[003 Consider and act upon a request for two special exceptions, being, 1) Section 6.14 of the Subdivision Ordinance allow for a lot to be subdivided without having street frontage onto a public street (Methodist Way), and 2) Section 4.5605(b.1) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for driveway access not meeting the minimum spacing requirements for a ±7.909 acres tract of land out of the B.F. Hawkins Survey, Abstract No. 464 for nonresidential uses. The property is located on the northwest corner of U.S. Highway 287 service road and Methodist Way (Case No. M26-2021-180).]

JUST FOR THAT. OKAY. ITEM THERE, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR TWO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS BEING SECTION 6.14 IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR A LOT TO BE SUBDIVIDED WITHOUT HAVING STREET PRONGS ON A PUBLIC STREET AND SECOND SECTION 4.5605 B 1 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS NOT MEETING THE MINUTE NUMB SPACING REQUIREMENTS FOR A PLUS OR MINUS, 7.9 OUT OF THE BF HAWKINS SURVEY FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF U.S. HIGHWAY 287 SERVICE ROAD AND METHODIST WAY.

>> IN ORDER FOR A LOT TO BE LEGALLY AH PLATTED IT HAS TO BE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALSO, IN ACCORDANCE TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, IN ORDER TO GET A DRIVE APPROACH DIRECT ACCESS ON A RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE SUBDIVISION OF THREE LOTS ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY, THIS LOT 2 A IS A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL LATER COME BACK AS A PLAT.

BLOCK TWO OF THIS PROPOSED PLAN WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS DIRECTLY ONTO METHODIST WAY. IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS ACCESS BUT RIGHT HERE THERE'S A SPIKE TRIP WHERE THIS LOT BARELY BLOCK IT IS OFF PREVENTING INGRESS AND EDEGREES FROM THAT LOT. THEY HAVE CONTACT THE THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO REACH AN AGREEMENT TO GET AN INGRESS, EGRESS ON THAT DRIVE WHICH THEY HAVE DONE. THE OTHER ITEM WHICH WOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR THIS TO BE SUBDIVIDED IN THE FUTURE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, WE DO FIND THERE'S A HARDSHIP BECAUSE THERE'S A DESIGN PREVENTING IT FROM HAVING DIRECT ACCESS. WE THOUGHT A LINE FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WOULD ALLOW FOR THE PARK TO DEVELOP AS OTHER PROPERTIES IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD BE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED. AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> ALL RIGHT. ONE OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE FINAL PLACEMENT OF THE INGRESS, EGRESS WILL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AT A LATER POINT IN

TIME. >> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINS?

>> THEY HAVE RETAINED IT. >> THE CROSS ACCESS?

>> THE EASEMENT. >> THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT.

[00:05:05]

>> THE EASEMENT TO ALLOW FOR RIGHT HERE. IT WAS A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR LOTS.

>> GOT IT. OKAY. >> NO, SIR.

>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS.

>> SECOND. >> OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, AND THAT IS WITH THE SIX RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF. OKAY.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTION?

>> NOT ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. >> (CHORUS OF AYES).

>> ANY OPPOSED? >> IT IS UNANIMOUS.

>> MR. CHAIR, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND REQUESTING THAT ITEM NUMBER NINE BE MOVED UP ON THE AGENDA CHLTH THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING.

>> THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MOVE ITEM NINE TO THE NEXT

PUBLIC HEARING. >> OKAY.

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 506.6± acres out of the M.E.P & P Railroad Company Survey, Abstract No. 761, John Chamblee Survey, Abstract No. 192, J. Stewart Survey, Abstract No. 961, Cuadrilla Irrigation Company Survey, Abstract No. 262 and Caudrilla Irrigation Company Survey, Abstract No. 1204, described in Exhibit “A” hereto, by changing the zoning from Planned Development District No. 18 (PD-18) to Planned Development District No. 146 (PD-146) for a mixed-use development; adopting development regulations and a site plan. 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. Z40-2021-160).]

>> AT THIS TIME, WE WILL DECLARE OURSELVES IN PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERING THE ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 506.6 ACRES OUT OF THE MEP AND P RAILROAD SURVEY AS 765, JOHN SURVEY, ABSTRACT 961, CUABRILLA IRRIGATION COMPANY SURVEY ABINSTRUCT, 262 AND CAUDRILLA IRRIGATION COMPANY SURVEY ABSTRACT 1204 BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NAH 18 T TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WYNNE 47 THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT PLUS MINUS 1400 FEET WEST OF HIGHWAY 67 INTERCHANGING U.S. HIGHWAY 287, OLD FORT WORTH HIGHWAY. SO, I WOULD NEED A MOTION AT

THIS TIME TO CONTINUE THIS. >> AND THAT WOULD BE TO THE OCTOBER 19TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

>> YES. I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL

IN FAVOR, AYE. >> (CHORUS OF AYES).

>> ANY OPPOSED? >> OKAY. ITEM 4 CONDUCT A

[004 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the City of Midlothian Zoning Ordinance and zoning map relating to the use and development of 31.387± acres out of the N.N. J.J. & B.L. Edwards Survey, Abstract No. 340 described in Exhibit “A” hereto to adopt the initial zoning of said property by zoning said property as Planned Development District No. 142 (PD-142); amending the development and use regulations of PD-142 as set forth in Ordinance No. 2021-54 by amending the description of the property, the amount of required open space, and the planned development site plan. The property is located north of FM 875, between McAlpin Rd. and Skinner Rd. (Case No. Z42-2021-181).]

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE AND SEASONING MAP RELATING TO THE USE AND DAFT OF 31.387 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES OUT OF THE INITIAL ZONING OF SAID PROPERTY BY SEASONING SAID IN PROPERTY AS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, BY ZONING SAID PROPERTY AS DISTRICT 142 AMENDING DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATION OF PD-142 AS SET FORTH IN ORDINANCE NUMBER 2021-54 BY AMENDING THE SCRAGS OF THE PROPERTY THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN PROPERTY'S IS LOCATED NORTH FM 875 BETWEEN MCALPIN AND.

>> THE NORTHERN HALF OF SETH PROPERTY WAS CHANGED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FROM CULTURAL DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY GOING FROM THIS POINT ALL THE WAY TO THE CORNER WAS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF WAXIHCHIE. WE EXCHANGED BOUNDARIES WITHIN OUR TERRITORIAL RESTRICTION WITH THE CITY OF WA COWE FOUND ISSUES WI TAXES, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, SERVICE RESPONSE AND WE WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPER TO GET US IN THE CITY LIMITS. NOTHING HAS REQUESTED FROM THE ORIGINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR THE INCLUSION OF THIS 31 ACRES. WHEN WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THIS, THE TOTAL NUMBER

[00:10:04]

OF UNITS FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT EXCEED .74 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, THAT HAS NOT CHANGED. REALLY NOTHING HAS CHANGED FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED EXCEPT FOR NOW THE BOUNDARY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.

PROPOSED ANNEXATION IS PROPOSED TO TO GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST. AS ITS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH. IT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SUBDIVISIONS TO THE NORTH AS WELL OF THIS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. ALSO, THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED MOST OF THE OPEN SPACE WAS ALREADY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN PRIOR TO THIS BEING ANNEXED. WE THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE AN ADDED BENEFIT TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN BY HAVING THIS ANNEXED AND NOT REIGNING IN ALL THE VARIOUS ISSUES THAT WE SEEN WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE LAST ZONING CASE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT THIS ONLY BE APPROVED IF THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION IS ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS

TIME. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK?

>> OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK. I ENTERTAIN THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> WERE THEY USING OR WERE THEY TAUGHT TO USE SEPTIC?

>> THIS WILL ALL BE SEPTIC. ALL LOTS ARE OVER ONE ACRE IN

SIZE. >> ARE CLOSE ARE WE TO THE

PUBLIC. >> IT EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. IT'S QUITE A DISTANCE AWAY. ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR AYE.

>> (CHORUS OF AYES). >> ANY OPPOSED.

>> PUBLIC HEAR SOMETHING CLOSED, FLOOR'S OPEN FOR

DISCUSSION AND OR ACTION. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. >> IS THAT WITH STAFF

RECOMMENDATION? >> WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER QUESTION OR DISCUSSION?

>> IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR? (CHORUS OF AYES)

[005 Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Plat of Hartson Estates, being ± 78.022 acres of land, situated within the N.N.J.J. and B.L. Edwards Survey, Abstract No. 340, a portion being in City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas and a portion being in the ETJ of the City of Midlothian and a portion of that tract of land described in deed to Dalyne Hartson, City of Midlothian, Ellis County (Case No. PP25-2021-179).]

>> ANY OPPOSED. >> IT IS UNANIMOUS.

>> ITEM FIVE, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A QUESTION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HEARTS ESTATES BEING PLUS OR MY NONE RATION 78.0 # 22 LAND OF NJ AND BL SURVEY ABINSTRUCT 3 FERRETY BEING A PORTION IN THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ELLIS COUNTY AND A PORTION BEING IN THE HEJ INCITYF MIDLOTHIAN. AND A PORTION OF THAT TRACK OF LAND DESCRIBED TO DAILY HEARTSON, CITY OF

MIDLOTHIAN. >> THANK YOU. THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE ZONING CASE YOU JUST HEARD. THE TOTAL LOT COUNT WILL BE 56 LOTS. THE PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 212 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE AS WELL AS THE ORDINANCE REGULATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PLAT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE ZONING CASE BE APPROVED AT THE SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2021,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> AND THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? >> IF NOT I'LL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> I'LL MOVE.

>> MOTION IS THERE A SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER

DISCUSSION? >> IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

>> (CHORUS OF AYES). >> ANY OPPOSED?

[007 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a car wash on Lot 2, Block B, of Walmart Supercenter Addition, being 2.12± acres of land generally located to the east of Walton Way, between W. Avenue F and W. Main Street (Business 287) (Case No. SUP23-2021-185).]

>> IT'S UNANIMOUS. >> THANK YOU.

>> ITEM 7, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING AN ACT TO FOLLOW AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH ON LOT 2 BLOCK B OF THE WALMART SUPER CENTER ADDITION BEING TWO.12 PLUS OR MINUS LAND BETWEEN WEST AVENUE F AND WEST MAIN STREET WHICH IS BUSINESS 287.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. ON THE SCREEN IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED CAR WASH. THIS IS LOCATED ON AVENUE F. NEAR WALTON WAY. THE SITE WILL CONTAIN A CAR WASH, VACUUM BAYS, AND TWO ACCESS POINTS ONE OFF OF AVENUE F TO THE NORTH AND THE OTHER OFF OF MAIN STREET THROUGH AN EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT.

[00:15:03]

THIS INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECELERATION LANE AS YOU COULD SEE WHERE MY POINTER IS. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, SHOWS THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN WHAT WE CALL THE HE IS CARTMENT MOOD YOU'LL, OUR PLAN RECOMMENDS THE THE DEVELOPMENT BE IT FROM THE DISCARTMENT AREA. PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS INDICATE THAT THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE HE IS CARTMENT AREA. ALTHOUGH YOU SEE THE GREEN AREA HERE, THAT'S MORE TO THE EAST. AND AT A FUTURE TIME, WE'LL PROBABLY UPDATE OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN TO REFLECT THAT. THE BUILDING WILL CONTAIN A COMBINATION OF POURS LYNN, TILE, THE CITY CANNOT REQUIRE PARTICULAR BUILDING MATERIALS FOR RESIDENTIAL OREM COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, WITH THAT SAID, THE APPLICANT STATED THESE ARE THE INTENDED MATERIALS. AS YOU COULD SEE ON THE SCREEN. TWO MONUMENT SIGNS ARE BEING PROPOSED AN ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIZE NOT MORE THAN 43 FEET IN SIZE. STAFF WILL SUPPORT THE SECOND MONUMENT SIGN. THE SECOND SIGN IS LOCATED IN RED CLOSER TO MAIN STREET. BUT NO ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS WILL BE PERMITTED. THE PARKING PLAN DOES SEW STACKING LINES FOR UP TO 35 VEHICLES, SEVEN PARKING SPACES AS WELL. BASED ON OUR CURRENT CODIOUS THE PARK, RATIO OF 1 TWO 125, THAT WOULD REQUIRE 96 STALLS. OBVIOUSLY, THIS WOULD BE VERY UNUSUAL AND CREATE A SEA OF CONCRETE PARKING. THE STAFF SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED SEVEN SPACES NEEDED FOR THE APPLICANT'S EMPLOYEES. WE SENT OUT A TOTAL OF 16 NOTIFICATIONS STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BOUNDARY, BUT WE DID RECEIVE MULTIPLE LETTERS IN SUPPORT FROM OUTSIDE THAT 200 FOOT BOUNDARY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SUP AS PRESENTED AND I CAN TAKE ANY

QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND DO THEY WISH TO

SPEAK? >> THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT HE WANT TOSS SHOW AS WELL.

>> YES, SIR, NAME AND ADDRESS. >> YES, SIR, CHAD WEST, 810 BISHOP AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME TODAY.

>> ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO JUST KIND OF HE HIT A LOT OF POINTS ALREADY. SO AS NOT TO COVER THE SAME THING, WE'RE AN EXPRESS TUNNEL WASH WHICH IS BASICALLY WHERE YOU PULL YOUR CAR UP, STAY IN YOUR CAR, A GUY PREPS IT AT THE BEGINNING AND A CONVEYER PULSE YOU THROUGH. WHEN WE WERE ANALYZING MIDLOTHIAN AS A POTENTIAL SITE, WE LOOKED AT WHERE THE COMPETITION WAS AND REALIZED OUR NEAREST COMPETITION IS 4.8 MILES AWAY ACROSS TOWN. OF COURSE, YOU'VE SEEN THE SITE. WE DID OUR OWN NOTIFICATION IN ADDITION TO THE CITY'S AND WE SENT OUT LETTERS TO EVERYBODY WHO HAS A CHECK MARK ON THIS MAP. I THINK THE REQUIREMENT WAS 200, WE ENDED UP NOTIFIES WITHIN 300 AND WE GOT UP TO 375, AT OUR TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS WE HAD TWO INDIVIDUALS APPEAR AND THEY WERE BUSINESS OWNERS WITHIN THE WEST SIDE OF THAT MAP. AND ONE OF THEM ENDED UP WRITING A LETTER OF SUPPORT. AND YOU SEE IN THESE PHOTOS, THIS IS OUR SITE IN ENNIS, TEXAS. STAFF INDICATED THEY LIKED THAT SITE AND WE DO TOO, SO WE WERE IN AGREEMENT ON KEEPING THAT ONE.

AND, REALLY MODELLING IT VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE IN ENNIS. OUR PROJECT SPECIFICS, OUR HOURS OF OPERATION, ARE 8-8 MONDAY WILL YOU SATURDAY AND WE HAVE A SHORE ENNED TIME OF 11-6

[00:20:03]

ON SUNDAYS. WE HAVE A VERY STRICT UNIFORM POLICY FOR ALL OF OUR STAFF. I'M THE OWNER THAT LIVES IN SOUTH DALLAS, SO CLOSE TO THE SITE. WE HAVE BEEN KNOWN AT OUR OTHER SITES IN OAK CLIFF AND ENNIS AS THE TRASH POLICE, WE END UP PICKING UP TRASH FROM EVERYONE ELSE AROUND US BECAUSE WE KNOW IT'S BLOWING ONTO OUR SITE AND WE DON'T WANT OUR SITE. JUST IN KEEPING OUR OWN SITE CLEAN, WE CLEAN EVERYBODY ELSE'S TOO. WE HAVE NO AFTER HOURS ACCESS, AND WE KEEP GOOD LIGHTING TO AVOID CRIME AND GRAFFITI, NO ONE CAN ACCESS THE SITE AFTER HOURS. A FEW EXAMPLES OF OUR UNIFORMS, THIS WILL ACTUALLY BE THE MOST STACKING THAT WE HAVE AT ANY OF OUR SITES AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A PROBLEM EXCEPT ONE DAY IN ENNIS, OUR VERY FIRST DAY, WE WERE GIVING AWAY FREE CAR WASHES, WE BACKED UP TO THE HIGHWAY, AND WE NEEDED HELP TO GET US OUT OF THAT, BUT WE LEARNED OUR LESSON AND THAT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO AND WE HAVE NOT HAD THAT PROBLEM SINCE AND BASED ON THE RE REQUIREMENTS HERE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE STACKING FOR TRAFFIC THAN EVER. WE APPRECIATE BEING A GOOD COMMUNITY PARTNER IN ALL OF OUR CITIES. WE HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THREE LOCAL INDIVIDUALS AND ALSO FROM CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND TWO OF OUR LOCATIONS AND ALSO FROM THE MAYOR OF ENNIS, HOPEFULLY YOU

GUYS GOT COPIES OF THOSE. >> WE SUPPORT EVERYTHING STAFF HAS PROVIDED IN THE PACKET, THE ONE THING WE ASKED FOR THIS COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AS A VARIANCE IS THE AWNINGS. STAFF IS REQUIRING AND I THINK YOUR CODE REQUIRES METAL AWNINGS FOR YOUR VACUUM BASE. AND I THINK THE INTENT IS TO PREVENT FADED CANOPIES OVER TIME THAT LOOK RATTY AND GROSS. WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THESE AWNINGS THAT ARE OVER FOUR YEARS OLD IN ENNIS, THEY COST THE SAME AS THE METAL, BUT WE BELIEVE THEY LOOK BETTER AND WEAR WELL OVER TIME AND THEY'RE KEEPING WITHIN OUR BRAND. I HAVE ANOTHER WHEN HERE. THE AWNINGS STILL LOOK AS NEW AS THEY DID WHEN WE INSTALLED THEM. THEY HAVE A NICE CLEAN LOOK FOR THE SITE AND THE BLUE COLOR IS KEEPS EVERYTHING COOL AND JUST LOOKS GOOD. SO, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER ALLOWING US TO DO A MODIFIED FABRIC AWNING AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. THANK YOU. AND I ALSO HAVE MY ENGINEER HERE

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. >> HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN

CEDAR HILL? >> WE'VE BEEN THERE SINCE FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR. AND IN ENNIS HOW LONG?

>> IN ENNIS FOUR YEARS. >> AND WHERE ARE YOU IN ENNIS?

>> WE'RE IN FRONT OF WALMART ACTUALLY. WE ACTUALLY PURCHASED THE LAST UNDEVELOPED PARCEL IN ENNIS IN FRONT OF THE WALMART IT WAS A T-SHAPED LOT AND WE WORKED WITH LEASING IMPRESSIONS WHICH IS A MIDLOTHIAN-BASED OWNERS TO MOVE THE HOUSE HERE TO MIDLOTHIAN SO THAT THE HOUSE IN THE ORIGINAL HOMESTEAD IS ACTUALLY HERE. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN RENOVATED OR THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF RENOVATING IT FOR COMMERCIAL USE.

>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, I

APPRECIATE IT. >> LET THE RECORD SHOW WE ALSO HAVE REMARKS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. AND THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TO BE HEARD ON THAT. CAN I HEAR A MOTION TO

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE

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

>> (CHORUS OF AYES). >> ANY OPPOSED?

>> THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND OR ACTION.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE AWNINGS

NOT BEING METAL? >> NO, SIR. WE DO PREFER THAT THOSE CANOPY AWNINGS REMAIN METAL, ABSOLUTELY, THAT'S JUST FOR DURABILITY AND LONGEVITY IS HOW WE'RE SEEING IT, PLUS OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS CALLS FOR THE CANOPIES TO BE METAL IN OUR

ZONING ORDINANCE. >> IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, IT'S WRITTEN THAT THE MEDAL AWNINGS, SO IF YOU ARE GOING TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO AMEND YOUR MOTION AND NOT AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

>> OKAY. >> A TURN LANE, THIS PROPOSED

[00:25:06]

DEACCELERATION LANE IS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. ABSOLUTELY.

>> THIS COMES BEHIND MURPHY? >> CORRECT.

>> MURPHY STATION IS IN THE RED. THEY WOULD BE LOCATED IN BLACK. THAT TURN LANE, THAT DECELL LANE WOULD RUN IN THAT DIRECTION AND THIS PROPERTY HAS ALREADY BEEN PRE-PLATTED AND THERE'S AN ACCESS EASEMENT THAT EXISTS THROUGH THIS LOCATION.

>> TO ACCESS THIS SITE? >> YES, SIR.

>> HE DID MENTION THAT THE SITE WAS GOING TO BE CONED OFF OR BLOCKED. I JUST SEE PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH THIS SITE CONSTANTLY TO GET TO WALMART BECAUSE OF THE LIGHT.

>> I MEAN, YEAH, TECHNICALLY, YOU COULD POSSIBLY CUT RIGHT THROUGH HERE AND GO DRIVE UP THROUGH THIS AREA TO GET TO AVENUE F. OBVIOUSLY, IT'S INTENDED FOR THE FOLKS WHO ARE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, GETTING A CAR WASH.

>> IF THEY'RE GOING TO BLOCK IT AFTER HOURS, I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

>> AND JUST TO VERIFY, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD HAVE THE

METAL ON IT? >> YES, SIR. IT SHOULD BE SHOWN IN THE ORDINANCE, I THINK WE HAVE IT UNDER EXHIBIT C.

YEAH, WE SHOW THE ELEVATIONS AND THE METAL AWNINGS, YES, SIR.

CANOPIES. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR

DISCUSSION? >> WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE

COMMISSION? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS

OR DISCUSSION. >> IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE

[008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance to change relating to the use and development of 50.46± acres in the M. Pogue Survey, Abstract No. 852 described in Exhibit “A” hereto, by changing the zoning from Agricultural District to Planned Development District No. 143 (PD-143) for residential uses. The property is located ±1,600 feet south of the Plainview Road and Stout Road intersection commonly known as 4440 Stout Road (Case No. Z41-2021-177).]

MOTION. (CHORUS OF AYES). >> ANY OPPOSED?

>> IT IS UNANIMOUS. >> ITEM 8, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 50.46 PLUS AMOUNT OF ACRES IN THE SURVEY ABSTRACT 852, DESCRIBE IN EXHIBIT A HERETO BUY CHANGING THE ZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 143 RESIDENTIAL USES. THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED 16 HUNDRED FEET SOUTH OF PLAIN VIEW ROAD AND STOUT ROAD.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG STOUT ROAD AND CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. NEAR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 75. ACCORDING TO OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN WHAT WE CALL THE RURAL MODULE, WHICH IF DEVELOPED WOULD NORMALLY CONSIST OF LARGER 3-ACRE STYLE LOTS. AT LEAST 3 ACRES PLUS.

THE PROPERTY DOES BORDER THE URBAN MEDIUM MODULE AND IT IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE URBAN LOW DENSITY MODULE. THESE URBAN MODULES DO CORRESPOND WITH SMALLER SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND MAY INCLUDE APARTMENTS OR TOWN HOME COMPLEXES. HERE IS THE PROPOSED LAYOUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE SITE INCLUDES LOTS RANGING FROM THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE TO OVER 1 ACRE IN SIZE. THERE'S A TOTAL OF 13 LOTS ON THE SITE THAT WILL FALL BELOW THE ONE-ACRE REQUIREMENT, TYPICALLY. THE SITE CONTAINS TWO ACCESS POINTS ON STOUT ROAD, PER THE CITY'S CODE, RIGHT-OF-WAYS THAT ARE LESS THAN 80 FEET WHICH IN THIS CASE VEGETATIVE SCREEN WALLS, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR A SPLIT RAILROAD FENCE BE ADDED TO STOUT ROAD. THERE'LL BE A 15-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG STOUT ROAD. ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE AND THE SOUTHERN SIDE, THAT AREA WILL CONTAIN A TREE PRESERVATION BOUNDARY. WE DID SEND OUT 16 LETTER TOSS PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. WE RECENTLY RECEIVED LETTERS IN OPPOSITION. WE RECEIVED TWO IN OPPOSITION THAT FALL WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUT THEY'RE FROM THE SAME ADDRESS AND WE DID RECEIVE ANOTHER TWO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE YOU GUY