Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order, Invocation, and Pledge of Allegiance]

[00:00:09]

>>> GOOD EVENING IT'S 6:00 P.M. ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2021.

I CALL THE MIDLOTHIAN CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER.

PASTOR REYNOLDS WILL LEAD US IN INVOCATION FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMAN WICKLIFFE ON THE PLEDGES.

>> LET US PRAY. GOD OF GLORY, GOD OF GRACE, WE THANK YOU AGAIN FOR LETTING US BE A PART OF THIS DAY.

DESPITE THE MISTAKES AND MISSTEPS WE'VE MADE ONLY YESTERDAY. YOU GRACIOUSLY INVITED US TO BE A PART OF THIS DAY. WE ASK NOW THAT YOU WOULD BLESS OUR MAYOR, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THEIR FAMILIES, OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, THE ENTIRE CITIZENRY OF MIDLOTHIAN.

MAY THE KINDNESS THAT YOU POUR INTO OUR LIVES MAKE US CONDUITS OF THAT KINDNESS SO THAT IT MIGHT BE CONTAGIOUS IN THIS COMMUNITY. WE PRAY THAT THIS MEETING WOULD GO FORTH, THAT IDEAS WOULD BE SHARED.

THAT PEACE AND PROSPERITY MAY RESULT IN THIS COMMUNITY.

LEAD US TO DO THOSE THINGS AND WE WILL FOREVER BE GRATEFUL TO YOU. WE ASK IT ALL IN THE NAME OF

JESUS CHRIST, AMEN. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

>> ITEM 2021-462, CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE NO CITIZENS THAT HAVE ASKED TO BE HEARD.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

THE CONSENT AGENDA, ALL MATTERS UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE PASSED BY ONE VOTE.

ANY COUNCIL MEMBER WISHES DISCUSSION?

DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AND SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. THE CONSENT AGENDA PASSES 6-0.

[2021-466]

PUBLIC HEARINGS, I OPEN ITEM 2021-466.

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH ON LOT 2, BLOCK B OF WALMART SUPERCENTER ADDITION BEING APPROXIMATELY 2.12 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED TO THE EAST OF WALTON WAY BETWEEN WEST AVENUE F AND WEST MAIN STREET.

>> THIS IS GOING TO BE NEAR WALTON WAY.

AND LET ME SEE IF MY. I BELIEVE WE'RE IN BUSINESS.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED LOCATION, AVENUE F, NEAR WALTON WAY.

THE SITE INCLUDES OFFICE SPACE, A TUNNEL, A CAR WASH TUNNEL, VACUUM BAYS AND TWO ACCESS POINTS.

1 FROM AVENUE F ON THE NORTH SIDE.

AND ANOTHER ONE OFF OF MAIN STREET.

THE MAIN STREET WILL INCLUDE A NEW DECELERATION PLAN.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SHOWN INSIDE OUR ESCARPMENT MODULE. A PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT HAD CONCLUDED THAT THIS AREA IS ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF THE ESCARPMENT. THE BUILDING WILL CONTAIN A COMBINATION OF PORCELAIN TILE, TEXTURE, CMU, STUCCO, AND METAL PANELS. DUE TO HB439 THE CITY CANNOT REQUIRE CERTAIN BUILDING MATERIALS, BUT THAT SAID, THESE ARE THE INTENDED MATERIALS HE'S GOING TO USE.

THE SITE WILL INCLUDE 27 VACUUM BAYS WITH METAL OVERHEAD CANOPIES. YOU CAN SEE AN EXAMPLE OF THOSE CANOPIES IN THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER.

STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST.

TWO ZONES ARE BEING PROPOSED AT BOTH ENTRANCES.

[00:05:01]

THOSE ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED CIRCLES ON THE SCREEN.

STAFF WILL SUPPORT A SECOND MONUMENT SIGN NOT TO EXCEED 40 SQUARE FEET AND NO ELECTRONIC SIGNS WILL BE PERMITTED AS WELL.

THE SITE SHOWS STACKING FOR UP TO 45 VEHICLES AND SEVEN PARKING SPACES. STAFF DOES SUPPORT THE PROPOSED SEVEN PARKING SPACES FOR EMPLOYEES.

60 NOTIFICATIONS WERE MAILED OUT.

STAFF RECEIVED MULTIPLE LETTERS IN SUPPORT.

ONE OF THOSE LETTERS IS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE BOUNDARY.

THE COMMISSION DID AGREE WITH STAFF AND SUPPORTED METAL CANOPIES AND UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

THE COMMISSION DID NOT GRANT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR FABRIC CANOPIES. AND WITH THAT, I CAN TAKE QUESTIONS FROM YOU, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE TO

PROVIDE A SMALL PRESENTATION. >> AND LET ME COMMENT WE HAVE SEVEN LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS.

SO COUNCIL, DO YOU ALL HAVE QUESTIONS?

>> AVENUE F AND MAIN STREET? >> THE MONUMENT SIGN, I'M SORRY? OH ACCESS, YES, SIR. YOU'LL HAVE ACCESS OFF OF MAIN STREET. YES, SIR.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. THERE IS AN EXISTING EASEMENT, ACCESS EASEMENT THAT RUNS THROUGH THAT PROPERTY.

>> WHO'S IS IT? >> JUSTIN CRAWFORD I BELIEVE.

WE HAD DONE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA WITH JUSTIN. I DON'T KNOW IF JUSTIN STILL OWNS THAT OR NOT. BUT AT THE TIME HE DID.

>> IS THIS AN SUP NOT A PD? >> YES, SIR.

>> CAN WE REQUIRE THEY DON'T PULL THEIR PERMITS WITHOUT THAT ACCESS BEING PUT IN. BASICALLY I DON'T WANT THEM TO BUILD THAT ACCESS AND NOT EVER COME BACK AND BUILD THAT ONE.

>> THE ONLY WAY THEY'RE GOING TO GET PERMITS IS IF THEY HAVE ACCESS AND BUILD THAT DECELERATION LANE.

>> OKAY. AND THEN ON THE MONUMENT SIGNS, NONE OF THEM ARE VERTICAL, THEY'RE 10 OR 15-FOOT OFF THE

GROUND? >> CORRECT.

BOTH SIGNS WOULD BE, THE SIGN TO THE NORTH AND AGAIN THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPTION TO DO 60 SQUARE FEET ON ONE OF THE SIGNS AND 40 SQUARE FEET ON THE OTHER SIGN.

>> IS THIS THE ENTRANCE TO THE TUNNEL OR IS IT ON THIS END?

>> THE ENTRANCE TO THE TUNNEL WOULD BE RIGHT UP HERE.

>> THEY'RE PLANNING ON DOING ALL OF THEIR QUEUEING AND STACKING GOING SOUTH. OH THAT'S THE LANE, I THOUGHT

THAT WAS THE TUNNEL. >> NO, THEY HAVE TWO LANES ON THAT SIDE THERE. AND IT WILL CURVE AROUND AND LEAD INTO WHERE YOU SEE THE OFFICE LOCATION.

THAT'S THE START OF THE TUNNEL. THERE IS A BAIL OUT LANE AS WELL IN CASE FOLKS DON'T ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE TUNNEL.

>> PERFECT. >> WHAT'S THE MAX HEIGHT THAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE ON THAT MONUMENT SIGN?

>> TEN FEET. >> AND WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF

THAT DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE? >> IT HAS TO ENCLOSE THE DUMPSTER. SO WHATEVER HEIGHT THAT WOULD BE

COVERED. >> HERE'S MY ONLY CONCERNS --

WHAT WAS IT? >> 6 TO 8 FEET TYPICALLY.

>> THAT DUMPSTER CLOSURE BEING SO PROMINENT DOWN MAIN STREET IS THERE ANY WAY TO PUT THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE MAYBE TOWARDS THE

AVENUE F SIDE. >> THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

A LOT OF TIMES WHAT WE COULD ALSO RECOMMEND, SOMETIMES YOU'LL DO ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AROUND SUCH A DUMPSTER ESPECIALLY IF YOU CAN VISUALLY SEE IT FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

BUT WE CAN SEE IF THERE'S ANOTHER LOCATION THAT COULD BE

SHIFTED TO. >> IF THERE ISN'T, IT'S PROBABLY NOT A DEAL BREAKER, BUT IF THERE WERE AN ALTERNATIVE, I THINK IT

WOULD BE IDEAL. >> IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE ACROSS THE PARKWAY OR THE DRIVEWAY.

>> IF IT WEREN'T MAIN STREET I MIGHT FEEL DIFFERENTLY, BUT IT'S

MAIN STREET, IT MATTERS. >> SO THE MAIN ENTRANCE IS OFF OF MAIN STREET AND THEN THE EXIT CAN GO EITHER WAY?

>> ACTUALLY EITHER DIRECTION WOULD ACTUALLY PROBABLY BE CONSIDERED A MAIN ENTRANCE. IF YOU'RE COMING THROUGH AVENUE F, YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY STILL CONTINUE THROUGH THIS AREA, TURN AROUND AND GO GET INTO THAT QUEUEING LINE.

BUT I'LL LET THE APPLICANT ANSWER THAT, BUT THEY PROBABLY ARE LOOKING AT THEIR MAIN ENTRANCE BEING OFF OF MAIN

[00:10:31]

STREET. >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS MICHAEL CLARK. LET'S SEE IF I CAN REMEMBER THE QUESTIONS. WITH THE DUMPSTER, WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK WITH STAFF TO TRY TO FIND A PLACE THAT WORKS FOR THE DUMPSTER. OUR THOUGHT WAS TO KEEP IT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS BACK ON AVENUE F AS POSSIBLE.

WE DIDN'T REALLY WANT IT ON MAIN STREET EITHER, BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE WE CAN'T FIND A PLACE FOR IT AND SCREEN IT APPROPRIATELY. BUT THAT WAS OUR GOAL NOT TO PUT IT ON MAIN STREET BUT TO KEEP IT AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS.

WITH REGARD TO THE ACCESS, THE MAIN ACCESS WILL BE FROM MAIN STREET, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO WANT TO COME IN AND DRIVE PAST THE VACUUMS, BUT THEY CERTAINLY CAN.

BOTH POINTS WILL BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

LOTS OF STACKING AS YOU CAN SEE. WE DON'T ENVISION ANY ISSUES WITH THAT. WE FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE AMOUNT OF STACKING WE HAVE FOR THE CAR WASH AS IT SITS.

I THINK THOSE WERE THE TWO, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ANOTHER ONE.

>> WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THE QUEUE, THE NUMBER OF CARS?

>> 35 CARS. >> AND WHAT'S YOUR AVERAGE PROCESS TIME THROUGH THE CAR WASH?

>> I'M GOING TO SWITCH GEARS. >> THANK YOU.

I THINK WE HAVE A POWERPOINT. HOPEFULLY I DOWNLOADED IT.

WHAT'S THAT, MAYOR? >> I DIDN'T MEAN TO GET AHEAD.

>> NO WORRIES. I'VE DONE THIS BEFORE, I THINK I'VE GOT IT. CHAD WEST, 810, NORTH BISHOP AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR CAR WASH. SOME OF THIS WE'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH. WE SEE THIS AS A SIGNIFICANT CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR THE CITY. WE HAVE THREE OTHER LOCATIONS, OUR FIRST ONE WAS IN ENNIS, TEXAS, OUR SECOND IN CEDAR HILL, AND OUR THIRD ONE IN OAK CLIFF. SO WE'RE INVESTING IN SORT OF THE SOUTHERN SECTOR AND WE PLAN TO STAY DOWN HERE.

OF COURSE YOU KNOW THE SITE. THIS WAS OUR ZONING AREA.

WE HAD TO SEND NOTIFICATION TO. I BELIEVE WE ACTUALLY WENT OUT AS FAR AS 300 FEET AND THE FURTHEST HOUSE WAS 375 FEET.

SO UNTIL TODAY, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY LETTERS ACTUALLY WITHIN THE ZONE IN SUPPORT, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO GET ONE TODAY THAT DID RESPOND TO US. AND WE DID HAVE TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT WE HELD AND WE HAD TWO INDIVIDUALS COME TO THAT MEETING AND PROVIDE US AS WELL. YOU SEE OUR ELEVATIONS.

THIS WAS OUR FIRST SITE IN ENNIS, TEXAS.

THIS IS WHAT STAFF PREFERRED IN TERMS OF OUR DESIGN ELEMENT.

AND WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO DO THAT HERE.

WE DO SORT OF A MODERN CLEAN DESIGN IS OUR MANTRA.

ONE THING WE LEARNED THAT WAS WELL LIKED IN OUR OAK CLIFF LOCATION IS THE SORT OF OPEN AIR MENTALITY INSTEAD OF THE CLOSTROPHOBIC FEEL. WE'LL DO GARAGE BAY SIDES THAT OPEN UP DURING THE DAY SO IT'S AN OPEN AIR FEEL AND THEN WE LOCK THE DOORS AT NIGHT. A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT MAYBE ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS FOLKS HAD ABOUT DRIVING THROUGH THE SITE IS WE TYPICALLY PUT CONES UP AT NIGHT SO THAT FOLKS DON'T DRIVE THROUGH OUR LOT IN THE EVENINGS.

WE TRY TO KEEP A SECURE SITE. IN OAK CLIFF WE HAVE CHAINS THAT COME UP THAT WE LOCK SO PEOPLE AREN'T DRIVING THROUGH THERE AND LOITERING AFTER HOURS. WE HAVE AN ON SITE MANAGER AT ALL TIMES WE'RE OPEN AND VERY STRICT UNIFORM POLICY.

WE HAVE SERVED AS THE TRASH POLICE IN OUR OTHER CITIES BECAUSE WE KNOW WE'LL GET TRASH BLOWING ONTO OUR SITE IF WE DON'T PICK IT UP. ONE OTHER THING IS ON THE LAST BULLET THERE, OUR MONTHLY PASS HOLDERS IN ENNIS, CEDAR HILL, AND ALSO DALLAS, IF THEY COME HERE, THEIR PASSES WILL WORK HERE FOR THEIR MONTHLY PASSES AND THEN RESIDENTS FROM HERE CAN USE THEM AT OTHER LOCATIONS. SOME OF OUR EMPLOYEES.

THAT'S OUR TRAFFIC COUNT. WE TYPICALLY, I'M GOING TO KIND OF JUST JUMP DOWN A LITTLE BIT HERE.

THE STACKING WE TALK ABOUT IN THE SECOND BULLET, AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM THERE, WE ANTICIPATE ABOUT 30 CARS AN HOUR SUNDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. AND THEN ON SATURDAY ABOUT 37.5 CARS AN HOUR. WE HAVE PEAK TIMES WHERE WE HAVE MORE AND THEN WE HAVE OUR EARLY AND LATE HOURS WHERE WE HAVE

[00:15:02]

LESS CARS THAT COME THROUGH. WE HAVE MORE STACKING ON THIS SITE THAN WE HAVE ON ANY OF OUR OTHER SITES.

AND WE'VE NEVER EXCEPT OUR VERY FIRST DAY OPENING IN ENNIS GONE OUT ONTO THE HIGHWAY. TRAFFIC STACKING HAS NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE ON ANY SITE. OUR VERY FIRST WEEK OF OPENING WE GIVE OUT FREE WASHES TO THE FIRST 1,000 CARS AND WE DIDN'T REALIZE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN ENNIS ON THE VERY FIRST DAY. WE FIXED THAT PROBLEM AND WE DON'T EXPERIENCE THAT ANYMORE FORTUNATELY.

WE ARE VERY PROUD OF OUR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.

WE'VE BEEN A COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD WINNER IN ENNIS AND WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET IT IN OAK CLIFF THIS YEAR.

AND WE ARE A GOOD PARTNER. WE LIKE TO BE A GOOD PARTNER IN OUR CITIES, WE PLAN TO DO SO IN MIDLOTHIAN AS WELL.

SOME OF OUR LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT HAVE COME IN FOR THIS PROJECT AND WE WANT TO KEEP OUR FOLKS HAPPY AND BE A COMMUNITY MEMBER. THE ONE VARIANCE WE WEREN'T ABLE TO WORK OUT WITH STAFF WAS OUR OTHER SITES HAVE THESE FABRIC AWNINGS AND FRANKLY ACCORDING TO OUR SUPPLIER THEY COST THE SAME AS THE METAL AWNINGS STAFF IS REQUIRING HERE.

WE THINK THAT THESE AWNINGS ARE ALMOST FOUR AND A HALF YEARS OLD NOW AND THEY'RE OUR ORIGINAL AWNINGS IN ENNIS.

WE THINK THEY LOOK JUST AS GOOD AS THE DAY WE PUT THEM IN.

THEY WEAR WELL, THEY BREATHE BETTER, AND THEY PROVIDE FOR MORE AIR FLOW FOR OUR CUSTOMERS THAN THE METAL AWNINGS DO.

WE WOULD ASK CITY COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FOR US TO USE FABRIC AWNINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR PAST USAGE AS OPPOSED TO THE METAL. BUT WE'LL HAPPILY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE METAL IF COUNCIL DECIDES THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, THAT'S MY CONTACT INFO AND I'M HERE FOR

ANY QUESTIONS. >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB. >> THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE?

>> MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. >> PLEASE VOTE.

THERE YOU GO. I HAVE VOTED IN FAVOR.

SO THE ITEM PASSES 6-0. DISCUSSION, COUNCIL?

AND/OR A MOTION. >> I WANTED TO JUST DISCUSS THE AWNINGS MORE THAN ANYTHING. AND I DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION EITHER WAY. I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE WISDOM AT

THE TABLE. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I WOULD RATHER GO WITH THE METAL AWNINGS BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE HAS THEM AND IT DOES LOOK BETTER IN THE GENERAL EYE TYPE OF THING. ESPECIALLY WITH THEIR DESIGN, NICE AND SQUARE AND NICE FLAT AREAS.

I THINK IT WOULD LOOK BETTER IN MY OPINION.

AND THAT WAY IT MATCHES ALL OF THE OTHER PLACES IN TOWN.

>> I HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH STAFF.

THEY HAD A VERY COMPELLING REASON FOR THEIR POINT, SO I DON'T SEE A REASON TO DEVIATE FROM STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

THOUGH I WILL ADMIT YOUR CANOPIES DO LOOK NICE, BUT I THINK STAFF HAD A COMPELLING ARGUMENT.

>> NOT TO CHANGE THE TOPIC TOO MUCH, BE YOU YOU MENTIONED IT WAS REALLY OPEN AND AIRY KIND OF FEEL.

WHAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING? DO Y'ALL HAVE THAT? JUST A STANDARD ONE AND A HALF

STORY, TWO STORY? >> IT'S 26 FEET.

>> 26-FOOT. >> 26 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT.

>> WE GO TO THE MAXIMUM INSIDE SO THAT IT KEEPS THE DIRT AND GRIME OFF. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO CLEAN IT.

IT FEELS PRETTY OPEN INSIDE. >> THEY CURRENTLY COULD GO UP TO 35 FEET IF THEY DID THE EXISTING ZONING.

>> ON THE SIGNAGE WHY UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE DO WE TYPICALLY

ONLY ALLOW ONE SIGN? >> THE BASE REQUIREMENTS IN COMMUNITY RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE MONUMENT SIGN. IT'S WHEN YOU'RE AT AN INTERSECTION OR YOU'VE GOT TWO RIGHTS OF WAYS THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO TWO RIGHTS OF WAYS THAT YOU CAN REQUEST FOR THAT SECOND SIGN. IT'S VERY SPECIFIC IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. AND IT'S DEPENDENT UPON COUNCIL.

IF COUNCIL WANTS TO GRANT THAT SECOND SIGN, IT'S COMPLETELY UP

TO YOU. >> THE ONLY THING I WAS THINKING IS I KNOW WE HAVE A MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE AMOUNT PER

[00:20:04]

SIGNAGE. IF THERE'S TWO SIGNS PLUS SIGNAGE ON THE BUILDING, DOES IT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIGNAGE

ALLOWED? >> NOT IN THIS CASE.

THE MAXIMUM YOU CAN DO IN MONUMENT SIGNS IS 60 SQUARE FEET. AND IF YOU DO A SECOND YOU CAN DO THE ADDITIONAL 40 SQUARE FEET.

WE WON'T COUNT THAT AGAINST BUILDING SIGNS.

BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO HAVE ITS OWN SIGN REQUIREMENT AND THAT SIGN REQUIREMENT IS BASED ON HOW MUCH FRONTAGE YOU HAVE OR THE FRONT FACADE. YOU BASICALLY USE THAT RATIO TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE. NOW THE APPLICANT HASN'T SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR ANY PARTICULAR WALL SIGNAGE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO THEY ARE GOING TO DO OUR BASE REQUIREMENT. IF THEY DO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT, THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO COME BACK AND AMEND THE PD OR COME BACK AS ITS OWN SUP.

>> ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO PUT THEIR NAME ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR. >> OH OKAY.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING THEY WEREN'T.

>> THEY CAN USE EITHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING, THEY JUST CAN'T GO OVER A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE NOW.

AND THAT'S GOING TO BE BASED ON A CALCULATION WE DO THAT LOOKS AT THE FRONT FACADE AND WE DO A SMALL CALCULATION, BUT IT GIVES YOU ULTIMATELY THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU'RE ALLOWED.

WE USUALLY COUNT WHERE THE FRONT ENTRANCE IS, WHATEVER IS CONSIDERED THE FRONT FACADE. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, ACTUALLY LOOKING AT IT NOW, THIS WOULD BE THE FRONT FACADE IF THAT IS THE FRONT ENTRANCE. LET ME DOUBLE CHECK THAT AND MAKE SURE. LET ME LOOK AT THE DOOR.

THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TWO ENTRANCES.

THEY HAVE A FRONT DOOR ON THIS SIDE AND THEY ALSO HAVE A FRONT

DOOR ON THIS SIDE AS WELL. >> WHICH ENTRANCE HAS THE LARGER

SIGN? >> SO IN ENNIS ON THE BOTTOM LEFT THERE, YOU CAN SEE THE DOOR SORT OF ON THE BOTTOM LEFT IS WHAT EVERYONE USES. ON THE RIGHT SIDE OVER THERE IS REALLY OUR EMPLOYEES GOING OUT, THEY GO IN AND OUT THAT DOOR AS CARS COME UP AND HANDLE TRANSACTIONS.

95% OF OUR CUSTOMERS DON'T EVEN COME UP TO IT BECAUSE WE'RE EXPRESS SO YOU DRIVE IN, YOU STAY IN YOUR CAR, YOU DRIVE THROUGH. SO THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, WE HAVE A SECOND FLOOR OFFICE HERE. WE'RE CONSIDERING DOING OUR CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS WHICH IS NOT REALLY AS FANCY AS IT SOUNDS. THERE'S LIKE FOUR OF US.

BUT WE'RE CONSIDERING DOING THAT ON THE SECOND FLOOR WHICH THE FAR DOOR ON THE BOTTOM LEFT PAST THE ONE THAT YOU FIRST POINTED OUT IN ENNIS IS A BREAK ROOM. IN ENNIS IT'S A BREAK ROOM.

IT WOULD BECOME OUR ENTRY TO THE CORPORATE OFFICE UPSTAIRS IN THIS LOCATION. IF YOU'RE ASKING WHAT THE FRONT DOOR OF THE BUILDING IS, THE CAR IS OBVIOUSLY THE FRONT DOOR FOR

A CAR ON THE RIGHT SIDE. >> THE TOP LEFT IN THESE PICTURES, THAT WOULD BE OUR VIEW FROM MAIN STREET BASICALLY, YES? WHERE THE CARS SHOOT OUT AFTER --

>> THAT'S WHERE THE VACUUM IS? >> CORRECT.

>> THE SIGN WILL HAVE MAXIMUM 150 SQUARE FEET BASED ON THE BUILDING SIZE. BUT THE MINIMUM THEY CAN'T GET IS 100 SQUARE FEET. WE'RE LOOKING AT 100 TO 150

SQUARE FEET FOR THAT WHOLE SIGN. >> THE MAIN REASON I BRING THAT UP, NUMBER ONE IT SITS TALLER THAN MURPHY'S GAS STATION.

SO THAT WHOLE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WILL BE ONE GREAT BIG SIGN. THOSE PEOPLE GOT IN TROUBLE WITH BEHIND MOD PIZZA, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THESE GUYS UNDERSTAND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PUT A GREAT BIG CAR WASH SIGN ON THAT WEST

WALL. >> WE CAN PROHIBIT THAT RIGHT

NOW. >> AT 100 SQUARE FEET THAT'S NOT

A VERY BIG SIGN. >> IT'S NOT.

BUT IF YOU WANT THROUGH THIS SUP, WHY NOT GO AHEAD AND LIMIT THE SIGNAGE ON THE SIGN THAT FACES OUT TOWARDS MURPHY.

>> THEY SHOULD HAVE SOME SIGNAGE, I JUST DON'T WANT A 70-FOOT LONG CAR WASH SIGN RIGHT THERE ON THAT HILL.

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. SO I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST FORUM TO TRY TO MAYBE FIGURE THAT OUT.

[00:25:06]

>> THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIGNAGE THEY CAN HAVE IS 150 SQUARE

FOOT. >> AND THAT'S TOTAL SQUARE

FOOTAGE ON THE ENTIRE BUILDING? >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. THAT'S NOT THAT BIG THEN.

OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> IF THEY'VE GOT A 70-FOOT LONG BUILDING WITH A BIG WALL THAT FACES WEST. AND THAT'S WHERE EVERYBODY LOOKS UP THE HILL AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SEE.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION IF YOU'LL ENTERTAIN IT, MAYOR.

>> I'LL TAKE A MOTION. >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE METAL CANOPIES AND ALSO DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF REGARDING DUMPSTER LOCATION.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> I DON'T NEED TO REPEAT THAT, RIGHT? GOOD.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED, CORRECT? WITH THE STIPULATION, YEAH AUTHORIZING STAFF.

WE HAVE A MOTION SECONDED, PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOU JOINING OUR COMMUNITY.

[2021-467]

OPEN ITEM 2021-467. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 50.46 ACRES IN THE POGUE SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. 852 DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A HERETO BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 143 FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET SOUTH OF PLAINVIEW ROAD AND STOUT ROAD INTERSECTIONS COMMONLY KNOWN AS

440 STOUT ROAD. >> MAYOR, I'LL BE RECUSING

MYSELF FOR ITEM 467. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

HERE'S THE PROJECT LOCATION OFF OF PLAINVIEW ROAD OFF OF STOUT ROAD. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL. ACCORDING TO OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL MODULE WHICH NORMALLY CONSIST OF LARGER LOTS, PLUS THREE ACRES OR LARGER.

THE PROPERTY DOES BORDER NEAR WHAT WE CALL THE URBAN MODULES AS WELL AS THE LOW DENSITY MODULE AND THE MEDIUM DENSITY MODULES. SO THESE URBAN MODULES DO CORRESPOND WITH SMALLER RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND COULD ACTUALLY INCLUDE SOME TOWN HOME USE AS WELL.

HERE IS THE PROPOSED LAYOUT. THE SITE INCLUDES LOTS THAT FALL UNDER AN ACRE. SO THEY'RE 0.75 ACRE.

LOTS DO FALL UNDER THE ONE ACRE. THE SITE DOES CONTAIN TWO ACCESS POINTS ON TO STOUT ROAD. THE APPLICANT DID OPT NOT TO INCLUDE ANY ROAD STUBS FOR FUTURE CONNECTIVITY.

WOOD OR ORNAMENTAL FENCING WOULD BE REQUIRED ALONG STOUT ROAD GIVEN THAT STOUT ROAD IS LESS THAN AN 80-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY.

THEY'RE SUGGESTING WOOD FENCING BE INSTALLED ALONG STOUT ROAD.

WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN IS WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED TO US. THERE WILL BE A 15-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND STREET TREES PLANTED EVERY 40 FEET ALONG THAT AREA. IN ADDITION, I'M SORRY, THE APPLICANT IS PLANNING TO INCLUDE A TREE BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AS WELL.

A TOTAL OF 16 LETTERS TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET WERE MAILED OUT. TO DATE STAFF DID RECEIVE FOUR LETTERS IN OPPOSITION, BUT THAT'S ACTUALLY FROM TWO PROPERTIES. SO WE RECEIVED TWO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION AT ONE PROPERTY, AND TWO OTHER LETTERS OF OPPOSITION AT ANOTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE 200 FEET.

ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT MODULE, IT DOES BORDER THE URBAN MODULES, AND THAT COULD CREATE THAT TRANSITIONAL AREA THAT THE COMP PLAN TALKS ABOUT.

P&Z UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM WITH STAFF'S CONDITION THAT ALL LOTS CONTAIN LESS THAN ONE ACRE

[00:30:02]

OUTSIDE A FLOODPLAIN. THE ORDINANCE DOES REFLECT THE REQUEST FOR ALL PROPERTIES TO BE UNDER ONE ACRE.

I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT WHAT YOU SEE IN YOUR ORDINANCE SHOWS UNDER THE ONE ACRE. SO YOU'VE GOT 13 LOTS THAT FALL UNDER ONE ACRE. BUT AGAIN STAFF'S POSITION ON THAT IS THAT EVERYTHING BE ONE ACRE PLUS OUTSIDE THE

FLOODPLAIN. >> OVER ONE ACRE OUTSIDE THE

FLOODPLAIN? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> WITH THAT, I CAN TAKE ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> WHERE IS THE FLOODPLAIN ON

HERE AGAIN? >> SURE, THIS LOT NUMBER 35, THAT DOES CONSIST OF THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO THE LOTS THAT YOU SEE IN THIS LIGHTER YELLOW COLOR, THOSE ARE THE 13 LOTS THAT FALL UNDER THE ONE ACRE.

THOSE ARE ALL AT ABOUT 0.75 ACRES.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS A ONE ACRE PLUS.

>> THE OPPOSITION LETTERS WE RECEIVED, DID THEY GIVE

REASONING WHY? >> YES, SIR.

THEY DID TALK ABOUT THERE WAS A TALK OF INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, BURDEN ON TRAFFIC OR TRAFFIC ISSUES THAT THEY FORESEE, TRASH PICK UP WAS ALSO A CONCERN -- YES, SIR?

>> WAS ONE OF THE ADDRESSES 4650 STOUT ROAD.

>> YES, SIR. WE HAVE THE CRANES HERE WHO WILL BE SPEAKING ON THIS. WE HAVE ONE OF THE RESIDENTS

HERE TO SPEAK. >> HAVEN'T WE SEEN THIS ONE

BEFORE? >> YES, SIR.

THIS ACTUALLY CAME BEFORE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION I BELIEVE ON JULY 20TH IS WHEN THIS WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION. IT WAS PULLED BEFORE IT ACTUALLY CAME TO CITY COUNCIL. YES, SIR.

OR WITHDRAWN. >> DID IT ONLY GO BEFORE P&Z

ONCE? >> IT DID GO JUST THAT ONE TIME ON THE 20TH. AND --

>> THEY PULLED IT BEFORE? >> YES, SIR.

>> HOW MANY TOTAL LOTS? >> TOTAL LOTS SHOULD BE A TOTAL OF 35. 35 LOTS.

>> AND SINCE THEY'RE AN AVERAGE OF MORE THAN AN ACRE EACH, I'M ASSUMING WE DON'T REQUIRE GREEN SPACE?

>> NO, SIR. CORRECT.

THEY ARE LOOKING TO NOT INCLUDE ANY TYPE OF GREEN SPACE GIVEN THE FACT OF THE SIZE OF THE LOTS.

>> THAT MAKES SENSE. THANKS.

>> SO I'LL GO TO THE ONE ADDRESS THAT HAS REGISTERED TO SPEAK.

BOB CRANE AND JUDY CRANE. Y'ALL WANT TO SPEAK? JUST BOB, OKAY. YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

I'LL GIVE YOU A 30 SECOND WARNING.

GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE.

>> MY NAME IS BOB CRANE, I RESIDE AT 4650 STOUT ROAD WHICH IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

A BIG QUESTION IS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE PROPOSAL WAS, WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE P&Z COMMITTEE. WE WEREN'T AWARE OF THAT.

THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION WAS NOT APPROVED AT THE FIRST MEETING.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE LAST MEETING, I UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WERE RECOMMENDING A MINIMUM OF ONE ACRE FOR ALL OF THE PROPERTIES. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT ALL OF THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO STOUT ROAD ARE LIMITED TO MINIMUM OF ONE ACRE, IS THAT RIGHT? I WOULD ACCEPT THAT.

THANK YOU, SIR. THE BASIS FOR THE OBJECTION? THE BASIS FOR THE OBJECTION INITIALLY WAS THAT THERE SEEMED TO BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THERE WERE A MINIMUM OF THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE AND WE FELT LIKE THAT WOULD BE TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN FOR THE AREA ITSELF IN TERMS OF PROVIDING WATER, SEWER, ELECTRICITY, AND SO FORTH.

THERE WAS JUST SOME QUESTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE RESOLVED AND I'M NOT SURE THEY WERE RESOLVED. BUT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE

[00:35:07]

P&Z AT THIS POINT IS NONE OF THESE PROPERTIES WILL BE LESS THAN ONE ACRE? OKAY.

THAT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME BEFORE. I WAS HOPING THAT, THANK YOU.

>> I AM THE DEVELOPER ON THIS PROJECT.

A COUPLE OF THINGS I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THE TRACK ABOVE IT DOES HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF STOUT ROAD. THEY STARTED OUT 600 SOMETHING, NOW I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE DOWN TO 500 LOTS.

ANYHOW, WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE WANTED TO CREATE A BUFFER IN A UNIQUE PRODUCT. WHAT CREATED THE 13 LOTS.

THERE ARE ACTUALLY ONLY FOUR LOTS THAT ARE THREE QUARTERS.

ALL OF THE OTHER LOTS ARE LARGER THAN .75 ALL THE WAY UP TO .94.

SO YES, THERE ARE 13 LOTS UNDER AN ACRE, BUT ONLY FOUR ARE THREE QUARTERS AND THE REST ARE LARGER.

SO ALONG WITH TRYING TO PRESERVE SOME TREES AND WITH HER PROPERTY BEING LEFT OUT, IT KIND OF CRUNCHED US A LITTLE BIT AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT CREATED THE BETTER LAYOUT AND THE BETTER LOOK. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE DEVELOPED HERE IN MIDLOTHIAN, Y'ALL KNOW ME, WE DO TOPNOTCH STUFF AND WE ALWAYS TRY TO BRING SOMETHING UNIQUE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO HERE IS BRING SOMETHING UNIQUE THAT'S NOT JUST THE SAME OLD THING.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WHEN I CAME IN AND TALKED TO MARCOS WHEN I TOLD HIM I WAS GOING TO PUT THIS IN A PD, I TOLD HIM I WAS GOING TO PUT TREES DOWN THROUGH THERE.

I TOLD HIM I WANTED TO DO A SPLIT ROW, I'M THINKING THREE WOULD LOOK BETTER, THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT I'LL END UP DOING.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE 2600 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM.

I DID NOT ASK FOR ANY VARIANCES AS A LOT OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS HAVE DONE AND I'VE GONE ALONG A LOT OF THE ONE ACRE TRACKS IN DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.

AND IT'S AMAZING TO ME THAT I'M WILLING TO DO THIS, BUT HOW IS IT THAT A LOT OF THESE OTHER ONES, THERE ARE NO TREES, THERE IS NO LANDSCAPING EXCEPT THE FRONT ENTRANCE.

AND THEN YOU PUT UP A WOOD FENCE THAT BECOMES SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD FENCE. ONCE AGAIN I'M TRYING TO BRING THAT BETTER LOOKING PRODUCT AND A NICER PRODUCT AND SOMETHING THAT HAS A LITTLE BETTER FEEL TO IT THAN JUST A SQUARE CUT ONE ACRE. WE HAVE A LOT OF THOSE.

AND WHY I'M TALKING ABOUT HOW THE LOOK IS IS I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT PLUM CREEK, CREEK BEND, SOMERSET, LAKE GROVE, ALL OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS ARE BETWEEN .6 AND 3 QUARTERS WITH A COUPLE OF LOTS A LITTLE BIT LARGER.

JUST LIKE WE HAVE A LOT THAT'S A LITTLE OVER SIX ACRES.

THEY GIVE CHARACTER VERSUS THE COOKIE CUTTER SQUARE TYPE.

STAFF ASKED US TO LOOK AT IT, P&Z ASKED, WE DID LOOK.

THERE ARE 34 LOTS. THE BY CHANGING IT TO ONE ACRE COSTS US FOUR LOTS. DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A LOT, BUT THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGE WHATSOEVER.

AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT A COUNCIL ISSUE, IT'S MY ISSUE.

BUT WHEN YOU DON'T SAVE ANY MONEY ON LAND OR INFRASTRUCTURE, YOU LOSE FOUR LOTS, THAT'S A BIG HIT CONSIDERING THE PRICE OF LOTS THESE DAYS. SO IT REALLY AFFECTS US WHEN YOU'RE RIGHT THIS HAS BEEN TO P&Z, WE MET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS AROUND US. WE REDREW IT AND GOT NEW NUMBERS

[00:40:01]

ON COST AND THEN DECIDED AFTER TALKING TO A LOT OF THE NUMBERS TO COME BACK WITH WHAT WE ALREADY HAD BECAUSE WE HAD THE BEST PRODUCT AND A BETTER LOOK. YEAH, ONE ACRE DOESN'T LOOK QUITE AS PRETTY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU, GERALD. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK ONES.

FIRST OF ALL DOES THIS SITE PLAN REFLECT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF ALL OF THE LOTS THAT ARE WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN BEING OVER

ONE ACRE? >> YES, SIR.

>> IT DOES. OKAY.

AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION IS THE LOTS THAT ARE ALONG STOUT ROAD, YOU SAID WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THAT SPLIT RAIL FENCE

THERE? >> YES, SIR.

>> WILL THAT BE THE BACKYARD FENCE FOR THOSE LOTS OR WILL THERE BE LIKE A DOUBLE FENCE THERE?

>> THE WAY THAT'S LAID OUT, I THINK IT WILL END UP BEING THE SIDE YARDS BECAUSE THE HOUSES WILL FACE INTO THE STREETS.

SO NOTHING EXCEPT FOR THE ONE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE FACES STOUT. EVERYTHING ELSE FACES INTO THE SUBDIVISION. AND WE'RE ALSO PUTTING EVERYTHING TO BE SIDE REAR ENTRY.

THERE IS ONE OTHER THING, YOU MADE ME THINK OF IT.

WE RECOMMEND, THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO DO, NO TWO HOUSES IN THE SUBDIVISION WILL LOOK ALIKE.

THERE IS NO DUPLICATION ANYWHERE AS FAR AS FRONT ELEVATION.

INSIDE THE HOUSE, I DON'T CARE AS MUCH ABOUT AS I DO WHEN YOU

DRIVE BY IT. >> HOW MUCH VARIETY WILL YOU

HAVE? >> IN THE COLOR? IT WILL BE ALL OVER THE PLACE. RIGHT NOW THE WAY THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING IS I HAVE FIVE CUSTOM BUILDERS COMING IN HERE AND EACH ONE IS UNIQUE AND THEY'LL HAVE THEIR OWN TASTE AND VARIATION OF COLORS AND BRICK AND STONE THAT THEY'LL USE.

THIS IS NOT GOING OUT TO ONE BUILDER AND EVERYTHING DUPLICATES AS FAR AS COLORS AND STUFF. %-P? I HAD TO STOP AND THINK ABOUT THAT.

THERE'S A TRACK THERE THAT BELONGS TO SALLY AND SHE'S SITTING RIGHT BACK HERE. I DON'T KNOW.

THERE'S JUST A HOMESITE OF, WHAT IS IT 30 ACRES?

>> 32. >> 32 ACRES.

IT'S ON THE EAST SIDE. NOBODY'S BROUGHT IT UP, BUT I WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY WE DIDN'T -- MAINLY THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN SHOWS 120-FOOT THOROUGHFARE COMING DOWN THE WEST SIDE AND GOING ALL THE WAY THROUGH. AND SO AT THE EAST SIDE IF YOU LOOKED AT THE ELEVATION THERE, IT WOULD BE HARD TO IMAGINE MUCH MORE BEING ON SALLY'S TRACK THAN WHAT'S ALREADY THERE, MAYBE ANOTHER HOUSE OR TWO, BUT IT DROPS PRETTY HARD.

I'M ASSUMING PART OF HER PROPERTY IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

OF COURSE TO THE SOUTH WE HAVE MR. RAYFIELD.

BUT AGAIN WE HAVE A 120-FOOT THOROUGHFARE COMING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SIDE. SO IN BETWEEN THERE, PART OF THAT GOING OUT THE WEST SIDE AND CONNECTING TO IT, WE HAVE A PRIVATE ROAD I BELIEVE IT BELONGS TO MR. RAYFIELD, MR. BRANTLEY, BUT THERE'S ALSO A 50-FOOT GAS LINE EASEMENT.

SO IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO BRING A STUB OUT THERE TO CROSS ALL OF THAT ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE BRINGING 120-FOOT THOROUGHFARE DOWN THROUGH THAT EAST PROPERTY AT SOME POINT IN TIME. OR WEST PROPERTY LINE, EXCUSE ME. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I CAN DO WITH THAT ONE. THEY'RE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE PURPLE IS A SINGLE LOT. WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FAMILY OF THEM TAKING THAT LOT AND IT GOING AWAY, BUT THE RESPONSE WE GOT BEFORE WAS THAT WASN'T HAPPENING.

MY INTENTION IS TO TRY TO SELL HER BACK THAT LOT OR SOMETHING.

BUT IF NOT, YES, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A PRIVATE DRIVE ONTO STOUT RIGHT THERE. ANY OTHERS QUESTIONS?

[00:45:12]

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTIONS BECAUSE I ASSUMED THAT WOULD BE

THE ASPHALT DRIVE. >> THAT WOULD BE HER PRIVATE DRIVE ACTUALLY. AND THE ONLY OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS YOU KNOW, I KNOW THE CITY HAS A STANDARD OF ONE ACRE. WE ALSO HAVE ONE ACRE ZONING IN THE PD. BUT PD ONCE AGAIN WAS CREATED TO BE CREATIVE AND UNIQUE AND NOT HAVE EVERYTHING LOOK THE SAME.

AND NO ONE CAN STAND UP HERE AND SAY WELL YOU CAN'T SEWER A THREE QUARTER ACRE LOT OR ANYTHING LESS THAN AN ACRE.

IT'S VERY NICE HOMES. IF YOU DECIDE THAT IT NEEDS TO ALL BE ONE ACRE, SO BE IT. BUT ONCE AGAIN I'M TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING UNIQUE AND SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT LOOKS BETTER THAN JUST THE AVERAGE GUY GOING OUT HERE BUYING 50 OR 100 ACRES AND JUST START DRAWING STRAIGHT LINES AND HOW MANY ONE ACRES CAN I GET ON IT. THIS PROPERTY, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT IS VERY GREEN AND HAS SOME GREAT TOPO ON IT.

AND IT'S GOING TO MAKE A BEAUTIFUL SUBDIVISION.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. >> THANKS, GERALD.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MARCOS. >> SURE.

>> COULD YOU RUN BACK WHAT P&Z HAD SAID.

>> SURE. SO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, WHAT THEY DID IS THEY UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THIS REQUEST, BUT THEY APPROVED IT WITH ALL LOTS BEING ONE ACRE OR LARGER OUTSIDE OF A FLOODPLAIN. SO EVERY LOT NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST ONE ACRE AND THAT KIND OF BRINGS ME BACK OVER TO COUNCILMAN COFFMAN, YOUR QUESTION YOU HAD EARLIER, THE LOTS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY FLOODPLAIN, ALL OF THOSE ARE ONE ACRE PLUS. IT'S THE LOTS THAT ARE IN YELLOW THAT ARE DESIGNATED HERE IN YELLOW THAT ALL FALL UNDER ONE

YELLOW. >> SO THAT WAS THE STAFF'S

RECOMMENDATION? >> STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT EVERYTHING BE ONE ACRE PLUS.

THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION. >> OH.

>> AND P&Z AGREED WITH US. P&Z SAID YES, WE WANT TO SEE EVERYTHING BE ONE ACRE PLUS OUTSIDE OF A DESIGNATED FLOODPLAIN. THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING BELOW AN ACRE AND NEITHER DOES STAFF.

WE DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING BELOW AN ACRE.

>> AND MARCOS, COUNTY REGULATIONS FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS ARE WHAT? I KNOW THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAD IT AT ONE ACRE. WHAT IS THE COUNTY

RECOMMENDATIONS? >> IT IS.

IT'S ONE ACRE. IT'S BASICALLY ONE ACRE PLUS OUTSIDE OF A FLOODPLAIN. OUTSIDE OF A DESIGNATED FLOODPLAIN, THAT ONE ACRE NEEDS TO EXIST.

>> FOR THE 13 LOTS THAT ARE LISTED --

>> IF YOU LOOK ON YOUR ORDINANCE AND I BELIEVE IT'S UNDER G NUMBER 3 UNDER THE ON SITE SEWAGE FACILITY, THE APPLICANT IS BASICALLY STATING EVERYTHING THAT FALLS UNDER ONE ACRE MUST BE FULLY UNDERGROUND, NONAEROBIC TYPE SYSTEM AND SHALL NOT ALLOW FOR CERTAIN SPRAY OF WASTEWATER GENERATED FROM THE SYSTEM.

SO IF THIS GOES THROUGH AND COUNCIL APPROVES AND ALLOWS FOR THOSE LOTS TO BE UNDER AN ACRE, THOSE 13 LOTS, THEN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE 13 LOTS HAVE TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF SYSTEM.

THEY CAN'T HAVE THE SPRAY HEADS. >> AND WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE

TO STAFF? >> NOT TO STAFF, NO.

>> I MEAN IF YOU HAD LESS THAN AN ACRE LOT, WHAT WOULD STAFF

RECOMMEND OR REQUIRE? >> I THINK OUR RULES FALL BACK ON THE COUNTY'S RULES. THE COUNTY RULES SAY ONE ACRE OUTSIDE OF FLOODPLAIN. AND THAT ONE ACRE HAS TO BE 100% OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN. AND YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE AT LEAST 150-FOOT WIDE LOT. BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

TCEQ ALLOWS FOR 6/10 OF AN ACRE. >> IF THAT'S COUNCIL'S DESIRE TO BE UNDER AN ACRE, I WOULD SAY IT'S PREFERABLE --

[00:50:07]

>> COME BACK UP, GERALD. >> WE'RE STILL OPEN IN THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> SO MY UNDERSTANDING FROM STAFF IS THEY LOVE THE SUBDIVISION WHEN I BROUGHT IN THE DRAWING. THEY'RE REQUESTING ONE ACRE BASED ON MIDLOTHIAN HAS ONE ACRE AND YES THE COUNTY HAS ONE ACRE.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, WE JUST LOOKED IT UP, IT'S .6 ACRE IS THE STATE REQUIREMENT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR SEPTIC.

I'M GOING TO POINT OUT TO YOU THERE ARE HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF CITIES IN THE HOME RIGHT NOW THAT ARE ON HALF AND .6 SEPTICS. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SPRAYING, I WAS TRYING TO BUILD A DEVELOPMENT IN OVILLA, YOU KNOW WHAT THEIR PROBLEM IS LARGER ARE EVEN GOING ON SEWER, ONE ACRE AND UNDER BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE AEROBIC SPRAYING ON TOP OF THE GROUND AND THE RUNOFF GOING INTO THE CREEKS.

SO THERE'S AN ARGUMENT EITHER WAY YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT SIDE OF THE FENCE I GUESS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY THERE.

THERE'S GOOD THINGS ABOUT AEROBICS AND THERE'S BAD THINGS ABOUT AEROBICS. BUT STATE REQUIREMENT IS .6 AND I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. SIR?

>> IS THAT SEPTIC NOT NECESSARILY AEROBIC.

>> YEAH, JUST PLAIN SEPTIC IS .6.

OLD FASHIONED KIND. >> THE KIND LIKE I GOT?

>> YEAH. >> THANK YOU.

AND TO GET TO ONE ACRE, YOU HAVE TO REMOVE FOUR LOTS?

>> TO GET TO ONE ACRE, WE'LL REMOVE FOUR LOTS.

MARK HILL ASKED ME IS IT FEASIBLE TO STILL DO THE SUBDIVISION AND I SAID IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE NONE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES.

THAT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM, THAT'S MINE.

BUT I'M TELLING EVERYBODY THE TRUTH OF IT, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT. THAT'S $480,000 WORTH OF SALES THAT WE NOW HAVE TO EAT BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT COST DOES NOT CHANGE ANY. THE STREETS DON'T CHANGE, THE WATER DOESN'T CHANGE, NOTHING CHANGES.

SO IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO DO.

BUT THERE AGAIN, THAT'S MY PROBLEM.

>> THANK YOU. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I WILL TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. >> PLEASE VOTE.

PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. DISCUSSION, COUNCIL?

>> I'M NOT THE SHARPEST TOOL IN THE SHED SO FORGIVE ME, I JUST WANT TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS ALL LOTS ARE ONE ACRE OR OVER. AND PLANNING & ZONING'S RECOMMENDATIONS ALL LOTS ARE ONE ACRE AND OVER.

BUT WHAT'S GOT ME CONFUSED IS THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN THAT BROUGHT A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION UP.

I THINK JUST BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S WORDED.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REZONE REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL LOTS ADHERE TO THE SUBSECTION OF AND CONTAIN AN AREA NO LESS THAN ONE ACRE. IT LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT AS LONG AS THE LOTS OUTSIDE THE FLOODPLAIN WERE LESS THAN AN

ACRE THEN -- >> I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING,

RIGHT. >> SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL ONLY OF ALL LOTS THAT ARE OVER AN ACRE?

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> I DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS, BUT DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE -- I APPRECIATE STAFF AND I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE P&Z, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A STRUGGLE HERE AND IT IS I GUESS SOMEWHAT HYPOTHETICAL. I THINK THIS IS CLOSE TO WHAT WE'VE INDICATED WE WANT AND MY PROBLEM IS I'M CONCERNED WHAT WOULD COME IF THIS DOESN'T BECOME DEVELOPED.

I'M AFRAID IT WILL NOT BE THIS QUALITY AND THIS GOOD.

THAT MAY BE A LITTLE WAYS DOWN THE ROAD.

IF PERHAPS A DEVELOPER CAN FIND A WAY TO MOVE TWO LOTS AND GET IT CLOSER TO THE ONE ACRE AVERAGE, MY PROBLEM IS AGAIN I

[00:55:11]

THINK THIS WILL BE CLOSER TO WHAT WE WANT, BUT THAT IS AN OPINION AND IT'S PROBABLY A BIT PRESUMPTUOUS.

ANYMORE COMMENTS? SOMEBODY WANT TO VENTURE A

MOTION? >> I WILL.

I THINK IT'S SORT OF I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR AND IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO GET AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO WHAT WE'RE ASKING OF DEVELOPMENTS. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION

TO APPROVE THAT SITE PLAN. >> THE SITE PLAN, I'M SORRY?

>> AS PRESENTED. >> AS PRESENTED?

>> YES. >> MAY I HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION BEFORE WE VOTE. AND AGAIN ON THOSE LESS THAN ONE ACRES. GO AHEAD.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY THE DEVELOPER, SECONDED. SO PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 4-1. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[2021-468]

MOVE TO THE REGULAR AGENDA. ITEM 2021-468.

CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR TWO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, ONE SECTION 6.14 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR A LOT TO BE SUBDIVIDED WITHOUT HAVING STREET FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD. AND TWO, I'M NOT THROUGH.

AND TWO SECTION 4.5605 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM SPACING REQUIREMENTS OF 7.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 287

SERVICE ROAD AND METHODIST WAY. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT.

I APOLOGIZE. WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6.14, THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND 4.5605 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO SEPARATE VARIANCES TO THOSE REGULATIONS. THE FIRST VARIANCE BEING 6.14 SAYING THE LOT HAS TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON TO A PUBLIC STREET.

WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING WILL NOT BE FACING ONTO A PUBLIC STREET.

THEY'LL BE SUBDIVIDING THIS INTO FOUR FUTURE LOTS.

ONE OF THESE LOTS RIGHT HERE AS YOU SEE, THAT LITTLE WIDE AREA IS A SPIKE STRIP. THERE'S LAND THEY DON'T OWN THAT SEPARATES THEIR LOT FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY GIVING THEM NO PUBLIC ACCESS. THE OTHER SECTION THEY ARE REQUIRING A VARIANCE FROM IS A MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SPACING.

THAT IS REQUIRED WHEN A LOT IS -- ONCE AGAIN DUE TO THE LOT'S CONFIGURATION, ITS SHAPE, STAFF DOES FEEL THAT THE PROPOSED REQUESTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGULATIONS ARE TRYING TO PROMOTE AND TRYING TO HAVE DEVELOPMENTS CONCUR WITH.

THE PROPOSED REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE THEY HAVE RECEIVED PRIOR TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, THEY WERE ABLE TO RECEIVE IN AGREEMENT WITH METHODIST HOSPITAL THAT OWNS THAT SPIKE STRIP FOR AN ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WAS RECORDED FOR THIS PROPERTY. SO THEY WILL HAVE ACCESS.

DUE TO THIS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THAT VARIANCE FROM DIRECT ACCESS ONTO A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

ALSO THEY WOULD LIKE TO ALLOW FOR A DRIVEWAY ON THIS LOT.

[01:00:03]

HOWEVER THEY'VE TRIED TO SUBDIVIDE IT, IT WOULDN'T MEET THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DRIVEWAY.

WHAT WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THEM THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT WHEN IT IS DEVELOPED IS TO ALLOW FOR A SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT THROUGH MULTIPLE LOTS WHICH THEY WILL BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE. BUT ONCE AGAIN THIS ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY WILL NOT ALLOW THEM ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS YOU WOULDN'T SEE IN ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ADDING MORE DRIVE INGRESS, EGRESS POINTS THAN A NORMAL DEVELOPMENT.

THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO WHAT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ARE ALLOWED TO DO TODAY ANYWAY. WE WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> WHAT ABOUT THAT TRIANGLE DOWN AT THE BOTTOM?

>> WHAT WAS THAT, SIR? >> THAT TRIANGLE DOWN AT THE

BOTTOM. >> RIGHT HERE?

>> COME ON DOWN. >> THERE'S A LOT RIGHT HERE, RIGHT HERE, AND RIGHT HERE IS WHERE A PORTION OF THAT SPIKE STRIP CONSISTS OF. THEY'LL HAVE AN INGRESS/EGRESS

POINT HERE AND RIGHT IN HERE. >> OKAY.

THAT STRIP IN THERE, WHO DOES IT BELONG TO?

>> THIS IS METHODIST HOSPITAL. THEY OWN THAT.

>> OKAY. >> THIS IS WHERE THEY HAVE THAT SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT WITH METHODIST HOSPITAL.

>> I JUST WANT TO BE SURE -- >> THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS RIGHT HERE THEN. THAT'S MY FAULT.

>> IT'S SHIFTED ON THE MAP. IT'S SHIFTED OFF THE PAGE.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A DECEL LANE RIGHT HERE COMING IN.

>> THAT HASN'T BEEN -- >> SORRY IT'S NOT.

>> THAT'S A PRELIMINARY PLAN, THAT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY. THIS IS SIMPLY --

>> THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR ACCESS, THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO --

>> RIGHT. >> OKAY.

>> THAT HAS NOT GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS YET.

>> ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE 200 FEET THOUGH FROM WHERE THIS

COMES OUT -- >> THAT'S THE OTHER REQUEST THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS THE DISTANCE.

THAT'S SECTION 4.5605. >> IS STAFF OKAY WITH THAT.

>> IN THE CONDITIONS WE HAVE THE FINAL PLAN BEING APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED TO HAVE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, RETAIL, ANY USE SUCH AS A RESTAURANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME BEFORE YOU THROUGH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT PROCESS. ONCE AGAIN WE ARE ON THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. I THINK THEY'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING PEOPLE TO RENT THE PROPERTY.

WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE IT WORK.

THEY'RE TRYING TO USE THIS LAND TO BE ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE IT IN A WAY THAT THEY CAN GET IT LEASED OUT OR SOLD TO OTHER DEVELOPERS TO ACTUALLY BUILD ON THE LOT. BUT THIS IS A HARDSHIP THAT'S EXISTING RIGHT NOW LIMITING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LOT.

>> P&Z'S APPROVAL WAS AS PRESENTED OR THAT WAS STAFF

RECOMMENDATION? >> P&Z RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS

PRESENTED. >> BUT THEY'VE ALREADY KNOCKED OUT A COUPLE OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS?

>> YEAH, WE WANTED TO LEAVE THAT IN THERE JUST IN CASE.

>> THEY HAVE TO COME BACK FOR OTHER ACCESSES ALONG I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THIS ROAD. I'M SORRY.

THERE'S THE ROAD. NEVER MIND.

>> THIS WILL EVENTUALLY BE BUILT OUT.

BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT BUILT OUT.

>> I'M NOT SURE I HEARD TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

P&Z APPROVED -- >> AS PRESENTED.

>> AS WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS?

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> COUNCIL, ANYMORE QUESTIONS? I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES 6-0.

[2021-469]

THANK YOU. ITEM 2021-469.

CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION TO NOMINATE CANDIDATES TO THE 2022-2023 BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE ELLIS

APPRAISAL DISTRICT. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THIS IS KIND OF AN ANNUAL EVENT WHERE WE CAN PUT NOMINATIONS FORWARD FOR THE ELLIS COUNTY APPRAISAL BOARD.

[01:05:01]

WE ARE NOT CASTING OUR VOTES TONIGHT.

WE ARE ONLY LOOKING TO SUBMIT NAMES TO PUT ON THE BOARD.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE AGENDA ITEM THERE ARE FIVE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE SERVING. THEY ALL HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN CONTINUING TO SERVE. BUT AGAIN THOSE ARE JUST NUMBERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE BOARD. IF YOU'LL RECALL LAST YEAR I THINK WE PUT FORTH JAN DAVIS AND THEN AT A SECOND MEETING WE PUT THE VOTES FORWARD. KIND OF THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT WE DON'T POSSESS ENOUGH VOTES BY OURSELVES TO PUT AN INDIVIDUAL ON. SO WHOEVER THIS INDIVIDUAL, WHEN WE CAST ALL OF OUR VOTES FOR ONE INDIVIDUAL, THEY'LL NEED TO GO TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS TO GET ADDITIONAL VOTES IN ORDER TO GET THEM PUT ON. I THINK THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE OF TAXING JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF VOTES TO GET SOMEBODY ON, A COUPLE OF THE ISDS.

BUT REALLY TONIGHT ALL WE'RE DOING IS LOOKING FOR NAMES TO NOMINATE TO PUT ON THIS BOARD. AND AT THE NEXT MEETING, THE NOVEMBER MEETING, WE'LL COME BACK AND CAST OUR VOTES.

>> WHO HAD IT LAST TIME? THERE'S A COUPLE OF NAMES I KNOW ON HERE. I DON'T KNOW WHO TOOK THIS SPOT

WE WERE TRYING TO PUT JAN IN? >> I'M NOT SURE WHO FILLED THE VACANCY. FOR YEARS WE WERE PUTTING PHIL AND HE RESIGNED FROM THE BOARD. I AM NOT SURE EXACTLY WHICH ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS TOOK PHIL'S PLACE WHEN HE LEFT.

>> YOU NEED US TO NOMINATE SOMEONE?

>> YOU CAN NOMINATE ONE OR YOU CAN NOMINATE MULTIPLE.

HOWEVER THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DO IT.

>> BUT YOU CAN'T USE THE NAMES ALREADY ON HERE --

>> NO, THEY ARE SEEKING RE-ELECTION.

SO YOU CAN USE THE NAMES ALREADY ON HERE.

THEY'RE ALL SEEKING AND WOULD LIKE TO SERVE AGAIN.

SO IF YOU WANT TO RENOMINATE THEM TO PUT THEM ON THE BALLOT.

THEY'RE ALL AT LARGE AND WE'LL COME BACK AND CAST VOTES.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST NOMINATE SOMEBODY, I'LL LET Y'ALL GO INTO THE WEEDS ON THE DETAILS ABOUT IT LATER.

BUT BRETT KEMP, HE'S FROM MIDLOTHIAN.

HE'S A CPA. HE'S BEEN ON P&Z AND OTHER BOARDS HERE IN THE CITY BEFORE. I THINK HE WOULD BE A GOOD REPRESENTATION FOR THE CITY. AND I'VE SPOKEN TO HIM AND IF WE DECIDE SOMEONE ELSE WOULD BE BETTER SUITED, HE'S OKAY WITH

THAT AS WELL. >> WE CAN NOMINATE MORE THAN ONE

PERSON. >> WE PROBABLY SHOULD.

THAT WOULD BE WISE. >> SO WE HAVE ONE NOMINEE THERE

AND BRETT KEMP. >> IF YOU SEE A NAME ON HERE, I WOULD GO AHEAD AND PUT THEM, MAKE SURE THEY GET NOMINATED.

>> I'D LIKE TO SEE JOHN NIGHT. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION REAL QUICK, IS THERE A TIMELINE THAT THE OTHER TAXING ENTITIES HAVE

IN ORDER TO GET THESE TURNED IN? >> YES.

>> STRATEGY WOULD SAY LET'S WAIT AND SEE WHAT THEY DO.

>> WE HAVE TO SUBMIT IT BEFORE OCTOBER 15TH, THE NOMINATIONS.

SO REALLY TONIGHT. >> THE ACTUAL VOTES, LIKE WHEN DO THOSE PEOPLE GET APPOINTED, HOW MANY VOTES GO TO EACH PERSON WOULD BE COOL TO KNOW THEN WE COULD HAVE OUR CHOICE OF --

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NEXT STEP WHERE WE ACTUALLY ASSIGN

THE VOTES. >> WELL JOHN CAN POLL OVILLA AND

RED OAK. >> BUT YOUR QUESTION DEALS WITH

WHEN WE CAST THE VOTE. >> OUR VOTE, THEIR VOTE.

>> WE'RE JUST NOMINATING TONIGHT.

>> TRUE, YEAH. I'M THINKING DOWN THE ROAD.

>> YEAH. >> HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION JOHN OR ONE OF THESE OTHER FINE PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE VOTES FROM OTHER ENTITIES, THEY DON'T NEED OUR VOTE THEN WE CAN PUT OUR

VOTE -- >> BEHIND SOMEBODY WHO MAY NEED

A FEW. >> HOW MANY VOTES DOES IT TAKE

TO GET NOMINATED? >> THAT I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. I CAN GET IT TO YOU.

WE'RE PROBABLY ABOUT HALFWAY. FOR SOME REASON I THINK THAT SOME OF THE DISTRICTS HAVE, I THINK IT WAS ON HERE SOMEWHERE.

LIKE MIDLOTHIAN ISD HAS 995 VOTES.

AND THEY HAVE ENOUGH I THINK TO PUT SOMEBODY ON.

WAXAHACHIE ISD HAS 879. THEY HAVE CLOSE TO ENOUGH.

>> WE ONLY HAVE 397 SOMETHING. >> TO GO WITH WHAT TED SAID, I'M ON BOARD WITH NOMINATING THE FIVE ALREADY ON THIS LIST PLUS

BRETT KEMP. >> I CAN DO THAT TOO.

[01:10:04]

>> WE CAN NOMINATE AS MANY AS WE WANT, RIGHT?

>> THERE'S NO LIMIT I'M AWARE OF ON NOMINATING.

IT IS BY RESOLUTION, THERE'S A RESOLUTION IN THE BACK AND WE WILL FILL OUT THOSE NAMES AND SUBMIT THOSE.

>> JUSTIN, YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE NOMINATE WALTER IRWIN, JOHN KNIGHT, KEN MARKS, AS WELL AS BRETT KEMP TO BE PUT FORWARD

FOR A FUTURE -- >> I APOLOGIZE, LET ME CORRECT THAT. THE WAY THE RESOLUTION IS WORDED, ONE CANDIDATE FOR EACH OF THE FIVE POSITIONS, SO I THINK YOU NEED TO LIMIT YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO FIVE NOMINATIONS. SO IF YOU WANT TO ADD BRETT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE ONE OF THE OTHER ONES OFF.

>> MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT WE KEEP KEN MARKS AND JOHN

KNIGHT. >> I AGREE.

>> THOSE ARE TWO GOOD GUYS. I DON'T KNOW ANYONE ELSE ON THAT

LIST. >> THEY'RE BOTH 2021, KEN MARKS HAS BEEN ON THERE FOREVER. JOHN HAS BEEN ON THERE FOR TWO YEARS. EVERYBODY ELSE HAS BEEN ON THERE FOR ONE YEAR. IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY.

>> WE COULD NOMINATE JUST THOSE THREE.

>> JUST THE THREE IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THOSE THREE ARE ON THERE, I WOULD MAKE SURE THOSE THREE ARE ON THERE.

UNLESS SOMEBODY KNOWS THE OTHER MEMBERS AND WANTS TO PUT THEM

FORWARD? >> I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE NOMINATE JOHN KNIGHT, KEN MARKS, AND BRETT KEMP.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECONDED TO NOMINATE THREE PEOPLE KEN MARKS, JOHN KNIGHT AND BRETT KEMP AND SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

THE MOTION PASSES 6-0. ITEM 2021-470, CONSIDER AND ACT

[2021-470]

UPON A ONE YEAR CONTRACT WITH ELLIS COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT NUMBER TWO TO PROVIDE FIRE AND EMS RESPONSE FOR THEM.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

IT'S THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN. BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE 21-22 CONTRACT PROPOSAL FROM THE ESD TO PROVIDE SERVICES OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN IN ESD NO. TWO.

LAST YEAR'S CONTRACT WAS I BELIEVE $700,000.

THIS YEAR IT'S $752,000. THEY'VE SEEN SOME INCREASES IN SOME OF THEIR APPRAISALS, THEREFORE THE CONTRACT PRICE IS GOING UP. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY HAVE AGREED TO GO, THEY NEEDED SOME DEBT CAPACITY EXPANSION SO THEY'VE AGREED TO GO INTO DEBT FOR $180,000 TO PURCHASE TWO VEHICLES FOR US. AND EQUIPMENT, THAT EQUIPMENT WOULD BE THERMAL CAMERAS THAT OUR FIREFIGHTERS WOULD USE TO REPLACE THE ONES THAT WE HAVE NOW THAT ARE OUTDATED.

BEYOND THAT, PRETTY STANDARD, IT'S FOR ONE YEAR.

I ASK FOR YOU TO CONSIDER PROVING IT.

AND I WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT

IT AT THIS POINT. >> NOT TO DIVE TOO DEEP INTO THE WEEDS HERE, BUT AS MIDLOTHIAN, THE CITY HAS GROWN, ARE YOU SEEING THE PERCENTAGE OF CALL VOLUME THAT IS IN THE SD, THE OVERALL PERCENTAGE SHRINK BECAUSE MIDLOTHIAN IS GETTING LARGER OR IS IT PRETTY MUCH STAYING?

>> WE DID SEE THE PERCENTAGE DROP IN THE ANNEXATION WHERE WE TOOK IN A LOT OF THAT PROPERTY IN 2017.

SINCE THEN IT'S KIND OF BEEN STAGNANT OR STATIONARY.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE AVERAGING ABOUT 13% OF OUR RUNS HAPPEN IN THE ESD. WE WERE UP AT ONE POINT TO 16% OR 17%. SO IT DROPPED BACK 4% TO 5% WHEN WE TOOK ON THAT ANNEXATION IN 2017.

>> GREAT, THANK YOU. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE, IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 6-0. CHIEF, THANK YOU.

[2021-471]

[01:15:08]

ITEM 2021-471. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PAVEMENT RESURFACING SERVICES ON VARIOUS ROADS AS DESIGNATED IN THE ATTACHED QUOTE AND MAPS AND

AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $300,000. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, GOOD EVENING. BEFORE YOU IS A PROJECT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CONTINUE AROUND TOWN.

IT'S A MAINTENANCE PROJECT. IT WOULD EXTEND THE LIFETIME OF THESE ROADS. THESE ROADS AREN'T GOING TO BE COMPLETELY REHABBED. IT'S A SMALL SERVICE TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF THEM AND GIVE THEM MORE WEARABLE SERVICE OUT THERE.

WE HAVE HAD GOOD LUCK IN THE LAST FEW YEARS WITH THIS PRODUCT. THERE'S A LIST IF YOU WANT TO GO OVER GENERALLY WHERE THEY'RE AT I'D BE GLAD TO DO IT.

WE'RE LOOKING AT 7TH STREET, WEST AVENUE F, ALLEN LANE, KING'S COURT. THERE'S A PORTION OF ABANDONED 663 ON THERE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT REDONE BY KING ARTHUR'S COURT, APPLE LANE, APPLE COURT, AND THE LAST ONE IS CLEAR CREEK.

IT EXTENDS THE LIFE OF THE ROADS AND THERE'S LESS MAINTENANCE ON OUR END WHERE WE JUST RESURFACED A WHOLE ROAD.

IT WORKS VERY WELL. I WILL SAY WITH THIS LAST RAIN IT DID WORK WELL. WE HAVE REPAIR THE BASE AND WORK WITH THAT. OTHER THAN THAT IT'S A REALLY GOOD PRODUCT. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> THERE'S SOME ROADS WE RECENTLY DID WITH THIS COMPANY, DIDN'T WE JUST DO LAKE GROVE?

>> WE DID SOME OF THAT AND OLD TOWN.

>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOVE TO APPROVE AND SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 7-0.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[2021-472]

>> I'M HERE FOR A FEW MORE. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, GOOD EVENING, THIS IS A BUDGETED ITEM WE WENT THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS WITH.

WE'RE LOOKING TO PURCHASE A BACKHOE WITH THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. WITH THE TRADE IN VALUE OF A 2000 BACKHOE. WE'RE LOOKING AT A 21-YEAR-OLD BACKHOE TRADING IN. LOOKING AT THE VALUE OF $18,000 FOR IT. WHICH IS ACTUALLY A GOOD PRICE.

WE ARE UTILIZING A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT FOR THIS.

IF IT WAS NOT A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT, IT WOULD BE $155,000.

WITH THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WE'RE PAYING ABOUT $95,000 SO IT'S QUITE A SAVINGS BY USING THAT ACCOUNT.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THIS IS THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT AS WELL.

UTILITY FUND. >> DO I HAVE A MOTION?

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE AND SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 7-0. ITEM 2021-473.

[2021-473]

CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE PURCHASE OF A 2022CATERPILLAR 305 COMPACT MINI EXCAVATOR THROUGH HOLT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO

EXCEED $44,326.62. >> BEFORE WE ASKED FOR A BACKHOE AND THAT WAS JUST RECENTLY APPROVED.

THIS WAS A TRACK MACHINE TO GET US IN THESE AREAS WE CAN'T GET IN. THIS IS AN EXCAVATOR ON TRACKS.

WE ARE GOING TO TRADE IN AN EXISTING ONE.

WE HAD A 2008 MODEL I THINK. I APOLOGIZE, YES.

AND WE'RE GOING TO GET TRADE IN VALUE ABOUT $17,500 FOR IT.

AGAIN WE'RE UTILIZING A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT, THE LIST PRICE ABOUT $81,000 GIVE OR TAKE.

WITH A TRADE IN VALUE AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WE'RE PAYING ABOUT $45,000. SO ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WITH A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT. AGAIN THIS UTILITY FUND IS A

[01:20:03]

BUDGETED ITEM. THANK YOU.

>> MOTION PLEASE? >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 7-0. >> COME OUT ANY TIME YOU WANT.

[2021-474]

>> I'LL BE OUT THERE NEXT TUESDAY.

>> OKAY. >> ITEM 2021-474.

CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A LEASE PURCHASE OF A 2022 TYMCO MODEL 600 REGENERATIVE AIR SWEEPER FROM WACO IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $287,910 PLUS INTEREST OF $12,033.48 FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO

EXCEED $299,943.48. >> OKAY, THIS IS A REQUEST ON THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE STREET DEPARTMENT.

COUNCIL'S DECISION DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS WAS TO LOOK AT THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO CLEAN UP STREETS AROUND TOWN AND CLEAN UP OUR GUTTERS AND OUR LARGE PARKING LOTS.

WE MOVED FORWARD WITH THIS PROPOSAL, WE FOUND A PRODUCT OUT OF WACO. IT'S A GREAT PRODUCT, IT'S A FAMILY OWNED PRODUCT AND THEY STAND BY THEIR PRODUCT.

WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS WE'RE ORDERING IT.

IT HAS NOT BEEN MADE YET. SO THESE PRODUCTS I'M TELLING YOU ABOUT, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME LEAD TIME.

SO DON'T HOLD ME TO THIS, BUT WE'RE LOOKING ABOUT THREE MONTHS OF MANUFACTURING TIME. HOPEFULLY WE GET A LITTLE BIT SOONER AS YOU CAN TELL. THE WAY THE MARKET IS, IT TAKES A BIT LONGER. BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR BEST TO GET IT HERE QUICKLY. THIS IS GOING TO BE A NEW PROGRAM FOR OUR DEPARTMENT. SO WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO LOOK AT HOW WE IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM, WHERE WE SWEEP, WHAT AREAS WE SWEEP. AS WE GO ALONG I FEEL THAT THE MACHINE AND THE PROGRAM, OUR CAPACITY WILL REDUCE.

I THINK IF YOU CAN KEEP IT CLEAN IT'S GOING TO GET LESS AS WE GO.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN KEEP THE TOWN REASONABLY CLEAN BARRING COLD WEATHER AND SAND ON THE ROAD AND STUFF LIKE THAT AND STORMWATER PROGRAMS IN THESE SUBDIVISIONS AND EXISTING AREAS.

SO THAT'S OUR GOAL IS TO CLEAN UP THIS DIRT AND DEBRIS OFF THESE ROADS AND KEEP THEM FROM OUR CREEKS AND STORM DRAINS.

SO THIS IS A FOUR YEAR PAYMENT PROGRAM.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> WHY THE INTEREST? >> IT'S FOUR YEAR PAYMENTS.

>> INTEREST FOR THOSE FOUR YEARS?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I'M WITH YOU NOW.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M SAYING THE RIGHT THING.

>> SO WHAT HAPPENS AFTER FOUR YEARS?

>> WE OWN IT. >> OUT RIGHT?

>> WE OUT RIGHT OWN IT, YES. RATHER THAN DOING A ONE TIME PAYMENT ON EVERYTHING, THERE ARE BETTER INTEREST RATES RIGHT NOW ON THE FOUR YEAR PROGRAM. IT'S EASIER TO BUDGET THAT WAY

ON THE GENERAL FUND SIDE. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 6-0.

[2021-475]

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ITEM 2021-475, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A PRICE QUOTE FROM FILMTEC CORPORATION A DUPONT WATER SOLUTIONS COMPANY FOR SUPPLYING REPLACEMENT MEMBRANE MODULES AT THE AUGER WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $138,440 AS WELL AS THE LABOR COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,520 FOR A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF

$145,960. >> LAST DECEMBER STAFF CAME BEFORE COUNCIL AND COUNCIL AUTHORIZED THE REPLACEMENT OF TWO RACKS OF MEMBRANES AT THE AUGER WATER TREATMENT PLANT.

WE NOW HAVE SIX NOW WITH THE EXPANSION WE'RE ABLE TO TREAT UP TO 12 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. WE HAD THE TWO NEW RACKS THAT WENT INTO OPERATION IN 2020. AND IN 2021 WE'RE GOING TO REPLACE THE MEMBRANES WITHIN RACKS NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO.

SO WE HAVE FOUR BASICALLY BRAND NEW RACKS.

SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING IS COMING IN WITH 3 OR 4 THIS YEAR AND REPLACING THE MEMBRANES WITHIN 120 MODULES WITHIN THESE RACKS AND COMING BACK NEXT YEAR DOING THE FINAL ONES.

WE NEED TO STAGGER SO WHEN WE REPLACE THEM AGAIN WE CAN DO THEM OVER SEVERAL YEARS AND PLAN FOR IT.

THE TOTAL COST OF THE 138 THOUSAND THOUSAND $440 IS FOR THE MANUFACTURING, THE SHIPPING, AND THE FREIGHT TO GET IT TO

[01:25:03]

MIDLOTHIAN. AND THEN WHAT STAFF IS REQUESTING IS THE $7,520 WOULD BE FOR LABOR ASSISTANCE FROM DUPONT IF WE NEED IT. WE'RE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO INSTALL THE REPLACEMENT MEMBRANES THEMSELVES AND STAFF CAN DO IT. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME.

I KNOW COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN TEST DRIVING SOME OF THE NEW EQUIPMENT. WE WOULD BE HAPPY IN TAKING COUNCIL TO INSTALL MEMBRANES AS WELL.

IF WE DON'T NEED THAT MONEY, WE WON'T EXPEND IT.

BUT WE WANT TO GET IT APPROVED FROM COUNCIL SO IF WE NEED IT, IT IS THERE. WITH THAT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER

ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> DO I HAVE A MOTION?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

[2021-476]

ITEM PASSES 6-0. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

>> ITEM 2021-476. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH HOEFER WELKER FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE

PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY PROJECT. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL, MAYOR.

THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE LAST PRESENTATION THE LAST TIME. YOU CAN TAKE CITY HALL LIBRARY AND INTERCHANGE IT WITH PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING.

TEXAS STATE LAW REQUIRES US TO SELECT ON QUALIFICATIONS THEN GO IN TO NEGOTIATE PRICE. THE LITTLE TWIST HERE IS WE SELECTED ON QUALIFICATIONS IT WAS BRW, THEN WE WENT IN TO NEGOTIATE PRICE, WE COULD NOT COME TO A PRICE THAT WAS AGREEABLE SO WE WENT TO NUMBER TWO.

NUMBER TWO IN THE SELECTION WAS HOEFER WELKER WHICH IS THE SAME ONES THAT WE RECOMMENDED FOR CITY HALL LIBRARY.

SO WE BEGAN NEGOTIATING WITH THEM AND WE WERE ABLE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON PRICE. THIS IS A SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING. CHRIS, MYSELF, CARL, MIKE ADAMS, SHERYL AND OUR TWO CONSULTANTS AND THEN SCOTT BROWN AND NICK HARPER DID HELP US IN THE SELECTION.

ON THIS WE HAD 15 ARCHITECTURE FIRMS RESPOND.

FIVE WERE SHORT LISTED. WE WENT WITH HOEFER WELKER IN THE END. THE ESTIMATED IS $3,022,700.

THEY PROVIDE FOR A PROGRAMMING CONCEPT DESIGN, SOME BENCHMARKING TOURS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, SECURITY, ACOUSTICS, SPECS, AND INTERIOR DESIGN. WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS ITEM. >> WHAT CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE ACOUSTICS AND SECURITY AT THIS POINT?

>> VERY LITTLE. REALLY WE HAVEN'T DESIGNED THE BUILDING SO THERE'S REALLY NOTHING.

I MEAN THIS FIRM HAS DESIGNED QUITE A FEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDINGS IN NORTH TEXAS AS WELL AS IN KANSAS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO THEY DO HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THAT AND THEY WILL BE BRINGING ON SOME EXPERTS THAT THEY HAD AS CONSULTANTS TO HELP THEM WITH THAT. I APOLOGIZE DON'T MEAN TO BE

SMART BUT -- >> GO BACK TO YOUR COMMITTEE.

WHICH OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE ON BOTH COMMITTEES?

>> EVERYBODY EXCEPT SCOTT BROWN AND NICK HART I BELIEVE.

>> EVERYBODY ELSE. AND WHO WAS IN THEIR PLACE, DO

YOU REMEMBER? >> NOBODY.

ON THE CITY HALL LIBRARY, NOBODY.

>> ALL RIGHT. GENTLEMEN?

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WENT TO AN EXERCISE THIS WEEK WITH JOINT SCHOOL AND STAFF, CITY, ABOUT ACTIVE SHOOTER. AND I WAS VERY IMPRESSED.

THE PROFESSIONALISM, THE KNOWLEDGE, THE WORK OF THOSE GROUPS AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WITH BOTH OUR RESPONDERS, FIRE AND POLICE, THEY ARE VERY IMPRESSIVE.

AND I FEEL WE ARE AS PREPARED AS YOU CAN BE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY SHOWED US AN FBI FILM ABOUT 30 MINUTES AND THAT GOT YOUR ATTENTION.

IT WAS A REENACTMENT OF I THINK A REAL INCIDENT.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

SO ANYWAY, I THANK OUR STAFF. AT THIS POINT WE'RE GOING TO CONVENE INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSIDER ITEMS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT CODE. SECTION 551 LEGAL CONSULTATION, SECTION 72 REAL ESTATE WHICH WILL BE WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND MCALPIN, SECTION 74 PERSONAL MATTERS TO DELIBERATE THE EVACUATION AND DUTIES OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, THE CITY MANAGER. AND THEN SECTION 87, 4A WILL

[01:30:07]

PRESENT DELIBERATION FOR A BUSINESS PROJECT AND TWO DELIBERATE ON THE OFFER OR FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO

>>> I MAKE A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY MANAGER TO EXTEND THE CURRENT TERM FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR ADDITIONAL YEARS AND PROVIDE FOR SEVERANCE PAY.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONTRACT WITH CITY MANAGER SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

THE ITEM PASSES 5-1. THERE'S NO ACTION ON MCALPIN ROAD THE REMAINING ROADS AND THE DEVELOPMENT.

OKAY. WITH THAT DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO

ADJOURN? >> SO MOVED.

>> ALL IN FAVOR AYE. >>

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.