Apr 20, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission

[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum.]

[00:00:06]

[GAVEL] >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: AT THIS TIME, I'LL CALL THE MIDLOTHIAN P&Z MEETING TO ORDER. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS DETERMINE A QUORUM. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.

WE HAVE SIX OF OUR SEVEN. OUR NEXT ITEM IS CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. WE DO HAVE PEOPLE SIGNED UP. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON A GENERAL TOPIC? IF YOU ARE HERE ON A SPECIFIC ITEM ON THE AGENDA, AND YOU HAVE TURNED IN A FORM WE WILL BRING YOU UP OR ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR FORM WHEN WE GET TO THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK GENERALLY TO P&Z? OKAY. IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THE AGENDA AROUND A LITTLE BIT. RATHER THAN HAVE A LOT OF YOU FOLKS HAVE TO SIT HERE. AND LISTEN TO SOMETHING THAT IS OF NO INTEREST TO YOU. WE'LL MOVE DOWN TO ITEM 010. IS THAT

[010 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 3.00± acres in the Martha Brenan Survey, Abstract No. 43 described in Exhibit “A” hereto by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) Zoning District to Planned Development District No. 143 (PD-143) to allow for a “Commercial Communication Tower, Type 2” use. The property is generally located at 751 Apple Lane (Case No. Z23-2021-102).]

>> TRENTON: THANK YOU. IN ACCORDANCE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS A COMMUNICATION TOWER TYPE 2 IS NOT PERMITTED BY RIGHT OR THROUGH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE ZONED AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LOCATED ON APPLE LANE IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. THEY ARE REQUESTING A PD TO ALLOW FOR A COMMUNICATION TOWER PLUS OR MINUS 3 ACRES. I APOLOGIZE. THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOWS THE PROPERTY IN THE COUNTRY MODULE. THAT'S USUALLY REPRESENTATIVE OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FROM 1-3 ACRES. THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. IT'S ZONED CULTURAL DISTRICT AS MENTIONED. FUTURE LAND USE OF THE COUNTRY MODULE. SECTION 2.04 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS I MENTIONED ONCE AGAIN AND THIS CELL TOWER IS NOT PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT.

THUS THE REASON FOR THE REZONE REQUEST. ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONE PROPERTY TO PD, THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND TO SECTION 5.100 ZONING ORDINANCE STATES THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ARE CUSTOMIZED ZONING DISTRICTS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE UNIFIED DECIDE OF THE RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, RETAIL AND THE INSTITUTIONAL UNITS. FACILITATE OR COMBINATIONS THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. PDS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE FLEXIBILITY AND CREATE EFFICIENT AND AESTHETICALLY DESIGN AND PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING, OPEN SPACE, CIRCULATION PATTERNS AND PARKING TO HAVE FEATURE OF SIZE, TOPOGRAPHY. THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE OF COUNTRY MODULE. IT STATES THAT THE MODULE CHARACTERIZE BY THE LOTS ON SMALL THAN IN RURAL MO DUAL BUT INTEGRATING THE RURAL FEEL IN THE AREA. LOT SIZES SHOULD BE BETWEEN 1-3 ACRES. THAT GENERALLY CORRESPONDS TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY 1 ZONING DISTRICT. COUNTRY MODULE IS AROUND REFLECTING THE RURAL SETTING. LIMITED TO THE BARNS AND THE SHED. LIVESTOCKS SHOULD BE APPLICABILITY TO THE RESIDENTIAL LOT. FORM OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE COUNTRY MODULE TO ENCOURAGE LOW DENSITY AND THE SMALL SCALE LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE USES OF INTERSECTION OR MATERIALS.

PROPOSED REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PLAN. AND IT'S CONTRARY TO THE GOALS AND THE OBJECT IS FOR THE AREA -- OBJECTIVES FOR THE AREA. APPLICANT REQUESTING TO PUT UP A COMMUNICATION TOWER. WHAT THE APPLICANT IS DOING,

[00:05:02]

IT'S SHOWING THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER WITH THE HEIGHT ON THE EXISTING PROPERTY IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. HERE IS FROM ANOTHER ANGLE WITH THE SAME RENDITION OF THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER ON THE PROPERTY AS IT SITS NOW. ANOTHER VIEW OF IT. I WISH I COULD HONESTLY CLEARLY DESCRIBE THIS. I TALKED TO THE APPLICANT MULTIPLE TIMES. I ASKED HIM TO SHOW WHAT IT WOULD LOOK WITH SERVICE OR WITH OR WITHOUT THE TOWER. THIS IS NETWORK MAP SHOWING THIS WHERE THE PROPOSED TOWER IS LOCATED.

THE APPLICANT CAN EXPLAIN IT BETTER THAN I CAN TO SHOW HOW THE SERVICE IS IMPROVED IN THIS AREA IF PLACED ON APPLE LANE.

THIS SHOWS DIFFERENT SPOT WITH THE TOWERS ON AND OFF. THE STAFF MAILED OUT NOTICES TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN 200 FEET. WE SENT OUT 12 LETTERS. WE RECEIVED 7 IN OPPOSITION AND 17 LETTERS FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FEET. SOME OF THE NOTICES WE DID RECEIVE OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET. SOME OF THEM WERE LOCATED ANOTHER THE SAME ADDRESS BUT DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN THE RESIDENCE SIGNED THE PETITION. YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE PETITION IN FRONT OF YOU FOR YOUR REFERENCE. I WOULD LIKE TO THROW CAVEAT THAT THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THIS ITEM AFTER THE PUBLIC HAS SPOKEN.

THE GOAL, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN THEIR MOUTH BUT THEY WANT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION TO THE CASE AND THE OPPOSITION OF THIS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND AND REACH OUT TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND HOPEFULLY ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS THEY MAY HAVE. STAFF DOES SUPPORT CONTINUING THIS TO THE NEXT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION IN MAY. ONCE AGAIN THE ITEM REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF STAFF? APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK?

>> TRENTON: AT THE END THEY ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SPEAK AFTER ANYONE IN OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AS WELL.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: THE FIRST I HAVE FOR LISA REISINGER. DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? COME UP AND FOR THE RECORD, EACH PERSON SPEAKING WILL HAVE THE THREE MINUTES. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU COMPLY WITH

THAT. >> HELLO, ALL. I'M LISA. I LIVE AT 202 SKY LANE, MIDLOTHIAN. I LIVE BY THE

PROPOSED LOCATION IN MIDTOWNE -- >> TRENTON: THIS IS VERY A DIFFERENT ITEM. IF POSSIBLE WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS COMMENT

TO ITEM NUMBER 10. >> I WAS GETTING GOING.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: I APOLOGIZE, YOUNG LADY.

>> TRENTON: MARK THAT AS AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: HOW ABOUT DONNA WEISNER?

>> YOU ARE ONLY GIVING ME THREE MINUTES SO I'LL GO THROUGH IT FASTH. 910 APPLE LANE, LOCATED ACROSS WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT THE TOWER. FIRST, WE OWN TWO LOTS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE

[00:10:02]

WE ONLY HAVE TWO STREETS. THE OWNER TOLD MY HUSBAND HE WAS PUTTING THE TOWER UP FOR HIS NEIGHBORS. I HAVE SIGNATURES FROM NEIGHBORS ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF THIS PROPERTY IN TOTAL OPPOSITION FOR THE TOWER. WE HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED THOSE TO THE CITY. THE PEOPLE IN PLAINVIEW WANT THE TOWER TO WATCH RANGER GAME ON THEIR TELEPHONE. I SUGGEST YOU FOLLOW THE CRITERIA THAT THE ARTICLE SUGGESTS IN FINDING LOCATION THAT IS 500 METERS OR ONE-THIRD OF A MILE AWAY FROM SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, AND LOTS OF SLEEPING PEOPLE IN DENSE NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER 5G TOWER IN THE DENSE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE SOMEBODY WANTS BETTER CELL COVERAGE. MY GRANDCHILDREN WILL LIVE ACROSS THE STREET. I WANT TO PROTECT THEM, WITH MY NEIGHBORS FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF --

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MA'AM? >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: SORRY. YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP. GIVE US A

CLOSE. >> THIS IS MY CLOSURE. IT WE STRONGLY RESPECT YOU TO DENY THE REQUEST TO BUILD TOWER AT APPLE LANE SO THEY CAN FIND A MORE SUITABLE LOCATION FOR THE TOWER.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: THANK YOU. TINA WARD.

>> I LIVE AT 1321 APPLE COURT. I'M IN OPPOSITION BECAUSE I HAVE A TOWER ACROSS FROM ME IN MY BACKYARD. I CAN SEE IT. I HAD PICTURES BUT I DIDN'T ADD IT. I DIDN'T KNOW I COULD. IF I DRIVE OUT MY DRIVEWAY I SEE ONE ACROSS FROM US ON APPLE LANE. THIS ONE I'M GETTING A NEW PORCH PUT IN. THE THOUGHT I'D GET TO SEE THE HORSES AND EVERYBODY IN THE YARD NOW I'LL SEE A TOWER IF IT GOES UP. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT. WITHIN THREE MILES OF THIS LOCATION THERE ARE 14 TOWERS. SIX OF THEM ARE REGISTERED.

EIGHT ARE UNREGISTERED. IF I SLEEP THE WRONG WAY IN MY HOUSE I CAN SEE THE BLINKING LIGHT COMING IN FROM THE TOWER ACROSS FROM US ON APPLE LANE. I WOULD HIGHLY SUGGEST THIS NOT BE PUT IN. AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ROADS COMING IN AND OUT. WE DO IF THIS GOES UP. THEY WILL HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION ON THERE. THE ROADS ARE STARTING TO BE TORN UP WHEN YOU COME UP OFF OF 663.

AND SO, AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO HAVE THE ROADS REDONE AGAIN.

SO, I AM IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE --

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. DAVID SHORT.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT DAVID IS IN SUPPORT. IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? OKAY. DEBRA ROURKE MYERS. DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK OR JUST TURN

IN A FORM. >> JUST TURN IN A FORM.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: IN OPPOSITION, CORRECT?

>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. I

[00:15:01]

OPPOSED AS WELL. DID I MISS ANYONE WANTING TO SPEAK? OKAY, IF NOT, APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME?

>> GOOD EVENING. STEVE WOODY, AND I'MRETHING AT&T, TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND SHORTS. WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING TO ADDRESS THE DONE CERTAINS WE HEARD TONIGHT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY AT&T IS NOT ABOUT CREATING ENEMIES, WE ARE ABOUT COMMUNICATION PHONES AND PROVIDING WIRELESS SERVICES TO THE CUSTOMERS. SO IF WE WOULD CONTINUE IT TILL NEXT

MONTH WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE APPLICANT? I WOULD ASSUME IF IT'S CONTINUED AT SOME POINT YOU WOULD EXPLAIN TO THE COMMISSION THE MAPS AND

STUFF. >> ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU WANT TO GO OVER ANY OF THAT TONIGHT, WE CAN. BUT I'M PREPARED TO GO OVER IT NOW. BUT I CAN GIVE THE WHOLE PRESENTATION AT THE NEXT

MEETING. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WHAT IS THE

DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION? >> NEXT IS FINE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. THEY ARE SAYING NEXT TIME WILL BE

FINE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? TRENTON, DO YOU

HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? >> TRENTON: NO. WE RECOMMEND BEFORE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAKE A MOTION IF THAT IS WHAT YOU SO DESIRE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE MAY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE MAY PLANNING &

ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. >> SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS IF NOT, WE'LL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER KOEHLER? >> VICE-CHAIRMAN KOEHLER: AYE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER RODGERS?

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: AYE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER

HILL? >> COMMISSIONER HILL: AYE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER CAVES?

>> COMMISSIONER CAVES: AYE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER

SKINNER? >> COMMISSIONER SKINNER: AYE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER OSBORN, AYE. IT'S UNANIMOUS.

>> TRENTON: FOR THE AUDIENCE THAT IS ON MAY 18. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE DO HAVE,

[Consent Agenda]

DO WE HAVE AMENDED MINUTES? >> TRENTON: I WOULD LIKE TO PULL IT FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE WEREN'T ABLE TO FINISH THOSE TODAY. WE'LL HAVE IT FOR THE NEXT MEETING. AMENDED MINUTES.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: PULL THE MINUTES?

>> TRENTON: PULL THE MINUTES. >> HOW SUCCESSIVE ARE THE

AMENDMENTS? >> MINOR.

>> YEAH, WE NEED TO PULL THEM. THE STATE CHANGES WE CAN PULL THEM AND APPROVE THEM TONIGHT WITH CHANGES FROM STAFF BUT WE STILL NEED TO PULL THEM FROM CONCONSENT.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WHY DON'T WE DELAY IT, THE APPROVAL UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. THEN THAT WILL LEAVE THE REST OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. 0, 3, 4, 5. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT

AGENDA? >> COMMISSIONER: MOVE TO

APPROVE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: SECOND?

>> COMMISSIONER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE'LL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER KOEHLER? >> VICE-CHAIRMAN KOEHLER: AYE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER RODGERS?

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: AYE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER

HILL? >> COMMISSIONER HILL: AYE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER CAVES?

>> COMMISSIONER CAVES: AYE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER

SKINNER? >> COMMISSIONER SKINNER: AYE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER OSBORN, AYE. IT'S UNANIMOUS.

OKAY. THE FIRST TWO ITEMS ON THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 006.

[006 Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Plat of the MidTowne Skilled Nursing Center, Lots 1 and 2, being ±5.929 acres out of the B. F. Hawkins Survey, Abstract No. 464. The property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of 9th Street (F.M. 663) and the proposed extension of Dylan Way (Case No. PP13-2021-108).]

[00:20:04]

EXTENSION OF DYLAN WAY. >> TRENTON: THANK YOU.

PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE MIDTOWNE SKILLED NURSING VENTER IN MIDTOWNE DEVELOPMENT. A FEW MEETINGS AGO IT WAS BROUGHT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION TO AMEND THIS FOR THE MIDTOWNE SKILLED NURSING VENTER FACILITY THEY SUGGESTING TO MOVE FORWARD THEY WANT TO DO A PLAT ON THE TWO LOTS. LOTS 1 IS WHERE THE SKILLED NURSING FACILITY IS LOCATED. LOT TWO LOCATED TO THE SOUTH IS RIGHT NOW UNDETERMINED OF WHAT THE LOT WILL BE. IN ADDITION TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, DYLAN WAY AND THE UNNAMED ROAD, 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE SOUTH WILL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE FINAL PLAT APPROVED AND RECORDED. THIS DOES MEET ALL THE PROVISIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. 2.12 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. DO WE HAVE AN

APPLICANT ON THIS, TRENTON? >> TRENTON: WE DO. IF THEY

WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WOULD THE

APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK, SIR? >> I CAN. MY NAME IS SHANE, 5038 WESTFALL DRIVE, MIDLOTHIAN I REPRESENT THE MIDTOWNE DEVELOPER. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. NOT A LOT TO SAY OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. WE ARE CONSTRUCTING THE FIRST 460 FEET OR SO OF DYLAN WAY WITH THE SKILLED NURSING AND THE SOUTHERN

RIGHT-OF-WAY AS TRENT MENTIONED. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY.

QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR.

>> COMMISSIONER: HOLD ON. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: SORRY.

>> COMMISSIONER: SO THE PURPOSE OF THE TWO LOTS IS THE SKILLED

NURSING ONLY NEEDS 5.094 ACRES? >> CORRECT. SKILLED NURSING BOUGHT FIVE ACRES FROM US. BUT IT WAS A CITY REQUIREMENT THAT THE SOUTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH WE ARE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO PUT WITH THE SKILLED NURSING LINE-UP FOR ENTRANCE TO THE HIGH SCHOOL ACROSS THE STREET. ORIGINALLY WE HAD THE ROAD AGAINST THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND WE HAD TO MOVE IT FURTHER SOUTH TO LINE UP WITH THE ENTRANCE ACROSS. SO IT CREATED THIS LOT TWO. THE LOT TWO RIGHT NOW IS GOING TO BE PROBABLY RETAIL, OFFICE TYPE USES.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: THERE WON'T BE NO ACCESS FROM 9TH STREET? IT WILL BE FROM THE

SIDE AND REAR? >> CORRECT.

>> TYPICALLY WHEN WE PLAT A LOT DON'T WE NEED A PLAN FOR IT?

>> A PLAN FOR -- >> WELL, THE SKILLED NURSING FACILITY THIS WEEK SUBMITTED BUILDING PLANS.

>> I'M REFERRING TO LOT 2. >> IT'S PLATTED FOR FUTURE USE.

WE HAVE THE CIVIL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS FOR THE SOUTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND FOR THE UTILITY STUB-UPS TO LOT 2. BUT

NOT FOR BUILDING SPECIFIC. >> AS LONG AS IT'S THE LEGAL LOT IN ZONING IT'S FINE FOR RIGHT NOW.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, SO THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR A MOTION UNLESS TRENTON

YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? >> TRENTON: NO, SIR.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ANY QUESTION OR DISCUSSION? OKAY. IF NO ONE ELSE WILL, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> I'LL SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENT? WE'LL VOTE. COMMISSIONER KOEHLER?

>> VICE-CHAIRMAN KOEHLER: AYE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER

RODGERS? >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: AYE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER HILL?

>> COMMISSIONER HILL: AYE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER

CAVES? >> COMMISSIONER CAVES: AYE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER SKINNER?

>> COMMISSIONER SKINNER: AYE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: COMMISSIONER OSBORN, AYE. IT'S UNANIMOUS. IITEM 007, ACT UPON A REQUEST --

[007 Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Plat of the Villages of Walnut Grove, being +/- 72.386 acres out of the C. Jenkins Survey, Abstract No. 556, and the B.F. Witherspoon Survey, Abstract No. 1180. The property is generally located south of Walnut Lane, between South Walnut Grove Road and Eastgate Road (Case No. PP14-2021-012).]

>> UNLESS THERE IS SOME REASON. WE HAVE BEEN TAKING ROLL CALL VOTES BECAUSE WE HAD COMMISSIONER STEPHENS ON THE PHONE IN THE PAST SO WE COULD HEAR THOSE. IT'S NOT NECESSARY TONIGHT UNLESS YOU WANT TO. EVERYBODY THAT IS VOTING PRESENT IN THE ROOM. CAN'T HELP YOU SPEAK AS LONG AS YOU LIKE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

ITEM 007, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE VILLAGES OF WALNUT GROVE, BEING +/- 72.386 ACRES OUT OF

[00:25:03]

AND EASTGATE ROAD. >> TRENTON: THANK YOU. THIS IS DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "VILLAGES OF WALNUT GROVE ROAD." IT WILL CONSIST OF THE 187 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TEN COMMON AREA LOTS AND TWO NONRESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL LOTS. NONRESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL LOTS ARE LOCATED ALONG WALNUT GROVE ROAD. THE CITY, THE PROPERTY WILL BE SERVED BY THE CITY WATER AND CITY SEWER. IT'S AN EXISTING MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ROAD. ALL APPROPRIATE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION HAS BEEN SHOWN ON THE PLAT REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND 2012 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. NO PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE

AND DO THEY WISH TO SPEAK? >> ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. IF NOT, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING SO THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR A DISCUSSION AND A MOTION.

OKAY. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> COMMISSIONER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? IT'S UNANIMOUS. ITEM 008, CONDUCT A PUBLIC

-- >> TRENTON: CHAIRMAN OSBORN. WE ASKED IF ITEM NUMBER 13 CAN BE MOVED UP. THIS IS AN ITEM WE

[013 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 7.00± acres in the Joseph H. Witherspoon Survey, Abstract No. 1136 by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) District and Commercial (C) District to Commercial (C) District (Case No. Z26-2021-114).]

PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ALL RIGHT.

ITEM 013, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 7.00 +/- ACRES IN THE JOSEPH H WITHERSPOON SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1136 BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

>> MARCOS: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THIS IS ON HIGHWAY 287 FROM SOUTH WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND LANE ROAD. IT'S SPLIT ZONED.

PROPERTY TO THE NORTHERN SIDE IS ZONED AS COMMERCIAL. THE SOUTHERN SIDE IS ZONED AS AGRICULTURAL. THE REQUEST WILL CREATE CONSISTENCY IN THIS ZONING. FOR THE ENTIRE TRACT OF LAND AND ELIMINATE THE SPLIT. THE APPLICANT CLAIMS TO DEVELOP THE TRACT FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USES. LOOKING AT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN I HAVE ON THE SCREEN IT'S ENTIRELY WITHIN THE REGIONAL MODULE. THIS MODULE SHOULD INCLUDE MIX OF WORK, SHOPPING, ENTERTAINMENT AND THE CLOSE PROXIMITY TO FREEWAYS, HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CONFIRMED TO THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I TOOK A SECTION OUT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SHOW UNDER THE REGIONAL MODULE, THOSE MODULES DO GENERALLY CORRESPONDENT WITH THE COMMUNITY RETAIL, THE GENERAL, PROFESSIONAL AND THE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS OR CLASSIFICATIONS DRY CUT ON TO THE FUTURE FRONTAGE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 287 NEEDS APPROVAL FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

IT NEEDS IMPACT ANALYSIS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE FUTURE USES IN ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT OCCURS IN THE FUTURE.

WITHIN YOUR PACKET, WE DID INCLUDE A LIST OF ALL USES THAT ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITHIN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. USES ALLOWED BUT WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. SO ON THE SCREEN HERE IS A LIST OF THOSE USES AS WELL IF YOU DO APPROVE THIS, THE USES THAT HAVE THE "P" NEXT TO IT MEANS THEY ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY JUST PULL A BUILDING PERMIT TOMORROW AND THEY CAN DO THAT TYPE OF USE. THEY STILL HAVE TO SUBMIT FOR A TITE PLAN AND WITH THAT SITE PLAN IF THERE IS ANY SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES WE HAVE TO BRING IT BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. ANYTHING YOU SEE UP HERE WITH AN "S" ON IT, THOSE WOULD REQUIRE THE SPECIFIC USE PERMITS. SO IF THE APPLICANT CHOSE TO HAVE THE USE ON THAT PROPERTY THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO GAIN

[00:30:02]

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND/OR WISH TO SPEAK? IF YOU WOULD, COME AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR. DO YOUR BUSINESS AND/OR ADDRESS.

>> DOUG CURRY, 2214 SHANE DRIVE, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. WE ARE PURCHASING THIS FROM THE RATCLIFFE FAMILY. THE AREA TO THE LEFT, THEY STILL LIVE THERE THEY ARE AWARE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING. AND APPROVE THAT ALSO. IT'S JUST GOING TO BE FOR PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, WHETHER WE'LL DEVELOP IT OR FLIP IT FOR NOW BUT THE FRONT IS ALREADY COMMERCIAL. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO LOOK TO MAKE IT ALL COMMERCIAL INSTEAD OF IT BEING AG IN THE BACK. THERE IS ACCESS THROUGH THE BACK 80-FOOT EASEMENT THERE. BUT THEY ARE, THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO LIVE ON THE PROPERTY.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? IF NOT, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOMENT

TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: A MOTION AN A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

IT'S UNANIMOUS. FLOOR IS OPEN FOR A DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. "AYE"] OPPOSED? IT'S UNANIMOUS. OKAY

READY TO MOVE BACK UP? ITEM 9? >> TRENTON: 8.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: 8? OKAY. ITEM 008, CONDUCT A PUBLIC

[008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit (sup) for “Motor Vehicle Repair, Minor” relating to the development and use of Lots 1-3, Block 10, Original Town Addition (commonly known as 101 West Avenue E) located within a Commercial (C) District. The property is located at 101 West Avenue E (Case No. SUP16-2021- 101).]

WEST AVENUE E. >> MARCOS: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

YOU MAY RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION. IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM US.

AT THE INTERSECTION OF WEST AVENUE E AND 9 STREET. IT'S REQUEST FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR, MINOR TO EXISTING TIRE SHOP. WE KNOW IT AS BURKE'S TIRES OR WAS AT ONE TIME. MINOR SERVICES INCLUDE -- I'LL GO DOWN THE LIST SO IT'S IN THE RECORD -- OIL CHANGE, TUNEUPS, TIRE REPAIR, TIRE SALES, STATE INSPECTIONS. THIS CAN NOW INCLUDE BRAKE SYSTEM SERVICES, ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, EXTENSION SYSTEM. ANY AUTO RELATED WORK THAT CAN BE COMPLETED WITHIN A DAY IS WHAT THE APPLICANT ASKING TO TRY TO DO. THE PROPERTY -- I SHOULD BACK UP THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THE SERVICES OFFERED WILL NOT REQUIRE VEHICLES TO STAY OVERNIGHT. SO AGAIN, THESE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ONE-DAY TYPE REPAIRS. THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT PLANNING TO DO. THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. YOU CAN SEE HERE IT'S LOCATED NEXT TO THE NORTH 8TH STREET DISTRICT. AS WELL AS THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN. THIS WAS APPROVED IN JUNE OF 2020 BY OUR CITY COUNCIL. THE PLAN GUIDES DECISION-MAKING WHEN REVIEWING NEW AND REDEVELOPMENT WITHIN OUR DOWNTOWN AREA. ACTUALLY INCLUDES THIS AS A PART OF THAT DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN. BASED ON THE PLAN, IDEAL COMMERCIAL USES INCLUDE RETAIL, ENTERTAINMENT, RESTAURANTS, OFFICES WITH THE PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY STREETSCAPES. THAT IS WHAT IS ENCOURAGED IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OBVIOUSLY, THE EXISTING LOT AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE TIRE SHOP USE IS ALL CONSIDERED LEGAL NONCONFORMING. THOSE NONCONFORMITIES CAN CONTINUE.

BUT SHOULDN'T BE EXPANDED UPON. IF THIS IS APPROVED THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING STATUS IS WIPED OUT. IT GOES AWAY. AND THE PROPOSED USES THAT FALL UNDER "MINOR VEHICLE REPAIR" WILL ALL BE ALLOWED. STAFF TAKES THE STANCE THAT THE PROPOSAL UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE VISION OF THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN. THIS RIGHT HERE IS THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED SIGNAGE

[00:35:03]

THERE IS NOT REALLY A LOT OF CONCRETE OUT THERE. MOST OF IT IS UNAPPROVED AND IT CONTAINS GRAVEL, ROCK MATERIAL. NO IMPROVED PARKING SPACES OR DRIVE AISLES ARE PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS CLEAR. 13 LETTERS WERE NAILED AND TO DATE STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES FROM THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED SUP. IF YOU LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDATION, IF YOU DO DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD AND APPROVE THIS, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. I'M GOING TO READ THOSE IN THE RECORD. NO OVERNIGHT STORAGE OF THE VEHICLES WILL BE PERMITTED. USE SHALL BE LIMITED TO TIRE SALES, PREPARES, OIL CHANGES AND THE STATE INSPECTIONS. SIGNAGE MUST ADHERE TO THE SECTION 4.6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE PROPERTY IMPROVE TO INCLUDE CONCRETE AREAS FOR QUEUES AREAS. AND FOR THE CUSTOMER AND EMPLOYEE PARKING. AND ALL OUTSIDE STORAGE AND DISPLAY IS PROHINTED. I CAN TAKE

QUESTIONS. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF

STAFF? >> I HAVE SOME.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: YES, SIR. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: OBVIOUSLY, THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN LOCATED THERE FOR A NUMBER OF

YEARS. >> MARCOS: YES, SIR.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY BUT AS LONG AS I REMEMBER. MY RECENT VISIT TO HAVE SOMETHING SERVICES THE GENTLEMAN SPENT A TON OF MONEY OVER THERE INCLUDING CLEANING UP THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING DRASTICALLY. SO WE MENTION OUTSIDE TIRE STORAGE AND WHATNOT THAT IS PROHIBITED. BUT THAT USAGE HAS BEEN THERE FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. ARE OUR PROHIBITIONS APPLICABLE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE OR IS HE STILL ABLE TO -- IF HE MAKES NO FURTHER CHANGES, CAN HE STILL OPERATE

UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS? >> MARCOS: WELL, SIR, I'M NOT AWARE OF BURKE'S TIRES OF THE USE BEFORE DISPLAYING TIRES ON THE OUTSIDE. THIS DISPLAY OF TIRES WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE DISPLAY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PLACING TIRES OUT THERE PURELY

FOR DISPLAY. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: IS HE LEAVING THOSE TIRES OUT OVERNIGHT?

>> MARCOS: I'M NOT SURE, SIR. WE HAVE TO ASK THE APPLICANT.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: I HAVE SEEN TIRES OUTSIDE THE BUILDING FOR YEARS. I DON'T KNOW -- I HAVE SEEN TIRES -- ITS A TIRE

SHOP. >> MARCOS: SURE.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: TYPICALLY, I SEE THEM CLEANED UP AT NIGHT. THIS IS WHAT MY CONCERN IS. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO REACT TO WHAT IS WANTING TO BE DONE. I FEEL AS THOUGH WE HAVE TWO CHOICES AS A CITY IN THE APPLICATION. WE CAN SAY NO AND BECAUSE OF THE MONEY THAT HAS BEEN INVESTED WE'D PROBABLY SEE THE NUMBER AND THE SAME USAGE STYLE. NO IMPROVED ROCK, NO IMPROVEMENTS WHATSOEVER AND PROBABLY MAKING LESSER REVENUE SOURCE DUE TO THE RESTRICTION OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED TO WHERE THEY ARE JUST KIND OF GETTING BY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. OR DO WE APPROVE THIS IN ORD:00 TO HAVE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS DONE, CONCRETE, AND THE OTHER PROVISIONS AND THE EXPECTATIONS AND NO OUTSIDE DISPLAY AND SO FORTH WITH TEETH TO IT. TO GET IT IN ACCORDANCE -- MAYBE IT DOESN'T MEET THE MASTER PLAN CURRENTLY. BUT IF WE SAY NO AND HE KEEPS DOING WHAT HE CAN DOING, HE CAN KEEP DOING THAT, RIGHT?

>> MARCOS: ABSOLUTELY. HE CAN KEEP DOING IT.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: WE CAN BE HARD-NOSED OR MAKE IT BETTER FOR EVERYBODY AS I SEE IT. YOU FOLLOW ME?

>> MARCOS: YES, SIR. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: OKAY.

I'LL LET THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS RESPOND. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO APPROACH THIS. BUT I KNOW THAT FROM

[00:40:04]

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ANYONE OLES HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IF NOT, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK? SIR, IF YOU'D COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR BUSINESS.

>> YES. IF WE DON'T DO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DO, I'M SURE IT WON'T LAST FOR TOO LONG. IF THE DISPLAY OF THE TIRES IS A PROBLEM, WE CAN MOVE IT. THAT IS NO BIG DEAL. MOST TIRE SHOT HAVE DISPLAY. AROUND THE CITY. WE COULD HAVE IT INSIDE. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR HEAVY DUTY MECHANICS. IF YOU HAVE INSPECTION, OR LIGHTBULB TO BE CHANGED WE WON'T SEND YOU SOMEWHERE TO CHANGE THE LIGHTBULB. IT'S COMPATIBLE FOR, FOR THE CUSTOMER TO STAY THE LIGHTBULB. NO CARS STAY OVERNIGHT. SIMPLE MECHANIC. SIMPLE AND EASY THINGS. IF IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH I DON'T THINK THE BUSINESS WILL LAST FOR TOO LONG. WITH THIS MUCH MONEY. IT'S BEEN SHIFTED 500 DEGREE.

YOU COULD ASK EVERYBODY. THEY WILL TELL YOU THE VIEW ON IT.

IT HAS BEEN, IT'S MUCH BETTER IMPROVEMENT. AND EVERYBODY NOTICE THAT. WE HAVE PUT IN A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT TO MAKE IT LOOK GOOD AND THE CUSTOMERS ARE HAPPY WITH IT. WE ARE SEEKING YOUR HELP WITH THIS. HOPEFULLY YOU CAN HELP US AND HELP WITH US WE ARE LOOKING FOR, FOR SIMPLE THINGS. LIGHT MECHANIC AND CHANGE OIL. IF THE TIRES ON THE SIDE, IF IT'S NOT SUITABLE WE COULD HAVE IT INSIDE. NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

THAT IS MY GOING. HOPEFULLY YOU WILL CONSIDER. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF IF IN FACT THE COMMISSION WANTED TO APPROVE IT WAS IMPROVEMENT FOR CONCRETE AREA FOR THE VEHICLE QUEUING AND THE CUSTOMER EMPLOYEE PARKING. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO THAT?

>> YES, SIR. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. ANY

OTHER QUESTIONS? >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: ONLY OTHER QUESTIONS I HAD, OF COURSE, WE DO HAVE A RATHER STRINGENT SIGN ORDINANCE. ARE YOU ABLE TO WORK WITH STAFF ON

THE SIGNAGE? >> YES, SIR.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE APPLICANT?

THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY, IF NOT I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECONDED. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR A MOTION.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MARCOS SO IF WE APPROVE THIS, IS IT GOING TO STILL BE ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING OR IS IT NOW

LEGAL? >> MARCOS: LEGAL CONFORMING GO AWAY. IT WILL BE UNDER AN SUP. SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

>> IT WILL STAY WITH THE PROPERTY?

>> MARCOS: STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY. YES, SIR.

ABSOLUTELY. >> THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER USES WITHIN THE

DOWNTOWN THAT ARE THE SAME? >> MARCOS: REPAIR SHOPS?

>> YES. >> MARCOS: MINOR REPAIR SHOPS?

>> THAT IS CURRENTLY LEGAL NONCONFORMING AS WELL.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: EAGLE AUTO PARTS, ARE THEY CONFORMING

NOW? >> MARCOS: EAGLE --

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: BEHIND IT.

>> MARCOS: IS THAT BRYANT STREET? THAT IS LEGAL CONFORMING. EVERYTHING ALONG BRYANT STREET IS LEGAL NONCONFORMING. THERE IS A CAR, AUTO CAR SALES ONLINE PLACE THAT IS BEHIND -- GOSH. EVERYTHING IS LEGAL NONCONFORMING BACK THERE. NOTHING CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS. BUT IT CAN ABSOLUTELY OPERATE FROM THIS POINT -- NOTHING, NOTHING WOULD STOP IT FROM OPERATING RIGHT NOW. ABSOLUTELY.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. >> MARCOS: THE ONLY ONE I CAN THINK OF THAT MIGHT BE MINOR AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S MINOR OR NOT BUT OFF OF 9TH STREET, WHICH IS THAT? BY LIGHTHOUSE.

MAX AUTO. MIGHT BE COLLISION. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: YEAH.

[00:45:04]

REPAIR. >> MARCOS: IT MIGHT BE THE NEXT

CLOSEST BESIDES. >> WHAT IS NEXT TO JERRY'S?

J&W? >> THAT IS JUST TIRES. JUST

TIRES. >> THAT WAS A MAJOR REHAB,

PROBABLY CONFORMING NOW. >> MARCOS: TO THE STANDARDS OF

THE MID-2000S I'M SURE. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: WITHIN

REASON. >> MARCOS: YES, SIR.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: WE HAVE A NUMBER OF STUFF BY THE

HIGHWAY. >> MARCOS: A NUMBER OF STUFF.

TRUE. BEHIND COMBS' AC. HENDERSON. YES, SIR.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: I VIEW IT AS BEING THE CENTER OF TOWN.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT MARK MENTIONED IS TRUE. IT'S SUP.

>> MARCOS: YES. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: WHEN WE ENACT AN SUP IT WILL ROLL WITH THE PROPERTY.

>> THAT IS CONCERNING TO ME. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: MM-HMM.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: I MEAN I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORT AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. IT'S FAR BETTER THAN WHAT WAS THERE.

I DO APPRECIATE THAT. BUT -- >> MARCOS: AT THIS POINT, THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO TIRE REPAIR, TIRE SALE AND INSPECTIONS. IF THIS FAILS, THAT IS ABOUT ALL THEY CAN DO.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: AND IT'S WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING.

>> MARCOS: WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: I WAS GOING TO SAY.

>> MARCOS: YES, SIR. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: THE ONLY THING THEY ARE KIND OF ADDING IS THE SMALL AMOUNT OF THE MECHANIC WORK WITH NO OVERNIGHT STAY OF VEHICLES.

>> MARCOS: YES, SIR. OIL CHANGES. HEADLIGHT CHANGES.

THINGS LIKE THAT. WELL, NOT TO MENTION ALSO SHOCKS. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. ANYTHING RELATED TO THE BATTERY.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: SIMPLE. >> MARCOS: ITEMS LIKE THAT.

YES, SIR. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: FURTHER

DISCUSSION? >> MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT IT DOESN'T CONFORM WITH THE MASTER PLAN THAT WE HAVE SET IN PLACE

FOR DOWNTOWN. >> YEAH.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: THAT IS A CONCERN. OKAY. IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR A MOTION. IF NOT, I'LL

MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. >> SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, AYE.

UNANIMOUS. ITEM 009, CONDUCT A PUBLIC

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a drive-through establishment on 0.558± acres in the W.M. Hawkins Survey, Abstract No. 465 and the B.F. Hawkins Survey, Abstract No. 464 and being a portion of Lot 2RC, Block 1, Creekbend Plaza Addition, presently zoned Commercial (C) District; adopting conditions for development and use of the property. The property directly abuts George Hopper Road to the south, between East Main Street and future Weaver Way (Case No. SUP17-2021-110).]

>> TRENTON: THANK YOU. 2.04 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE DRIVE-THRU ESTABLISHMENT REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DRIVE-THRU SERVICE FOR A RESTAURANT. LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY .55 ACRES. ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF -- SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GEORGE HOPPER ROAD AND WEAVER. THIS IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S UNDER 1,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUESTING A DRIVE-THRU SERVICE IT WOULD TRIGGER, THAT IS WHY IT IS TRIGGERING THE SUP REQUIREMENT. IT'S ZONED NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA COMMERCIAL, THE MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS. YOU HAVE THE COMMUNITY RETAIL TO THE WEST.

E12 TO ALLOW FOR THE RESTAURANTS, NONRESIDENTIAL USES, GEARED TOWARD MORE OF THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. THERE IS EXISTING USES SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY. RIGHT HERE.

CURRENTLY HAVE THE DRIVE-THRU SERVICES. YOU HAVE MCDONALD'S ON THE CORNER. WHATABURGER, CHICKEN EXPRESS, SLOTSKEYS. YOU

[00:50:04]

BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THERE IS A PROVISION THAT ANY PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED HERE CAN'T BLOCK THE VIEW OF BROOKSHIRE GROCERY STORE. THERE ARE SITUATIONS THAT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS COME IN THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WILL ENFORCE. THIS IS A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE BETWEEN THE PRIVATE PARTIES BUT IT'S BEEN RESTRICTIVE ON WHERE THE BUILDING CAN BE LOCATED.

THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WE WORKED ON TRYING TO GET THIS AS MUCH FURTHER HERE TO THE EAST AS WE COULD. THIS IS REALLY, AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE LINE OF THE CLEAR VISION. THEY HAVE TO BE CLEAR OF. THE BUILDING BARELY MISSES THAT WITH THE DRIVE-THRU OVERHANG. PROPOSED RESTAURANT IS A RESTAURANT WHITE RHINO COFFEE SHOP WHERE THEY WILL SELL GOODS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COFFEE SHOP, BAKED GOODS, ET CETERA. ON THE SITE, THEY DO HAVE THE AMOUNT OF THE PARKING WILL BE, THE AMOUNT OF THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, PARKING BASED OFF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. ONE SPACE FOR 100 SQUARE FEET OF SEATING AREA FOR RESTAURANTS.

THEY DO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A RESTAURANT.

ALSO THEY ARE TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION ANY EMPLOYEES WORKING THERE. THEY ARE NOT EXCEEDING ANY OF THE MAXIMUM REQUIREMENTS. WE WORKED -- ONE THING WE DID WORK ON, THEY PROVIDED A FIVE-CAR QUEUE AT EACH PICKUP WINDOW. PROVIDING FUTURE ACCESS POINTS TO THE SOUTH WHEN THE LOT TO THE SOUTH OF IT DOES DEVELOP. THERE WILL BE A CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT THAT GOES THROUGH THE PROPERTY ON THE PRIVATE DRIVE TO GEORGE HOPPER RODHOP --GEORGE HOPPER ROAD. TS TEMPORARY ACCESS POINT TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO WEAVER DOWN THIS LOT. -- TO WEAVER WAY DOWN THE LOT. THEY ARE USING MINIMALIST APPROACH. THEY HAVE THE METAL STRUCTURES. HB 2349, WE CAN'T REGULATE MATERIALS.

THEY ARE USING THE VARIOUS MATERIALS TO ARK ACCENTUATE ELEVATIONS ON THE STRUCTURE. IT WILL MEET SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS AND IT'S ALSO SHOWN IN THE SITE PLAN ABOUT THE ORDINANCE. AND THE LANDSCAPING THEY ARE MEETING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LANDSCAPING AND EXCEEDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPING.

TO THE SOUTH RIGHT HERE, THEY ACTUALLY HAD THIS LANDSCAPED IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION BUT AFTER THE DISCUSSION WITH THEM ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE HAD THEY WOULD HAVE TO RIP IT OUT ANYWAY. THAT IS QUITE A BIT OF THE LANDSCAPING THEY WOULD HAVE TO RIP OUT. WE TALKED ABOUT THE TEMPORARY POTS OR SOMETHING THERE. BALLARD TO BLOCK OFF THE FUTURE ACCESS. THEY ORIGINALLY HAD IT LANDSCAPED. SO IF YOU QUESTION WHY IT LOOKS LIKE THAT THIS MEETS MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, SIGN AND LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. I WILL EXCEED. STAFF DID NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS IN 200 FEET AND ZERO CAME BACK IN OPPOSITION AND IN FAVOR. IT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS

TIME. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

>> TRENTON: THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION AS WELL.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. TERRY?

>> CHAIRMAN, OSBORN, COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I AM ROSS WEAVER. 1521 ELMY TRAIL. THEY STILL HAVE THE COLOR BLIND STICK FOR POINTING PURPOSES WHICH I APPRECIATE.

BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE THE DOTS ON THE SCREEN. SO, WE ARE WORKING WITH THE WHITE RHINO COFFEE SHOP. WE WANT TO BRING IN SOMETHING UNIQUE. MIDLOTHIAN WILL BE THE TEST CASE FOR THIS.

DRIVE-THRU ONLY CONCEPT. ESPECIALLY WITH THE ADVENT OF THE PANDEMIC WE RESPECTLY HAVE BEEN THROUGH. YOU PROBABLY HAVE SEEN ALL THE DRIVE-THRUS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO HANDLE THE CAPACITY THEY WERE FED THROUGH WHEN THE INTERIORS WERE CLOSED. SO THIS IS A BUILDING AND A CONCEPT DESIGN PURELY TO HANDLE THE

[00:55:01]

OUTDOOR SEATING AREA. THAT THEY TAKE SOMETHING TO MAKE IT GREAT AND A PLACE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO REINVEST BACK IN TO THE COMMUNITY. LIKE I SAID, IT HAS BEEN FEATURED IN "D" MAGAZINE.

IT'S ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING COFFEE SHOP FRANCHISES -- NOT FRANCHISE YET. ALL CORPORATELY OWNED AND CORPORATELY CONTROLLED STORES. WITH THAT SAID, ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GENTLEMEN HAVE RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN OR TO THE BUSINESS ITSELF I WOULD

LOVE TO ANSWER THOSE FOR YOU. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: STRICTLY DRIVE THROUGH, ROSS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> STRICTLY DRIVE-THRU. THERE WILL BE A WALKUP PROVISION AS WELL. PART OF WHAT THE PARKING IS THERE. CROSS-HATCH PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF THE DRIVE-THRU LANE FOR ANYONE THAT WANTS TO WALK UP FROM GEORGE HOPPER.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

THANK YOU, SIR. >> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WE DO HAVE ONE FORM TURNED IN FAVOR.

HARRIS CREEK INVESTMENT. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE? IF NOT I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. CHO

OPEN FOR DISCUSS AND/OR ACTION. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> TRENTON: YES, SIR. >> SO ACCESS IS GOING TO BE CHANGING TO THE LOT FROM GEORGE HOPPER, IT WILL BE MOVING?

>> TRENTON: YES, SIR. THE ACCESS POINT OFF THE PRIVATE DRIVE GOING TO GEORGE HOPPER AND THE TEMPORARY INGRESS/EGRESS POINT WILL BE LOCATED FURTHER ON 2RC1 I THINK IS WHAT IT IS

CALLED. >> FUTURE ACCESS FROM THE DIRECTION COMES FROM THE OTHER SITE?

>> TRENTON: YES, SIR. >> SO YOU WILL ONLY BE GOING IN AND TURNING IN TO THE DRIVE-THRU.

>> TRENTON: RIGHT. >> THERE WON'T BE FLOW TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH THE SITE TO THE OTHER? OKAY. THAT IS REALLY MY ONLY QUESTION. THAT AND IS SOMEBODY GOING TO BE SITTING THROUGH THE DRIVE-THRU FOR A WHILE AND SOMEBODY COMES TO GET THE GARBAGE. BUT THAT'S IT. BUT I LOVE THE CONCEPT. I THINK IT'S GREAT. I HAVE SEEN IT A LOT OF PLACES.

>> TRENTON: THEY ORIGINALLY HAD THIS, WE HAD THIS CLOSE AND WE WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH THEM TO GET IT PUSHED AS FAR BACK AS WE COULD. WE HAD A CLEAR VISION, THE BANNERS WE HAD TO BE CAUTION

OF AS WELL. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OTHER

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> PERMANENT ENTRANCE TO THE NORTH, I GUESS YOU WOULD CALL IT, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE

MCDONALD'S, CORRECT? >> TRENTON: CORRECT, YES. IT'S MATCHING UP. WHAT WE TRY TO DO ON THE PRIVATE DRIVE.

>> CROWDED ROAD TRYING TO MAKE THE TURNS IN AND OUT OF THERE TO ADD A SINGLE ENTRANCE. WHAT IS THE POINT OF TAKING THE ENTRANCE

OFF OF GEORGE HOPPER AWAY? >> TRENTON: WHEN WEAVER WAY IS DEVELOPED, THAT IS WHERE METHODIST HOSPITAL IS DOWN THE WAY. EVERYTHING IS UNDEVELOPED AND ZONED FOR THE COMMERCIAL USES. ONE OF OUR CONCERNS IS HAVING THE INGRESS/EGRESS POINT HERE AND WHAT POTENTIAL COULD HAPPEN AS THE TERRIFIC AND YOU HAVE CARS COMING OUT OF HERE TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE.

>> HOW FAR IS THAT FROM -- SO, THE ENTRANCE AND THE EXIT THERE BEHIND MCDONALD'S TO GEORGE HOPPER, THE STOP SIGN DISTANCE

WISE? >> TRENTON: FROM THIS POINT TO THIS POINT? GIVE ME A MINUTE, I CAN DEFINITELY LOOK THAT UP.

[01:00:07]

>> YOU SAID IT EAT DIRECTLY ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY FROM

MCDONALD'S? >> RIGHT.

>> SO IT'S NOT VERY FAR. >> TRENTON: WE HAD THEM LINE IT UP. SOMETHING ELSE WE WANT TO PREVENT ALTHOUGH THIS IS PRETTY CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION, HAVING THIS OFFSET AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY HERE, AND ANOTHER ONE HERE FOR WHATABURGER. WE ARE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THAT SITUATION WHICH WE HAVE IN OTHER PART OF THE CITY ON MAIN STREET WHERE IT'S

DANGEROUS. >> 45.

>> TRENTON: 45 I HEARD IN THE BACK. SOMEONE SAID THAT. THANK

YOU. 45 FEET. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OTHER

QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? IF NO- >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. I LIKE THIS CONCEPT. I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. BUT THAT IS GOING TO BE, THAT IS, THAT TRAFFIC COMING IN ON THAT CORNER ON THAT REVERSE ANGLE, I WISH THERE WAS A WAY THIS THING COULD ROTATE A LITTLE BIT SOMEWHAT ON THE ENTRANCE POINT. I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT RIGHT AT THAT -- Y'ALL AREN'T CONCERNED ABOUT THAT? THE WAY THAT IT ALREADY SLOWS THE CARS DOWN ROTATING BACKING DOWN.

>> TRENTON: IF WE WERE TO SHUT THIS DOWN THEN YOU HAVE OTHER ISSUES IT'S NOT LINED UP WITH THE OTHER DRIVES. YOU WILL HAVE -- WE THINK IT WILL BE A LOT MORE ISSUES OF THE CARS TRYING TO EXIT OUT OF HERE. THEN YOU HAVE IT EXITING OFF THE DIFFERENT POINT CAUSING A LOT OF THE CONGESTION THAT WAY. WE REALLY DID TRY TO ADJUST THIS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I MEAN RIGHT HERE, THIS IS 500 SQUARE FEET. I BELIEVE THE BUILDING IS ONLY APPROXIMATELY 600 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. EVEN BEING THAT SMALL IN SIZE IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET IT ON THIS LOT.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: SO MY MAIN CONCERN IS THIS. WHERE AT TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEARS OF DEALING WITH THIS, I LOOK AT PARKING LOTS OR ENTRANCES AND I SAY BOY, WE JACKED THAT ONE UP.

STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH THIS AND THE ENGINEERING MIKE AND THEM LOOKED AT THIS AND THIS IS GOING TO WORK?

>> TRENTON: MIKE AND THE FIRE MARSHAL HAVE BEEN INVOLVED.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: THEY'RE HAPPY WITH IT?

>> TRENTON: CORRECT. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: OKAY.

>> WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR NOT HAVING THE SECOND ENTRANCE? THE ENTRANCE AND THE COMMIT? WHAT EXIT? WHAT ISTHE REASON NOT HA?

>> TRENTON: IT WILL BE OPEN. REQUIRED ON THE DEVELOPMENT.

HOWEVER, AS THE LOT TO THE SOUTH IS DEVELOPED THIS WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED. SO INGRESS/EGRESS POINT WILL BE

FURTHER TO THE SOUTH. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS AT THIS POINT AND THE SECOND POINT IS NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL LATER.

>> TRENTON: CORRECT. >> YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADD WHAT YOU DON'T SEE ON THIS GRAPHIC HERE IS ACTUALLY THE REPLAT THAT IS ALSO CURRENTLY PENDING. THAT TAKES THIS ACCESS DOWN AS A DEDICATED EASEMENT ACROSS THE LOT TO THE SOUTH. AND IT COMES OUT AND CONNECTS TO THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY. IF YOU WONDERING WHERE THE SECOND ACCESS COMES FROM, THAT IS HERE. I MEAN, WE TALKED WITH THE DEVELOPER QUITE A BIT. WHILE WE WORKED ON THIS LAST WEEK. TO MAKE SURE ALL THAT COORDINATED OUT AS A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS QUESTION HERE.

>> WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME ON THE SECONDARY ACCESS COMPLETED?

>> TRENTON: RIGHT NOW THERE IS NOT A TIME FRAME OF WHEN THIS -- IT'S UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF WEAVER WAY SO WHEN IT'S DEVELOPED THAT IS TRIGGERED AS THIS IS DEVELOPED, THAT IS WHEN THE SECOND POINT WILL BE REQUIRED.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, WHAT IS THE

PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION? >> MAKE A MOTION.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? IT'S UNANIMOUS. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 010, CONDUCT

A PUBLIC HEARING -- >> TRENTON: WE'RE ON 11.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: I DIDN'T CHECK IT OFF. SORRY. I DIDN'T CHECK IT OFF. THAT IS THE ONE WE CONTINUED THAT ONE, RIGHT?

[01:05:01]

>> TRENTON: CORRECT, SIR. YES. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ALL RIGHT.

[011 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance changing the zoning of 2.056± acres, being Lot 1, Block 1 of Lighthouse Addition, described in Exhibit “A” hereto from Commercial (C) District to Planned Development District No. 46 (PD-46) for Commercial (C) District uses; adopting development and use regulations; adopting a site plan and elevations. The property is generally located 1400 N 9th Street. (Case No. Z24-2021-106).]

STREET. >> TRENTON: THANK YOU. THE REASON WHY THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT UP WAS AS THIS LIGHTHOUSE CHURCH RECONSTRUCTED FROM THE TORNADO THAT DESTROYED MOST OF ITS PRIMARY STRUCTURE, ONE OF THE ISSUES THEY HAD THIS IS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING LOT. THEY WANTED TO ADD THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. NOW IS THE TIME FOR THEM TO ADD SQUARE FOOTAGE INSTEAD OF DOING IT LATERRED ON AND COSTING MORE SO THEY CAME IN -- LATER ON AND COSTING MORE. THEY CAME IN AND ASKED STAFF HOW COULD THEY GO AHEAD AND DO THAT? OUR RESPONSE IS BRING IT UP TO NONCONFORMITY AND GO THROUGH THE REZONE. RIGHT HERE ON THE SAME PROPERTY RIGHT HERE YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE RESTAURANT IS, A RESTAURANT, ALSO TOP FLOOR IS DEVELOPING, AN APARTMENT. AT THIS LOCATION RIGHT HERE, THIS IS ALREADY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 46. YEARS AGO. SO WE TOLD, WHEN WE WERE WORKING WITH MR.COOPER AND THE ZONING PASS IT WOULD BE INCLUDED TO USE THE CHURCH PROPERTIES IN THE SAME PD SO IT'S NOT MULTIPLE ORDINANCE, IT'S CLEANER AND LESS CONFUSION. THEY OWN THE OFFICE BUILDING. THIS IS WHERE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ARE TO THE NORTH. SO IN THIS PIECE, INCLUDING THE EXISTING MIXED USE RESTAURANT, CAFÉ, OFFICE AND THE LIGHTHOUSE CHURCH FOR THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. WHAT THEY ARE ASKING, ONE THEY ARE RELOCATING WHERE THE FRONT DOOR, THE FRONT ENTRYWAY IS, OR WHERE IT ORIGINALLY WAS. ON TOP OF THE BUILDING, THEY ARE ADDING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. A TOWER ON THE SECOND FLOOR. WHICH EXPANDS THEIR SQUARE FOOTAGE WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE OUT OF CONFORMITY. WITH THAT, THEY WANT TO MAKE IT ALL AS ONE PD.

WE CLEANED UP THE OTHER THINGS ON WHEN THE PD WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN AND WE ELIMINATED SOME REGULATIONS THAT DIDN'T PERTAIN TO THIS ANYMORE. ONE THING WE DID, THEY ARE ALSO REQUESTING PART OF THIS PD IS FUTURE PARKING. SO WHEN THEY, WHENEVER THEY DO DECIDE TO GO AHEAD AND PUT PARKING AROUND THE CHURCH, IT WOULD BE UP TO -- IT HAS TO MEET THE CITY STANDARDS AND PUT LANDSCAPING IN. THEY ARE WILLING TO DO THAT ONCE IT'S CONFRONTED. ANOTHER THING IN THE TORNADO THE MONUMENT SIGN ENDED UP ON THE SECOND FLOOR THROUGH THE BEDROOM WINDOW SO THAT IS ANOTHER THING THEY HAVE TO REDO, THE MONUMENTS SIGN.

TWO OF THE THREE GOT DAMAGED. AND SO THEY WANTED MORE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN OF THE MONUMENT SIGNS. THEY ARE REQUESTING ON ONE, THE PRIMARY MONUMENT SIGN TO HAVE AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TO BE INCORPORATED WITHIN THE DESIGN OF THE SIGN. WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE IT DOES REQUIRE SUP FOR THE MESSAGE CENTER. MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THEY -- THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THEY ARE REQUESTING FOR THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER IS LESS THAN WHAT WE NORMALLY PERMIT. THEY ARE ASKING FOR LESS. WE CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE AND INCLUDING THIS TO ALLOW THE ORDINANCE AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A CONDITION -- MAKE AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE THAT IT STATES THERE ARE TWO MONUMENT SIGNS. THEY HAD THREE MONUMENT SIGNS AND I ACTUALLY MISSED THE ONE BY THE OFFICE BUILDING. WE WANT TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT THAT THEY ARE NOT CHANGING. IT'S THE TWO DESTROYED BY THE TORNADO.

ONLY ONE PERMITTED TO HAVE THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER. WE MAILED OUT NOTICES TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET AND WE RECEIVED ZERO IN OPPOSITION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IF NOT, IS THE APPLICANT

HERE? DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? >> I'M HERE. HE HAS DONE A GOOD

JOB EXPLAINING. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY.

ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYBODY TO SPEAK. OKAY. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

[01:10:04]

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THIS THE SIGNAGE, THIS IS WHAT YOU

ARE PROPOSING? >> TRENTON: YES, SIR.

>> ALLOW ELECTRONIC MESSAGE? >> TRENTON: WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. SIMILAR TO WHAT OTHER CHURCHES HAVE DONE AND IT'S LESS THAN WHAT WE HAVE ALLOWED FOR. WE DON'T FEEL IT'S DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT WOULD MEET ALL THE REGULATIONS FOR THE PROXIMITY OF RESIDENTIAL, WHEN IT CAN BE ON, HOW LONG TRANSITION TIMES ARE, BRIGHTNESS OF THE SIGN, ET CETERA. WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROPOSAL.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: WE MADE ALL THE CHANGES IN THE ORDINANCE FOR BRIGHTNESS CONTAIN THAT SEVERAL YEARS AGO, DIDN'T WE?

>> TRENTON: YES. AND THE TRANSITIONING TIME.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? QUESTIONS? DO I

HEAR A MOTION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MOTION TO

APPROVE. SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, AYE.

[012 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance by amending the regulations relating to the development and use of Lot 3, Block 27, in MidTowne Phase 2, located in Planned Development District No. 42 (PD-42) and described in Exhibit “A” hereto by authorizing townhomes as a permitted use on said property. The property is located to the west of Abigail Way, between George Hopper Road and Skye Lane (Case No. Z25-2021-107).]

LANE. >> MARCOS: IT'S NORTH OF GEORGE HOPPER ROAD. EACH TOWNHOME WILL CONTAIN A SINGLE-CAR GARAGE AND ADDITIONAL PARKING WILL BE INCLUDED ON THE FRONT SIDE AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN. LOT THREE, THAT ONLY BEING 33,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, THE DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS ABOUT 12 UNITS PER ACRE. THE PROPERTY WILL ADHERE TO THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THE SETBACKS, FOR MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE. ALL WITHIN WHAT WE CALL THE BROWNSTONE PRODUCT TYPE. THAT IS ALREADY APPROVED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 42. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NEW TOWN MODULE THAT AS A MIX INCLUDING TOWNHOME WITH COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT USES. THE PRIMARY ENTRY TO THE SITE WILL BE FROM GEORGE HOPPER AND THE ALLEYWAYS AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN. THE ONE-CAR GARAGE ON THE REAR SIDE WILL BE ACCESSIBLE THROUGH THE ALLEYWAY. BASED ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT REQUIRED SO A MINIMUM OF THE 20 PARKING SPACES IS WHAT IS NEEDED. THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE 28 PARKING SPACES. 18 ON THE FRONT SIDE. 10 SINGLE-CAR GARAGES ON THE REAR SIDE. APPLICANT HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE MIDTOWNE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, MARC, APPROVED THE LAYOUT AND THE BUILDING DESIGN. BRICK MASONRY MATERIAL PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. ARTICULATED PARAPIT THEY WILL ALL CONTAIN FRONT AND REAR PORCHES, PATIOS. ALL WILL CONTAIN A SECOND FLOOR BALCONY AS WELL. THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE GARAGES TO BE AT LEAST 400 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 19 FEET THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT THE GARAGES BE REDUCED DOWN TO 200 SQUARE FEET. MEANING AGAIN THE SINGLE-CAR GARAGE WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 12 FEET.

SORRY, 27 LETTERS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WERE MAILED. TO DATE STAFF RECEIVED SIX RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THAT 200 FEET. OVERALL WE HAVE RECEIVED ABOUT 20 IN OPPOSITION. THERE IS ONE THAT WE DID RECEIVE IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS PRESENTED I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT

YOU MAY HAVE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? DO THEY WISH TO SPEAK?

>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: IF YOU WOULD COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. AND WHO YOU ARE WITH.

>> I'M JUSTIN CROCKER. 3441 PLAINVIEW ROAD IN MIDLOTHIAN.

I'M THE BUILDER AND TAKING OVER THIS PROJECT FROM OPTIONS REAL ESTATE. I'LL LET SHANE SPEAK. HE IS THE DEVELOPER OF THE COMMUNITY AND I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH HIM.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. >> DO I NEED TO STATE MY ADDRESS

AGAIN? >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: NO.

>> I WAS UP EARLIER. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WHO YOU ARE.

>> SHANE, 5038, WEST FALK DRIVE" IN MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. I'M WITH

[01:15:07]

WHICH DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO A TWO-CAR GARAGE STYLE DEVELOPMENT. SO I THINK IT FITS IN PERFECTLY WITH WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY APPROVED. AGAIN, THE REQUIRED PARKING IS 20 SPACES. WE ARE OFFERING 28. WE MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. THE LOT SIZE, MINIMUM SQUARE FOOT PER UNIT EXCEEDS WHAT THE PD SAYS. SO WE ARE GOOD THERE. WE ALSO ARE GOING TO PLAT THIS AS THE FEE SIMPLE LOTS SO IF THE OWNER CHOOSES TO SELL UNITS IN THE FUTURE, HE WILL BE ABLE TO. THE PROJECT COMMITTED TO THE MARC ON JANUARY 7, WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. ON JANUARY 18, WE HELD A MIDTOWNE RESIDENTS COMMUNITY MEETING.

THE PROJECT WAS PRESENTED TO THE RESIDENTS IN MIDTOWNE AND ALL OF THOSE IN ATTENDANCE WERE IN FAVOR OF IT AT THE TIME. SO THAT IS IT. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT

STANDPOINT. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF

THE APPLICANT? >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: WERE YOU ONE OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGNERS?

>> FOR THIS PROJECT, YES. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: MEANING, I CAN REMEMBER THIS PROJECT, I WANT TO SAY BACK IN

'08. WHEN I SAT ON P&Z. >> THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN

'07. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS PROJECT THROUGH A NUMBER OF CHANGES. IT'S GOING SO FAR BACK, AND I'VE SEEN SO MANY PROJECTS AND MAYBE YOU CAN REFRESH MY MEMORY. I DO REMEMBER SOMETHING ABOUT TOWNHOMES, I WANT TO SAY I DID.

BUT I REMEMBER THEM PRESENTED TO COUNCIL AS MORE ON A MAIN THOROUGHFARE, NOT NECESSARILY TRAPPED IN THE BACK OF HOMES.

WEREN'T THEY ORIGINALLY PROPOSED MORE OR LESS ON THE WALTER STEPHENSON WHERE THE REST OF THE COMMERCIALIZED PROPERTIES WERE AND THEREFORE PROVIDING A NOISE AND A SOUND BARRIER TO RESIDENCES TRAPPED BEHIND AS Y'ALL TYPICALLY TRY TO PORTRAY?

>> I DID NOT DO THE ORIGINAL CONCEPTUAL PLAN. I HAVE DONE THE LATER RENDITIONS OF IT ON THE REST OF THE PROPERTY. BUT IN SOME OF THE LATER RENDITIONS, THEY WERE SPREAD OUT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT. THEY WERE NOT CONCENTRATED ON GEORGE HOPPER OR

WALTER STEPHENSONS. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: I CAN ONLY GO BACK TO WHAT I REMEMBER IN OTHER WARDS WHICH IS WHAT WE -- OTHER WORDS WHICH IS WHAT WE DEALT WITH. THERE ARE 40 AND 50-FOOT LOT PROS POSED THAT GAVE US MAJOR HEARTBURN AT THAT POINT IN TIME IN THE CITY GROWTH. SO WE MADE A LOT OF CHANGES IN OUR VIEW POINTS. IN TAKING THIS ON BECAUSE WE BELIEVED IN THE PROJECT AND THE HIGH VOLUME OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED AS AN OLDTOWN STYLE LIVING IN A NEW APPLICATION OF CONSTRUCTION.

BUT THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CHACHANGES THERE, INCLUDING THE BOOK AND THE DETAILS OF THE DIFFERENT BUILDING STYLES. THAT GOT ELIMINATED. I COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON. I'M TRYING TO GO BACK TO WHAT I REMEMBER WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO MAKE US WANT TO MAKE CHANGES ON THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE LOT SIZES FOR ALLOWANCE.

I'M TRYING TO GET MY MIND AROUND HOW IT'S BEEN PORTRAYED AND PUT MYSELF AS A PROPERTY OWNER. THERE WERE NICE HOMES. THEY WERE SOME OF THE ORIGINAL HOMES BUILT. VERY NICE HOMES BACK THERE. TRYING TO WRAP MY MIND AROUND HOW TO LOOK AT THIS IF I WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNERS BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE

THIS IS KIND OF BEING PLACED. >> SURE. IF WE TO GO BACK IF WE CAN TO THE ELEVATIONS. THESE ARE HIGH END TOWNHOMES. NOT

[01:20:05]

FOR MIDLOTHIAN. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: MY CONCERN AS A PROPERTY OWNER IS WHERE I COULD SEE THE ARCHITECTURE AND WHATNOT PROVIDING FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE A HIGH-END PRODUCT. THERE IS NOTHING IN MIDTOWNE I HAVE FOUND TO BE LOW-END. THAT IS A GIVEN I GUESS AS A PROPERTY OWNER THE HIGH-END HOMES WERE GRANTED THIS WILL BE A HIGHER END PRODUCT.

YOU ALWAYS HAVE CONCERN WHEN YOU DEAL WITH EVEN WITHIN THE MIDLOTHIAN, OUR PROVISIONS AND OUR DEFINITIONS. TOWNHOME DOES FALL IN THE MULTIFAMILY DEFINITION. YOU HAVE CONCERNS ON WHAT IT COULD PORTRAY AND DO TO THE PROPERTY VALUE ON THE HIGH-END HOMES. TRYING TO PUT MYSELF IN THE MIDST OF THE NEIGHBORS THERE THAT WILL BE TAKING THIS ON ALSO. I

APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR INPUT. >> SURE. NO PROBLEM. I'LL ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THESE WILL BE FEE SIMPLE LOTS SO THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED APARTMENTS. THEY CAN BE SOLD, UP TO THE OWNER'S DISCRETION WHETHER HE WOULD RATHER LEASE THEM OR SELL THEM. THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED THEY CAN BE SOLD AND

OWNED BY AN INDIVIDUAL. >> WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF

THESE? >> EACH UNIT 1440 SQUARE FEET,

TWO STORY. >> 1440?

>> YES, SIR. >> THEN THERE IS THE ONE CURRENT

GARAGE PER UNIT? >> YES. ONE GARAGE PER UNIT AND A PARKING PLACE PLUS IN THE FRONT PER UNIT.

>> SO ASSUMING EVERYTHING STORES EVERYTHING IN THE GARAGE THERE IS 20 SPACES TAKEN OUT FRONT ALL THE TIME. THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE

PER DWELLING. >> ARE THE DASHED LINE PROPOSED

LOT LINE BETWEEN UNITS? >> THEY ARE.

>> SO WOULD THERE BE MUTUAL ACCESS GIVEN TO PARKING STALLS

ACROSS THE BOARD? >> YES. FRONT ACCESS STALLS ACROSS ACCESS EASEMENT AND THE DRIVE ISLAND IN THE REAR.

>> SO IF THESE ARE SOLD INDIVIDUALLY, I WOULD PREFER TO SEE ALL THE PARKING STALLS EVEN WITH EACH UNIT AND NOT STRADDLING A PROPERTY LINE. IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE SOLD.

>> YOU WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IF YOU DID THAT. THE REASON FOR THE CROSS-ACCESS TO GAIN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER. THE MAIN ACCESS, LIKE MARCOS MENTIONED IS OFF OF GEORGE HOPPER. IT'S NOT OFF THE ALLEY. THE ONLY ALLEY ACCESS IS THE 10 GARAGE UNITS FOR THE 10 UNITS.

>> YOU STATED EARLIER THAT THE REASON THAT THERE IS A ONE CAR

GARAGE AND GIVE ME THOUGHTS. >> I'M SORRY?

>> YOU SAID EARLIER MAKING IT FROM A TWO-CAR GARAGE TO MAKE IT

ONE-CAR GARAGE? CORRECT? >> THE EXISTING PD DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS GARAGES FOR BROWNSTONES. IT'S VERY VAGUE.

SO IT BASICALLY JUST SAYS THAT GARAGES HAVE TO BE ALLEY BASED BECAUSE THAT IS THE STYLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IN TALKING TO STAFF, WE HAD TO REVERT BACK TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN STANDARDS, THE 420 I THINK SQUARE FOOT GARAGE. 400 AND TWO-CAR GARAGE. WHICH DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO A HIGH-DENSITY URBAN STYLE DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT IS WHERE THE ONE-CAR GARAGES COME IN. THAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE. THAT IS WHAT IS CREATING THE VARIANCE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: DID I MISREAD, IS THERE OPEN PARKING

[01:25:02]

SPACE AS WELL? >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ONE GARAGE AND ONE OPEN SPACE.

>> MORE THAN ONE? >> THAT IS CORRECT. WE HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO PER UNIT, 20 TOTAL. WE HAVE THE TEN GARAGE SPACES AND THE 18 OPEN SPACES.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: SO I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST AND I'M GOING TO COMBINE YOURSELF AND MARCOS IN THIS QUESTION. I KNOW YOU LOVE IT WHEN I DO THIS, MARCOS. WE HAD SOME SITUATIONS IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT ON ALLEYWAY ACCESS TO THE REAR OF SOME OF THOSE HOMES IN THIS PHASE ONE TO WHERE THE SET-BACK WAS SHALLOW ENOUGH TO WHERE WE HAD VEHICLES OVERHANGING IN TO THE ALLEYWAY AT TIMES. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THIS PROPOSAL PROPERLY. THIS HAS AN INLET THERE COMING OFF THE ALLEYWAY WHERE THERE IS NO DIRECT ALLEYWAY ACCESS. THEY ARE FALLING OFF THE ALLEYWAY TO THEIR OWN SUBDIVISION. SO WE WON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE SITUATIONS IN THIS PROPOSAL, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> WE DID THAT ON PURPOSE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS BUT THERE IS A 24-FOOT PRIVATE SLIP ROAD THAT COMES OFF THE ALLEYWAY ON TO PRIVATE PROPERTY TO ACCESS THE GARAGES FOR THAT, ONE OF THE REASONS TO AVOID SPILLAGE TO THE

EXISTING ALLEYWAYS. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: THESE WILL BE A MAXIMUM OF THE TWO STORIES, 35 FOOT IN HEIGHT?

>> YES, SIR. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: NO

THREE-STORY STRUCTURES? >> NO. JUST TWO. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER JUSTIN WITH CANNON CREEK IS HERE AS WELL AND HE CAN ADDRESS CONSTRUCTION OR ANY OTHER ISSUES.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE APPLICANT?

>> YOU ARE CALLING THAT A SLIP STREET AND NOT AN ALLEY; IS THAT

WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? >> CORRECT. 24-FOOT FIRE LANE SLIP STREET ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WE MADE IT, THE ORIGINAL PLAN DID NOT HAVE IT THAT WIDE. IN CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH STAFF, MARCOS SPECIFICALLY WE DECIDED TO WIDEN IT. WE MOVED GARAGES IN CLOSER TO THE UNITS TO WIDEN IT TO MAKE IT TRUE FIRE ACCESS AND A DOUBLE WAY STREET FOR PEOPLE BACKING UP AND COMING OUT OF THE GARAGES TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MARCOS IS THERE ANYTHING IN MIDLOTHIAN LIKE THIS, THAT DOESN'T HAVE A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE OR ROAD

FRONTAGE? >> MARCOS: HMM, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT DOESN'T HAVE RIGHT-OF-WAY FRONTAGE UNLESS WE TALK ABOUT THE APARTMENTS.

APARTMENTS OBVIOUSLY WON'T. OR APARTMENTS ON THE BACK SIDE WON'T. AS FAR AS THE TOWNHOMES OR, YOU KNOW, ATTACHED DUPLEXES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT IN THE CITY. THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE THE FIRST OF ITS KIND HERE.

>> IT WILL BE CONGESTED. IT WILL BE -- THAT IS NOT A ROAD.

THAT IS A FIRE DRIVE AND ALLEY IS WHAT IT IS. IT'S NOT A ROAD.

>> MARCOS: ABSOLUTELY, SIR. WHEN THEY PLATTED THE PROPERTY THEY INCLUDED A 40-FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT TO THAT LOT.

THERE IS ALSO A 24-FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT THAT RUNS DOWN TO GEORGE HOPPER. SO THIS ACCESS EASEMENT ALLOWS FOR ACCESS OF ANYBODY TO ROLL THROUGH THAT PROPERTY. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT HE IS TRYING TO DO, FRONT THE LOTS ON TO AN ACCESS EASEMENT. NOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT DOES ACCESS TO RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS ALLEY WAY IS NOT PRIVATE. IT'S NOT A PRIVATE ALLEY FOR MIDTOWNE. IT'S A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS 12-FOOT WIDE, 15-FOOT -- ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S 20-FOOT WIDE FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND 12-FOOT WIDE FOR THE PAVEMENT.

IT'S MEANT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS. ABSOLUTELY, SIR.

>> IN OUR MAIN, THE MAIN ACCESS WILL GET OFF OF GEORGE HOPPER.

LIKE MARCOS POINTED OUT WITH THE ABOUT SET EASEMENT FROM GEORGE -- ACCESS EASEMENT FROM GEORGE HOPPER. IT'S ALREADYPAV-

>> OFF OF GEORGE HOPPER? >> SO COMING OFF OF GEORGE HOPPER, HERE, ALL OF THISSAL IS ALREADY ALL EXISTING IN THIS 24-FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT FROM GEORGE HHOPPER BACK TO THE OFFIE

BUILDING IS EXISTING. >> YOU WILL ENCOURAGE ACCESS BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT. IT'S A PARKING LOT BETWEEN THE

BUILDINGS, CORRECT? >> ONE PARKING LOT HERE AND ONE HERE THAT FRONTS. THAT CONNION CREEK'S OFFICE AND RIVER RANCH

[01:30:05]

GARAGES. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: SO IS THAT ON WHAT I CALL THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE BLACK SQUARE? IS

THAT AN ALLEY? >> RIGHT HERE?

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: YES. >> YES, SIR.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: THAT IS NOT A STREET. ALLEY?

>> PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY -- >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: IT'S AN

ALLEY. >> IT'S AN ALLEY. SO COMING OFF OF ABIGAIL THERE IS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT COMES HERE AND UP AND IT STOPS RIGHT HERE AT THE FIRST LOT ON SKYE LANE.

THEN THE NEW PRIVATE STREET OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, DRIVE AISLE, COMES HERE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: HOW WIDE IS THAT ALLEY?

>> THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS 20 FEET. THE PAVEMENT, THERE IS SOME AREAS IN MIDLOTHIAN THAT IS 15 AND SOME IS 12. I HAVE TO SEE

WHAT IT IS. >> ONE CAR WIDTH.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: AND THAT EASEMENT OR THE ALLEY, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT CONTINUES UP TO WHATEVER STREET THAT. IS

THAT ELM OR WHATEVER? >> YES. IT COMES OFF OF ABIGAIL AND TURNS NORTH. ACCESS THE BACK OF THIS LOT, WHICH IS WHERE IT WILL ACCESS HERE AND IT CONTINUES NORTH TO SKYE LANE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. BUT THAT IS, AS YOU CALL IT A RIGHT-OF-WAY ALSO. THAT ONE SECTION THERE AS WELL.

>> IT IS. CORRECT. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY.

>> SINGLE POINT OF ENTRANCE TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS,

THOUGH. >> WELL, OFF OF GEORGE HOPPER, YES. ONE HERE. THEN THIS ROAD CONTINUES OVER OR THIS ACCESS EASEMENT CONTINUES OVER AND CONNECTS IN TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY

EASEMENT HERE. >> OKAY. SO THERE IS ACCESS THROUGH THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY THEN. TO THE FRONT AS WELL.

>> YES. >> OKAY. ALLEY. IS THE FIRE

MARSHAL LOOKED AT THIS? >> ABSOLUTELY. ALL ENGINEERING AND FIRE LOOKED AT IT. WE WENT THROUGH DRC.

>> HOW DOES IT GET ADDRESSED? YOU CAN'T ADDRESS OFF AN ALLEY.

>> IT'S ADDRESSED OFF OF GEORGE HOPPER.

>> MARCOS: IT'S ADDRESSED OFF OF GEORGE HOPPER. CORRECT.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: THE FIRE MARSHAL IS NOT HERE.

>> MARCOS: NO, SIR. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: I LOOK AT THIS, TO ME THIS IS A TRAP. OKAY? HERE IS WHAT I'M SEEING.

I'M NOT A FIREMAN AT ALL. THAT LOOKS A GREAT PIECE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, FOR SOME TYPE OF RETAIL THAT IS LOW IMPACT. IT SHUTS DOWN AT 5:00 OR 6:00 P.M. IT HAS PEOPLE ALL AROUND IT. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO INHIBIT IT WITH THIS MANY FOLKS THAT ARE 24-HOUR A DAY ACTIVITY WHERE YOU GET A FIRE DOWN IN THERE AND HEAVEN FORBID YOU DON'T HAVE TWO PEOPLE THERE YOU HAVE PARTIES ALL AROUND AND THE ACCESS PARKING LOT AND THE FIRE TRUCK HAS TO GET IN THERE OR HEAVEN FORBID AN AMBULANCE? WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO WHEEL IT OUT? I DON'T GET IT.

>> IT'S A TIGHT SPOT TO GET AN ENGINE THROUGH IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY AND THERE ARE CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE

BUILDING. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: THE ONLY WAY I KNOW, WE HAVE DEALT WITH IT ON ALL THE STREETS ON THE PHASE ONE. IT'S A DISASTER THE ALLEYWAYS ARE EVEN WORSE. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET THAT IN THERE. I KNOW TECHNICALLY YOU CAN SAY WE CAN. BUT SOMETIMES TO DO WHAT WE CAN IS NOT THE BEST THING TO DO. THAT IS JUST ME RUNNING MY MOUTH.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: SO ON THE STREET, OR WHATEVER THAT IS ON THE VERY NORTH TOP SIDE OF THE GREEN UP THERE, DOES IT GO ALL THE WAY OUT TO 663? I KNOW IT'S A DEAD END. IS IT PAVERRED ALL THE WAY OUT? IS THERE -- PAVED ALL THE WAY OUT? IS THERE

ACCESS? >> MARCOS: NO. THERE IS A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ON THIS SIDE AND A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ON THIS

SIDE. IT DOES NOT CONNECT. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: NOT IMPROVED

AREA? >> MARCOS: NO, SIR.

>> DRY PRIVATE DRIVE TO THE METHODIST CHURCH.

>> MARCOS: THIS IS PART OF GEORGE HOPPER. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THIS SIDE. BUT HEADS TO AUSTIN TRACE AND HEADS

[01:35:04]

WHEN THOSE WERE PLATTED. SO THE ALLEY, THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF

THE ALLEY EXTENDING THROUGH. >> IT IS BURIED IN THERE TIGHT.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. I BELIEVE THE OTHER GENTLEMAN

WANTED TO SPEAK AS WELL? >> YEAH. I JUST WANT TO SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS. I WASN'T THE DEVELOPER. MONTE WAS. I HAVE DONE A LOT OF STUFF IN MIDTOWNE AND I THINK WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB WITH IT AND INHERITED A LOT OF DIFFICULT SITUATIONS WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THE BEST OF IT. ON THIS PROPERTY, ONE THING I'M CONFUSED ABOUT I UNDERSTOOD BY RIGHT THE TOWNHOMES WERE PERMITTED HERE. I THOUGHT WE WERE HERE JUST TO TALK ABOUT THE GARAGES. ALSO, MONTE HAD A PROJECT I THOUGHT WAS PRETTY UGLY. LIKE RETAIL, MIXED USE FOR THIS. AND WHEN I SAT DOWN WITH SHANE, I SAID HEY, I'LL DO THIS IF YOU CAN TAKE AND MAKE THIS LESS DENSE THAN MONTE HAS BECAUSE IT HAD A LOFT APARTMENT TYPE OF DEALS OVER THE RETAIL. LESS DENSE, AND MAKE THEM THE NICEST TOWNHOMES MIDLOTHIAN HAS SEEN. THAT IS THE CRITERIA I GAVE HIM. THIS IS WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH. I THINK THEY DEFINITELY LOOK NICE. I DO KNOW THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE FRUSTRATION THERE ON THE MIDTOWNE FACEBOOK PAGE. LAST WEEK THESE WERE PRESENTED AS A 20-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. I HAVE A COPY OF THAT, THAT I COULD READ YOU. I UNDERSTOOD WHY. MY OFFICE IS RIGHT THERE, TOO. I DON'T THINK I WOULD WANT A 20-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING BEHIND THERE. THAT IS HOW IT WAS PRESENTED IN MIDTOWNE. SO I UNDERSTAND EVERYONE'S CONCERN ON THAT. I'M TRYING TO MAKE THE NICEST PROJECT I CAN. SOMETHING HIGH-END AND MAKE THE BEST OF WHAT COULD BE DONE WITH THIS PROPERTY. IT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE LARGEST PIECES OF THE PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GEORGE HOPPER IN THE MIDTOWNE DEVELOPMENT. THE AVERAGE LOT IS AN TENTH OF AN ACRE. THIS IS JUST SHY, A LITTLE SHY OF .8 OF AN ACRE. IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSE THAN WHAT IS ALREADY IN THERE. BY TWO UNITS. ANYWAY, I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW AND THE RESIDENTS OF MIDTOWNE TO KNOW THE CRITERIA. I SAT DOWN WITH OPTIONS AS THEY WERE EXPLORING MOVING FORWARD TO THIS I BROUGHT TO THE TABLE AND WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO TO MAKE IT A MORE DESIRABLE PROJECT FOR MIDTOWNE.

I WILL ALSO ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS? >> MARCOS: SO TO JUSTIN'S POINT THE REASON WE ARE HERE THERE ARE TWO ITEMS. OBVIOUSLY, THE GARAGES. RIGHT? THEY ARE SMALLER THAN WHAT THE RULES AND THE REGULATIONS SAY IS PERMITTED OR ALLOWED. THE CONCEPT PLAN IS WHAT THROWS US OFF A LITTLE BIT HERE ALSO. YOU ARE RIGHT. THE CONCEPT PLAN, THIS IS WHY I HAVE THE SLIDE HERE. THE LOCATION OF WHERE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT WAS NEVER SHOWN ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEY, THE LEGAL SURVEY INCLUDED THAT SECTION WITHIN MIDTOWNE. SO, TO OUR CONFUSION WE CAN'T, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO GO IN THAT AREA WITHOUT SEEING SOMETHING ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE. TO SEE IF THE TOWNHOMES ARE PERMITTED IN THE AREA. THAT IS FINE, THAT IS GREAT. IF NOT, THAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION WE ARE LOOKING FOR. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHY WE ARE HERE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER AREAS I HAVE CIRCLED ON HERE WHERE EXISTING TOWNHOMES WERE CONCEPTUALLY PLANNED, TO YOUR POINT. ABSOLUTELY, THAT IS HOW IT WAS SHOWN IN 2007. WE DON'T REALLY -- AGAIN, THAT IS THE REASON WE ARE HERE TO SEE IF THE TOWNHOMES DO WORK IN THIS AREA. IF THEY DON'T, WELL, THAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. BUT OTHERWISE IF THEY DO, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO NAIL THAT DOWN SO WE KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO GO WHERE. THEY SPOKE ALSO WITHIN THE PD THAT IT'S JUST CONCEPTUAL AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SITE PLAN. I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH THE PD. WE WERE SEARCHING THROUGH THE PD TO SEE IF WE COULD FIND THAT. AS FAR AS WE KNOW, WE HAVE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. ANY TIME WE HAVE COME BACK WITH THE DIFFERENT USES WE HAVE COME BACK TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND TO CITY COUNCIL TO ENSURE THAT USE IS PERMITTED. YOU CAN SEE HERE WHAT WE HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. NOW WE HAVE ASSISTED LIVING. MEMORY CARE IN SOME OF THE AREAS. SO, THE IDEA IS TO TRY TO CREATE SOME CONSISTENCY AND MAKE SURE THAT THE PRODUCT WORKS IN THE AREA THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

>> SO WHEN THE NEW PROJECT THAT CAME THROUGH EARLIER THIS EVENING THAT WE MOVED FORWARD, I BELIEVE ONE WE TALKED ABOUT THAT PROJECT THE FIRST TIME, WE WERE TOLD A NEW CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR

[01:40:01]

THE BIG PICTURE. >> THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN --

>> SORRY. >> GO AHEAD.

>> THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN ALSO EVOLVES WITH DEMAND. WE STILL HAVE QUANTITIES TO DEAL WITH. IF MARCOS PUTS UP THE ORIGINAL 2007 MASTER PLAN, THE SKILLED NURSING FACILITY WASN'T THERE.

ALL THESE MANY YEARS LATER. SO WE DO HAVE SOME NEW CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR THE REMAINING 62 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DYLAN WAY WE WERE PLANNING TO PRESENT A MONTH AGO. WE HAD SOME RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUES WHEN I DID MEET WITH THE PRELIMINARY DRC WITH THE CITY, THEY BROUGHT UP BASICALLY AS DON FLOYD WROTE TEXTCONNECTING TO 9TH STREET WE WEREN'T ACCOUNTING FOR. SO WE HAD TO GO BACK TO DRAWING BOARD AND LOOK AT THAT. WE HAVE NOT PRESENTED IT TO THE CITY YET BUT IT IS IN THE WORKS AND IT DOES TAKE IN TO ACCOUNT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL ONE WHERE FUZZY'S AND THE FOUR-PLEXES. THERE IS PROPERTY BEHIND THE PHARMACY THAT WAS SOLD. PROPOSED DAYCARE THAT WILL GO IN BEHIND FUZZY'S AND A LOT OF THAT IS IN THE NEW CONCEPTUAL PLAN WE HAVEN'T BROUGHT TO YOU YET. SO, THE PROJECTS THAT LIKE JUSTIN'S PROJECT HERE FOR THE TOWNHOMES THAT WE ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. THAT IS WHY WE BRING IT TO YOU ONE AT A TIME.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: EVERYTHING THAT YOU MENTIONED IS WHAT I REMEMBER. A SELF-FULFILLING COMMUNITY. THE PROBLEM IS -- I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT AWAY. MONTE GOT SLAPPED PRETTY HARD WITH THE '08 TIME PERIOD. JUST TRYING TO KEEP THINGS AFLOAT LIKE A LOT OF BUSINESSES FROM '08 THROUGH ABOUT 2012. IT WAS TOUGH. I WOULD HOPE, I'M HOPING, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING HOW THE REST OF THAT ACREAGE GETS PLATTED, OR CONCEPTED. WHAT I'M HOPING THAT WE WILL SEE, I REMEMBER EVERYTHING THAT YOU MENTIONED THE DAYCARE THAT IS A SELF-FULFILLING COMMUNITY WITHIN A COMMUNITY LIKE OLD TOWN USED TO BE BUT WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION I'M ANXIOUS TO SEE THE SLIP STREETS I HAVEN'T SEEN. AND THE MAIN THOROUGHFARES. I'M ANXIOUS TO SEE ALL THE TREES DOWN THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE. LIKE THE DRAWING WE JUST SAW. I'M NOT TOTALLY AGAINST TOWNHOMES BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM ON THE MAIN THOROUGHFARES LIKE I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE THE ASSISTED LIVING CENTER, MINI ASSISTED LIVING CENTER PLACED IN THE BOX OF THE LEFTOVER LAND. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ADDRESS IT. I THINK YOU HAVE A GREAT PRODUCT BUT DUE TO THE TOUGH ECONOMY IT MADE THINGS WHERE THEY HAD TO WORK AND MANIPULATE A LITTLE BIT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ONE BOX REAL TIGHT IN HERE THAT WE GO IN THERE AND DO SOMETHING THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO WHAT Y'ALL STILL HAVE AS A GOOD PLAN.

>> TO THAT POINT, MIDTOWNE IS, WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AND CONTINUES, EVEN THOUGH IT IS MORE OFFING A LITTLE -- MORPHING A LITTLE BIT, CONTINUES TO BE A CRADLE-TO-GRAVE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE WANT THE YOUNG PROFESSIONALS, WE WANT THE FAMILIES AND WE WANT THE ELDERLY. THAT IS WHY WE ARE MIXING THE TOWNHOMES THAT ARE YOUNG PROFESSIONALS BUT HIGH-END WITH THE ASSISTED LIVING AND THE DAY CARES, WITH ALL THE OTHER TYPE OF THE USES WE HAVE. THERE WILL BE MORE RESTAURANTS COMING IN TO THE AREA. OBVIOUSLY WE COME IN THE 62 ACRES MORE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. BIGGER ESTATE LOTS. SMALLER LOTS LIKE IN PHASE 7. SO IT REALLY IS A TRUE GENUINE MIXED USE. WE ARE KIND OF OUT OF THE BOX DEVELOPERS.

SO IT DOES MORPH OVER TIME. BUT I THINK IT WORKS TO OUR ADVANTAGE BUT THE CITY ADVANTAGE. I GO BACK DOWN TO THE APPROVED DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN. THAT IS WHAT MIDLOTHIAN IS TRYING TO DO DOWNTOWN. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN MID-TOWN. WE WANT TO CONTINUE THAT. WE WANT TO HELP WITH THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ON AS-NEEDED BASIS. YOU HAVE TO THINK OUT OF THE BOX TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MORPH IT IN.

LIKE OUR DEVELOPMENT AT TYLER STATION. PEOPLE THOUGHT WE WERE CRAZY BUT IT WORKED. IT WORKED TO THE CITY'S ADVANTAGE.

[01:45:01]

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS ANOTHER SPECIFIC QUESTION WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO PATIENTLY HAVE BEEN SITTING HERE WAITING FOR THEIR TURN. WE'LL GET TO THAT. THE

FIRST ONE UP IS LISA REISINGER. >> YOU'RE WARMED UP NOW.

>> YOU'VE BEEN WAITING. WAITING.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WE HAVE THE RIGHT ONE THIS TIME.

[LAUGHTER] YOU ARE UP. NAME AND ADDRESS

AND THREE MINUTES. >> YES, SIR. I'M LISA, I LIVE AT 202 SKYE LANE IN MIDTOWNE, MIDLOTHIAN. I'M A RESIDENT THAT LIVES TOTALLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. LOT 3, BLOCK 27, LOCATED IN SPANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 42 -- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 42. PLEASED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OUR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS AND INPUT THIS EVENING. PROPERTY OWNERS IN MIDTOWNE ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. THE OVERALL DENSITY AND THE BUILDING HEIGHTS PROPOSED ARE TOO INTENSE. THERE HASN'T BEEN ADEQUATE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE RESIDENTS FOR AS TO WHY THE CHANGE IS NEEDED. I BELIEVE, OR I RECALL THAT THE ORIGINAL VERSION FOR THIS BLOCK CALLED FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING COMMERCIAL RETAIL. LOW-DENSITY BUILDING SCALE TO LOOK AND FEEL LIKE THE FERONTE HAIR SALON AND THE OTHER BUSINESSES. IF IT'S BUILT WILL IT BE SOLD FOR OWNERSHIP OR RENTAL? THE RECENT MULTIUSE UNITS DOWN BY FUZZY'S, YOU KNOW, THAT IS ALREADY GOING TO BE A PARKING CONCERN.

BECAUSE IT ALREADY IS. SO SQUEEZING IN TEN UNITS ON THIS LITTLE PARCEL OF LAND POSES NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. THE PROPOSED TWO-STORY BUILDING HEIGHT IS INCOMPATIBLE IN SCALE WITH THE ADJACENT SINGLE-STORY PROPERTIES. THERE ARE NO, THERE IS NO VISION OUT. OWNERS ARE CONCERNED WITH THE LIGHT POLLUTION FROM THE TALLER TOWNHOMES. THE ALLEYWAYS SHOWN, WELL, MY DRIVEWAY IS A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. AND SO IT'S LEGALLY PLATTED THAT WAY. YOU KNOW, I REALLY DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO ALTER THAT. THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY DON'T SHOW THERE IS AN ADEQUATE TURN RADIUS. IF THE ALLEYWAYS OR THE ROAD ACCESS NEEDS TO BE ALTERED HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE CURRENT HOMEOWNERS? GO BACK TO THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD A MEETING A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO CONCERNING THE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF ABIGAIL WAY AND THAT. AND HE SHOWED A POWER POINT BUT THERE WERE SIX INCHES MIRROR TO MIRROR TO GET THROUGH THERE. THAT WAS WHEN THE VEHICLES PARKED 18 INCHES LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TEN FROM THE CURB. SO THAT IS ENOUGH ABOUT THAT. THIS ALSO CREATES CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE TRAFFIC SAFETY. PARKING AND CRIME. BECAUSE THERE IS NO VISION. THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES. SUCH AS, THE WIDE MEDIANS WITH PEDESTRIAN REFUGES ALONG GEORGE HOPPER.

INCREASING THE TRAFFIC AND THE HIGH-SPEED DRIVERS ALONG GEORGE HOPPER AND THE INTERIOR OF MIDTOWNE HAS ALREADY CURRENTLY HAPPEN. MANY CHILDREN WALK AND BIKE DAILY TO AND FROM SCHOOL.

ELDERLY SENIORS WALK TO NEARBY ADJACENT RETAIL AND CHURCHES.

THE EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALREADY BACK THERE, THEIR PATIENTS, THEIR CUSTOMERS ALREADY OVERFLOW IN TO THE FIELD WHERE THIS IS GOING TO BE BUILT SUPPOSED BEING, SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT. THIS IS EVERY DAY. AND I'M WONDERING HOW THIS WILL IMPACT THEIR BUSINESSES AND THEIR PARKING FOR THE CUSTOMERS ALSO WILL BE OVERFLOW WITH THE PROJECT. WILL IT CAUSE THE PARKING TO COME OUT IN TO OUR STREETS? THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN ABOUT ABOVE-GROUND UTILITY BEHIND 210 SKYE LANE.

THERE IS AN EXPOSED GAS PIPE. IT'S BEEN HIT IN THE PAST BY

[01:50:04]

LEAKED GAS. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MA'AM, YOUR THREE MINUTES IS UP. SINCE YOU WAITED SO LONG I'M GOING TO GIVE

YOU ANOTHER MINUTE. >> OH, THANK YOU. SO ANYWAY, THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT. IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE RUNNING AROUND BACK THERE. SO, CONSIDERING THE PROPERTY OWNERS' CONCERNS AND OPPOSITION, PLEASE TRY TO COME AWAY WITH THE HEALTH, PROSPERITY AND THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE OWNERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMMEDIATELY IMPACTED BY THIS

AMENDMENT. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: THANK YOU,

MA'AM. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND

CONSIDERATION. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: THANK YOU.

PAUL CAPPER. IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR.

>> NAME PAUL, 829 ABIGAIL WAY AND MY WIFE AND I WERE THE FIRST RESIDENTS OF MIDTOWNE. MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS ACCESS IN TO, FOR THE TOWNHOME RESIDENTS WHEN EVERYTHING IS BUILT. WHAT IS THEIR ACCESS IN TO IT? MY HOUSE IS ACTUALLY RIGHT HERE ON THE CONCORNER. THE WAY I SEE IT YOU HAVE MAIN ACCESS HERE ON GEORGE HOPPER, IF I LIVE IN THE TOWNHOMES I'M THINKING MY MAIN ROUTE WOULD BE GOING JUST UP ABIGAIL WAY AND MAKING A LEFT TURN TOWARD THE ALLEYWAY HERE. AND BACK AROUND THE GARAGES.

I'M LOOKING AT THIS, IS THIS ALL THE WAY THROUGH HERE CONNECTING

TO THESE PARKING SPOTS? >> MARCOS: YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. IT WOULD BE ANOTHER IF PEOPLE WANT TO PARK IN THE

FRONT? >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: SIR, I NEED YOU TO COME BACK UP TO THE MIC SINCE WE ARE LIVE STREAMING SO

PEOPLE CAN HEAR YOU. >> OKAY. SO I'M THINKING MY MAIN ACCESS IS GOING TO BE THROUGH THE ALLEYWAY. SO THINS WE HAVE BEEN THERE, WE HAVE -- SO SINCE WE HAVE BEEN THERE, I HAD TO REPAIR SPRINKLER HEADS ON OUR LITTLE EASEMENT TURN-AROUND THERE. PEOPLE COMING UP ON TO THE GRASS. I'M THINKING THAT ALLEYWAY, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE CONSIDERED A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE MADE TO A ONE-WAY STREET, SOUTHBOUND OR NORTHBOUND. RIGHT NOW IF SOMEBODY IS COMING IN ONE DIRECTION, AND YOU ARE HEADING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION YOU WILL HAVE TO TURN OFF AND LET THEM PASS OR THEY WILL TURN OFF TO ALLOW YOU TO GO THROUGH. SO, IN MY VISION RIGHT NOW I THINK IT HAS TO BE ONE WAY ALL THE WAY AROUND OR GOING BACK THROUGH SOUTHBOUND ON ABIGAIL. THERE IS REALLY ONLY TWO STREETS THAT COME IN TO THE MIDTOWNE DEVELOPMENT. ALEX AND ABIGAIL WAY RIGHT NOW. I HAVE SEEN THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES TRY TO SQUEEZE THROUGH WITH THE PEOPLE PARKED AT BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. WE HAD A MEETING A FEW YEARS AGO WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE POLICE CHIEF INDICATING THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY COULDN'T GET THE FIRE TRUCKS THROUGH THERE IF THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE -- IF THERE WERE VEHICLES PARKED ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STREET. I CAN'T ENVISION AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE GETTING THROUGH TO ANYWHERE THERE IN THE TOWNHOMES WITHOUT COMPLICATIONS I'M HEARING THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO OPEN UP CODY HUNTER TO 663 AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW THERE IS ONLY TWO ACCESSES TO THE MIDTOWNE AREA. ALEX AND ABIGAIL. I JUST SEE A LOT OF, WITH ALL THE FAMILIES AND THE PEOPLE OCCUPYING THE TOWNHOMES AND THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES, AS WELL ADDS THE HOMEOWNERS THAT LIVE ADJACENT TO THE ALLEYWAY. THERE NEEDS TO BE A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DONE PRIOR TO, YOU KNOW, ANY

AMENDMENT BEING APPROVED. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY.

>> I BELIEVE THAT IS THE REASON WE ARE HERE TONIGHT IS TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT. NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, SIZES OF THE GARAGES TO THE TOWNHOMES. THAT IS WHAT I'M READING ON THE

AGENDA. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: RIGHT.

>> WE ARE LOOKING AT GETTING AN AMENDMENT CHANGE TO IT.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ALL RIGHT, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[01:55:01]

>> ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: STAN PARKER WISH TO SPEAK? NO. IN OPPOSITION. SHELLY MAXWELL, IN OPPOSITION. JESSICA MCNULTY, IN OPPOSITION. RHONDA TRAVIS. IN OPPOSITION. WANDA -- IS IT WANDA? WANDA JOHNSON. IN OPPOSITION. JANICE GENTRY IN OPPOSITION. MONTE ANDERSON IN FAVOR. DAVID MA RIVERS IN FAVO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF NAMES IN SUBMISSION THAT WILL BE

SUBMITTED. ANYBODY ELSE -- >> I'D LIKE TO SPEAK.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: DO YOU FILL OUT A FORM?

>> I HAVE IT THERE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: AND YOUR NAME? [INAUDIBLE] COME ON UP. STATE THE NAME AND

ADDRESS. >> CERTAINLY. HI. I'M PAM DILLARD KIRBY. 222 SKYE LANE. I DO BACK UP TO THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY ARE WANTING TO PUT FORWARD. WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THE ZONING OF THE BUSINESSES ARE MORE CONDUCIVE TO THIS AREA VERSUS THE BUILDING OR THE ZONING OF ACTUAL TOWNHOMES. IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THIS PLAT UP HERE. YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE VERY TOP, THESE THREE PROPERTIES THAT ARE MARKED OFF, DO YOU SEE THOSE?

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: HMM-MM. >> THOSE ARE LISA'S PROPERTY, MY PROPERTY AND MY NEIGHBOR AILEEN WHO COULD NOT BE HERE TONIGHT.

OUR HOUSES ARE SMALL. AILEEN'S HOUSE IS 1,500 SQUARE FEET. MY HOUSE IS 2,200 SQUARE FEET. LISA'S IS 1,800 SQUARE FEET AND THE YARDS ARE VERY SMALL. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY WE HAVE HERE AND THEN YOU COMPARE IT TO THE TOWNHOMES THAT THEY WANT TO BUILD HERE, IT'S, IT'S NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE PROPERTY IN THE BACK. I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO SPEAK WITH THE BUSINESSES YESTERDAY. I SPOKE WITH THE TWO DOCTOR'S OFFICES..

ORTHODONTIST/DENTIST WHO BOUGHT IT FROM CANNON CREEK. AND EDWARD JONES, THEY ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE TOWNHOME SITUATION BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE PARKING FOR THE PATIENTS SO THEIR PARKING SPILLS OUT IN TO THIS GREEN AREA. THIS IS DAILY. I MEAN, I SEE IT. I WORK FROM HOME. IT'S A MAJOR CONCERN.

THEY WERE NOT AWARE THAT THE ZONING WAS BEING ASKED FOR. SO THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH THAT. I WALK AROUND SATURDAY AND SUNDAY JUST TALKED TO THE RESIDENTS. THEY ARE VERY AWARE THAT IT WAS A TEN TOWNHOMES, NOT 20. I THINK THERE WAS AN ERROR MADE ON A FACEBOOK POST THAT WAS CORRECTED. THE RESIDENTS ARE VERY -- THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. THEY ARE VERY EDUCATED.

AND THEY ARE CONCERNED WITH WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED HERE. AND ONE FINAL THING BEFORE WE GO, SECURITY OR SAFETY IS A HUGE ISSUE FOR ME. LET ME SHARE WITH YOU WHY. THIS ROAD COMES OUT HERE. THIS IS ABIGAIL WAY. THAT IS A 90-DEGREE TURN THERE.

YOU GET ONE CAR. WE HAVE, WE ONLY HAVE SEVEN RESIDENTS THERE WE HAVE TO MANEUVER WITH. WE HAVE BEEN CAREFUL BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE ARE SAFETY REASONS. THERE ARE TIMES WE CAN MEET EACH OTHER HEAD ON. THERE IS A 90-DEGREE TURN AND IT'S A BLIND SPOT. YOU CANNOT SEE AROUND THE CORN SORE YOU HAVE TO GO VERY SLOW. WE HAVE CHILDREN PLAYING IN THE BACK AREA. WE HAVE A BASKETBALL COURT THERE. WE HAVE CHILDREN THAT RIDE THEIR BIKES BACK THERE. ADD 20 MORE CARS IN THAT FACILITY AREA, IT WOULD JUST -- WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL. NOT ONLY THAT BUT TO THE PROPERTY HOMES AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I

APPRECIATE IT. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WE HAVE LISTED ON THE PETITION. YOU DON'T HAVE A FORM -- OH, YOU DO I WAS GOING TO SAY WE DON'T HAVE A FORM. FILL IT OUT FOR US SO

[02:00:03]

>> SURE WILL. THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: DID I MISS ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. IF NOT, -- I'M SORRY.

>> I THINK I DIDN'T TURN MY THING IN TIME. SO CAN I GIVE IT

TO SOMEBODY? >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: YES, MA'AM.

ABSOLUTELY. SHARON HAWTHORNE, IS THAT CORRECT? IN OPPOSITION, IT WILL BE ENTERED IN THE RECORD, MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE? IF NOT I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOVE TO CLOSE. >> SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

ANYBODY OPPOSED? IT'S UNANIMOUS. FLOOR OPEN FOR

DISCUSSION AND/OR A MOTION. >> I'M A BIG D FAN OF MIDTOWNE.I THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA BUT I DON'T LIKE WHERE YOU ARE TRYING TO DO IT. I DON'T THINK IT WILL WORK THERE. MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC. PEOPLE TRYING TO GET IN TO THE GARAGE. I CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE VOTE FOR THIS. I THINK IT WOULD FIT SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THAT DEVELOPMENT BUT NOT IN THAT, NOT

ON THAT PROPERTY RIGHT THERE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ANYBODY

ELSE? >> I LOVE THE CONCEPT. I LOVE THE STYLE AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IT'S A DEMAND THING.

I KNOW WE NEED IT FOR ALL AGE GROUPS AND ALL PROFESSIONAL GROUPS. I'M NOT OKAY WITH ONE CAR GARAGES. I'M NOT OKAY WITH THE PARKING AND I THINK WE NEED MORE PARKING IF WE ARE GOING

FORWARD WITH THIS. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ANYONE ELSE ANY COMMENTS? IF NOT, DO I HEAR A MOTION?

>> I MOVE TO DENY. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MOTION TO

DENY. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY. ANY FURTHER QUESTION OR DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, AYE.

[014 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of ±506.428 acres, being a tract of land in the M.E.P.& P. Railroad Company Survey, Abstract No. 761, John Chamblee Survey, Abstract No. 192, Joseph Stewart Survey, Abstract No. 961, Cuadrilla Irrigation Company Survey, Abstract No. 262, and the Cuadrilla Irrigation Company Survey, Abstract No. 1204, by amending the use and development regulations of Planned Development District No. 18 (PD-18). The property is located approximately +/- 1400 feet west of U.S. Hwy 67 interchange, between U.S. Hwy 287 and Old Fort Worth Road (Case No. Z27-2021-116).]

ROAD. >> TRENTON: THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO COMPLETELY GO THROUGH THIS FOR ALL OF YOU. WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING, THEY ARE REQUESTING THREE CHANGES TO THE WEST SIDE PRESERVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. CURRENTLY IN OUR ENGINEERING PLANS AND REGULATIONS, IN ARTICLE 3.18 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE , IT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE A VERTICAL RISE OF NO LESS THAN TWO INCHES. WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS THE DESIGN CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED ON THE PORTIONS WITHIN THE EAGLE FORD SHELL IS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OVER THIS PORTION ALREADY PRELIMINARY PLATTED TO BE LESS THAN FOR THE PBR TO BE EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THREE INCHES. THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

THERE HAVE HAVE BEEN OTHER TIMES WE HAVE BROUGHT FORTH AMENDMENTS TO THAT SECTION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO SEE IF COUNCIL INCREASED TO INCREASE THIS TO FOUR BY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THOSE EARLIER TEXT AMENDMENTS WERE DENIED.

THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO STICK TO TWO. WE DO FEEL THAT THREE IN THIS AREA WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. WE THINK THIS IS A BENEFIT BECAUSE IT'S SPECIFIC TO THIS PROPERTY. ANY OTHER REQUESTS TO DECREASE THAT, TO HAVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN LESS THAN THE TWO-INCH VERTICAL WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE T THE PLANNIN& ZONING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL FOR THE

[02:05:03]

ZORE OWE CAME BACK -- ZERO CAME BACK IN FAVOR AND ZERO CAME BACK

IN OPPOSITION. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF

STAFF. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: WHY WOULD WE WANT TO GO TO A THREE-INCH VERTICAL RISE?

>> TRENTON: WE FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS AMENDMENT WAS, WHEN THIS ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY DONE, IT WAS CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO DO TWO OR LESS. TALKING TO THE CITY ENGINEER. THEY HAVE TALKED TO THE CONSULTANTS THEY FEEL THAT BEING A THREE WOULD STILL BE WITHIN THE SAFE PARAMETERS AND ACHIEVE THE SAME GOALS AS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ACHIEVE THROUGH THE ORDINANCE. WE DO FEEL THAT MORE THAN THREE COULD BE EXCESSIVE. THE DEVELOPERS SAID HE IS CONFIDENT HE CAN GET

LESS THAN THREE. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: HERE IS MY PRIMARY CONCERN AND I'M NOT ENGINEER BUT I HAVE TO DONE A LOT OF SERVICE WORK WHERE THERE HAS BEEN BAD ENGINEERING. THERE IS NOTHING MORE DETRIMENTAL TO A CITY THAN IF YOU HAVE POOR CONSTRUCTION THAT STARTS FALTERING TEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AND YOU START TO GET CRACKS IN BRICKS. AND THE HOUSES ARE ALL JACKED UP. AND IT REALLY DEPLETES THE AREA AND THE VALUES. SO TO ME THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THE THINGS -- I WOULD RATHER OVER-BUILD ON THAT END OR LOT REQUIREMENT VERSUS EXPECT LESS BECAUSE OF THE STATE -- GO BY WHAT THE REQUIREMENT. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE FOLKS DOUBLE UP OR TRIPLE UP BUT ON SOME OF THESE COMPONENTS I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD WANT TO -- DID YOU FEEL THE TWO-INCH VERTICAL RISE WAS SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS A COUNCILMEMBER OR SOMETHING REQUESTED THAT WASN'T RELEVANT?

[02:10:03]

>> TRENTON: I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT. I WASN'T THERE AT THE

TIME. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: NO PROBLEM. THAT IS THE ONLY THING I SEE. I'M CONCERNED -- I HAVE WORKED IN THAT SOIL. YOU HAVE TO DIG TO CHINA TO GET STUFF TO MAKE STAND UP OR NOT KEEP IT FROM MOVING.

>> TRENTON: THEY WO WOULD REQUIE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THE PROPER TREATMENTS WERE DONE IN THE CORRECT WAY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: THE DOCUMENTS ALSO SHOW OVER WHAT

PERIOD OF TIME? >> TRENTON: I WOULDN'T BE ABLE

TO ANSWER THAT. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: THAT IS MY PRIMARY CONCERN. I CAN MAKE ANYTHING LOOK GOOD TO GET IT PAST THE WARRANTY. BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN 25

YEARS. >> TRENTON: I APOLOGIZE I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY.

TRENTON, NOT TAKE A LOT OF TIME BUT BRIEFLY EXPLAIN FOR SOMEONE HERE OR WHO IS WATCHING THIS WHAT IS THE TWO-INCH RISE? THEY ARE HEARING TWO AND THREE-INCH RISE AND PROBABLY DON'T HAVE A

CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. >> TRENTON: ABSOLUTELY. I KNOW WE ARE LIVE STREAMING THIS SO THEY CAN PUT SOMETHING UNDERNEATH ME SAYING I'M NOT A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATIVE. WHAT A PBR IS, IN THE EAGLE FORD SHELL" AND THE WAVER LAND IS AS THE SOIL TRIES UP AND GETS MOIST, A VERTICAL RISE OCCURS. SHIFTING OF THE SOIL. COMMISSIONER ROGERS SAID IT DOES WREAK HAVOC ON THE FOUNDATIONS, ET CETERA.

SO THE PBR IS PUT IN PLACE, THE VERTICAL RISE THERE IS CERTAIN TECHNOLOGY USED WHERE THEY PRETREAT THE SOIL BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS TO MAKE SURE WHEN THE SOIL EXPANDS AND SHRINKS BACK UP, THE VERTICAL RISE WON'T GO OVER A CERTAIN NUMBER, WHICH THEY HAVE DEEMED WOULD CAUSE, WHAT COMMISSIONER RODGERS IS SAYING THE DAMAGE. THE ISSUE WITH THE FOUNDATION AND THE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. WE DID THE FIRE TREATMENTS WE DID TREATMENT -- WHEN WE DID THE FIRE STATION WE DID TREATMENTS FOR IT QUITE A BIT. IT'S NOT AN EASY PROCESS. THERE IS QUITE A BIT THAT GOES INTO IT. QUITE A BIT OF ENGINEERING. SO A QUICK SYNOPSIS, THAT IS WHAT I'M REFERRING TO.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK?

>> TRENTON: OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: STATE YOUR

NAME AND WHO YOU ARE WITH. >> GOOD EVENING. JONATHAN JOB, 320 HAWKINS RUN ROAD, MIDLOTHIAN. REGARDING THE PBR, YES, AS YOU WERE STATING MR. RODGERS, TYPICALLY WE TRY IN OUR TRY, WE TRY TO KEEP IT ALWAYS UNDER A FOUR. AT A FOUR OR UNDER A FOUR. DEPENDING WHERE YOU ARE AT, IF YOU'RE UP IN THE BLACK GUMBO, IT'S HARDER YOU HAVE TO TEMMICLY INJECT IT.

WHERE WE ARE, IT'S ALL ROCK. NOTHING NEEDED. BUT HERE WE HAD GEOTECH STUDY FROM HENLEY JOHNSON" AND THEY ARESON AND THL COMFORTABLE. THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE THIS BEING AT A FOUR IN THE GEOTECH. WE CAN PROVIDE IT TO YOU. WE HAVE A THIRD PARTY CONTRACTOR THAT DOES CHEMICAL INJECTIONS AND THEY WOULD COME OUT AND GO TO LIKE YOU SAID CHINA. I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR 15 FEET, 20 FEET. THEY GO DOWN AND CHEMICALLY INJECTED IT'S NOT TEMPORARY. IT WILL LAST. THEY WILL REPEAT AND GO OVER IT AND GO OVER IT. THAT IS MY BACKGROUND IN IT. IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN TRY TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE MORE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: I DON'T REALLY KNOW. THIS HAS BEEN MY PRIMARY CONCERN ABOUT THAT DEVELOPMENT FOR MANY YEARS NOW.

I THINK IT'S KIND OF BEEN A PROBLEM THAT HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED BECAUSE IT'S EXPENSIVE TO DEVELOP.

>> IT IS. THE LOWER YOU GO THE MORE EXPENSIVE IT IS.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: SO WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, WE ARE BACKING OFF. I THINK IT WILL WORK. IT WILL LOOK FINE FOR A WHILE. BUT I CAN'T -- WE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN OUR PACKET ABOUT THESE DIFFERENCES IN THE RISE AND WHAT OTHER -- TRENSON , DO YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING -- FOR INSTANCE, CEDAR HILL DEALS WITH THIS. WHAT IS THEIR REQUIREMENT?

>> TRENTON: I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: I CAN'T MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT. I APOLOGIZE. BUT UNTIL I CAN RESEARCH WHAT IS RESPECTABLE NUMBER -- BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND YOU COULD FIND AN ENGINEER TO MAKE FIVE INCHES WORK AND IT WILL LOOK GOOD FOR TEN YEARS BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHAT LOOKS GOOD IN 20 OR 30 YEARS. NOTHING IS PERFECT. BUT WE WOULD BE DOING OURSELVES A

[02:15:05]

>> SURE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE REGISTERED. TRENTON, UNLESS YOU HAVE

SOMETHING? >> TRENTON: NO. REACH OUT TO THE CITY ENGINEER TO ASK WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE. MY ONLY CONCERN I CAN'T GUARANTEE WHAT THE SOILS ARE IN CEDAR HILL VERSUS MIDLOTHIAN THERE. COULD BE A DIFFERENT.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: IT'S THE SAME SHELL STRUCTURE.

>> TRENTON: I WOULD HATE TO REFLECT ON THAT WITHOUT MIKE

BEING HERE TO SAY YES OR NO. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. BEING NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> SMOVE TO CLOSE.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

ANYBODY OPPOSED? IT'S UNANIMOUS. FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION. I DID READ THIS CORRECT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE; IS THAT CORRECT? TREMENDOUS WE ARE

MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION TO -- >> TRENTON: WE ARE MAKING IT RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE FOR THREE AND UNDER FOR THE PBR.

>> I KNOW YOU ARE CONCERNED. >> COMMISSIONER RODGERS: I MIGHT BE, I COULD POSSIBLY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THREE. I KNOW THAT -- [INAUDIBLE] I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE TONIGHT.

>> TRENTON: I'M LOOKING AT -- SORRY. WE LOOKED UP CEDAR HILLS AND THEY DO NO MORE THAN FOUR INCHES.

>> THE ONLY OTHER ONE -- >> TRENTON: I HAVEN'T.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: MAKE A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE. ANY DISCUSSION? QUESTIONS? IN ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

OPPOSED? OKAY. IT PASSES. WE WILL MOVE NOW TO

[015 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the Subdivision Ordinance by amending Section 6.11 “Street Standards”, Table 6-1, street right-of-way width (Case No. OZ03-2021-021).]

RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH. >> TRENTON: I WILL GO QUICK ON THIS. SECTION 6.11 SHOWED INCORRECT NUMBER. 60 INSTEAD OF 50 FEET. EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE DOCUMENTS IT SHOWS 60 FEET.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WE WANT TO CLEAN UP FOR CONSISTENCY. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> MOTION TO CLOSE. SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. . LINE "AYE"] OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR YES? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

[MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION]

COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS. >> TRENTON: I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR COMING TO THE WORKSHOPS. THEY ARE BENEFICIAL AS THE CITY CONTINUES TO PROGRESS. NEXT MONTH WE STILL HAVE A WORKSHOP.

BUT DUE TO THE NUMBER OF THE ITEMS SUBMITTED WE MAY MOVE IT UP TO 6:00 BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK IT WILL BE VERY INTENSE, THAT MEETING. OR WE MIGHT, I MEAN, WE CAN DO IT AT 5:30 INSTEAD IF YOU LIKE TO SEPARATE FROM THE MEETING STILL.

>> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: LET'S DO 5:30.

>> TRENTON: OKAY. WE CAN DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. THAT IS ALL

WE HAVE. >> CHAIRMAN OSBORN: OKAY. ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, I CONSID

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.