAN-AMERICAN. 16 WERE ASIAN.
68 WERE AMERICAN INDIAN. THE BREAKDOWNS WERE GIVEN TO US.
THE ETHNICITY. WE HAVE TO PROVIDE AND THE OFFICER HAS TO IDENTIFY THOSE ON EACH STOP.
58% OF THE STOPS WERE CAUCASIAN. 23% WERE AMERICAN HIS -- MEXICAN AMERICAN OR HISPANIC. 17% WERE AFRICAN-AMERICAN.
AND 16% -- ACTUALLY 1% WERE THE ALASKAN OR AMERICAN INDIAN.
WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT? I'M NOT A STATISTICIAN.
DR. DALE CARMEN IS. SO HE GOES THROUGH AND HE MAKES, HE DOES A LOT OF RESEARCH TO WHO HAS THE ACCESS TO THE MOTOR VEHICLES. WHO WOULD BE DRIVING THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY. HE DOES AN ANALYSIS ON WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE ANOMALIES TO POINT TO AN OFFICER MAKING RACIALLY BIASED EFFORT ON THE TRAFFIC STOPS AND/OR THE ARREST OR THE SEARCHES. THE OTHER INTERESTING DATA I WILL POINT OUT REAL QUICK WE CONDUCTED 295 SEARCHES LAST YEAR. 119 OF THOSE WERE CUSTODIAN SEARCHES. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN WE ARREST SOMEONE WE HAVE TO SEARCH THEM BEFORE THEY GO IN THE BACK OF THE CAR. IT'S NOT AN OPTION ON THAT.
WE MADE 119 OF THOSE. 34 TIMES WE ASKED FOR CONSENT.
SO HERE IS WHERE SOME OF THE CONTROVERSY GETS IN TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ABILITY TO SEARCH. IF THEY DON'T HAVE WHAT WE CALL PROBABLE CAUSE. IF THEY DON'T SEE OR SMELL WHAT WE CALL "CONTRABAND" AND THEY DON'T SEE SOMETHING THAT APPEARS TO BE STOLEN CONTRABAND, STOLEN ITEMS. SOMETIMES THAT IS ALCOHOL. WE SUSPECT THEY HAVE BEEN DRINKING. THEY HAVE TO ASK CONSENT IF THEY WISH TO SEARCH A CAR. OUT OF THE 295 SEARCHES LAST YEAR, 34 TIMES WE ASKED FOR THAT.
WHEN THEY DO THAT, THEY HAVE TO RECEIVE WRITTEN CONSENT AND IT HAS TO BE ON VIDEOTAPE. SO THAT ENTIRE ENCOUNTER IS RECORDED. OUT OF THAT 295 SEARCHES, 142 STOPS WE FOUND CONTRABAND. THAT IS WELL ABOVE THE NATIONAL
[00:10:02]
AVERAGE WHEN WE TALK OFFICERS DETERMINING THROUGH A STOP THAT SOMEONE HAS EITHER NARCOTICS OR ILLEGAL, SOME TYPE OF OTHER ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE OR STOLEN PROPERTY.SO THEY WERE VERY EFFECTIVE GOING IN TO THE SEARCHES AND DISCOVERING THE CONTRABAND. THE LAST PAGE OF WHAT I GAVE YOU, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT MOST PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN IS THE ANALYSIS AND THE INTERPRETATION, THE FINDINGS THAT IS FOUND IN THE BIG REPORT ON PAGE 28. THIS IS WHAT DR. DALE CARMEN SAYS. THE COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA INCLUDED THIS REPORT DEMONSTRATES MIDLOTHIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPLIED WITH THE TEXAS RACIAL PROFILING LAW AND ALL OF ITS REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, THE REPORT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INCORPORATED COMPREHENSIVE RACIAL PROFILING POLICY. CURRENTLY OFFERS INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC ON HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT, OR COMPLIMENT.
COMMISSIONS QUARTERLY DATA AUDITS TO ENSURE THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY. COLLECTS AND COMMISSIONS OF TIER 2 DATA AND ENSURES THE RACIAL PROFILING IS NOT TOLERATED.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE CONTINUE TO PERFORM INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS, CONTACT AND THE DATA SEARCH FOR FUTURE YEAR CHRISTMAS IS PART OF THE LAW. AND COMMISSION DATA AUDITS IN 2021. WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE OUR CONTRACT WITH HIM TO DO THAT. AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE REQUIRED TRAINING ON AN ON WALL BASIS -- ON AN ANNUAL BY A SIX.
LY. HE COMES IN TO INSTRUCT ON THE LAW AND THE RACIAL PROFILING SITUATION IN THE COUNTRY.
A LONG REPORT. OBVIOUSLY, YOU SAW HOW THICK IT WAS. HE DOES A LOT -- IN FACT, LIKE I SAID, HE DOES MOST OF THE AGENCIES IN NORTH TEXAS.
WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WE ARE NOT ONLY DILIGENT IN THE EFFORTS TO PREVENT RACIAL PROFILING THAT WE TRAIN WELL AND ENGAGE THE CITIZENS IN A FAIR AND UNBIASED WAY.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.
>> CHIEF, OUTSTANDING SUPPORT. >> THANK YOU, SIR.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS?
>> NO, SIR. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU, CHIEF. AND TO THE MIDLOTHIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK.
STAY SAFE OUT THERE. >> WILL DO IT.
ONE MORE FOR YOU. WE TALK ABOUT THE CURFEW.
A LAW THAT HAS A SUNSET ON IT. IF WE DON'T PRESENT THE DATA THE LAW AUTOMATICALLY IS REMOVED FROM THE BOOKS.
SO IN 2020, YOU CAN SEE, WELL, YOU CAN'T SEE.
YOU HAVE THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF YOU.
THIS LAW WAS PASSED, COUNCILMAN SIBLEY, WAY BACK IN 2008.
WE HAVE HAD THIS ON THE BOOKS FOR 13 YEARS WE HAVE BEEN DEADEALING WITH THE CURFEW VIOLATIONS FROM AT LEAST FROM ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT. IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE DO A LOT OF. ONE YEAR WE HAD 17 CONTACTS.
THE LAST TWO YEARS WE HAVE HAD FOUR OR FIVE.
GENERALLY THEY ARE IN THE PARK OR A BUSINESS SETTING.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FOUR CONTACTS WE HAD LAST YEAR WASN'T, IT WAS PRETTY LATE IN THE NIGHT.
WE HAD JUVENILE FOUND IN A VEHICLE AT A PARK.
WAS WITH HER BOYFRIEND. MOM DIDN'T KNOW SHE WAS OUT.
SENT THEM HOME. ANOTHER JUVENILE FOUND AT CITY HALL. DUE TO THE FEAR OF CURFEW VIOLATION WAS PICKED UP. RAN FROM THE OFFICERS.
CALLED THE ADULT WHO WAS STAYING WITH.
ANOTHER TWO, IT'S 700 STEPHENSON BY THE HIGH SCHOOL.
WE CAUGHT TWO JUVENILES THERE HANGING OUT AROUND THE FACILITY THERE. WE ISSUED ONE CITATION ONE MORNING. WE DON'T DO A LOT OF ENFORCEMENT WITH THIS. BUT I PROMISE YOU THAT ALL THE KIDS IN MIDLOTHIAN KNOW WE HAVE A CURFEW ORDINANCE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT PARENTS USE ROUTINELY TO SAY HEY, IF YOU'RE OUT AFTER 11:00 IN THE WEEK YOU ARE LIKELY GOING TO BE PICKED UP BY MIDLOTHIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT. WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF ISSUES THERE. WE ALSO HAVE, WE TALK ABOUT THE PARKS TO FIND THE KIDS ROUTINELY.
WE HAVE ORDINANCE THAT CLOSE THE PARKS.
SO THE OFFICERS CAN USE EITHER THAT OR THE CURFEW.
SO BOTH OF THOSE ORDINANCES ARE AT OUR DISPOSAL.
BUT THE ISSUE WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO USE THAT AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW, THIS IS A VALUABLE TOOL FOR THE OFFICERS OVERNIGHT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE CAN, WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT -- ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOOK AT WITH THE ANALYSIS IS IN THIS CASE, THESE WERE ALL MIDLOTHIAN KIDS.
SO, IN YEARS PAST WE HAVE HAD KIDS FROM WAXAHACHIE, ARLINGTON
[00:15:04]
FILTER IN. THIS WAS ONLY THE FOUR FROM OUR JURISDICTION. WE EVEN FOLLOW UP AND LOOK AT WHAT TYPE OF THE INTERACTIONS WE HAVE WITH THE KIDS.ONLY ONE OF THE KIDS WE MADE CONTACT WAS KNOWN TO POLICE OFFICERS BASED ON INTERACTION, OTHER ACTIVITY; SUCH AS, POSSESSION OF CONTRABAND. AND THEN ONLY THE ONE CITATION WAS HANDLED THROUGH COURT AND DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY MET THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE COURT. SO, LIKE I SAID, IT'S AN EFFECTIVE ORDINANCE. WE USE IT TO OUR ADVANTAGE.
I THINK THE FACT THAT IT IS ON THE BOOKS IS VERY EFFECTIVE TO KEEP THE KIDS OUT OF AREAS WHERE THEY WOULD CONGREGATE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: YOU SAID THE ORDINANCE EXPIRES?
>> YES. IT HAS A SUNSET CLAUSE ON IT.
IF WE DON'T PRESENT EVERY THREE YEARS, I BELIEVE IT IS, THAT WE HAVE TO PRESENT AND REFILE THAT ORDINANCE.
YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT. WE SHOULD BE COMING CLOSE.
EITHER IN APRIL OR NEXT YEAR WE'LL BE BRINGING THAT BACK TO YOU. IF I DON'T PRESENT THE DATA, IT
AUTOMATICALLY IS REMOVED. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: OKAY. SO, I GUESS WE'LL SEE THAT ON A
FUTURE AGENDA ITEM. >> YES, YOU WILL.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF?
>> I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THERE IS NO MORE THAN THAT.
>> YEAH. IT SPEAKS TO OUR COMMUNITY.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: WHAT THE TIME -- CURIOSITY, SO I CAN TELL MY DAUGHTER. WHAT IS THE TIME ON THE WEEKEND?
>> SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 11:00 TO 5:00 A.M.
ON THE WEEKENDS ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY IT'S 12:00 TO 5:00 A.M.
THERE ARE REASONS OR EXCLUSIONS FOR THAT.
IF YOU GOING TO WORK, IN BAND OR FOOTBALL, TRANSITIONING HERE OR THERE. YOU CAN'T BE HELD LIBEL FOR SOMETHING IS A VALID REASON TO BE OUT.
IT'S SIMPLY THE LOITERING OR UNKNOWN THAT YOU STUCK OUT OVERNIGHT AND ARE HANGING OUT WITH YOUR FRIENDS AT THE PARK.
THAT KIND OF THING IS WHAT WE LOOK FOR.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, CHIEF. >> THANK Y'ALL.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 2021-097, CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. WE INVITE CITIZENS TO DISCUSS ANY TOP I CANNOT ON THE HEARING. THEY SHOULD COMPLETE A FORM PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING AND THE SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANYONE REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM NOT SCHEDULED THIS EVENING.
[2021-098]
MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. ALL MATTERS UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED ON ONE MOTION WITHOUT SEPARATE DISCUSSION.THE DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THEN THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
>> COMMISSIONER: MR. MAYOR PRO TEM, I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE 2021-99 AND 2021-100 TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: WE'LL PULL 2021-099 AND 2021-100 FOR THE DISCUSSION M MOMENTARIL. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THE
CONSENT AGENDA? >> COMMISSIONER: MOVE TO
APPROVE AND SECOND. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ASK THE MAYOR FOR THE VOCAL VOTE. MAYOR RENO? RICHARD? CALL IT TO VOTE.
PLACE YOUR VOTE FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 2021-099, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON
[2021-099]
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,000 BE AWARDED BY THE MIDLOTHIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, TO MANA HOUSE FOR THE PURCHASE OF PREPACKAGED SCHOOL SUPPLIES FOR THE BACK TO SCHOOL BASH.BEFORE US IS ALAN NIX, THE CHAIR OF THE 4B BOARD.
>> MANNA HOUSE CAME TO ASK FOR A GRANT TO DO THE BACK-TO-SCHOOL BASH WITH THE SCHOOL SUPPLIES. LAST YEAR, WE APPROVED THE GRANT. WE DID IT THROUGH THE ADVERTISING AND WE WAS ABLE TO SUPPLY SCHOOL SUPPLIES FOR ANY KID IN THE MIDLOTHIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT LIVES IN THE MIDLOTHIAN CITY LIMITS. WE WERE ABLE TO DO 2,571 KIDS.
GOT FREE SCHOOL SUPPLIES LAST YEAR.
WE GOT A LOT OF THE FEEDBACK FROM THE TEACHERS TO TALK ABOUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BUY SCHOOL SUPPLIES.
WE GOT A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM THE PARENTS TALKING ABOUT EVERYONE THE KIDS THAT DIDN'T GO TO SCHOOL BUT STAYED AT HOME AND DID HOME SCHOOL. ABLE TO PICK UP THE SCHOOL SUPPLIES AND SAVE THOSE PARENTS MONEY THAT REALLY THE PARENTS DIDN'T HAVE. THIS YEAR THEY VOTED TO REDO THE
[00:20:05]
REQUEST AGAIN. DONE AT $90,000.ONCE WE GET THE LIST FROM THE SCHOOL WE WILL BE ABLE TO KNOW HOW MANY KIDS WILL GET IT AND WHAT GRADE LEVELS WHEN WE BUY SCHOOL SUPPLIES. THIS IS DONE THROUGH THE MANNA
HOUSE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING FOR A FEW YEARS AND IT HELPS A LOT OF THE UNDERPRIVILEGED KIDS.
4B COMES FROM THE SALES TAX MONEY.
>> CORRECT. COUNTRY IT'S NOT YOUR TAX -- --
>> COUNCILMEMBER: IT'S NOT YOUR TAXES.
IT COMES WHEN YOU BUY A STARBUCKS.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ENTERTAIN A MOTION?
>> COUNCILMEMBER: MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> MAYOR RENO: MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: SECOND BY WAYNE SIBLEY.
MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO VOTE? >> MAYOR RENO: CAN YOU HEAR
ME? >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: YES,
AND IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY. MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM
[2021-100]
2021-100. WHICH IS CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE FROM THE MIDLOTHIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,000 TO FUND AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR A SPORTS PARK UPDATE DESIGN PLAN BETWEEN TEAGUE, NALL&PERKINS AND THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN TO PROVIDE DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE SPORTS PARK PROJECT. ALLEN?>> THIS IS A SPORTS PARK, THE GIRLS SOFTBALL FIELDS.
WE GOT FUNDING FOR THE COMMUNITY PARK AND NOW MOVE TO THE SOFTBALL FIELD. WE ARE LOOKING WITH THE PARKS BOARD AND THE PARKS DEPARTMENT REDESIGNING THE FIELDS, REDOING THE RESTROOMS, THE PLAYGROUND AND REALLY BRINGING IT UP TO DATE. BECAUSE IT NEEDS A LOT OF WORK.
WE ARE ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF THE $17,000 FOR THE ENGINEER TO
DO THE DRAWINGS FOR THAT. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: OKAY. ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER: MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MR. SIBLEY.
>> COUNCILMAN MILLER: SECOND. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: SECOND FROM MR. MILLER. MAYOR, YOUR VOTE?
>> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EVERYONE ELSE PLACE YOUR VOTES. IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY.
>> THANK YOU, GUYS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU TO THE 4B BOARD AND THE ENTIRE BOARD AND THE COMMITTEE FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON THAT. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. OPEN ITEM 2021-107, CONDUCT A
[2021-107]
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 9.74 ACRES IN THE M. BRENAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 43 THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1120 APPLE LANE. MARCOS?>> MARCOS: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM.
THIS IS ALONG APPLE LANE AND IT CONTAINS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON OVER 9 ACRES OF LAND. CONCEPT PLAN WAS PROVIDED SHOWING HOW THE PROPERTY WILL BE SUBDIVIDED IN TO THE THREE LOTS.
THE LOTS WILL RANGE FROM 1.3 ACRES TO THE FOUR ACRES IN SIZE.
THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURAL ZONING AND THIS IS IN THE COUNTRY MODULE. THE COUNTRY MODULE ALLOWS FOR THE LOTS TO RANGE FROM 1-3 ACRES IN SIZE.
THE SLIDE DOES SHOW SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND THE LOT SIZES, OR THE TRACT SIZES.
THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS IS A BREAKDOWN OF THE BASE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH LOT AS THEY MUST ADHERE TO THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS. HOME SHALL CONTAIN ARTICULATED FRONT ENTRANCES AND FRONT HEIGHT VARIATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR EACH HOME. IN PARTICULAR, NO ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WILL BE REPEATED ON ANY OF THE LOTS IN THE SUBJECT AREA.
WE DID SEND 16 LETTERS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
TO DATE, THE STAFF RECEIVED MULTIPLE LETTERS IN THE OPPOSITION FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200 FEET. WE DID RECEIVE MORE THAN THE 20% IN OPPOSITION. SO IT DOES TRIGGER WHAT WE CALL A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE FOR CITY COUNCIL FOR THE ITEM TO GET APPROVED. ON MARCH 4, THE COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST 5-0.
I'LL CONTINUE TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: WE HAVE SEVERAL, I HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO SIGNED UP IN OPPOSITION TO NOT SPEAK.
I BELIEVE THERE IS FOUR SUBMISSIONS FROM THAT.
I ALSO HAVE ABOUT EIGHT SPEAKERS.
I THINK WE WILL GO STRAIGHT TO THE CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT. AS I CALL YOUR NAME, IF YOU WILL COME UP AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE
[00:25:01]
INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE I'LL BE FIRM ON THE THREE-MINUTE RULE THIS EVENING BECAUSE WE HAVE AN EXTENSIVE AGENDA IN FRONT OF US. I WILL GIVE YOU A QUICK WARNING.THEN WE'LL TRY TO STICK TO THE THREE MINUTES.
SO, WE'LL START OFF WITH JOHN SHANNON.
>> YOU SAID THAT OUR ADDRESS AN- >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: YES,
PLEASE. >> JOHN SHANNON, 111 APPLE LANE.
I DO LIVE -- 111 APPLE LANE. I DO LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS.
I HAVE TWO CONCERNS WITH THE PROJECT.
ONE BEING THE ROAD. CURRENTLY ONCE YOU GET PAST THE SHORTS' HOUSE, PASS APPLE COURT, THE ROAD REDUCES DOWN TO A LANE AND A HALF. SO RIGHT NOW MEANING WHEN YOU COME HEAD TO HEAD WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE YOU HAVE TO PULL OVER.
ONE PERSON HAS TO PULL OVER TO LET OTHER PERSON GO BY.
IT'S CURRENTLY NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL.
IT HAPPENS TWO OR THREE TIMES A WEEK.
WITH THE ADDITIONAL HOMES, MORE TRAFFIC, THAT COULD BE ANNOYING TO PULL OVER TO GET TO MY HOUSE EVERY TIME.
THE SECOND PROBLEM I GOING FORWARD IS THE WATER PROCESS.
WE LIVE ON THE END OF THE APPLE LANE ON 15-ACRE TRACT.
WE HAVE LOW WATER PRESSURE. I MADE AN APPOINTMENT WITH RANDY KIRK, TALKED ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO WHEN WE BUILT THE HOME.
HE EXPLAINED THAT THE SERVICE, THE AREA THAT SERVICES US, THE PIPES WERE SMALLER THAN I GUESS THAT SERVICE THE METERS, WHICH COULD BE WHY WE HAVE LOW PRESSURE.
THE PRESSURE IS SO LOW SAY IF MY WIFE WAS RUNNING A BATH, I COULD NOT TAKE A SHOWER. THE WATER FALLS OUT OF THE SHOWER HEAD AT THAT POINT. IT'S ONLY ONE THING AT A TIME IN OUR HOME CURRENTLY. WITH THE ADDITION OF MORE HOMES DOWNSTREAM IF US, I WORRY ABOUT OUR PRESSURE DECREASING EVERYONE -- EVENMORE THAN IT ALREADY IS. THE PLANNING AND THE ZONING COMMITTEE WE WATCHED IT VIRTUALLY.
WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND. ONE OF THE MEMBERS STATED THEY TALKED TO RANDY AND HE SAID ALL HOMES WERE SERVICED BY A FOUR-INCH PIPE. HAVING THE CONVERSATION WITH RANDY THREE YEARS AGO, I CALLED HIM ON THURSDAY.
HE DID CONFIRM THAT ALL THE HOMES ARE THE END OF APPLE LANE SERVICED WITH TWO-INCH PIPE. SO WE DO HAVE REDUCED WATER
AVAILABLE TO US. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ONE
MORE MINUTE. >> SO WITH THE ADDITION OF THIS, MY MAIN CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, OUR WATER PRESSURE IS GOING TO BE EVEN LESS THAN WHAT IT ALREADY IS, AND IT'S PRETTY UNBEARABLE AT THE MOMENT. ASKING YOU TO TAKE THAT IN TO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU TAKE YOUR VOTE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. CYNTHIA SHANNON.
>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: HI. CYNTHIA SHANNON.
ALSO 1311 APPLE LANE. I'LL JUST FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT HE SAYS AND JUST SAY THAT WE EXPECT THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN TO CONTINUE GROWING. WE SUPPORT MOST GROWTH.
BUT WE THINK IT'S YOUR JOB TO DO THAT GROWTH RESPONSIBLY AND NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CURRENT TAXPAYING CITIZENS HERE.
WE CAME HERE WHEN WE WERE BUILDING OUR HOUSE AND WE WATCHED HOW MUCH TIME Y'ALL SPEND BUILDING BUSINESSES AND MAKING SURE THAT THE DRIVES WON'T AFFECT TRAFFIC AND ALL THOSE THINGS AND WE EXPECT THE SAME CONSIDERATION FOR THIS.
THAT'S IT. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: DONNA WINDSOR.
>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'M DONNA WINDSOR AND I LIVED ON 910 APPLE COURT FOR 35 YEARS IN AUGUST. WE HAVE WATCHED THIS AREA.
IT'S A SMALL SUBDIVISION. IT HAS TWO ROADS.
APPLE LANE AND APPLE COURT. ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT.
GOD FORBID WE EVER HAD TO EVACUATE, IT WOULD BE A DISASTER. THEY ARE ASKING US TO TAKE ONE HOUSE AND TURN IT IN TO THREE HOUSES.
MY DAUGHTER WANTED TO BUILD A NEXT TO US SO WE WENT TO HAVE A MINOR PLAT DONE. I HAD TO COME TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO GET IT APPROVED. WE WERE TOLD AT THAT TIME WE WERE AGRICULTURAL AND THE CITY COUNCIL IN 2018 CHANGED IT TO AGRICULTURAL. HAD TO BE FOUR-PLUS ACRES.
SO THAT IS WHAT WE DIVIDED ITIN. FOUR ACRES AND FIVE AND A HALF ACRES SO I DON'T KNOW WHY IT CHANGES.
TRAFFIC IS A PROBLEM BUT YOU UNDERSTAND WHEN WE HAD THE STORM WHAT IT WAS LIKE WITH THE HOUSES NOT HAVING ENOUGH ELECTRICITY.
OUR ELECTRICITY IN THE SUMMERTIME GOES OUT AT LEAST FIVE TIMES LIKE THE MAJORITY OF THE NIGHT.
WHEN WE HAVE THE SNOWSTORM, IT WAS OUT FOR THREE HOURS GOING IN AND OUT, IN AND OUT. SO THEY HAD TO PUT A GENERATOR IN FOR US. I THINK WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO BUILD A LOT OF HOUSES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
ESPECIALLY SINCE WE CANNOT -- WE ONLY HAVE ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY
[00:30:01]
OUT. THERE IS NO OTHER EXIT.THANK YOU. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. DEBBIE ROARK MEYERS.
>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: HELLO. I'M AT 1131 APPLE LANE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THIS PROPERTY. THE FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY IS THAT THE LAST FEW MEETINGS THAT WE HAVE COME TO, THE 37 ACRES
BEHIND MRS. GREEN'S -- I STILL >> MRS. GREEN'S PROPERTY.
KEEPS COMING UP. WE ARE NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF A DEVELOPER BUYS AND IF THEY PUT A ROAD THROUGH IT. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO PUT A ROAD THROUGH 12-FOOT WIDE STREET WHICH IS WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. THIS IS AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS DEVELOPED ALREADY. I JUST, OUR STREETS ARE AN ISSUE. DRAINAGE WHEN IT RAINS IS AN ISSUE. THE WATER FRE PRESSURE IS AN IS.
I ASK YOU TO ALL THE THINGS IN CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR
DECISION. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: JOHN WAGNER.
>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: MY NAME IS JOHN WAGNER AND I LIVE 1521 APPLE COURT. I ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE PEOPLE, WATER PRESSURE, TRAFFIC. I JUST SAT ON APPLE LANE FOR 15 MINUTES TRYING TO GET ON TO 663. EVERYBODY SAYS MIDLOTHIAN DOESN'T HAVE A TRAFFIC PROBLEM. I DISAGREE.
THE WATER PRESSURE, THE STREET DESIGN, THE ROAD IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH. LIKE MRS. WINDSOR SAID, THEY HAD TO GIVE FOUR ACRES. SO HOW CAN THEY TAKE AN EXISTING PROPERTY WITH AN EXISTING DWELLING AND SPLIT THE REST OF IT UP AND MAKE THREE? THEY SHOULD HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST FOUR ACRES. LIKE IS REQUIRED.
THAT AREA OUT THERE WILL NOT HANDLE THE TRAFFIC.
THREE MORE HOUSES, THAT IS AT LEAST SIX MORE CARS.
FOUR HOUSES IS EIGHT CARS. THAT IS IF THEY HAVE NO CHILDREN AND IT'S JUST A HUSBAND AND WIFE DRIVING.
THAT ROAD CANNOT HANDLE THAT TRAFFIC.
THANK YOU. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU, SIR. MR. PEPPER KUYKENDAHL.
>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: HI. I'M PEPPER KUYKENDAHL, 720 APPLE LANE. THEY TALKED ABOUT ALL THE GOOD STUFF, SO ONLY THING I GOT IS WE MOVED HERE, I LIKED IT.
IT WAS OUT IN THE COUNTRY. WE ARE CITY NOW.
BUT IN THE LITTLE SUBDIVISION THAT WE ARE, IT'S LIKE RANCHETTE LIVING. WINDSORS CAME, THEY CAME AND IT WAS PUT IN THE FOUR ACRES MINIMUM THAT YOU COULD DO ON IT.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM I HAVE. HOW DO YOU GET ONE ACRE, THAT IS JUST OPENING UP THE DOOR TO WHAT WILL IT DO TO EVERYBODY ELSE? I'M LIKE STICK WITH IT. KEEP US RANCHETTE, FOUR-ACRE MINIMUM. THEY WANT TO BUILD HOUSES, THERE IS PLENTY UP AND DOWN 663. THEY CAN GO THERE.
THANK YOU. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU, SIR. FINALLY OUR LAST ONE IS JORDAN RAINES. I BELIEVE YOU ARE THE APPLICANT.
GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. JORDAN REINES 7460 DELYN CIRCLE, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CITY LIMITS. WE WERE HERE IN DECEMBER, I BELIEVE, WITH A PREVIOUS REQUEST.
AT THAT TIME WE WERE REQUESTING A SPLIT OF THE FOUR LOTS.
I BELIEVE IT WAS THE SUBMITTAL. WE TALKED WITH THE COUNCIL QUITE A BIT THAT EVENING. IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE SWITCH TO THREE LOTS AT THAT TIME.
WE DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO MAKE A BRASH DECISION AND WE WEREN'T SURE WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE ON OUR END.
SO WE DID STEP BACK AND REVIEW IT.
WE WERE ABLE TO TALK TO A FEW PEOPLE AND WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SECURE SOME INTERESTED PARTIES TO ACQUIRE THEM SHOULD THIS GET APPROVED. SO WE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND RESUBMIT FOR THIS REQUEST. YOU KNOW, THERE IS A TWO-INCH WATER LINE AT THE END BUT IT IS A FOUR-INCH LINE WHERE OUR PROPERTY. IS. MOUNT PEAK HAS BEEN OUT THERE AND WORK ON THE LINE WHILE IT'S BEEN THERE.
SO ON THAT ONE ALL I CAN SAY IS MOUNT PEAK HAS GIVEN US THE CAPACITY FOR THE TWO EXTRA HOMES.
[00:35:01]
THEY ARE THE EXPERTS. I CAN'T SAY MUCH MORE BEYOND THAT. OBVIOUSLY, ON THE TRAFFIC, I WILL FULLY ADMIT TURNING ON TO 663, ANYWHERE ALONG 663 IS A BIT OF A CHORE AT TIMES. IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, WITH AS MUCH DEVELOPMENT GOING IN ALL OVER SOUTH OF 287, I DON'T THINK, I THINK TWO HOUSES IS A BIT OF A DROP IN THE BUCKET OF THE OVERALL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR 663.OTHERWISE, I STAND FOR QUESTIONS.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: OKAY.
I THINK WE WILL COME BACK TO QUESTIONS TO YOU IF WE HAVE ANY GOING FORWARD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I'M INVITE MARCOS BACK UP. AND OPEN IT UP TO COUNCIL FOR QUESTIONS. WE ARE JUST AS A REMINDER WE STILL IN PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE CONVERSATION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: QUELL OR IS HE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING?
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: NO. QUESTIONS TO STAFF OR TO THE
DEVELOPER. >> COUNCILMEMBER: MY FIRST QUESTION IS PLAINLY ON THE PAPER HERE.
IT SAYS THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
DISTANCE OF THE MAP ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR THE AUTHORITATIVE DEFINITION OF THE LEGAL BOUNDARY, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
SO ARE WE TRYING TO GET A THREE-ACRE 1.3 AND FOUR? ARE WE DOING WHAT THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE IT SAYS POTENTIALLY?
>> MARCOS: NO. WE ARE TRYING TO GET WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE ACTUAL LEGAL ORDINANCE SHOWING THE 1.33 ACRES
AND FOUR ACRES. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I FIGURED AS MUCH BUT FOUND IT STRANGE -- IT'S CONFLICTING LANGUAGE IN THE
SAME PRESENTATION. >> MARCOS: CORRECT.
WE CAN SEE ABOUT HAVING IT STRICKEN FROM THE ATTACHMENT, THAT EXHIBIT. WE CAN STRIKE THAT.
>> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: OKAY. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: MARCOS, THIS DOES MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, COUNTRY MODULE WHICH IS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF THE ONE ACHIER TO THREE ACRES IN -- ACRE TO THREE ACRES IN THE FUTURE
LAND USE PLAN? >> MARCOS: YES, SIR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: AND THE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS MEET OUR
STANDARDS? >> MARCOS: YES, SIR.
THE P.D. IS CREATING THEIR OWN --
>> BUT OUR STANDARDS. >> MARCOS: YES.
THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU WOULD FIND ALONG THE LINES WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL OR THE SF1 STANDARDS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER: MARCOS, DO YOU HAVE THE PICTURE THEY SHOWED THE OTHER NIGHT AT P&Z WHERE THE WATER LINE RUNS AND THE LOOP AND THE FOUR-INCH LINE AND ALL OF THAT? IS THAT A DIFFERENT PART OF IT?
>> MARCOS: THAT IS IN GOOGLE EARTH.
WE WOULD NEED TO BRING GOOGLE EARTH UP TO SHOW ESSENTIALLY HOW THE WATER LINES RUN. THE FOUR-INCH LINE DOES RUN TO ABOUT THIS POINT. I BELIEVE ONE OF THE FOLKS WAS SPEAKING HERE, THEY SAID THAT THAT CHANGES DOWN TO A TWO-INCH FROM THIS POINT GOING THIS DIRECTION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: RIGHT. DIDN'T ALSO RANDY SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHERE THEY ARE AT, LOCATED BY TOPICAL, THAT THEY ARE AT THE TOP OF THE HILL WHERE THE WATER TOWER IS AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE REDUCED THE PRESSURE TO START WITH BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION TO THE TOWER? WASN'T THAT PART OF WHAT WAS
COMING OUT THAT? >> MARCOS: RANDY KIRK SAID THAT? I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT.
I DON'T -- >> COUNCILMEMBER: I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT AT P&Z. MAY NOT HAVE BUT I THOUGHT IT
WAS A COMMENT MADE. >> MARCOS: MIGHT HAVE COME FROM THE APPLICANT. POSSIBLE.
THE CHAIRMAN SAID THAT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THE FORMER MAYOR WOULD KNOW THAT ANSWER RIGHT THERE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MAYOR, CAST YOUR VOTE ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? MAYOR RENO, ARE YOU THERE? OKAY. WE'LL CALL THE VOTE.
PASSES 6-0. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. MARCOS, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS HERE -- FORGIVE ME I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE IT WAS BY NAME.
MADE A MENTION TO SUB PLATTING THEIR OWN PROPERTY FOR A
DAUGHTER TO BUILD A HOUSE. >> IT WAS ORIGINALLY 9.5 ACRES.
WE WERE TOLD BY YOU -- >> I'LL GET THERE.
NO PROBLEM. BUT MY QUESTION PURELY IS I UNDERSTAND THEIR POINT AND WHAT THEY PROBABLY HAD TO GO THROUGH AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE.
BUT MAYBE WHERE THE DISCONNECT IS BETWEEN THE TWO SITUATIONS IS ONE SOUNDS TO ME LIKE A STRAIGHT ZONE.
AND THIS SEEMS TO BE A P.D., RIGHT?
>> MARCOS: YOU HIT IT ON THE NAIL.
THAT IS CORRECT. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: SO MY QUESTION IS WAS THE SAME P.D. PROCESS AFFORDED TO THE OTHER
[00:40:05]
PARTY? >> MARCOS: SURE! THEY COULD HAVE, IF THEY WANTED TO GO BELOW THE FOUR ACRE MINIMUM STRAIGHT ZONE REQUIREMENT, THEY COULD HAVE GONE THROUGH, COULD HAVE REQUESTED A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
JUST AS THESE FOLKS ARE DOING. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: THAT BEING SAID, SHOULD ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS' SITUATIONS CHANGE OR THE DESIRES CHANGE, SOME OF THE PEOPLE HAVE FOUR ACRES, SOME HAVE TEN ACRES, SOME HAVE 15. IF THEY WANT TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY AND THE NEW OWNER WANTS TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL, CREATE A P.D. OR REQUEST A P.D. TO PUT IN HOWEVER MANY HOMES THEY HAVE THE
RIGHT TO DO SO. >> MARCOS: ABSOLUTELY.
YES, SIR. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: ASIDE FROM THE NEIGHBORS SITTING THERE RIGHT NOW SAYING I'M NOT MOVING THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING THAT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.
>> MARCOS: YES, SIR. THAT IS CORRECT.
>> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> MARCOS: SURE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MAYOR RENO, I HEARD YOU SPEAK UP.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE ON THE CASE?
>> MAYOR RENO: NO. I HAD A -- [INAUDIBLE] I WAS GOING TO VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BUT I DO WANT TO SAY SOMETHING.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: PLEASE.
BY ALL MEANS. NOW WOULD BE GOOD.
>> MAYOR RENO: NOW WOULD BE GOOD?
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: YES, SIR.
>> MAYOR RENO: -- [INAUDIBLE] I'M OUT THERE AS A 25-YEAR RESIDENT MYSELF.
HOWEVER, THEY MEET ALL THE EXPECTATIONS AND ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. AND I HONESTLY BELIEVE THIS IS IN THE BEST LONG-TERM INTEREST OF THE CITY.
BUT ALSO THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS.
SO I WILL VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: OKAY.
THANK YOU, SIR. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> COUNCILMEMBER: I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING.
I THINK AS THE PUBLIC SERVANTS WE OWE IT TO THE CITIZENS TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE BEST QUALITY OF LIFE WE CAN.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF US IF WE PURCHASED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE BROKEN DOWN TO SMALLER LOTS THE WAY IT IS NOW. ESPECIALLY THE ONE LADY THAT SPOKE WHO SAID SHE WAS NOT AFFORDED THAT COMMUNITY.
AND HAD TO ALTER HER PLANS. I DON'T SEE THIS WATER PRESSURE ISSUE HELPING THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE BY ADDING HOUSES. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD ARGUE IT WOULD HELP THE ISSUE. I THINK IT WILL MAKE IT WORSE.
AT NO TIME DID THE BUILDER OR THE DEVELOPER SAY THAT MOUNTAIN PEAK IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WATER LINES SO THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT THAT IS GOING TO GET BETTER.
AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF US UP HERE WOULD SIT HERE AND SAY WE WOULD LIKE TO BE IN THAT SITUATION.
I THINK WE SHOULD ALL TRY TO PUT OURSELVES IN THESE PEOPLE, ON THESE TWO ROADS AND THE PEOPLE WITH THE LOW WATER PRESSURE SITUATION AND TAKE THAT IN TO CONSIDERATION.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF OUR CITIZENS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
OKAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I GOT TWO THINGS TO SAY. FIRST, WATER PRESSURE IS A FUNNY THING. I THINK A LOT OF US UP HERE ALREADY KNOW THAT. WATER PRESSURE IN YOUR HOUSE CAN BE AFFECTED BY THINGS OUTSIDE OF YOUR HOUSE.
LIKE SIZE OF SUPPLY LINES BUT ALSO AFFECTED BY THE LINE THAT SUPPLIES YOUR HOUSE FROM YOUR METER.
SO THAT IS USUALLY THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT WOULD DICTATE HOW MUCH WATER YOUR HOUSE CAN TAKE IN.
SO, I'M NOT A LAWYER OR TRYING TO SAY I'M A HOUSE DEVELOPER BUT I DO KNOW A FEW THINGS ABOUT THAT.
I WOULD SAY THAT SARDUS IS THE EXPERT IN THIS.
MOUNT PEAK. SORRY MOUNT PEAK IS THE EXPERT IN THIS. WE COULD POTENTIALLY APPROVE 50 HOUSES TO GO HERE. BUT IF MOUNTAIN PEAK DOESN'T GIVE THEM THE WATER RIGHTS TO DO SO, IT WOULDN'T GO FORWARD.
RIGHT? I HAVE TO STAND ON THE FACT THAT MOUNTAIN PEAK KNOWS WHAT THAT LINE CAN HOLD AS FAR AS CAPACITY. SO THAT IS NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, LIKE I SAID, IF IN MY OWN HOUSE, I LIVE ON PLAINVIEW, I CAN'T RUN THE MASTER BATHROOM -- WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? THE BATHTUB AND THE SHOWER AT THE SAME TIME. THAT IS PURELY BECAUSE OF A PLUMBING ISSUE WITH A THREE-QUARTER LINE THAT GOES DIRECT TO MY SHOWER DIRECT TO MY TUB.
IT PULLS WATER SUPPLY FROM THE SHOWER.
THAT IS JUST HOW THE HOUSE IS BUILT.
IT CAN BE FIXED BUT NONE OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH ANYTHING IN REGARD TO THE SUPPLY THAT IS COMING TO THE HOUSE.
SO, HAVING NO REAL INFORMATION HOW EACH INDIVIDUAL HOUSE OVER
[00:45:01]
THERE IS PLUMBED I CAN'T RIGHTFULLY MAKE THAT DECISIONBASED OFF OF THAT INFORMATION. >> I CAN TELL YOU HOW MINE IS
PLUMBED. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: I CAN'T TAKE IT RIGHT NOW. I APPRECIATE THAT.
WE CAN TALK AFTER THIS. THAT BEING SAID, THE APPLICANT HERE, I HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE ON P&Z.
YOU FEEL LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT -- I FEEL LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING HERE, THEY WILL BE LIKE YOU.
SURE, THEIR LOTS ARE SMALLER. BUT WE'RE NOT PUTTING OR THEY ARE NOT PUTTING 50 HOUSES HERE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN ADDITION OF TWO HOUSES. IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE IMPACT OF TWO HOUSES IN THIS AREA ALTHOUGH UNDESIRABLE FOR THE LONG-TERM MENTAL PICTURE OR EXPECTATION WHEN YOU MOVE THERE, IT COULD BE SAID THAT ON THANKSGIVING WHEN ALL OF YOUR NEIGHBORS HAVE THREE, FOUR, FIVE PEOPLE.
FAMILY AND THE GRANDKIDS, YOU ALL COME OVER, YOU ARE FLEXING THE SERVICE CAPACITY RIGHT THERE.
SO TO SAY THAT TWO HOUSES WITH A COUPLE MORE PEOPLE WE JUST COULDN'T MAKE THAT HAPPEN, I FEEL LIKE THAT IS A STRETCH IN MY OPINION. NOW I THINK THE APPLICANT -- I'LL BE DONE. I THINK THE APPLICANT IS TRYING HARD TO ASSIMILATE IN TO YOUR COMMUNITY.
THEY HAVE REDUCED THE HOUSE COUNT BY ONE.
THEY HAVE CHANGED THE LOT SIZES. YOU FEEL LIKE BY MEETING ALL OF OUR EXPECTATIONS, AND OUR REQUIREMENTS, THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR BEST FOOT FORWARD. I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF IT.
I KNOW I FOUGHT FOR YOU GUYS BEFORE IN OTHER, WHEN IT'S COME UP BEFORE. I CAN'T SEE ANOTHER REASON TO STAND IN FRONT OF THE APPLICANT TO SAY NO.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE WATER PRESSURE AGAIN. I WAS BORNE AND RAISED IN MIDLOTHIAN. GONE FOR 30 YEARS BUT CAME BACK FOR 46. WHEN I CAME BACK THE WATER LINE I HOOKED UP TO WAS A TWO-INCH LINE.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS WATER IS CONCERNED. WELL, IN TIME, IT'S GONE FROM -- IT'S REALLY, IT'S DIFFERENT NOW. I'VE GOT TWO 12-INCH LINES IN FRONT OF ME. ONE FROM MIDLOTHIAN AND ONE FROM SARDIS LONG OUT AND IT TAKES TIME.
MOUNTAIN PEAK IS GOING TO HAVE TO STEP UP AND DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. I WOULD BE AFTER THEM TO DO IT RIGHT NOW WITH A TWO-INCH LINE. TWO-INCH LINE DOESN'T MEET ANY FIRE REQUIREMENTS. THAT IS SAD.
THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO.
THAT IS SOMETHING Y'ALL NEED TO GO TO MOUNTAIN PEAK ABOUT.
THAT IS JUST WHAT I WANT TO SAY. I KNOW WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM, WITH A TWO-INCH LINE, THAT IS BAD.
BUT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU.
TED IN >> COUNCILMAN MILLER: I NEVER THOUGHT I'D SAY THIS BUT I AGREE WITH WALTER 100%.
I MEAN HE WAS MAKING ALL OF MY POINTS AND I'M GETTING READY TO FIGHT AND NO POINTS TO BE MADE AFTER HE GOT DONE.
>> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: GETTING CLOSER.
>> COUNCILMAN MILLER: WE ASKED THEM TO COME BACK WITH TWO NEW HOUSES. THEY CAME BACK WITH TWO NEW HOUSES. IF APPLE LANE GANG DOES NOT WANT THEM TO COME IN, I KNOW DEVELOPER THAT WILL DEVELOP SOUTH OF THEM WILL PUT A WHOLE LOT OF HOUSES IN THEIR BACKYARD.
THEY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO APPLE LANE.
THEY WILL PAY TO GET IT FIXED AND THEY WILL PAY TO UP OF SIZE APPLE LANE AND ADD THE WATER LINE BUT YOU'LL HAVE 60-SOME ACRES OF THE 50-FOOT WIDE LOTS GOING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF LOT 3. AND 30 HOUSES IN ALONGSIDE THAT LOT. I THINK YOU HAVE SIX CARS YOU WILL HAVE SIX CARS AN HOUR. YOUR CHOICE REALLY IS SIMPLE.
WELL, THEN THAT IS JUST IT. THE GUY ON THE END THAT HAS THE BIG LOT, HIS PROPERTY WILL TRIPLE OVERNIGHT.
>> THEN THERE IS A CAR WASH -- >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: I'M SORRY. WE HAVE OUTED THE PUBLIC PORTION. WE NEED TO KEEP THIS BETWEEN THE
COUNCILMEMBER AND THE STAFF. >> COUNCILMAN MILLER: SORRY.
THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
THANK YOU, SIR. >> COUNCILMEMBER: AS FAR AS THE LAND COULD BE DEVELOPED TO BRING A ROAD IN TO APPLE LANE THAT IS NOT A SNAP OF THE FINGER AND THAT CAN HAPPEN.
THE DEVELOPER CANNOT MAKE IT HAPPEN ON ITS OWN.
IT WOULD GO BEFORE THE VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE IT CAME THROUGH P&Z. YOU DON'T SEE IT PASSING.
THAT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ANYBODY OVER THERE.
TO PUT A ROAD THROUGH THERE TO APPLE LANE WITH THAT TRAFFIC WOULD BE LUDICROUS. IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL.
IT WOULD POINT TO AN AGENDA-DRIVEN STANCE ON THAT.
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. THE ROAD IS ALREADY IN DISREPAIR. THERE IS NO -- ALL THE HEARINGS ABOUT APPLE LANE AND APPLE COURT, NOT ONE TIME HAS CITY STAFF OR ANYBODY UP HERE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IMPROVING THOSE
[00:50:04]
TWO ROADS. NOT ONCE.TO FORCE THIS DOWN THE PEOPLE ON THOSE TWO ROADS THROATS IS A DISSERVICE TO THE CITIZENS. I CAN'T GO WITH IT.
>> COUNCILMAN WICKLIFFE: YOU WERE HEADED DOWN A ROAD I WAS HEADED DOWN. I WANT TO SAY I THINK WHAT HE IS DOING MATCHES. ON YOUR SITUATION, I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. STRAIGHT ZONE.
SHOULD HAVE BEEN A P.D. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MIXUP WAS.
THAT IS A DIFFERENT ITEM. HE DOES MEET THE COUNTRY MODULE.
FOUR LOTS WAS PUSHING IT. THREE LOOKS FINE.
AS A CITY WE HAVE SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE.
WATER, STREETS, PARKS, FIRE, POLICE.
WATER IS NOT OURS TO PROVIDE IN YOUR AREA.
THAT IS MOUNTAIN PEAK. THE BUILD HER HAVE TO DO A HYDROSTATIC TEST TO MAKE SURE THE LINE CAN WITHSTAND.
BUT WE PROVIDE POLICE, FIRE, STREETS.
YOU KNOW YOU WERE ANNEXED. IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE DROPPED THE BALL ON THE TWO STREETS. WE CAN'T APPROVE FOR A STREET TO BE REDONE TONIGHT AND WE CAN'T DO THE FUNDING TONIGHT.
HOWEVER, I WOULD URGE COUNCIL THAT THAT IS A STREET WE LOOK INTO VERY QUICKLY. AND VERY SOON.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS? MAYOR RENO, FURTHER COMMENTS ON
THE TOPIC? >> MAYOR RENO: I DO NOT.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: I'LL CALL IT TO VOTE.
IT DOES REQUIRE THE TWO-THIRDS VOTE.
THAT WOULD MEAN SUPER MAJORITY AND I BELIEVE THE NUMBERS WOULD BE IF MORE THAN ONE VOTE AGAINST IT, IT WOULD NOT PASS IF I'M -- MY MATH IS RIGHT. 6-1.
SO PLACE YOUR VOTES. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I MOVE TO
APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE.
MAYOR, PLACE YOUR VOTE. >> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EVERYONE ELSE, PLACE YOUR VOTES.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO -- ACTUALLY, WE CHANGE THE ORDER A BIT THIS EVENING. WE'RE MOVING TO ITEM NUMBER
[2021-111]
2021-111. OPEN ITEM 2021-111, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 74 AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3 OF THE ORDINANCE NO. 2015-03. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF MCALPIN ROAD, AND NORTHEAST OF F.M. 875.THIS IS LOCATION OF P.D. 74, SOUTH OF F.M. 875.
SORRY, TO THE NORTH OF 875. THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE CURRENT APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR LE PAZ. PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THIS IMAGE HERE ACTUALLY BREAKS DOWN HOW THE PHASES LOOK CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW.
THE FOCUS OF THIS IS REALLY ON THE PHASE NUMBER 3.
THE APPLICANT WANTS TO REDUCE OPEN SPACE FROM 15 ACRES TO 3.4 ACRES IN SIZE. GIVEN IT CONSISTS OF THE 1-ACRE SIZE LOT OR LARGER, SOME OF THE LOTS WOULD RANGE 3-7 ACRES IN SIZE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS BE PERMITTED. THE APPLICANT WILL REDUCE THE OVERALL LOT COUNT FROM 126 TO 125 LOTS.
WHEN I SAY 125 LOTS, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. ONE ADDITIONAL REQUEST THE BLOCKS WILL EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH OF WHAT IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED TO BE 1320, 1,320 FEET.
WITHIN THE BLOCK 7, THEY WILL EXCEED THAT BY 480 FEET.
AND THEN WITHIN BLOCK EIGHT THEY WILL EXCEED IT BY 2,,500 FEET.
WE DID SEND OUT 105 LETTERS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. WE RECEIVED THREE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200-FOOT BUFFER AREA.
BASED ON THE PREVIOUS CASES INVOLVING THE LARGE LOT DEVELOPMENTS, MOST OF THESE HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO OMIT THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. BLOCK LENGTHS DO EXCEED 1320 MAXIMUM AND THE APPLICANT DID INCLUDE THREE 90-DEGREE TURNS TO BASICALLY BREAK UP THAT STRAIGHT SHOT OR THE DRAG STRIP EFFECT.
ON MARCH 4, THE COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL 5-0 AND I'LL
CONTINUE TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. OPEN THE CONVERSATION UP.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: WHY IS THAT RULE ABOUT THE LENGTH?
THE 1320? >> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH.
WHY IS THERE A RULE TO BEGIN WITH ON THAT?
[00:55:05]
>> DRAG RACING. >> MARCOS: SO NO DRAG RACING.
EXACTLY. BLOCK LENGTHS CREATE VIABLE ROUTES FOR TRAFFIC. WHETHER YOU TALK ABOUT THE CARS, VEHICLES, BIKES. IN OUR PARTICULAR CASE HERE, WE HAVE THE 1,320 AS THE BLOCK LENGTH FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT.
SO IF YOU TALK ABOUT A HIGHLY DENSE DEVELOPMENT OR A LOW DENSE DEVELOPMENT, 1,320 IS THE BASE REQUIREMENT.
YOU KNOW THIS PARTICULAR CASE AGAIN, KNOWING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS BROKEN THAT ROAD UP SO YOU DON'T HAVE AGAIN A STRAIGHT SHOT, STAFF IS A LITTLE BIT MORE OPEN TO ALLOW FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ANOTHER REASON WHY WE HAVE THAT, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF THE TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING TO BE ACCESSING THAT PARTICULAR ROAD. SO FOR INSTANCE, IF THIS LOT, IF THIS DEVELOPMENT HAD 50-FOOT WIDE LOTS, OKAY? AND YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO, YOU KNOW, AS MANY LOTS AS YOU CAN ALONG THAT 1,320 FEET. YOU ULTIMATELY WOULD HAVE 26 LOTS THAT WOULD BE FRONTING THAT BLOCK AREA.
EACH LOT WOULD HAVE 2-3 CARS SO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 52 TO 78 VEHICLES TRAVELING ON THAT ROAD ON THAT ONE SIDE.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE APPLICANT HAVING 3,800 FEET AND THE LOTS ARE NOT 50 FOOT WIDE BUT 150-FOOT WIDE.
YOU ARE STILL GETTING 26 LOTS ALONG THE SAME AREA.
SO YOU ARE NOT INCREASING THE TRAFFIC ACCESSING THAT ROAD.
IT'S ABOUT THE SAME. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THE REASON I BRING IT UP, SOMEBODY BROUGHT UP IN THE P&Z THE OTHER NIGHT WAS
AT IT FIRE TRUCK RULE. >> MARCOS: SURE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: CUL-DE-SAC ARE THE FIRE TRUCK RULES.
THAT IS WHY I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION.
>> MARCOS: RULE OF THUMB. MORE FOR THE ROUTE ACCESS.
THAT IS GENERALLY WHY WE HAVE THAT.
>> IF YOU HAD A HALF A MILE STRAIGHT STRETCH OF THE ROAD,
PEOPLE WOULD GET GREATER SPEED. >> I KNOW 13020 IS A QUARTER MILE. I'VE DONE THAT ONCE OR TWICE.
>> MARCOS: THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE IT 0-DEGREE TURN.
EACH TURN IS A NEW STREET. >> THAT BREAK IN THERE, IT HELPS DOESN'T IT? WHERE THE ROAD DOESN'T GO STRAIGHT. FROM THERE TO THERE IS NOT
STRAIGHT. >> MARCOS: YES, SIR.
YOU EXPERIENCE A SLIGHT CURVE. >> THAT SHOULD HELP TO SLOW DOWN
TRAFFIC. >> ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE NUMBER
3, THERE IS A CURVE THERE ALSO. >> MARCOS: YES, SIR.
>> IN THE WAY I LOOKED AT IT. >> THERE IS.
>> THANK YOU. >> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC
HEARING. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
MOTION TO CLOSE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: SECOND BY MR. HARTSON.
MAYOR, PLACE YOUR VOTE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EVERYONE ELSE, PLACE YOUR VOTES. IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY.
WE WILL CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OR THE DEVELOPER?
>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND.
MAYOR RENO, WILL YOU PLACE YOUR VOTE?
>> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: AND EVERYONE ELSE? IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU, MARCOS. AGENDA ITEM 2021-108 PULLED.
[2021-109]
WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. MOVING ON TO OPEN ITEM 2021-109, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF LOTS 17 AND 18, BLOCK 1, LUDEWICK ADDITION (COMMONLY KNOWN AS 818 NORTH 9TH STREET) PRESENTLY LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL THREE ZONING DISTRICT BY REZONING SAID PROPERTY TO URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 139 FOR A PLACE OF WORSHIP.TRENTON? >> TRENTON: THANK YOU.
ZONING ORDINANCE SAYS PLACE OF WORSHIP ARE PERMITTED IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT IF THAW MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT. FOR THAT REASON, THEY ARE ASKING UVPD. THEY HAVE ISSUES WHEN IT COMES TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOT. IT'S IN AN INDUSTRIAL MODULE.
NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST AND WEST ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY. COMMUNITY RETAIL AND THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY AS WELL YOU HAVE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE UNDEVELOPED, COMMERCIAL, NONRESIDENTIAL USES. WAREHOUSING, MULTI-TENANT, RETAIL TO THE HOUSE. IT'S MIXED USE AREA.
WHEN THIS WAS CREATED THE PURPOSE WAS TO PROMOTE INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT IN THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF MIDLOTHIAN AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS IF THEY CAN MEET THE CERTAIN CRITERIA.
[01:00:03]
THIS DOES MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE PLACE OF WORSHIP WILL HAVE APPROXIMATELY 45 SEATS. I BRING THAT UP TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS RELATED TO PARKING. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE THE PARKING REGULATION FOR PLACE OF WORSHIP IS EVERY FOUR SEAT ONE PARKING SPACE IS REQUIRED.THEY MEET THAT AND THEY EXCEED THE REQUIREMENT.
THEY ARE PROVIDING 15 SPACES AT THIS TIME ON THEIR SITE PLAN.
DUE TO THE PROPOSED REQUEST AND THE LOCATION IN THE UVPD WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING IF THEY CHOOSE TO ADD A MONUMENT SIGN THAT IT BE PERMITTED ONLY FACE 9TH STREET.
AND BE SMALLER IN SIZE TO MATCH THE OTHER UVPD APPROVED IN THE SIMILAR AREAS. WE HAVE THE OTHER REGULATION TO THE SIGNAGE. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
WE DID MAIL OUT NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS IN 200 FEET, 15.
ZERO CAME BACK IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: WHAT IS THE
PURPLE SPOT ON THE BACK OF THAT? >> TRENTON: MORE OF A BROWN.
IT'S YOUR MEDIUM, MD2. MEDIUM DENSITY 2 DISTRICT AND ZONED DIFFERENTLY. IT'S TOWN HOMES AND DUPLEXES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: IS THERE A HIS ON THIS LOT?
>> TRENTON: THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE LOT THEY PLAN TO REHABITATING AND REDOING THE BUILDING.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: THEY WILL USE THE BONES OF THAT TO CREATE
THE CHURCH ITSELF? >> TRENTON: YES.
THE EXTERIOR WILL NOT CHANGE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: WHAT WOULD
BE THE CAPACITY OF THE BUILDING? >> TRENTON: SO THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF THE SEATS THEY WILL HAVE IS 45 SEATS WITHIN THE BUILDING. WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE, REMOVING WALLS OR ADDING CERTAIN THINGS IF THEY CAN MEET THE 45 SEATS WE WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO TELL WHEN THEY PUT IN MONEY TO INVEST IN THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
BUILDING PERMITS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: HOW MANY
PARKING SPACES? >> TRENTON: THEY ARE PROVIDING 15. THEY ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE SPACE FOR FOUR SEATS AND THAT IS 11 SPACES REQUIRE AND THEY ARE PROVIDING 15 PARKING SPACES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: ALONG THE STREET? THERE IS NO PARKING LOT ON THE STREET.
>> THERE IS NO ON-STREET PARKING.
THEY WILL BE PUTTING A PARKING LOT ON THE PROPERTY.
DIRECTLY ABUTTING THE STRUCTURE. THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT, YOU CAN SEE HERE, HERE IS THE FRONT ELEVATION.
THEY WILL MAKE IT A.D.A. ACCESSIBLE.
I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE HOUSE BILL 2439, ASSUMING NOT ENDORSE AND ENFORCE ON THE RESIDENTIAL OR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING. THE PROPOSED PARKING WILL BE LOCATED ALONG 9TH STREET. HERE IS 9TH STREET.
EAST INDIANA AND OPENING TO THE PARKING LOT.
THIS IS TO THE SIDE AND THE REAR.
TO GIVE YOU A BETTER IDEA. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT AERIAL HERE, THE PARKING LOT WILL BE RIGHT HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: IF APPROVED TONIGHT THE PARKING LOT WILL
HAVE TO BE BUILT BEFORE IT'S -- >> TRENTON: TO MEET OUR
STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS. >> BEFORE IT'S READY TO BE USED.
>> TRENTON: YES, SIR. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT WHO HAS
SHOWN UP. >> COUNCILMEMBER: QUICK QUESTION, IF APPROVED DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO STAY A CHURCH? SHOULD THEY MOVE TO A LARGER LOCATION OR DIFFERENT AREA?
>> TRENTON: HOW THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, WE HAVE IT, THE USE WOULD BE R3. RESIDENTIAL THREE.
RESIDENCE OR A CHURCH. >> COUNCILMEMBER: NOTHING
THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: TRENSON, CURIOSITY QUESTION.
DO WE OWN THE LOT ACROSS THE STREET?
INCLUDE CITY PARK? >> TRENTON: RIGHT HERE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER: YES. [INAUDIBLE]
>> TRENTON: I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT.
I'D HAVE TO GO LOOK. I APOLOGIZE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: I WAS THINKING FUTURE PARKING PROBLEMS THEY HAVE TO PARK ACROSS THE STREET.
I HOPE YOU HAVE PARKING PROBLEMS, WHICH MEANS A LOT OF
PEOPLE WILL COME. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MAYOR RENO, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE?
>> MAYOR RENO: I DO NOT. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: MOTION. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MOTION AND SECOND.
COULD YOU VOTE ON PUBLIC HEARING, MAYOR?
>> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EVERYONE ELSE, PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OR QUESTIONS OR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT?
>> COUNCILMEMBER: MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: AND
MAYOR RENO, PLACE YOUR VOTE. >> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EVERYONE ELSE? IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY. WELCOME TO TOWN, MR. JENKINS.
ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON AGENDA
[2021-110]
ITEM 2021-110. FOR THIS I'M GOING TO RECUSE[01:05:03]
MYSELF AND TURN IT TO THE SENIOR COUNCILMAN, MR. SIBLEY.IF YOU WILL TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
>> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: OKAY. OPEN ITEM 2021-110, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 1, FIELDS ADDITION (COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1600 CHUCKWAGON DRIVE), AS DEPICTED AND SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A, BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO DISTRICT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 TO SOLELY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO DISTRICT.
>> TRENTON: THANK YOU. THIS IS IN THE SUBDIVISION AND THIS IS CURRENTLY SPLIT ZONED. THE FRONT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY TWO.
REAR PORTION ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOUR.
WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY, THEY COMBINED THE PROPERTY THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS.
WHEN THEY WENT TO GET THE PROPERTY APPRAISED DUE TO A PORTION OF IT LOCATED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOUR DISTRICT. IT'S BEING APPRAISED AT A COMMERCIAL VALUE. RATHER THAN A RESIDENTIAL VALUE.
THE PORTION OF THE PD-4 THAT IS ON THIS PROPERTY LOCATED OVER THE WATER FEATURE HERE. IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THIS AREA QUITE A BIT OF THE CIVIL ENGINEERING WOULD NEED TO BE CONDUCTED. QUITE A BIT OF THE MITIGATION BASICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DEVELOP RIGHT THERE.
THEY ARE ASKING TO ZONE THE ENTIRE LOT SINGLE FAMILY 2 DISTRICT. TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. STAFF MAILED NOTICES TO ALL PROPERTY OWNER IN 200 FEET. ZERO CAME BACK IN OPPOSITION AND ZERO CAME BACK IN SUPPORT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR SOME SORT OF VARIANCE OR P.D. TO FIT MORE THAN ONE LOT ON THIS PROPERTY. WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING OF SOME SORT. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS
TIME. >> COUNCILMEMBER: HOW MUCH
LAND IS THAT? >> TRENTON: THE ENTIRE LOT IS
APPROXIMATELY -- >> IT'S ONE ACRE ABOVE THE
FLOODPLAIN. >> TRENTON: GOING BACK TO THE -- IT'S 12 TO 13 ACRES, THE ENTIRE PARCEL IS COMBINED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: YOU ARE COUNTING THE WATER IN THE
YES. >> COUNCILMEMBER: WHAT IS BEING PLANNED TO PUT IN THAT SPOT?
>> TRENTON: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPING.
THE ONLY THING THEY COULD PUT IN THERE IS ONE SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPING. >> COUNCILMEMBER: ONE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE? >> TRENTON: YES, SIR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: BEEN FOUR-WHEELING BACK THERE RECENTLY AND THE ONLY SPOT TO BUILD ON IS THE BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND CORNER WHERE THE GREEN GRASS IS. EVERYTHING TO THE LEFT IS SWAMP BOTTOM. AND NOTHING BUT WATER.
EVEREVEN IN JULY. >> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: ANYTHING GOT -- ANYBODY ELSE GOT QUESTIONS?
>> WE ARE IN A PUBLIC HEARING. I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND.
>> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: MAYOR? WHAT DO YOU VOTE?
>> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE. >> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: APPROVE.
>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND.
>> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: MAYOR? >> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE.
>> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR RENO: YOU'RE HARD TO HEAR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: HE HAS HIS MASK ON.
>> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: I'M SORRY.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU, MR. SIBLEY.
>> FOR THE RECORD, DID YOU ANNOUNCE THAT PASSED?
>> UNANIMOUSLY. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: UNANIMOUS VOTE. YES.
[2021-112]
MOVING ON TO OPEN ITEM 2021-112, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 98, AS AMENDED, BY REAPPORTIONING THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE, COMMON AREA, AND RESIDENTIAL USES; BY AMENDING THE SITE PLAN. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND F.M.1387. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I WAS GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT FOR THE VIEWERS AT HOME.
IF WE ARE NOT SPEAKING CAN WE TURN THE MICS OFF SO CAMERA WILL
POINT IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: OKAY. MARCOS?
>> MARCOS: THIS IS NEAR INTERSECTION OF WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND F.M. 1387. I WILL COVER THIS CHART QUICKLY.
THIS IS BASED OFF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE REQUESTING. THEY WANT TO ADD 1.97 -- SORRY.
[01:10:02]
1.97 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING. THEY WILL REMOVE TWO LOTS BUT THEY PLAN TO ADD A LARGE 15-ACRE OUTPAR SHELL AND SLIGHTLY REDUCE THE DENSITY FROM 2.46 TO 2.44. BUT THEY ARE ALSO ASKING TO REMOVE ALL HUNDRED FOOT AND 120-FOOT WIDE LOTS.THEY PLAN TO ADD 50 MORE 70-FOOT WIDE LOTS AND ONE DUR ADDITIONAL 52-FOOT LOT. THIS SHOWS THE EXISTING VERSUS PROPOSED LAYOUT. THE APPLICANT SEEKING CHANGES SO THAT THE SAME NUMBER OF THE APPROVED LOTS OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THE SAME NUMBER OF THE APPROVED LOTS CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE CALL THE ELLIS PRAIRIE CONSERVATION DISTRICT INUNDATION EASEMENT.
THE COUNTY DID CONDUCT BREACH ANALYSIS ON THE DAM TO THE NORTH THAT IS THE CHAMBERS CREEK DAM. BUT THIS WAS A VERY GENERAL CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE AT THE TIME.
SO, WHEN THE APPLICANT CAME THROUGH AND GOT THE P.D.
APPROVED FOR MASSEY MEADOWS IT DID REQUIRE REASSETSMENT WOULD NEED TO -- REASSESSMENT WOULD NEED TO OCCUR ON THE EXISTING BREACH ANALYSIS AND IT BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THAT AREA. BASED ON THE REASSESSMENT, THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO KEEP AGAIN THE SAME NUMBER OF LOTS AND KEEP THE LOTS OUT OF THAT INUNDATION AREA.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN WHAT WE CALL THE SUBURBAN LOW DENSITY AND THE SUBURBAN MEDIUM DENSITY WHICH CALLS FOR THE LOTS THAT HAVE AT LEAST 14,000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER.
LOW DENSITY MODULE CALLS FOR LOTS THAT ARE 20,000 FOR OR LARGER. SO IN THIS CASE, THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
ON MARCH 4, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL 5-0 ON THIS ITEM. WE DID SEND OUT A TOTAL OF 230 NOTIFICATIONS TO THE ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET AS WELL WITHIN MASSEY MEADOWS. WE DID RECEIVE TWO WRITTEN RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER.
I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: DO YOU KNOW
WHICH PROPERTY OWNERS? >> MARCOS: YEAH.
BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN MASSEY MEADOWS, SIR.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS FOR MARCOS
OR THE APPLICANT? >> COUNCILMEMBER: NOBODY DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS. THIS IS JUST SOMETHING YOU ONLY FIND OUT AFTER YOU GET FURTHER AND FURTHER IN TO IT, NOT SOMETHING YOU COULD HAVE FIGURED OUT IN THE BEGINNING.
>> MARCOS: YES. I CAN LET THE APPLICANT PROBABLY ADDRESS THAT MORE. THAT IS TRUE.
THE APPLICANT CONDUCTED THE REASSESSMENT AFTER THE FACT.
CORRECT. WHAT THEY FOUND IS THAT THIS WHOLE AREA -- LET ME GO TO THE SLIDE HERE.
THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THE LINE FOR THE INUNDATION AREA.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: INUNDATION EASEMENT?
>> MARCOS: SURE. SO IF THE DAM BREAKS AND THE WATER BREACHES, THE DAM TO THE NORTH BREACHES, THEN THIS AREA
IS PROJECTED TO POSSIBLY FLOOD. >> COUNCILMEMBER: A
FLOODPLAIN. >> MARCOS: YES, SIR.
IN A WAY. THAT IS ONLY IF THE DAM WERE TO
BREACH. >> MILLION-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
100-YEAR AND A MILLION-YEAR SO IF THE DAM BREAKS.
THAT WATER IS ONLY 10 OR 15 FEET AND THERE IS NOT MUCH WATER LEFT
IN IT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: LAKE, I CAME BACK AND SAID THE FLOODPLAIN GOES TEN FEET ABOVE THE DAM.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK UP AND GIVE DETAIL ON THE REASONING
BEHIND THE REQUEST. >> MARCOS: ABSOLUTELY.
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M DAVIDHURST.
I RESIDE IN MIDLOTHIAN 2205 SOMERSET.
I'M THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER WITH MY PARTNER DAVID DAVIS.
>> I'M DAVID DAVIS, 8610, TURTLE CREEK BOULEVARD, DALLAS.
>> WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS THING THROUGH THE FIRST TIME, WE KNEW THAT WE HAD THIS IN FRONT OF US, THE INUNDATION ISSUE.
IT TOOK US A WHILE TO GET THIS THING FIGURED OUT.
AND HOW THE LINE WOULD AFFECT US.
YOU KNOW IN THE END, YOU KNOW, WE ARE REDUCING THE NUMBER OF THE LOTS. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE SMALLER, WE ARE COMING BACK WITH LESS LOTS WE HAD TO START WITH.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN ISSUE OF VALUATION.
IT'S AN ISSUE OF MAKING THIS THING BORK.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: WHAT IS THE 15-ACRE OUT PARCEL?
>> A SINGLE LOT THAT WHEN WE ORIGINALLY HAD THIS PLANNED WE
[01:15:01]
HAD LOTS IN THAT AREA. SO IT WASN'T ALWAYS JUST OPEN SPACE OR GREEN SPACE. BASICALLY THE WAY THE NEW CONFIGURATION OF THE LOTS WORKS OUT, IT'S JUST A SINGLE LOT.SO WE ARE ASKING FOR IT TO BE APPROVED AS A SINGLE LOT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: FOR A SINGLE FAMILY?
>> YES. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THAT WOULD
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: FOR CLARITY, ALL OF THIS IS ALREADY BUILT OUT? THIS SECTION?
>> PRETTY CLOSE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: WE ARE REALLY JUST DISCUSSING THIS PORTION.
>> YEAH. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ALL
>> YES, SIR. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
OKAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: PERSONALLY, I CAN SAY I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORT.
I'M SURE IT WASN'T CHEAP TO REDO YOUR PLAN TO THAT AND TOOK TIME AND PROBABLY CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO DO THAT.
CAN YOU TALK TO US ABOUT THE LINE GOING UP AROUND THE RIGHT?
THAT IS A TRAIL? >> HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL.
YES, SIR. >> COUNCILMEMBER: Y'ALL ARE
>> COUNCILMEMBER: MARCOS YOU SAID P&Z VOTED TO APPROVE THIS
>> COUNCILMEMBER: THANKS, GUYS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
I SEE WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND I SEE WHY YOU ARE DOING IT.
I CAN GET BEHIND THAT. MY ONLY QUESTION IS THE FEESABILITY BEHIND THE 15-ACRE OUTPARCEL.
THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST THAT I KNOW OF A DEVELOPER CARVING OFF THAT MUCH LAND TO POTENTIALLY ATTRACT A SINGLE, SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE CURRENTLY THAT WE HAVE IN TOWN.
IT SEEMS TO GO THE OPPOSITE WAY OF ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENT.
HAVE YOU CONSIDERED MAKING THAT GREEN SPACE SINCE YOU ARE STATED IT'S LARGELY UNUSABLE WITH THE INUNDATION STUDY.
GREEN SPACE WITHIN YOUR OWN P.D.?
>> IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY UNUSABLE.
THE INUNDATION LINE DOES ALLOW FOR SPACE WITHIN THERE.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN INTERESTED PARTY WHO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT FOR A HOMESITE. ONCE YOU GET DOWN TOWARD THE TREES IT'S BEAUTIFUL. PRETTY PIECE OF PROPERTY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: CAN WE GO BACK ONE MORE SLIDE THERE?
>> OKAY. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: TO THE SOUTH THERE, TO BE CLEAR, THAT IS 1387, RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: HOW WIDE IS THAT ROAD FRONTAGE THERE ON THE LOWER LEFT CORNER? DO YOU KNOW? OF THAT 15-ACRE OUT PARCEL?
>> HOW MUCH ROAD FRONTAGE DO WE HAVE?
>> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: JUST OUTSIDE OF THE INUNDATION AREA? SO IF YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING YOU HAVE TO KEEP EVERYTHING OUT
OF THE INUNDATION AREA? >> YES.
WE ARE ACTUALLY TAKING ACCESS TO THAT THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION.
WE ARE NOT GETTING OUT TO 1387. WE ARE NOT GOING TO TOUCH 1387.
>> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: CAN YOU GO BACK ONE MORE SLIDE? SO, YOU ARE SAYING THE DRIVEWAY CAN GO THROUGH THE AREA BUT NOT
>> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: OKAY. LANGUAGE OF THE INUNDATION AREA PREVENTS YOU FROM BUILDING STRUCTURE.
THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T BUILD IN THE INUNDATION
>> IT'S REALLY MORE FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT AND PROBABLY PUTTING SOME KIND OF REQUIREMENT ON THE LOTS THROUGH THE TITLE COMPANY THAT IF YOU ARE THE HOME BUYER AND YOU ARE BUYING THAT PROPERTY. IT CAN BASICALLY GET INUNDATED.
SO THAT CREATES A LIABILITY AND CONCERN.
SO THE INTENT IS TO KEEP ALL THE INHABITABLE STRUCTURES OUTSIDE OF THERE DRIVEWAYS, TRAILS, THOSE THINGS, NOT A PROBLEM.
BUT THE INTENT -- WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T BUILD IN THAT AREA BUT THERE IS A LIABILITY AND ISSUE THAT FALLS BACK TO DEVELOPER OR THE BUILDER IF THEY BUILD IN AREA. WE WOULD WANT TO DISCLOSE IT AS WELL AND HAVE LANGUAGE ON THE PLAT THAT THEY ARE LOCATED IN INUNDATION AREA AND SUBJECT TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THE INUNDATION WITH THE BREACH OF THE CREEK, WHATEVER IT IS.
>> SO IT MAKES IT LESS DESIRABLE?
>> YEAH. FROM THAT STANDPOINT AND AGAIN FROM A LIABILITY, PROTECTION STANDPOINT IT HAS THAT IMPACT AS
WELL. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: SO OKAY. SO MY LAST QUESTION BECAUSE WE ARE GOING FROM THE LARGER LOTS THAT REQUIRE LESS GREEN SPACE TO THE SMALLER LOTS THAT LIKE TO SEE MORE GREEN SPACE.
THAT IS MY NEXT QUESTION. THE LARGER LOTS, GREEN SPACE IN THE LOT. WE ARE LOSING THAT.
THERE IS A SINGLE TRAIL THAT WILL DEAD END IN TO SOMEBODY
ELSE'S PROPERTY LINE? >> ALL THE ACREAGE BEHIND THE
[01:20:01]
EXISTING LOTS THAT WE ARE PUTTING IN ARE MAINTAINED BY THE H.O.A. THERE IS AN AWFUL LOT OF SPACEBETWEEN THAT AND THE CREEK LINE. >> WE CONTEND YOU HAVE MORE
GREEN SPACE. >> WE ARE ADDING MORE GREEN
SPACE. >> THEY HAVE 20% GREEN SPACE.
ONLY 15% IS REQUIRED. THEY HAVE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND
AS FAR AS THAT GOES ALREADY. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: I AM JUST WONDER SOMETHING WE HAVE AN AMENITY ON A P.D. AMENDMENT THAT INCLUDES A TRAIL THAT DEAD ENDS IN TO SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY.
IT IS SHOWN IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY.
SO MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS -- >> THERE WILL BE A TRAIL
EASEMENT. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: THROUGH
THE OTHER PERSON'S PROPERTY? >> YES, SIR.
>> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: IS THAT IN THE LANGUAGE?
>> IT IS. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: TO THE SINGLE FAMILY OUTPARCEL, TRAIL EASEMENT DEDICATION?
I DIDN'T SEE IT. >> MARCOS: YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, SIR. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT IN THERE. WE CAN ABSOLUTELY ADD THAT.
SURE. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: OKAY.
THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY THING. IF IT'S SHOWN HERE AND SUPPOSED
TO BE THERE, GET IT IN THERE. >> GREAT.
>> PERFECT. >> MARCOS: DO IT THROUGH THE PLATTING. WE WOULD ALSO ADD IT TO THE ORDINANCE SO IT ENSURES ON THE PLAT IT IS ADDRESSED.
>> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY ADDITIONAL COMMENT. THANK YOU.
>> ONE THING I DON'T LIKE IS WHEN DEVELOPERS COME IN AND THE CLEAR CUT TREES. TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL HELP US SAVE TREES WHICH THE COMMUNITY DESPERATELY NEEDS.
>> YES, SIR. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: YOU'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MOTION TO CLOSE. AND A SECOND BY MULTIPLES.
MAYOR, DO YOU WANT TO PLACE YOUR VOTE ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC
HEARING? >> MAYOR RENO: APPROVED.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EVERYONE ELSE, PLEASE VOTE.
IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
OR DEVELOPER? >> MAKE A MOTION --
>> SECOND. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MOTION TO APPROVE BY SIBLEY AND A --
>> IS THAT TO ADD THE LANGUAGE --
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MOTION TO APPROVE WITH ADDING THE LANGUAGE FOR TRAILS TO GO THROUGH THE OUTPARCEL.
>> ADD STIPULATION FOR THE EASEMENT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: WILL YOU RESET YOUR VOTE THERE?
>> YES. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MAYOR, FURTHER DISCUSSION OR PLACE YOUR VOTE?
>> MAYOR RENO: IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW SOME OF THIS.
I'M CONCERNED IS THAT 15, 16 YEARS FROM NOW IT WILL COME BACK BEFORE COUNCIL AND IN THE KNEE - NEAR FUTURE AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL LIKE WHAT WE ARE ASKED TO DO.
I WOULD CONCERN ABOUT THE GREEN SPACE BUT I HAVE NO OTHER
COMMENTS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
PLACE A VOTE. >> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: WAS THAT AN APPROVE? HE APPROVED? EVERYONE ELSE PLACE YOUR VOTE.
IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT.
>> 112. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
[2021-113]
MOVING TO 2021-113, CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF 13.5468 ACRES OUT OF THE JOHN CRANE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 246 DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" HERETO BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 140 FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SHILOH ROAD NORTH OF SHILOH COURT.
>> MARCOS: THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT PROPOSING TEN RESIDENTIAL LOT WITH ONE COMMON OPEN SPACE.
THE PROPERTY SURROUNDED BY THE AGRICULTURE ZONING ON THE SCREEN. ADJACENT TO PD-15.
HERE ARE THE BASE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT TO FOLLOW. THIS INCLUDES ONE ACRE LOTS.
ALL HOMES ARE ALSO GOING TO BE SIDE ENTRY.
NO FRONT ENTRY WILL BE PERMITTED.
OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE COUNTRY MODULE. LOTS RANGING 1-3 ACRES IS A DEFICIT CHARACTERISTICKIC. WOULD ABSOLUTELY CONFORM TO THE PLAN. HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED. ROAD STUB LEADING TO THE SOUTH.
THIS IS A ONE-ACRE STYLE P.D. AND WILL CONTAIN H.O.A.
MAINTAINED OPEN SPACE FOR THE RESIDENTS.
THE APPLICANT INSTALLING A SIX-FOOT TALL ROD IRON FENCE AT THE ENTRY AREA. WITH THE VEGETATIVE SCREEN WALL.
SIX-FOOT TALL VEGETATIVE SCREEN WALL.
THERE ARE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROLS FOR THE HIGH PLATE VARIATION.
IN ADDITION HOMES SHALL NOT REPEAT THE SAME EXTERIOR DESIGN ON THE SAME SIDE OR EITHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
TOTAL OF THE 15 LETTERS WERE MAILED.
[01:25:02]
STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE RESPONSE TO REZONE REQUEST.ON MARCH 4, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 5-0.
I CAN STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
COUNCIL? >> COUNCILMEMBER: MY ONLY CONCERN IS THE DEAD END. SIGN THAT OFF UNTIL SOMEONE COMES ALONG THE BUILD SOUTH OF IT OR BELOW IT.
>> MARCOS: ANYTIME WE DO THE SUBDIVISIONS WE WANT TO SEE SOME CONNECTIVITY. THIS AREA INSTEAD OF JUST DOING DEAD END STREET OR CUL-DE-SAC STREET THAT WOULD EXCEED THE 600-FOOT STANDARD REQUIREMENT, THE APPLICANT PROVIDING THAT FUTURE CONNECTIVITY. IN THE FUTURE.
IF IT DEVELOPS TO THE SOUTH. THAT IS A PART OF WHAT WE HAVE
IN THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: WE RUN IN THIS ISSUE BEFORE. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SIGNAGE PUT UP AT THAT POINT TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT THAT IS EVENTUALLY GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
NOT JUST A DEAD END THERE. >> MARCOS: TYPICALLY WE HAVE A
BARRICADE -- >> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: I KNOW.
THAT IS WHY I SAY THEY NEED SIGNAGE UP THERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: ARE YOU REMEMBERING AUTUMN RUN?
>> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: YES. >> WE CAN TALK UP WITH THE SIGNAGE, WE TALK ABOUT THE STAFF TO PUT SOMETHING ON THERE INSTEAD OF A BLANK BARRICADE TO PUT A SIGN UP THAT SAYS FUTURE ROADWAY, ET CETERA, SO IT'S -- I THINK WE CAN HANDLE THAT.
>> WHOEVER BUYS THE LOT TEN NEEDS TO KNOW THERE WILL BE
HOUSES PAST IT. >> I THINK WE DID SOMETHING SIMILAR IN THE SUBDIVISION THAT WE GAIN IT UNTIL SO MANY HOUSES
>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SECOND? >> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: SECOND.
MR. MAYOR, DO YOU WANT TO PLACE YOUR VOTE ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC
APPROVE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EVERYONE ELSE? IT DOES PASS.
PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. FURTHER DISCUSSION?
WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> COUNCILMEMBER: MOVE
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: WITH THE SIGN AT THE BARRICADE. MR. MAYOR, YOU WANT TO PLACE
YOUR VOTE? >> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MOTION TO APPROVE.
OKAY. AND EVERYONE ELSE PLACE YOUR VOTE. IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY.
IT'S NOT AS EASY AS IT LOOKS TO SIT IN THIS CHAIR.
THROW THAT OUT THERE. [LAUGHTER]
>> GET OUT AND DO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: YEAH.
ACTUALLY WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN 114.
[Items 2021-114 & 2021-115]
WE WILL OPEN ITEM 2021-114. OPEN ITEM 2021-114, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING OF 6.320 ACRES OUT OF THE J.B. LITTLEPAGE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 643, AND THE J. "A" HERETO FROM COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 142 FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT USES; ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS; GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR MINI-WAREHOUSE STORAGE USES.THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE U.S. HIGHWAY 67 AND APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET WEST OF OVERLOOK DRIVE.
THIS ITEM IS GOING TO BE CONTINUED.
TABLED UNTIL THE MARCH 23 MEETING.
BY THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPER. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO
>> WE WILL NEED A MOTION. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: I
APOLOGIZE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.
IF WE TABLE 114, DOES IT MEAN WE ARE TABLE 115?
>> WE'RE GOING TO WITHDRAW IT. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO MARCH 23.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE BEEN QUIET.
>> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: MOTION TO CONTINUE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: SECOND BY SIBLEY.
MAYOR, PLACE YOUR VOTE. >> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EVERYONE ELSE?
IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY. >> IT WASN'T SURE IF YOU TALK TO
YOU HAVE BEEN QUIET. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: SAME FOR 2021-115? DO I NEED TO READ ALL THAT? WE TABLE THAT TO MARCH 23 AS WELL.
>> MAKE HIM DO IT. >> MAYOR RENO: MOVING ON.
[2021-116]
ITEM 2021-116, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTION 4.5602 (OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS) TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES OVER THE MAXIMUM NUMBER PERMITTED MEDICAL OFFICES INCLUDING AN OPTICAL CENTER AND URGENT CARE FACILITY.THE PROPERTY IS ON 1.683 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED ON LOT 1A-R, BLOCK 1, OF MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF F.M. 663 AND
ROUNDABOUTDRIVE. >> I'LL BE EXCUSING MYSELF FROM
ITEM 116. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
[01:30:01]
THANK YOU, SIR. TRENTON?ACCORDANCE TO SECTION 4.5602 OF THE MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT REQUESTING A WAIVER FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENT TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SPACES ALLOTTED. MEDICAL OFFICE REQUIRED FOR ONE SPACE OF 400 SQUARE FEET AND THEY ARE PROPOSING 14,400 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. IF YOU USE THE NUMBERS 1 PER 400, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE 36 SPACES. IF THEY APPLY THE 25% TO ACHIEVE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF THE PARKING SPACES, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE 45 SPACES. THEY ARE REQUESTING PROPOSAL OF 76 SPACES OVERALL. STAFF HAS BEEN LOOKING AT THE VARIOUS OTHER CITIES AROUND TEXAS, WHAT THEIR REGULATIONS ARE FOR THE MEDICAL OFFICES WITH THE PARKING RATIOS.
OUR PARKING RATIOS HAVEN'T BEEN UPDATED FOR SOME TIME NOW.
THE LAST COUPLE OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WE HAVE HAD COME BEFORE YOU PERTAIN TO SECTION 4.5602 IN THE LAST THREE YEARS HAVE ALL BEEN MEDICAL OFFICES. OUT OF THE 14 CITIES WE RESEARCH AND LOOKED AT, IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THE CITIES AND GET THE AVERAGE PARKING, THE AVERAGE STANDARD WOULD BE ONE PER 250 SQUARE FEET. THAT IS 14 CITIES WE LOOKED AT.
THE PROPOSAL OF THE 76 SPACES, IF YOU APPLY 25% TO THAT, ONE FOR 250 SQUARE FEET IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE AVERAGE.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVE AS THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER MEDICAL OFFICES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
AND THIS ONE DOES HAVE AN URGENT CARE ATTACHED TO IT, WHICH WILL, WHICH WE IN THE OPINION OF STAFF FEEL IT WOULD DRIVE AN ADDITIONAL NEED. THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. IT WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON MARCH 4, GOT 4-1 VOTE.
I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: PICTURES OF THE FACILITY?
>> TRENTON: I APOLOGIZE. >> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: DO YOU
HAVE PICTURES OF THE FACILITY? >> TRENTON: NO.
THIS IS ONLY FOR THE PARKING. >> COUNCILMAN SIBLEY: THINKING OF THE CONSTRUCTION. HOW IS IT GOING TO BE MADE?
>> TRENTON: WELL, THE BUILDING MATERIALS?
>> YEAH. >> TRENTON: WE CAN'T REGULATE
BUILDING MATERIALS -- >> COUNCILMEMBER: I KNOW BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO WITH IT.
>> TRENTON: THEY HAVEN'T SUBMITTED THE ELEVATION FOR BUILDING BUT THEY WOULD REQUIRE TO MEET ARTICULATION AND DESIGN REQUIREMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RETAIL DISTRICT.
BY RIGHT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE THE USE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: MORE WHAT MR. SIBLEY LOOKING FOR A TILT WALL OR METAL BUILDING? THERE IS NOT MUCH ROOM BETWEEN THE BUILDING FOR THE FIRE PREVENTION AND/OR FIRE WALL.
>> TRENTON: THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET ALL FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS IN ADDITION TO THAT. APPLICANT IS HERE.
THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: THE BIGGEST THING I HAD THROUGH THE P&Z THERE IS NO, VERY LITTLE GREEN SPACE.
THERE WASN'T ANYTHING. IF 663 OR 9TH STREET WIDENS THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING ON THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY THAT IS GREEN.
>> TRENTON: ACCORDING TO OUR STRAIGHT ZONED REGULATIONS, IT'S STILL REQUIRED TO MEET THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
BUFFER BETWEEN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND THE BUILDING.
LANDSCAPING. THIS IS ONLY IN REGARD TO THE PARKING. THAT IS THE ONLY THING WE CAN ACT UPON. THEY'D MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENT
OF THE SITE PLAN. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: I READ THROUGH THE LETTERS. I STILL HAVE THE REASONING WHY THEY WANT ADDITIONAL PARKING. BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY CONCRETE EXPECTATION OF STAFF LEVELS THAT WOULD KIND OF GIVE US AN ECONOMIC RETURN FOR EMPLOYMENT IN TOWN TO JUSTIFY WHY WE NEED -- I KNOW THEY SAY HEY, IN OUR EXPERIENCE WE NEED MORE FOR STAFF. HAVE THEY TOLD US WHAT THEY
EXPECT FOR STAFF LEVELS? >> HOW MANY EMPLOYEES THEY WOULD
>> TRENTON: I'D REFER TO APPLICANT FOR THAT.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: I WANT TO INVITE THE APPLICANT UP IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE CASE.
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M MARK, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO Y'ALL. I'M THE DEVELOPMENT PARTNER AND ALSO COMANAGER OF THE LANDLORD ENTITY THAT BOUGHT IS PROPERTY AND PLANNING TO DEVELOP IT. OUR CIVIL ENGINEER IS HERE AS WELL. BUT THE TENANTS, THE TWO CURRENT TENANTS, WE HAVE VACANT SPACES, TEXAS STATE OPTICAL.
THEY ARE CURRENTLY PLANNING TO MOVE HERE, THEIR OFFICE HERE.
THEY HAVE PEAK TIME IN THE DAY 20 EMPLOYEES THAT WILL BE IN THE FACILITY. 5800 SQUARE FEET.
[01:35:01]
THEY ALSO WILL BE SEEING 3-5 PATIENTS AND HAVE A RETAIL OPTICAL OUTLET. WHEN YOU START THINKING ABOUT THE 18 PARKING SPACES, YOU BARELY TAKE CARE OF THE EMPLOYEES. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY NEED.THEY ARE ALREADY OPERATING AND THEY ARE MOVING HERE.
SO, ALSO WE HAVE URGENT CARE. WE BUILD THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES AROUND THE METRO PLEX.
THIS IS TYPICAL. FIVE PARKS PER A THOUSAND IS TYPICAL. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE
REQUEST. >> COUNCILMEMBER: HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU EXPECT TO BE EMPLOYED THERE?
>> THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD BE IN THE BUILDING AT ONE TIME WILL BE BETWEEN 10-20. JUST IN THE 5800 SQUARE FEET.
THERE IS 14,400 SQUARE FEET. THERE IS ALSO URGENT CARE AND VACANT SPACE FOR A NEW TENANT. THEY COULD BASICALLY, YOU KNOW,
EXCEED THE DEMAND FOR THE SPACE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I HATE TO BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BUT I WANT TO GET IT CLEAR.
10-20 ON THE OPTICAL SIDE? >> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: OR DOES THAT INCLUDE THE DOCTOR BOX?
>> IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT. THAT IS JUST TEXAS STATE OPTICAL. WHO IS THE ANCHOR TENANT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I WANT FOR MORE PARKING FOR THE BURGER PLACE.
YOU ARE TAKING AWAY FIVE OR SIX OF THEIR SPOTS TO GET THAT LITTLE DRIVEWAY IN SO THEY WILL USE FIVE OF SIX OF HIS.
>> WE BUILD THESE DEVELOPMENTS FOR THE USERS AND THEY REALLY KNOW HOW MANY SPACES THEY NEED. THE WORST THING YOU WANT TO HAVE IS AT THE PEAK TIMES PEOPLE TRYING TO FIND A PLACE TO PARK; PARTICULARLY AROUND THERE. THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: SURE. I COULD GO FOR THAT.
MY ONLY QUESTION IS I AM CAUTIOUS TO BUILD TO PEAK TIMES
FOR THE OTHER TIMES. >> RIGHT.
>> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: THEN MY OTHER CONCERN IS I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF TURNOVER IN THE METROPLEX.
ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO ON THE CORNER E.R. URGENT CARES WAS REAL POPULAR. SO DO YOU HAVE -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY DO YOU HAVE A CONTINGENCY BUT DO YOU HAVE A CONTINGENCY IF THE BUSINESSES TURN OVER AND NOW WE HAVE A CONCRETE OCEAN AND NOT A TENANT TO FILL THAT TO REQUIRE 20 EMPLOYEES ON THIS SIDE AND MAYBE TEN EMPLOYEES ON THAT SIDE PLUS ALL THERE.
>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN. >> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: THAT IS
WHERE WE ARE -- >> I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
I GO BACK TO WHAT HE INITIATED. WE DEVELOP IN MULTIPLE COUNTIES.
WE ARE IN SIX COUNTIES HERE AND 14 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE METRO PLEX. MOST OF THE CITIES AND MOST OF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE FIVE PARKS FOR THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.
THIS IS TWO AND A HALF. HALF THAT.
IN MOST MEDICAL USES, THEY REQUIRE FIVE PARKS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO SAFELY DEAL WITH THE EMPLOYEES AND THE PATIENTS.
WE ARE DEVELOPING ON 287 FOR THE USMD.
WE REQUESTED A VARIANCE HERE ALREADY FOR THAT.
BECAUSE THEY SOMETIMES NEED SIX PARTS PER THOUSAND -- SIX PARKS PER THOUSAND. PRIMARY CARE.
THIS IS NOT OUT OF THE ORDINARY. THIS IS JUST TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE PATIENTS AND NOT HAVE THE PEOPLE TRYING TO FIND A PLACE TO PARK ALONG 9TH STREET. IF YOU LOOK AT THE FACILITY.
RIGHT NOW WHERE THEY ARE, THEY ARE PARKING LIKE A LOW TELL, NEXT TO A HOTEL. IN THIS CASE, THEY WOULD HAVEN'T A PLACE TO GO. THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST AND CONSISTENT AROUND THE METRO PLEX AND CONSISTENT FROM WHAT OUR CLIENTS ARE REQUESTING. DEVELOPERS DON'T WANT TO BUILD MORE PARKS THAN WE NEED TO BUILD.
THAT IS NOT WHAT WE DO. >> APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MAYOR, I APOLOGIZE.
GO AHEAD. >> MAYOR RENO: IS THIS THE SECOND IN MIDLOTHIAN? ISN'T THERE ONE IN THE CENTER?
>> I CAN'T -- THEY ARE RELOCATING TO THIS FACILITY.
>> MAYOR RENO: THIS IS THE ONE THERE THAT IS RELOCATING?
>> YES, SIR. >> MAYOR RENO: DO WE HAVE -- [INAUDIBLE] DECAL FROM THE EXISTING
[01:40:02]
BUSINESS? >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THE DEVELOPER WOULD. WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT IN OUR PACKETS, NO. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ASK DEVELOPER
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON THE TOPIC? >> MAYOR RENO: WELL, WELL, THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONVINCING TO ME.
I THINK OUR CITY STANDARDS IS SUFFICIENT FOR WHAT THEY ARE PUTTING IN THERE. WE DON'T NEED A SEA OF CONCRETE IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA. I WILL ONLY AGREE TO THE MAXIMUM
CITY STANDARDS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: OKAY. WE ARE NOT IN A PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE CAN MAKE A MOTION. >> MOVE APPROVAL.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. SIBLEY TO APPROVE. AS PRESENTED.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> MAYOR RENO: MAKE A MOTION FOR SOMETHING LESS THAN WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR.
>> TRENTON: THEIR ENGINEER DOES HAVE THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING IF YOU WANT TO ASK ABOUT THAT.
IF YOU STILL HAVE QUESTIONS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THE MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED DID NOT GET A SECOND SO THE MOTION FAILS. WE WILL CONTINUE DISCUSSION.
>> COUNCILMAN DARRACH: I MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD -- CAN I DO THAT? DENY AS PRESENTED AND HOLD TO THE CITY MAXIMUM. JUST DEKNIT.
-- DENY IT. I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY AS PRESENTED. DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS
PRESENTED. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: BEFORE WE GO THAT ROUTE I WANT TO ASK IF THERE IS ANY LEEWAY TO MAYBE NEGOTIATE AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER? [RINGING] THAT THOSE WHO HAVE AN ISSUE MIGHT CONSIDER? OR I GUESS WITH THE DEVELOPER?
SO IT LIKES WE ARE ALL OR NONE? >> DO WE HAVE THE OPTION TO
TABLE THE AGENDA ITEM? >> ASK THE MAN IN THE SUIT.
>> DO YOU WANT TO WITHDRAWAL YOUR MOTION?
>> IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO TABLE I'LL WITHDRAW.
>> WHAT WOULD IT MEAN THEN? >> BRING IT BACK ON ANOTHER
AGENDA. >> WE WOULD GO THROUGH THE SAME P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL OR COME STRAIGHT TO CITY COUNCIL?
>> COME BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
IT'S NOT A ZONING CASE. COME BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> IF YOU KNOW A DATE. >> RIGHT NOW I'D HAVE TO PICK A
DATE? >> THE NEXT MEETING IS MARCH 23.
>> CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE IT FOR 30 DAYS AND BRING IT ON
THE FIRST MEETING OF APRIL? >> 13TH.
>> IF THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE WANTING TO
SORRY. CAN WE REQUEST A TABLE UNTIL
APRIL 13? >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MAKE
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE AGENDA ITEM UNTIL THE APRIL 13 MOTING PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MOTION TO TABLE TO APRIL 13.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: SECOND.
MAYOR, PLACE YOUR VOTE. >> MAYOR RENO: AGREE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: OKAY.
EVERYONE ELSE, GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
MOTION TO TABLE DOES PASS 6-0. >> THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK IF WE COULD, QUICK RECESS.
TEN-MINUTE BREAK. MEET BACK HERE AT 7:44.
[2021-117]
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ALL RIGHT.
I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S PATIENCE.
WE'RE GOING TO BE BACK IN SESSION AT 7:54.
AND I'M GOING TO OPEN ITEM 2021-117, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRELIMINARY LIMITED OFFERING MEMORANDA FOR CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2021 (REDDEN FARMS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT AREAS NUMBER 1-2 PROJECT) AND CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2021 (REDDEN FARMS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MAJOR IMPROVEMENT AREA PROJECT). CLYDE?
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. COUNCIL, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY LIMITED OFFERING MEMORANDUM IN THE NEXT STEP TO SELL THE BONDS FOR REDDEN FARMS. THIS IS BASICALLY GOING OUT TO THE INVESTORS TO SAY HEY, WE GOT A GREAT COMMUNITY.
THERE IS 504 PAGES OF THEM SAYING IT'S A GREAT COMMUNITY.
THERE IS A LOT OF LEGAL VERBIAGE IN THERE AS WELL THAT IS NOT
[01:45:04]
GERMANE TO THE GREAT COMMUNITY BUT THIS IS JUST BASICALLY SAYING HEY, THIS IS A WISE AND GOOD INVESTMENT AND DOEM IN NATION OF THE $10 -- DENOMINATION OF THE $100,000 OF THE BONDS. IT'S $40,400,000 AND THE PROJECT BONDS $1,535,000. THEY ARE ALL FOR THE ITEMS THAT ARE ENTITLED BY CHAPTER 372 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.P.I.D. ACT. AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE ANDREW FRIEDMAN FROM THE SAMCO CAPITAL ON MANY, MANY OF THE CALLS WE HAVE BEEN ON IN THE PAST YEAR OR SO FOR REDDEN FARMS. AND WITH THAT, I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL MAY
HAVE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS
BUILDING UP TO THIS POINT. >> IT'S NOT OVER.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: IT'S NOT OVER.
YEAH. >> DON'T GET TOO EXCITED.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MAYOR, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR CLYDE ON THIS ISSUE?
>> MAYOR RENO: NO, I DON'T. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: OK OKAY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER: CLYDE, CAN WE TAKE THE INFORMATION OUT OF THIS AND PUT IT IN THE PAPERWORK, TOO, TO TELL PEOPLE HOW GOOD THE CITY IS, HOW MANY HOUSES WE ARE BUILDING.
>> YEAH. >> CONSUMPTION OF EMPTY LOTS? I LEARNED MORE ABOUT THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN READING THIS ONE SUMMARY THAN I DID IN 12 YEARS OF LIVING.
>> NOT ONLY MIDLOTHIAN BUT WITHIN 30 MILES WE HAVE ARLINGTON, GRAND PRAIRIE, DALLAS, FORT WORTH.
THE ECONOMY THAT THE METRO PLEX IS FUELING DOWN HERE PAINTS A
GOOD PICTURES OF THE BONDS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: YOU CAN TELL THEY DID RESEARCH ON THE COMMUNITY.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> APPROVE.
>> SECOND. >> MAYOR, PLACE YOUR VOTE.
>> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE! >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EVERYONE ELSE? IT DOES, IT'S APPROVED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> SPEND FIVE MINUTES UP HERE.
>> ALL RIGHT. >> THANKS, CLYDE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: A LITTLE OVER 1,000 PAGE AGENDA ITEM WE KNOCKED OUT PRETTY QUICK THERE.
[2021-118]
MOVING ON TO ITEM 2021-118, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR PAVEMENT RESURFACING SERVICES ON VARIOUS ROADS WITHIN NORTHRIDGE SUBDIVISION, AND ALL OF THE ASPHALTIC SECTION OF NORTH 7TH STREET FROM AVENUE E. TO THE NORTH END OF THE DONELSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $244,909.60.DID I SAY "ASPHALTIC" CORRECTLY? >> ASPHALTIC.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: CLOSE ENOUGH.
>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL. WE HAVE A BUDGETED ITEM THAT WE GO BACK TO DO THE ROAD MAINTENANCE WITH IN THE OLD TOWN. AND ALSO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF THE CATCH-UP FROM THE NORTH RIDGE WATER LINE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE DID. THAT WE WILL GO BACK NOW AND DO WORK IN NORTH RIDGE AND RECOVER FROM THE WATER JOB WE DID LAST YEAR. I WILL SAY THAT THE NORTH 7TH STREET, I WILL BE COMING TO YOU PROBABLY IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS ABOUT A UTILITY JOB.
WE WILL PUT A WATER LINE DOWN THAT ROAD FIRST AND COME BACK TO DO THIS. BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT A NEW ROAD AND THEN THE WATER JOB. THERE WILL BE A QUESTION OF THAT IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS A SLURRY SEAL ON THE ROADS THAT ACTUALLY I WILL SAY THAT WITH THE WEATHER EVENT WE JUST HAD AND WE HAD SLURRY SEAL ON THE ROADS IT HELD OUR ROADS UP VERY WELL. I WAS PRETTY ECSTATIC ABOUT THAT. THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM. GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: YESES FOR ADAM ON THIS CASE --
QUESTIONS FOR ADAM ON THE CASE? >> COUNCILMEMBER: GET IT DONE.
MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
>> KNOCKING THEM OUT. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MOTION TO APPROVE BY WAYNE AND SECONDED BY TED.
MAYOR, PLACE YOUR VOTE. >> MAYOR RENO: APPROVE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EVERYONE ELSE? IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, ADAM.
[2021-119]
MOVING ON TO ITEM 2021-119, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AMENDING THE CONTRACT WITH TEXAS BIT FOR A PACKAGE OF EIGHT ROADWAY ASPHALT REHABILITATION PROJECTS IN A BASE BID AMOUNT OF $2,229,17 IT.25 PLUS A 5% CONTINGENCY OF $111,458.96 FOR A TOTAL PROJECT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,340,638.21.ADAM? >> MAYOR, PRO TEM, COUNCIL.
OKAY. I CAME TO YOU A WHILE BACK AND I ASKED PERMISSION FOR A ROAD REHAB PROGRAM AND I MENTION WE LOOK AT THE ROADS THROUGH A CONDITION REPORT.
HOWEVER, SOMETIMES MOTHER NATURE MAY STEP IN.
AND CAUSE OUR ROADS TO DETERIORATE IN AN EXTREME
[01:50:01]
MANNER. WELL, THAT HAPPENED WITH THE LAST WEATHER EVENT. WHAT WE DID IS THANKS TO THE D.J. AND THE STAFF, AND CLYDE AND OUR TEAM WE HAVE HAD ROAD DAMAGE BASED ON THE ICE EVENT. RATHER THAN DO THE ROADS THAT WERE APPROVED PREVIOUSLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE PERMISSION TO RE-EVALUATE THE ROADS THAT WE ARE PRESENTING HERE TONIGHT AND PROCEED FORWARD ON THOSE ROADS THAT ARE, I WOULD SAY, MORE DAMAGED THAN THE OTHER ONES. BUT THIS IS CONTINUATION OF THE ROAD REHAB. HOWEVER, ROADS STEPPED UP IN THE LATTER. I'LL BE GLAD TO GO OVER THE ROADS WITH YOU. WE ARE LOOKING AT -- LET ME STEP OUT. EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND.WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THE WALTER STEPHENSON ROAD FROM BASICALLY 5TH STREET TO THE BRIDGE DOWN THERE.
THIS IS JUST BEFORE THE BRIDGE. MOCKING BIRD LANE.
NOT LOOKING AT ALL OF MOCKINGBIRD.
THERE ARE DEVELOPMENTS OUT THERE.
WE WANT LARGE PIECES BUT NOT THE WHOLE ENTIRE THING.
WE LOOK AT STAFF WISE TO TAKE CARE OF MOCKINGBIRD LANE.
OAK TREE LANE WAS APPROVED. WE HAVE STARTED TO WORK ON IT AS OF MONDAY MORNING. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
ROAD NEEDED TO BE DONE AS WELL. WE ARE LOOKS AT SHADY RIDGE DRIVE. THAT IS IN DISREPAIR AND IT WILL INCLUDE CUL-DE-SAC ON THOSE AND GET THE CUL-DE-SAC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE TRASH AND SCHOOL BUSES. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SHALLOW CREEK ROAD. THAT CAME UP ON THE DAMAGED ROADS. WE PUT THAT ON THE NEXT LIST.
OKAY? SHALLOW CREEK DRIVE OFF OF MCALPIN ROAD. THAT ENTIRE SEGMENT WILL BE REPLACED AS WELL. ALSO LOOKING AT SKINNER ROAD FROM PLAIN VIEW TO HONEY SUCKLE. SPRING BROOK DRIVE.
I WILL SAY BASED ON THE NUMBER WE ARE GOING TO LOOK IN THE BUDGET. NOT GO OVER THE BUDGET BUT TRY TO USE EVERY PENNY. WITH THAT SAID, THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENT DIRT TOTALS AND THE EARTH MOVING TOTALS WE HAVE TO WORK WITH AND WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN DO.
WITH THAT SAID, WE WILL TRY TO, OUR GOAL IS TO DO SUN BEAM COURT. BUT WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL.
I DON'T WANT TO MAKE AN OVERPROMISE AND UNDERDELIVER BUT THAT IS OUR INTENT AS WELL. WE WANT TO DO THAT FOR SOME TIME
BUT WITH THAT, ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: FOR CLARITY, YOU ARE TAKING MONEY WE HAD BUDGETED ON THE OTHER STREETS AND BECAUSE OF THE ICE DAMAGE WE'LL REAPPROPRIATE IT TO THE DIFFERENT STREETS THAT HAD MORE DAMAGE.
>> CORRECT. OUR INTENT IN THE BUDGET PROCESS THIS YEAR STRATEGIC PLANNING AND THE ROAD PROJECTS.
ROADS WE MENTIONED EARLIER ON THE TOP OF THE LIST THE UPCOMING
YEAR IF BUDGET ALLOWS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: WHAT WAS THE PROCESS WERE FIGURING OUT WHICH ROADS? DRIVING OVER THE STREETS AND CHECKING IT OUT?
>> EXACTLY. STAFF WENT AROUND, EVALUATED THE ROADS. ALSO, WHAT WAS ON THE LIST FOR NEXT YEAR, TOO. AND THE TWO YEARS OUT.
WE DO A FIVE-YEAR PLAN. COMPLAIN BASED WAS A -- COMPLAINT BASED IS A BIG ONE. RIGHTFULLY SO.
ALSO -- >> NOTIFICATION BASED.
BECAUSE OF COURSE WE ARE NOT THERE QUICK ENOUGH AND WE ARE DOING THE BEST WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THE ROADS ARE SAFE.
THESE ROADS DETERIORATE EVERY DAY DIFFERENTLY.
WHETHER IT WAS A DAY AFTER THE STORM OR A WEEK LATER OR A MONTH LATER, WE ARE LOOKING TO THAT. WE MIGHT SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. SUPPOSED TO GET A LOT OF RAIN THIS WEEKEND. SO THE ROADS ARE GOING TO DETERIORATE MORE NEXT WEEK. WE'LL DO THE BEST WE WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT AND MOVE FORWARD. TEXAS BIT, I WANT TO MENTION THIS. TEXAS BIT IS WILLING TO WORK WITH US TO MAKE SURE OUR GOALS ARE MET AS WELL.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE IF ROAD AGE OR THE LENGTH OF THE TIME SINCE THE LAST REHAB ON A CERTAIN ROAD, DID IT HAVE IMPACT ON WHETHER OR NOT THE ROADS HELD UP IN THE ICE STORM? OR WAS IT RANDOM?
>> SOME OF THE ROADS THAT WERE TAKEN OVER HAVEN'T HAD THE MIDLOTHIAN TREATMENT. RIGHT? YOU KNOW, YOU GO BACK THROUGH AND YOU DO SUB BASE AND CEMENT IT. YEAH.
WE ARE GOING BACK ON THE ROADS THAT HAVE BEEN ANNEXED.
AND/OR HAVE BEEN TREATED FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
THE STANDARDS ARE NOT QUITE, STANDARDS ARE BETTER NOW.
I HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: YEAH. MY LAST QUESTION AND I'LL GET OUT OF EVERYONE ELSE'S WAY SO THEY CAN ASK THEIRS IS DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATED TIMELINE ON WHEN THE ROADS MIGHT BE
ADDRESSED? >> WE STARTED MONDAY.
THEY ARE NOT MOVED OUT UNTIL THEY ARE COMPLETED.
SO BARRING RAIN, WE EXPECT RAINS.
YOU WILL SEE ASPHALT NEXT WEEK ON OAK TREE LANE.
THE REASON I BRING IT TO YOU SO QUICKLY IS WE ARE NOT THE ONLY TOWN WITH THIS PROBLEM. WHAT WILL HAPPEN WE ARE TRYING TO GET IN THE FRONT OF THE QUEUE SO WE ARE NOT QUICKED BACK DOWN TO JULY OR AUGUST. SO, FORTUNATELY WE ARE AHEAD OF
[01:55:05]
THE GAME BUT SECURING A CONTRACTOR TO DO A GREAT JOB AND WE GOT THEM MOVED TO THE FRONT OF THE QUEUE.UP ON THE QUEUE. THIS IS WHAT WAS SAID IS THAT THEY MOVE IN. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO MOVE OUT UNTIL JOBS WE PRESENT TO YOU TONIGHT IF APPROVED, THEY WON'T
MOVE OUT UNTIL THEN. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
GREAT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SOUNDS GOOD
TO ME. >> THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO SAY I KNOW WE ARE CHANGING THE ORDER AND THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACTOR TO DO THAT. I CAN ONLY ATTEST IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD AND THE WORK Y'ALL PUT IN AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, THEY COULD HAVE SAID LOOK YOU ARE EITHER DOING THESE ROADS OR WE GOT HIGHER PAYING THINGS, MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO AND WE WILL SEE YOU IN AUGUST.
IT WILL BE 20% MORE BECAUSE THE DEMAND IS HIGHER.
>> I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM BUT I WILL TELL YOU THEY HAVE BEEN KIND WITH WORKING WITH US.
OUR INTENT IS STILL THE SAME. YOU KNOW, I'M EXCITED TO WORK WITH THEM AND I HOPE YOU ARE, TOO.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MAYOR, COMMENTS ON THIS CASE?
GREAT JOB Y'ALL ARE DOING. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: I'LL
ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> SECOND. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MOTION AND SECOND. MAYOR, PLACE YOUR VOTE.
>> MAYOR RENO: APPROVED. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EVERYONE ELSE? IT DOES PASS UNANIMOUSLY.
>> THANK Y'ALL. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU, ADAM. MOVING ON TO
[2021-120]
ITEM 2021-120, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN AGREEMENT FOR SPECIALIZED PROFESSIONAL AMBULANCE BILLING SERVICES AND ADDENDUM "A" FOR HARD BARRY AND -- FOR HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE PURCHASE WITH EMERGICON, LLC, UTILIZING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF DESOTO, TEXAS.>> THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME BE HERE TONIGHT.
THIS IS FOR CHANGE OF THE BUILDING COMPANY WE PRESENTLY HAVE. WE HAVE BEEN WITH DIGITECH FOR THE LAST 14 YEARS. RECENTLY THE CITY OF DESOTO WENT OUT FOR R.F.P. AND THEY CONTRACTED WITH EMERGICON.
THEY WERE THE WINNING BIDDER. AFTER STAFF, WE REVIEW AND LOOKED AT THE CONTRACT. WHAT THEY HAD TO OFFER.
WE BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE A BETTER PRODUCT.
AND SERVICE FOR THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ALL RIGHT.
>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: MOTION TO APPROVE BY WAYNE. SECOND?
>> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: SECOND BY HUD. MAYOR, GO AHEAD AND PLACE YOUR
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EVERYONE ELSE?
IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >> THANK Y'ALL.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: THANK YOU, CHIEF.
OUR FINAL REGULAR AGENDA ITEM OF THE NIGHT IS
[2021-121]
ITEM 2021-121, RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS FOR CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 AND 301 W. MAIN STREET AND DIRECT STAFF AS NECESSARY.BUT JUST WANT TO KIND OF GIVE AN UPDATE.
WE TALK TO A FEW COUNCILMEMBERS AND I WANT TO UPDATE THE BOARD ON WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING. WE HAVE BEEN DOING PRIMARILY, WE WERE LOOKING AT BRINGING IN A CONSULTANT TO POSSIBLY HELP US NOT ONLY WITH THE R.F.P. WE CAN DEVELOP A PRETTY BASE R.F.P. BUT ALSO THEM USING THE CONNECTIONS TO HELP PUT US IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD POSSIBLY UTILIZE ONE OR BOTH OF THOSE BUILDINGS.
OUR PLAN STILL IS BASED ON WE HAD A WORKSHOP ON THIS A FEW MONTHS BACK. THE PLAN STILL IS ESPECIALLY WITH THE BOND ELECTION COMING UP, WE MIGHT, OUR GOAL IS TO PUT THIS OUT SHORTLY BEFORE THE MAY 1 BOND ELECTION.
BUT NOT GET THE RESPONSES BACK UNTIL AFTER.
THE REASON BEING IS THAT WE FEEL LIKE IF THE, YOU KNOW, STU HALL, LIBRARY PASSES, THAT GIVES DEVELOPER SOME ASSURANCES OF WHAT IS GOING TO BE DOWNTOWN AND POSSIBLY BE CATALYST FOR DEVELOPING THE DOWNTOWN AREA. I WANT TO GET FEEDBACK AND MAKE SURE NOTHING CHANGED FROM THE COUNCIL OPINION SINCE THAT MEETING. WHAT WE TOOK IS WE LOOK TO CAST THIS OUT TO A WIDE VARIETY OF DEVELOPERS TO SEE WHAT PROPOSALS GOT BROUGHT IN. THE FOCUS TENDED TO BE AT LEAST AT THAT MEETING ON RESTAURANTS, RETAIL, ENTERTAINMENT, THINGS THAT DRIVE PEOPLE DOWNTOWN. WE DIDN'T SPECIFY ANY ONE PARTICULAR AREA. BUT WE LOOK AT THOSE TWO OR THREE, FOUR USES. THAT COULD POSSIBLY COME IN TO COMMUNITY. THEN OTHER DEAL WAS LOOKING AT THE POSSIBLY DRESSING UP THE BUILDING.
ESPECIALLY THE METAL BUILDING TO GIVE IT MORE CHARACTER.
YOU SAW THAT IN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN.
THEY HAD RENDERINGS. IT MAY NOT LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THAT. SOMETHING TO KIND OF DRESS THEM UP. DO A LITTLE BETTER JOB WITH THOSE. THAT IS KUND OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE WERE A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED WITH THE RESPONSE WE GOT BACK FROM THE
[02:00:03]
CONSULTANT. WENT FROM FOCUSING ON AN R.F.P.AND GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE DEVELOPERS TO ALMOST US LOOKED LIKE A REDESIGN OF THE WHOLE DOWNTOWN -- NOT THE WHOLE DOWNTOWN PLAN BUT ALMOST LIKE A DOWNTOWN PLAN FOR THOSE FEW BUILDINGS. SO IT KIND OF WENT OUT OF WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE PUSHING FOR IN THE R.F.P. PROCESS.
WE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT THAT. THE PLAN IS TO DRAFT AN R.F.P.
AND GET THAT BACK IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL BEFORE IT GOES OUT.
SO WE'LL PROBABLY COME BACK IN APRIL JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE R.F.P. AND YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING ADDED. I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW WHAT WE HAVE SEEN FROM OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE DONE DOWNTOWN PLANS THEY LEAVE IT WIDE OPEN AND SAY WE WANT THESE FOUR OR FIVE USES.
TELL US WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. SO IF THE COUNCIL IS OKAY WITH THAT, THAT IS FINE. IF YOU WANT TO NARROW IT DOWN WE NEED FURTHER DISCUSSIONS TO NARROW THE SCOPE DOWN.
RIGHT NOW WE ARE PUSHING ON THIS WIDE OPEN APPROACH TO SEE WHAT WE GET. I WANT TO SAY WE HAVE HAD PEOPLE WALK IN OFF THE STREET AND SAY HEY, I'D LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, I'M INTERESTED IN THE BUILDINGS. I THINK WE COULD DO XYZ.
THERE IS PEOPLE WHO HAVE SHOWN INTEREST IN WHAT WE PUT THE R.F.P. OUT, BRINGING IN THE PROPOSALS.
WHETHER THEY FIT IN WHAT WE WANT OR NOT REMAINS TO BE SEEN.
I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF UPDATE TO SEE IF YOU HAD ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH TRYING TO
GET THE R.F.P. TO THE COMMUNITY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THE ONLY THING THAT I WANT TO RESTRICT, WHICH WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL THEY SUBMIT IS I WANT TO BE PICKY, I GUESS, ABOUT AESTHETICS.
THE ONLY THING IN TOWN WE CAN CONTROL AESTHETICS ANYMORE.
SINCE IT'S IN OUR DOWNTOWN I WANT IT TO BLEND WITH THE HISTORICAL LOOK. FOR ME, THAT IS THE ONLY THING I WOULD WANT TO NARROW ON. AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND MATCHING WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE DOWNTOWN.
>> THE GOOD THING ABOUT THAT, MOST LIKELY THERE WILL BE SOME FORM OF INCENTIVE. THERE ARE BUILDINGS IF WE CHOOSE TO SELL THEM OR LEASE THEM. WE WILL HAVE THE CONTROL OVER THAT. IF WE APPROVE DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE WE KNOW THE STATE HAS TAKEN IT AWAY FROM US.
WE SHOULD HAVE CONTROL IN THAT AREA NO MATTER WHAT WE DO.
I ANTICIPATE THERE WILL BE REQUEST FOR INCENTIVE.
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE WON'T KNOW.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT WILL HEAVILY DEPEND ON WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS.
IF IT'S A GREAT PROPOSAL WE ALL REALLY LOVE, YOU KNOW, THE REQUEST COULD BE HIGHER. IF IT'S NOT WE WILL PASS OR
LIMIT THAT INCENTIVE. >> I LIKE THE THOUGHT OF KEEPING THE R.F.P. SOMEWHAT VAGUE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW. MAYBE THE DEVELOPER HAS A COOL IDEA. I DON'T WANT TO RUN THEM OUT BECAUSE WE WERE HONED IN ON AND FUNNELED IN ON A SPECIFIC R.F.P.
WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET US THERE.
IS THERE ANY SORT OF WORKSHOP WITH THE R.F.P. WITH THE COUNCIL? SORRY, DURING THE R.F.P.
PROCESS? >> WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS BRING BACK THE R.F.P. TO MAKE SURE.
IT COULD BE A VERY, IF IT'S A WIDE OPEN GENERAL THING, YOU MAY WONDER WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS? THIS IS GENERAL. BUT MAKE SURE WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. OF COURSE, WHEN THE R.F.P. COMES BACK, THAT IS WHEN WE HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND FIGURE OUT DO WE LIKE THESE OR GO TO A DIFFERENT PATH? WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO? WE GET THOSE BACK AND WE'LL BE
BACK. >> SOMETIMELINE ON PUTTING THE R.F.P. OUT TO POTENTIAL DEVELOPERS?
>> PROBABLY APRIL TIME FRAME. WE WILL LOOK TO PROBABLY GET RESPONDENTS TO COME BACK LATE JUNE, EARLY JULY.
MONTH AND A HALF TO TWO MONTHS AFTER THE BOND ELECTION TO GIVE THEM TIME TO SEE WHAT THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION WERE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT NEED TO MAKE TO THE
PROPOSAL. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: EXCITING TIME FOR DOWNTOWN. THIS IS A BIG DEAL.
MAYOR, QUESTIONS ABOUT THE R.F.P. PROCESS FOR PROPERTIES,
FORMER LAWSON BUILDINGS? >> MAYOR RENO: WELL, MORE THAN WE HAVE TIME FOR HERE. I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS AND THE DOWNTOWN PLAN FORWARD. LOOKING FORWARD TO GET TOGETHER
WITH THE STAFF AND THE R.F.P. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
THANK YOU, SIR. >> COUNCILMEMBER: WILL THE ENTIRE COMPANY GET TO MEET COMPANY WITH THE R.F.P.? ON THE FIRE STATION THERE WAS ONLY A COUPLE OF US.
[02:05:02]
ARE WE DOING WORKSHOP WITH THE COUNCIL?>> BACK IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL. YEAH.
>> OKAY. I THINK WE NEED TO BRING THOSE IN. BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND THE IMPACT ON DOWNTOWN.
IT HAS TO BE OPEN WHICH IS GREAT AND THEY CAN MAKE THE PITCH AND
LET COUNCIL ASK QUESTION. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR
CHRIS? >> TO CLARIFY, YOU ARE WORKING
WITH A WITH A -- >> CONSULTANT.
>> WE TALKED TO ONE. WE HAVE NOT DONE A CONTRACT WITH THEM AND WE MAY NOT ON THE RESPONSE WE GOT.
WE HAD BEEN HOPING FOR CONSULTANT INVOLVEMENT WE ARE THINKING NOW MAYBE WE WILL GO IT ALONE?
>> POSSIBLY. WE ARE STILL TALKING.
I'M OPEN IF THE COUNCIL FEELS STRONGLY WE NEED TO BRING THEM IN, WE WILL CONTINUE TO TALK TO THEM TO SEE IF WE CAN REFINE THE SCOPE. SO WHAT WE NEED TO GET IT TO.
>> SO THAT WAS MY -- I REMEMBER THAT FROM WORKSHOP WE HAD.
I'M NOT SUPER PRO CONSULTANT BECAUSE THEY CAN MAKE MONEY QUICK. BUT SOMETIMES, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. THERE ARE PEOPLE MORE WELL VERSED IN THIS THAN WE ARE. MY CONCERN IS BECAUSE -- THIS IS A DOUBLE EDGE SWORD BUT MAYBE BECAUSE WE WERE NOT CONTRACTED WITH THE SATE CONSULTANT WE CAN'T GET THE -- SAID CONSULTANT WE DIDN'T GET THE BEST INFORMATION.
I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU THE WHOLE SHOW OFF THE CUFF.
IF WE DIDN'T LIKE THE INITIAL FEELING WITH THAT MAYBE WE APPROACH ANOTHER ONE TO CORRECT THE COURSE.
>> THE CONVERSATION WENT FIND BUT THE PROPOSAL SENT IN THAT US WENT A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. WE GOT A FORMAL PROPOSAL.
WE FELT IT WAS NOT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
>> CAN WE SEE THAT PROPOSAL AT SOME POINT?
>> SURE. >> DO WE THINK WE CAN STEER FROM THE PROPOSAL IN LINE WITH WHAT WE WERE HOPING FOR?
>> THERE IS CONVERSATIONS WITH HUM ABOUT THAT.
WHAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN IS REVISED ONE YET.
HOPEFULLY WE COULD. OR A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL.
>> CATALYST. >> IT WAS MORE OF A RETAIL TYPE
OF COMMERCIAL. >> I WOULD HATE TO ARBITRARILY GO IT ALONE. I FEEL LIKE WE ARE EARLY.
>> WE CAN GO A LOT OF DIRECTIONS.
WE DON'T HAVE TO GO IT ALONE. IF THE COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN BRINGING ONE IN, THEN WE WILL GO BACK TO TALK TO THEM MORE.
OR GO TO THE ADDITIONALS. >> OTHER PEOPLE CAN DO THIS.
>> ALSO WE WERE INTERESTED MORE, MORE SO IN THE CONTACTS THEY HAD. MORE SO -- WE CAN WRITE AN R.F.P. MORE RESOURCE, BACK END.
[INAUDIBLE] >> UNLESS I MISSED IT, WE NEVER NARROWED IT DOWN BEFORE. WE WERE TALKING TO ONE.
IF WE START AND DO IT ON OUR OWN AND IF IT DOESN'T WORK WE COULD COME BACK. THAT MAY BE A QUESTION THAT THE
COUNCIL HAS AN OPINION ON. >> WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION NOW?
>> SURE. >> I'LL ASK THE QUESTION SINCE I BROUGHT IT UP. HOW DOES THE COUNCIL COLLECTIVELY FEEL ABOUT FURTHER PURSUING A CONSULTANT TO HELP US
NAVIGATE THIS PROCESS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: DO YOU HAVE
ANY IDEA WHAT THE COST MIGHT BE? >> I THINK PROBABLY $20,000,
$40,000. >> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN:
MAYOR? >> MAYOR RENO: I DIDN'T ANSWER .
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE CONSULTANT.
AND THEN BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW THAT FIRST.
I THINK I AGREE WITH WHAT WALTER SAID.
IN THIS CASE, I THINK A CONSULTANT COULD HELP US.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO, AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT WAS
SUBMITTED. >> WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO
[02:10:01]
SUGGEST MAYBE WE GET THE REPORT, VIEW IT AND REVISIT THIS AS AN AGENDA ITEM AT A FUTURE MEETING AS AN UPDATE ON THE 23RD?>> WE CAN GET IT OUT TO YOU. >> MAKING THAT AGENDA LONG.
>> ADDING THE AGENDA TO TURN THE AIR CONDITIONER ON AS WELL.
IT'S HOT IN HERE. MAYBE BECAUSE I'M IN THE HOT SEAT. THANK YOU, CHRIS, FOR THE
>> ALL RIGHT. THAT IS ALL OF THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM. WE HAVE ONE EXECUTIVE AGENDA
[Executive Session]
ITEM THIS EVENING. IT'S REAL ESTATE, DELIBERATION REGARDING THE REAL PROPERTY TO DELIBERATE THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, LEASE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY BY M.E.D.MIDLOTHIAN BUSINESS PARK. WHERE THE DELIBERATION AND THE OPEN SESSION WOULD HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE POSITION OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE THIRD PARTIES PROJECT.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM COFFMAN: ALL RIGHT.
IT'S 8:44. WE ARE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION TO OPEN SESSION. THERE IS NO ACTION TAKEN AS A RESULT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO AT 8:44, WE STAND
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.