Nov 09, 2021 City Council

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

[00:00:09]

>>> GOOD AFTERNOON, IT IS 4:00 P.M., NOVEMBER 9, 2021.

I CALL THIS SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER.

CLINT ROSE FROM CREEKSIDE WILL LEAD US IN OUR INVOCATION.

PLEASE COME UP HERE AND PUSH THE BUTTON, TURN ON YOUR RED LIGHT AND THEN COUNCILMAN MILLER WILL LEAD THE PLEDGES.

>> LET'S PRAY TOGETHER. GOD, WE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY JUST TO COME TOGETHER.

WE THANK YOU FOR THIS CITY COUNCIL, FOR THE MAYOR AND ALL OF THEIR OFFICES AND JUST PRAY THAT YOU WOULD BLESS THEM.

PRAY THAT YOU WOULD BLESS THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES AND WE JUST THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP.

I PRAY THAT YOU WOULD GIVE THEM WISDOM.

THAT YOU WOULD ALSO JUST HELP THEM TO NOT EVER BE OVERWHELMED WITH LEADERSHIP BUT TO LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU ARE CARRYING THEM.

WE PRAY THAT THIS MEETING TONIGHT THAT EVERYTHING SAID AND DONE WILL GLORIFY YOU. AND WE DO PRAY FOR OUR CITY.

WE WANT THIS TO BE A PLACE THAT GLORIFIES YOU AND A PLACE WHERE WE CAN LIVE TOGETHER WITH A SENSE OF UNITY, A SENSE OF LOVE FOR EACH OTHER, AND WE PRAY THAT YOU WOULD BE GLORIFIED IN ALL OF THAT. WE LOVE YOU SO MUCH AND PRAY THESE THINGS IN CHRIST'S NAME, AMEN.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO 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.

>> BEFORE WE START THIS COUNCIL SESSION, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF THE VETERANS WHO HAVE HAD SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

I AM PROUD TO SAY THAT MIDLOTHIAN WILL BE HOSTING OUR 12TH ANNUAL VETERANS TRIBUTE DINNER THIS THURSDAY FROM 6:30 TO 9:00. THIS DINNER IS SPONSORED BY THE MIDLOTHIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATE BOARD MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR VETERANS TO EAT FOR FREE.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO, YOU CAN STILL SIGN UP ON THE CITY WEBSITE.

SO THANK ALL OF THE VETERANS FOR THEIR SERVICE.

AND THERE ARE SEVERAL ACTIVITIES ON VETERANS DAY AT THE VARIOUS

[2021-500]

ITEM 2021-500, CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.

THE CITY COUNCIL INVITES CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ANY TOPIC NOT ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK WILL COMPLETE A FORM WITH THE CITY SECRETARY. I BELIEVE AT THIS TIME WE DO NOT

[CONSENT AGENDA]

THE CONSENT AGENDA, ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION WITHOUT SEPARATE DISCUSSION.

IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.

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

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[2021-510]

>> THANK YOU. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.04 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IN ORDER FOR A PROPERTY TO HAVE A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT, IT USED TO REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. ABOUT A YEAR AGO THAT WAS CHANGED TO ALLOW THAT BY RIGHT IF THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT MET ALL OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3.5700, SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS.

THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY LOCATED ON 1038 LAKEGROVE LOOP, THEY STARTED GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A SECONDARY DWELLING.

[00:05:05]

THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE RETROFIT IN ORDER TO GET BOTH STRUCTURES ON THE SAME ELECTRIC METER. NO ACCORDANCE WITH 3.5700, ONLY ONE ELECTRIC METER MAY BE USED FOR SECONDARY AND PRIMARY DWELLINGS. THE OWNER HAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY A COPY THAT STATES A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT CANNOT BE A COMMERCIAL RENTAL PROPERTY. SO THEY HAVE RECORDED THAT WITH THE COUNTY ALREADY. STAFF DID A MAIL OUT TO MOST OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.

ONE CAME BACK IN FAVOR, ONE CAME BACK IN OPPOSITION.

WE RECEIVED TWO ADDITIONAL NOTICES OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FEET NOTIFICATION AREA AND BOTH OF THOSE WERE IN FAVOR.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

AT THIS TIME. >> WE DO HAVE FIVE SPEAKERS.

WE'LL START WITH THE SPEAKERS. RONNY LIGHT, I'LL LET YOU GO FIRST UNLESS YOU WISH TO WAIT UNTIL THE END.

BILLY ELDER, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OR WHO YOU'RE WITH,

PLEASE. >> YES, SIR.

I'M AN ATTORNEY AT A LAW PRACTICE AND RONNY IS MY SISTER.

>> OKAY. >> SHE'S ASKED ME TO COME AND SPEAK ON HER BEHALF AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.

WHAT REALLY IS SET BEFORE YOU TODAY IS SIMPLE.

IT'S A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RONNY TO GET A SECOND ELECTRIC METER AT HER HOUSE RATHER THAN REQUIRING HER TO GO THROUGH HER PRIMARY METER. IN ORDER TO GO THROUGH HER PRIMARY METER, IT'S GOING TO COST HER AN ADDITIONAL $20,000 TO $50,000 INCREASED COST JUST TO GET ELECTRICITY TO THE OUTBUILDINGS. NOW WHEN CONSTRUCTION BEGAN, MS. LIGHT HAD EVERY INTENTION OF GOING THROUGH HER SINGLE METER AT HER HOUSE. IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE ELECTRICIAN TOLD HER OF THIS EXORBITANT ADDITIONAL COST IN WHICH IT WOULD MAKE IT MUCH SIMPLER IF THEY JUST RAN A SEPARATE METER TO THE SECONDARY DWELLING AND BY DOING THAT IT COULD SAVE HER SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $20,000 AND $50,000.

AND YOUR CITY ORDINANCE PROVIDES A VARIANCE IN CASE OF HARDSHIP.

I WOULD SAY $20,000 TO $50,000 IS A HARDSHIP ON HER.

YOUR CITY STAFF CONTINUES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THIS VARIANCE AND AT THE P&Z HEARING THERE WERE SOME THINGS SAID THAT WERE SIMPLY NOT TRUE. ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS MADE A COMMENT THAT HE SUSPECTS THINGS HAVE NOT BEEN DONE BY THE BOOK.

I ASSURE YOU EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DONE BY THE BOOK AND I THINK YOUR CITY STAFF WILL VERIFY THAT FACT.

ALL PERMITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED IN A TIMELY MATTER, AND NO CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED PRIOR TO THE OBTAINING OF THOSE PERMITS. THERE'S ONLY ONE DISGRUNTLED NEIGHBOR WHO DOESN'T WANT THE NEW STRUCTURES AND HAS VOWED TO DO EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN INCLUDING FIGHTING THIS VARIANCE TO STOP IT. WELL THEY'VE ALREADY FALSELY CREATED FEAR THAT MS. LIGHT IS GOING TO RENT OUT THIS PROPERTY.

TO BEGIN WITH, I DON'T CARE IF THERE'S ONE METER OR 50 METERS ON THAT PROPERTY, SHE CANNOT RENT THAT PROPERTY OUT.

THERE ARE DEED RESTRICTIONS, THERE ARE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT IT AND SHE'S EVEN GONE ONE STEP FURTHER AND ADDED AN ADDITIONAL DECLARATION JUST TO ENSURE THAT NO FUTURE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD EVER DO WHAT SHE'S BEING ACCUSED OF DOING.

THE AFFIDAVIT DECLARES THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS HEREBY RESTRICTED AND THAT THE SECONDARY DWELLING LOCATED ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY CANNOT BE INHABITED BY ANYONE THAT IS NOT RELATED BY BLOOD OR MARRIAGE TO THE PRIMARY HOMEOWNER. HER INTENTION HAS BEEN THAT HER DAUGHTER RESIDE IN THIS PROPERTY.

SHE'S GETTING UP IN YEARS AND SHE'D LIKE FOR HER DAUGHTER TO LIVE THERE ON THE PROPERTY WITH HER.

IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE A SINGLE

[00:10:05]

WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOING TO BE A HARDSHIP ON HER AND I ASSURE YOU ADDING $20,000 TO $50,000 IN ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS IS A HARDSHIP.

NOW I'VE GOT THE ELECTRICIAN HERE, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE HIM, MR. TIM HAGAN WHO'S ALSO SIGNED A SHEET, MR. MAYOR, TO SPEAK, THAT CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY SHE CAN'T GO THROUGH HER SINGLE

METER. >> I DON'T HAVE A SHEET FOR YOU YET, IF YOU WILL BE SURE I GET ONE.

>> THERE WAS ONE PRESENTED. >> YOUR NAME AND WHO YOU'RE

WITH. >> BEFORE YOU LEAVE JUST MAKE

SURE I GET ONE. >> OKAY.

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS PROPERTY IS OF COURSE THIS PROPERTY WAS BUILT A LONG TIME AGO. THE SERVICE HAPPENS TO BE ON THE FRONT PORCH. SO TO BRING POWER THROUGH THIS HOUSE FROM THE FRONT PORCH, YOU'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE HOUSE AND YOU'RE BRINGING BIG WIRES, SO YOU HAVE TO CUT WALLS TO GET SERVICE FROM THE FRONT OF THIS HOUSE TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. NOT ONLY THAT, WHERE THE PROPERTY LAYS, SHE'S GOING TO HAVE TO CUT HER DRIVEWAY OUT AND I COULD SHOW IF IT WAS THERE, BUT CUT HER DRIVEWAY OUT TO GET TO THIS PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE WHERE HER FRONT PORCH IS, WHERE THE FRONT DRIVEWAY COMES IN.

IT'S GOT TO COME BACK TO THE BACK GARAGE THAT'S HERE IN THE BOTTOM CORNER, GO THROUGH THAT DRIVEWAY AND ACROSS TO THE BACK CORNER OF THE NEW POOL HOUSE. WHEN THE POWER COMPANY CAN COME OFF A POLL AND RUN RIGHT BACK BESIDE HER DRIVEWAY AND SET A METER ON THE BACK CORNER OF THAT.

THAT IS THE EASIEST PROCESS, NOT ONLY THAT, THE SERVICE THAT SHE HAS IN THAT HOUSE, THE BIGGEST SERVICE THAT YOU COULD TAKE TO ANOTHER BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IS 100 AMP.

AND TO COVER THAT, 100 AMP WON'T COVER THAT BUILDING, THE RANGE ALONE IS 50 AMP THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THERE.

SO THAT'S WHY THE EXTREME COST AND YOU CAN'T UPGRADE HER SERVICE ON THE FRONT PORCH BECAUSE WHERE IT SETS, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO BUILD A BIGGER SERVICE.

SO REALLY TO UPGRADE IT TO TRY TO GET A 200 AMP SERVICE OFF TURNING THE 200 AMP SERVICES ITS ON NOW TO A 400 AMP SERVICE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO MOVE THAT SERVICE TO THE GARAGE WHICH MEANS MOVING ALL OF THE ELECTRICAL FROM THAT EXISTING PANEL TO THE GARAGE AND THEN GOING FROM THERE TO GET HER 200 AMP SERVICE.

>> COUNCIL, DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> YES, SIR. WE'VE HAD PROBABLY IN MY TRADE A 350 TO 400% PRICE INCREASE IN THE LAST 6 TO 8 MONTHS.

IT'S CRAZY. >> THANK YOU, KEN.

>> NO, AS FAR AS I KNOW SHE HAS MET WITH THE POWER COMPANY AND THEY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. MR. ELDER, DO YOU WANT TO COME

BACK? >> YES, IF YOU DON'T MIND JUST FOR A SECOND. I WANT TO ADDRESS ONE MORE ISSUE THAT THERE'S BEEN FLYING AROUND RUMORS THAT MS. LIGHT HAS NOT GOTTEN APPROVAL FROM THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CONCERNING THIS. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT FROM BARRY HORNBURG WHO'S THE CHAIR OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE FOR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, HE WOULD BE HERE TONIGHT EXCEPT HE HAD ANOTHER MEETING HE HAD TO ATTEND.

IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK AND HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE. THE FACT THAT A FAMILY MEMBER WILL RESIDE IN THE OUTBUILDING, DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY OF THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS HERE IS PRETTY SIMPLE. SHE'S JUST ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL METER. AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY A HARDSHIP, YOUR ORDINANCES PROVIDE FOR IT AND SHE'S REQUESTING THAT SHE BE

GRANTED THAT VARIANCE. >> NAME, ADDRESS, THREE MINUTES

[00:15:18]

IF YOU CAN. >> RONNY LIGHT, I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER. I'VE BEEN PRACTICING THIS WATCHING TV IN THE CSPAN. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL DO VERY GOOD. I'M SO NERVOUS ABOUT BEING HERE.

BUT I DIDN'T SPEAK AT THE LAST MEETING AND I JUST REALLY FELT LIKE I NEEDED TO CONNECT WITH YOU ALL AND LET YOU KNOW A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY. MY NAME IS RONNY LIGHT AND I WANT THANK YOU ALL FIRST FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY AND FOR HEARING MY CASE TODAY. YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN MUCH INFORMATION BEFORE TODAY AND TODAY BOTH WRITTEN AND IN VOICE PERTAINING TO THIS CASE OF MY ASKING FOR THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE FOR A SECOND METER NEEDED FOR THE NEW STRUCTURE BEING BUILT ON MY PROPERTY. IT IS MY HOPE THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH WHAT I PLAN TO SHARE WITH YOU NOW WILL HELP YOU IN MAKING A FAIR AND JUST DECISION.

I PRAY THAT YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO YOU.

I'VE GONE THROUGH MUCH THIS PAST YEAR THAT HAS CAUSED ME STRESS AND DIFFICULTY WITH THE PASSING OF MY HUSBAND ONE YEAR AGO.

I HAVE NOT EVER HAD TO STAND BEFORE CITY COUNCIL TO SPEAK FOR MYSELF IN ANY SITUATION. IF RON HAD SURVIVED, HE WOULD BE THE ONE STANDING BEFORE YOU TODAY INSTEAD OF ME.

RON AND I WERE THE FIRST ONES TO HAVE BUILT A HOUSE IN LAKEGROVE SUBDIVISION 41 YEARS AGO. WE WERE THE ONES WHO SET UP AND ORGANIZED THE FIRST ANNUAL LAKEGROVE HOMEOWNERS MEETINGS.

FOR MANY, MANY YEARS WE WERE ACTIVE MEMBERS.

WE FELT THAT THE ASSOCIATION IS VERY VITAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD HELPING SERVE ITS MEMBERS IN MANY WAYS OVER THE YEARS.

THE DEED RESTRICTIONS SET BY THE HOA ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO US AND WE HAVE ALWAYS ADHERED TO THEM. MOST IMPORTANTLY I HAVE ADHERED TO ALL RESTRICTIONS FOR NOT ONLY THE HOA BUT FOR THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN IN THIS BUILDING PROJECT OF THE POOL HOUSE OR SECONDARY DWELLING AND THE ACCESSORY BUILDING.

I ACTUALLY THIS PROJECT BEGAN MANY YEARS AGO AS A DREAM FOR BRIAN AND I. WE KNEW WE WOULD START THIS PROJECT SOMEDAY IN THE FUTURE SO WE BEGAN PLANNING FOR IT TOGETHER. WHEN WE HEARD WE WERE BEING ANNEXED INTO THE CITY ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO, WE FILLED OUT THE PAPERWORK SENT TO US BY THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN WITH HOPES OF THIS PROJECT BEING GRANDFATHERED TO BUILD UNDER THE COUNTY RULES WHICH WOULD ASSURE THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM IN GETTING A SECOND METER. WE ATTACHED THE HOA APPROVED SITE PLANS WITH PHOTOGRAPHS DATED JULY 25, 2017, WHICH HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE GIVING US PERMISSION TO BUILD BECAUSE THERE WERE NO VIOLATIONS OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS FOUND IN THE PLANS.

WE ALSO HAD TO NOTARIZE A FORM PROVIDED BY THE CITY STATING THE INFORMATION WE WERE SUBMITTING WAS TRUE AND CORRECT.

THIS WAS DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2017.

AND IT HAD TO BE TURNED IN TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN BY THE DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 31, 2017. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE MAILED TO THE CITY IN GOOD FAITH THAT THE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE FILED AND KEPT FOR US FOR SUCH A TIME AS THIS.

YOU CAN IMAGINE MY SURPRISE TO LEARN THAT THE CITY SAID THEY HAD NO RECORD OF THESE PAPERS. FROM THE TIME THAT WE MAILED THEM, WE THOUGHT WE WERE COVERED BECAUSE WE HAD A NOTARIZED COPY OF WHAT WE HAD SENT THE CITY. WE HAD WE HAD FIVE YEARS TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT AS GRANDFATHERED BECAUSE THE PERMIT FEES FOR NEW BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN WAIVED FOR FIVE YEARS.

THE END OF THIS FIVE YEAR PERIOD IS DECEMBER 31, 2022.

IT IS MY HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DONE ALL WE KNEW TO DO WITH DILIGENCE AND IN GOOD FAITH FOR THIS PROJECT TO BE GRANDFATHERED ESPECIALLY FOR FOLKS THAT HAVE LIVED HERE MOST OF THEIR ADULT LIVES AND RAISED THEIR CHILDREN HERE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

I WOULD LIGHT TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER THE FACT THAT I MADE EVERY EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S STIPULATIONS WANTING TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE RULES IN EVERY WAY.

I WOULD NEVER STAND BEFORE YOU ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR A SECOND METER IF I HAD NOT BEEN IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY REGULATIONS HAVING DONE ALL TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND GUIDELINES IN THE BUILDING OF THIS PROJECT.

MY HOME FALLS UNDER THE DEED RESTRICTIONS OF OUR HOMEOWNERS

[00:20:01]

THE HOA IS THE WATCHDOG THAT KEEPS THIS FROM EVER HAPPENING AND I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THESE ORDINANCES.

YOU HAVE HEARD FROM ONE OF MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS WITH THEIR DISAGREEMENT ABOUT MY RIGHT TO DO WHAT I WANT ON MY PROPERTY.

I AM SO SORRY THIS IS UPSETTING TO THEM AND PRAY THEY WILL COME TO ACCEPT THAT I HAVE DONE MY BEST TO PLAN FOR THE TWO BUILDINGS TO BLEND IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO RESPECT THE NEED FOR MY NEIGHBORS TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE BUILDING OF THESE STRUCTURES. I HAVE TAKEN GREAT PRECAUTIONS AND CARE TO CONSIDER MY NEIGHBORS IN THE PLACEMENT OF THESE BUILDINGS. I AM ALSO FINISHING OUT THESE PROJECTS WITH MY NEIGHBORS IN MIND MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BUILDINGS ARE ATTRACTIVE AND ADD TO THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY AND THOSE CLOSE TO ME.

I AM DOING MY BEST TO TAKE CARE OF MY FAMILY AS WELL.

I AM SO GRATEFUL THEY WANT TO BE HERE WITH ME IN MY ELDERLY YEARS SO THAT I MAY STAY IN MY HOME AND LIVE OUT MY DAYS HERE WHERE WE HAVE SO MANY WONDERFUL MEMORIES.

WHEN I BEGAN SPEAKING A FEW MINUTES AGO, I THANKED YOU FOR YOUR SACRIFICE IN SERVING OUR COMMUNITY.

I AM GRATEFUL FOR THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE YOU REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF MIDLOTHIAN AND WERE VOTED INTO THIS POSITION TO WATCH OUT FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.

YOU PROTECT US FROM BUREAUCRACY AND GOVERNMENT OVERREACH.

YOU ARE THERE TO MAKE OUR LIVES BETTER LISTENING TO CITIZENS AND MAKING DECISIONS WHEN OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THIS ARISE.

VARIANCES ARE ALLOWED FOR DIFFERENT REASONS TO SERVE A GOOD PURPOSE IN GRAY AREAS ENSURING THAT WHAT IS NEEDED IS GRANTED TO CITIZENS IN THE COMMUNITY.

AS HAS BEEN STATED ALL ALONG, I PLAN TO RUN THE ELECTRICITY THROUGH MY HOUSE, BUT AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE ELECTRICIAN WHOM YOU HAVE HEARD FROM TODAY AND CONSIDERING THE COST OF EVERYTHING GOING UP, UP, AND UP, I REALIZE THAT IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY COSTLY AND A GREAT HARDSHIP FOR ME TO HAVE TO RUN THE ELECTRICITY THROUGH MY HOME. IT IS FAR BETTER TO INSTALL A NEW METER FROM THE POWER POLE ABOUT 150 FEET WITH AMPLE SPACE ON MY PROPERTY ALLOWING A STRAIGHT RUN TO THE BUILDING AT NO GREAT EXPENSE FROM ENCOR. IT ALL MAKES SENSE.

LASTLY, IN VIEW OF EVERYTHING I HAVE STATED INCLUDING MY HISTORY AND ALL OF THE OTHER POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE CLEAR, I COME HUMBLY BEFORE YOU TO SEEK YOUR MERCY AND GRACE ASKING YOU TO GRANT ME THIS VARIANCE OF A SECOND METER AND I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION.

I DO HAVE COPIES OF THE GRANDFATHER PAPERS THAT WERE SENT IN IF YOU WANT ANY OF THOSE AND ALSO HAVE COPIES OF AN EMAIL

FROM THE ENCOR. >> GIVE IT TO THE SECRETARY, PLEASE. JUST GIVE IT TO THE SECRETARY.

>> IT'S JUST SAYING THAT THERE'S AMPLE SPACE TO RUN THE METER.

>> THANK YOU, MRS. LIGHT. NEXT SPEAKER IS MARK TENAGAN.

OH, I'M SORRY. LESLIE KYLE.

ERIC KYLE. COUNCIL, DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

WHAT WAS THE VOTE AT P&Z? >> I DO APOLOGIZE I DID NOT MENTION THAT. THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL 4-1.

>> DID THEY SAY WHY? >> THEY DIDN'T REALLY GIVE A REASON OF WHY THEY RECOMMEND DENIAL.

THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT IT, THOUGHT IT WAS VERY VAGUE.

IN MY OPINION IT WAS VERY VAGUE. >> DOES THIS MEET ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS OTHER THAN THE METER?

>> RIGHT, THE USE WOULD BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT, IT'S JUST THAT METER THEY'RE REQUESTING SO THERE'S NO WAY THEY CAN --

>> GOTCHA. >> AND STAFF RECOMMENDS

APPROVAL? >> STAFF DOES RECOMMEND

[00:25:01]

APPROVAL? >> COME BACK TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE. COME BACK TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE.

WE'VE GOT TO GET YOU ON TAPE HERE.

>> I'M SORRY. >> THAT'S FINE.

>> MY MOUTH'S SO DRY. IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHY THEY TURNED IT DOWN, WHEN THEY MADE THE MOTION TO TURN IT DOWN, WHAT WAS STATED BY MIKE ROGERS WAS HE DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE GRANTING ME THE VARIANCE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T FEEL

I WAS ON THE UP AND UP. >> LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT PEOPLE

-- >> BUT THAT'S THE ANSWER.

>> COUNCIL, DO Y'ALL HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I'D LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> TWO QUESTIONS. TRENTON, SHE SAYS THE PAPERWORK GOT LOST THAT SHE TURNED IN TO FILE FOR THE, BRING ME UP TO DATE ON HOW YOU DO THAT, WHAT SHE DID AND WHY WE DON'T HAVE

THE PAPERWORK? >> I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION WHY WE DIDN'T HAVE THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING DOCUMENTS.

BACK IN 2017 BEFORE THE THREE YEAR ANNEXATION WAS COMPLETED WE HAD AN OPEN HOUSE, WE MAILED OUT NONCONFORMING SHEETS.

>> RIGHT. >> WE RECEIVED THOSE, WE FILED AND DIGITIZED THEM AS WE RECEIVED THEM.

I COULD NOT TELL YOU A REASON WHY --

>> NO, I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE WHEN I WAS ANNEXED, I'M JUST MAKING SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THE PROCEDURE IS.

>> SO THOSE DOCUMENTS, A NONCONFORMING DOCUMENT, THE PACKET THAT WE PROVIDED, ANY PICTURES, ANY USES LISTED, THERE WERE PROPERTIES THAT HAD PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, SO THEY WOULD SUBMIT THOSE PLANS ALONG WITH THE REST OF THEIR PACKET. THERE'S VARIOUS THINGS LIKE THAT, THERE'S HOME OCCUPATION, THERE'S A STORAGE AREA THAT SHOW SITE PLANS AND EXISTING PICTURES AND THEY INCLUDE THAT ALL IN THE PACKETS TO THE CITY AND WE KEEP THAT ON FILE UNTIL BASICALLY

FURTHER NOTICE. >> SO WHEN SHE FILED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT, DID SHE DO THAT JUST THIS LAST YEAR OR WAS THIS

DONE FIVE YEARS AGO? >> WE RECEIVED A BUILDING PERMIT THIS YEAR FOR THE SECONDARY DWELLING.

I'M UNAWARE IF SHE APPLIED FOR SOMETHING THROUGH THE COUNTY

PRIOR TO ANNEXATION -- >> PRIOR TO ANNEXATION.

>> IF SHE SUBMITTED SOMETHING TO US SHOWING SHE DID GO THROUGH THAT APPLICATION PROCESS, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

>> SO HER HOUSE PASSES ALL INSPECTIONS, THE INSPECTOR HAS BEEN OUT THERE, EVERYTHING IS DONE EXCEPT THEY'RE RUNNING THE

ELECTRICAL TO THE HOUSE. >> RIGHT NOW THERE'S A STOP WORK ORDER MEANING WE WON'T DO THAT UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED.

>> DOES THE POWER TO THE NEW POOL HOUSE ALSO POWER THE SHED.

HE'S SITTING THERE SHAKING HIS HEAD.

MARK'S SHAKING HIS HEAD. >> I'LL GO WITH THAT THEN.

>> IT'S OKAY, THAT'S ENOUGH OF AN ANSWER.

I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY IT WAS SUCH A HUGE COST AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD IN RUNNING THE STORAGE BUILDING TOO, THAT ADDS A COUPLE $5,000, $6,000 RIGHT THERE EASILY.

>> I PUT A LOT OF WIRE IN THE HOUSE TO GET IT WIRED.

AND I CAN IMAGINE HAVING TO GO BACK AND MOVE ALL OF THAT WIRING SOMEWHERE ELSE, WHAT IT WOULD COST.

AND I CAN SEE THE POINT WITHOUT A DOUBT.

>> LET'S FINISH THE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO TO DISCUSSION.

>> OKAY, I'M SORRY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> PLEASE VOTE TO CLOSE. ITEM IS CLOSED.

NOW COUNCIL DISCUSSION. OR DO I HAVE ANOTHER MOTION?

>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. THE ITEM PASSES 6-1.

SO THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MAKE MENTION THAT TWO ITEMS WILL NOT BE PRESENTED TONIGHT.

2021-514 AND THEN -- >> ON ITEM NUMBER 514 WE ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IF COUNCIL

WISHES TO CONTINUE -- >> ALL RIGHT.

WELL THE OTHER ONE IS ALSO PUBLIC SO WE'LL OPEN THOSE, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE TAKING ACTION TONIGHT.

[2021-511]

[00:30:04]

>> THANK YOU, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.04 A RESTAURANT OVER 1,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

THERE WAS A CUPCAKE SHOP AT THAT LOCATION, WHICH WE WOULD CONSIDER A CUPCAKE SHOP AS A RESTAURANT.

THEY CLOSED DOWN, THEY REMAINED CLOSED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME THAT WOULD EXCEED THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING RIGHTS.

DUE TO THAT REASON AND NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND ON RECORD ANY SORT OF EXISTING USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT, THE APPLICANT WAS REQUIRED TO COME THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO REOPEN UP A DIFFERENT TYPE OF RESTAURANT. WITH THE PROPOSED REQUEST, THEY ARE REQUESTING TO OPEN UP A RESTAURANT, IT'S APPROXIMATELY IN THIS LOCATION. I THINK IT WAS ADULIS.

SO THE PROPOSED REQUEST WITH THE RESTAURANT THEY AREN'T CHANGING ANY OF THE FACADE, THEY'RE GOING TO MEET THE MINIMUM SIGN REQUIREMENTS. THEY ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY OTHER TYPE OF VARIANCE THROUGH THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

THEY SIMPLY WANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPEN UP A RESTAURANT.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TABC, THE TEXAS ALCOHOL BEVERAGE COMMISSION, IT REQUIRES RESTAURANTS HAVE A MINIMUM OF 51% IN FOOD SALES IN ORDER TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A RESTAURANT, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR DUE TO THE TYPE OF RESTAURANT THAT THIS WILL BE, THEY DID STATE IN THEIR LETTER THAT THEY WOULD FALL UNDER THIS PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT.

ANY TIME THEY DO EXCEED THAT 51% IN ALCOHOL SALES, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK THROUGH HERE AND GO THROUGH ANOTHER SUP PROCESS. STAFF DID NOTICE ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. WE SENT OUT SIX NOTICES, 0 CAME BACK IN FAVOR, 0 CAME BACK IN OPPOSITION.

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH 9-0 VOTE. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT

THIS TIME. >> YOU HINTED SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE TYPE OF RESTAURANT IT IS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN.

>> TALKING TO THEM, I WOULD TURN TO THE APPLICANT, I THOUGHT THEY WERE HERE. THERE SHE IS.

SHE'LL BE ABLE TO SPEAK MORE ON THE TYPE OF RESTAURANT.

I'LL LET HER EXPLAIN MORE OF WHAT THE BUSINESS IS, BUT WE DID CONFIRM FROM HER THAT THEY WILL NOT BE EXCEEDING THESE PERCENTAGE IN SALES ACCORDING TO STATE LAW.

>> YOUR NAME AND THE BUSINESS THAT YOU REPRESENT?

>> MY NAME IS BETTY PARKS AND THE BUSINESS I'M REPRESENTING IS DAQUIRIES AND MORE, WE'RE SERVING BEER AND WINE.

WE'LL DO THE 60% FOOD AND 40% ALCOHOL SALES.

AGAIN IF WE GO BEYOND THAT, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK HERE AGAIN AND APPLY FOR THE RIGHT PERMIT BECAUSE THEN WE'LL BE

CONSIDERED A TAVERN OR BAR. >> WHAT KIND OF FOOD ARE YOU

GOING TO SERVE? >> WE'RE GOING TO SERVE TACOS AND SLIDERS, BEEF SLIDERS, CATFISH AND SALADS AND THE APPETIZERS AND THAT'S IT. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE MENU

PRETTY SIMPLE. >> HOW MANY TABLES WILL YOU

HAVE? >> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, LET'S

SEE, 15 TABLES. >> I DON'T WANT TO DIVE TOO DEEP INTO YOUR BUSINESS MODEL, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING IS YOUR BUSINESS MODEL THE COME AND SELF-SERVE MARGARITA TYPE PLACE THAT PEOPLE GET THEIR DRINKS AND HIT THE ROAD OR IS IT MORE LIKE SIT DOWN SERVICE AT THE TABLE AND THEN HAVE A MEAL AND THEN GO

HOME? >> YES, IT'S MORE OF A SIT DOWN

HAVE SERVICE, HAVE FOOD. >> BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THE OTHER SIDE OF IT WHERE IT'S THE MARGARITA PLACE WHERE THERE'S NOT MUCH OF AN ATMOSPHERE IN THE RESTAURANT, IT'S GEARED TOWARD

PEOPLE GETTING IT TO GO. >> YES AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE

[00:35:03]

DOING THE DEMOGRAPHICS AND EVERYTHING OF MIDLOTHIAN AND WE'RE RIGHT BETWEEN MANSFIELD, ARLINGTON, AND WAXAHACHIE SO WE HAVE A LOT OF FAMILIES, WE WANTED TO JUST KIND OF DO DIFFERENT WHERE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE PEOPLE COME IN, SIT DOWN, ENJOY A MEAL AND HAVE A DRINK IF THEY WANT.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

>> ONE THING TO CLARIFY THIS IS SPECIFICALLY MORE A RESTAURANT USE. BOTTOM LINE IS WE DON'T MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON SALE OF ALCOHOL.

TABC RULES -- >> RIGHT, IT'S THE REQUIREMENT

FOR THE TABC. >> IF YOU DROP BELOW THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A RESTAURANT THAT'S A TABC ISSUE, NOT A CITY ISSUE. AND WE DON'T HAVE ZONING SPECIFICALLY FOR BARS SO YOU WOULD FALL OUT OF THE CATEGORY, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT RATIO IN ORDER TO STAY A

RESTAURANT. >> RIGHT.

>> SO WE'RE PROVING -- APPROVING A RESTAURANT.

>> RIGHT. >> YOU SAID SOMETHING I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON, IF SHE DOES OFFSET THOSE RATIOS, SHE IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED A RESTAURANT AND SINCE WE DON'T

HAVE ZONING FOR A BAR -- >> WE DON'T HAVE A LOCAL ELECTION THAT WE HAD TAKE PLACE THAT WOULD ALLOW JUST A STRAIGHT

BAR. >> OKAY.

>> BUT WE STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW UNDER THE RULES OF THE TABC.

>> I FOLLOW, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I CONNECTED THOSE

DOTS. >> MY QUESTION IS A CURIOSITY.

WHAT WILL BE THE HOURS OF OPERATION?

>> SO MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY WOULD BE 11:00 TO 8:00.

AND THEN FRIDAY AND SATURDAY WOULD BE 11:00 TO 11:00.

AND THEN ON SUNDAY WE WOULD OPEN FROM 12:00 TO 8:00.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MA'AM, VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

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

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM IS CLOSED. DISCUSSION AND/OR A MOTION?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> A MOTION TO APPROVE AND SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES AS PRESENTED 7-0.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WELCOME TO OUR COMMUNITY.

[2021-512]

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1400 FEET WEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 67 INTERCHANGE BETWEEN U.S. HIGHWAYS 287 AND

OLD FORT WORTH ROAD. >> THANK YOU.

PRIOR TO THIS MEETING, STAFF HAS CONTACTED STAFF AND REQUEST THAT THIS ITEM OF THE PUBLIC HEARING BE OPENED AND WE CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE DECEMBER 14, 2021, CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

WE'RE ON THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND WE'D LIKE TO BRING THEM ALL TOGETHER AT ONE TIME.

SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO

CONTINUE IT TO DECEMBER 14TH. >> WELL IT'S OPEN.

>> I WOULD JUST MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL DECEMBER 14TH. IF THERE'S PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TALK THEY CAN SPEAK NOW IF YOU ALLOW THEM TO.

THEN WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 14TH.

>> YOU WANT TO SPEAK? >> NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR

PEACE. >> I'M TERRANCE JOBE.

THE APPLICANT 2415 SOMERFIELD. I WASN'T SURE HOW WE WERE DOING THIS AND ASKED THAT WE PUNT IT TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING FOR A VOTE. I WASN'T SURE IF WE COULD HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENCLOSE IT IF WE NEED TO CONTINUE IT, THAT'S FINE TOO. I'M HERE IF YOU WANT TO ASK ME QUESTIONS TONIGHT OR IF YOU WANT TO WAIT AND DO IT ON THE 14TH.

[00:40:01]

>> COUNCIL, WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT, LET EVERYBODY SPEAK, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE CAN DISCUSS IT AND THEN WE BRING BACK THE ORDINANCE JUST AS AN ACTION ITEM ON THE REGULAR AGENDA SO IT'S NOT ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING OR WE CAN JUST CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT WILL COME BACK ON THE 14TH AS A CONTINUATION OF

THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I'M FEELING KIND OF COGNIZANT TODAY SO IF YOU WANT TO DO IT TODAY.

>> I'D RATHER DO IT ALL -- >> IT'S FINE EITHER WAY.

>> WE'LL CONTINUE TO HERE ON THE 14TH OF DECEMBER.

>> WELL THEN I MOVE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE

14TH OF DECEMBER. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE 14TH OF DECEMBER SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES 7-0.

MR. JOBE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OPEN ITEM 2021-513, CONDUCT A

[2021-513]

147 FOR COMMERCIAL AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES.

THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 67 AND

EAST OF WARD ROAD. >> THANK YOU.

WHAT I JUST HANDED OUT TO ALL OF YOU IS A REVITALIZED SITE PLAN THAN WHAT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE PACKET.

ALSO IN THIS POWERPOINT, WE HAVE IT TO MATCH THAT FIRST SITE PLAN YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOW. THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY ONE DISTRICT, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 7 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 147 FOR HEAVY AND INDUSTRIAL USES. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN HIGHWAY 67 AND OLD FORT WORTH ROAD.

RIGHT NOW I'LL KIND OF GO THROUGH THE EXISTING EXHIBITS AND THE REVISED EXHIBITS. WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO IS VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS LOCATED ON THE SITE TO ALLOW FOR USES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

WHEN WE WERE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, WE DID GO THROUGH AFTER WE HAD THAT WORKSHOP, THAT PUBLIC WORKSHOP, WE WENT THROUGH AND THEY GAVE US SOME PROPOSED USES THAT THEY WANTED TO BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. BUT WHEN STAFF HAD CONCERNS, WE ELIMINATED QUITE A FEW MORE USES, MOVED SOME USES TO A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. SOME OF THESE USES ARE CURRENTLY PERMITTED IN THIS DISTRICT ARE THINGS SUCH AS WAREHOUSE, MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTION, THOSE TYPES OF USES.

THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU IS WHAT A TYPICAL BUILDING WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

THERE'S VARIOUS ARTICULATION AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT EACH BUILDING WILL BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW.

ON THE SITE PLAN YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A PART HERE THERE'S A SITE FOR A FUTURE GAS DRILLING SITE.

IF THAT GETS DEVELOPED, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COME BACK THROUGH AN SUP PROCESS IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT APPROVED WHICH IS TYPICAL IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE FOR ANY ZONING DISTRICT.

ALSO IN THIS TOP NORTHEAST CORNER IS PROBABLY ZONED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. WITHIN THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL OF OUR STANDARDS REGARDING ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS EITHER COMMERCIAL, COMMUNITY RETAIL, GENERAL PROFESSIONAL.

THEY'D BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL OF OUR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

ONE OF OUR CONCERNS AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE WORKED MANY, MANY HOURS WITH THE APPLICANT.

ONE OF OUR CONCERNS WAS TRAFFIC ALONG OLD FORT WORTH ROAD AND HIGHWAY 67. ALSO JUST TO THE NORTH WE HAVE AN EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 18 WHICH IS WHAT YOU JUST HEARD TONIGHT THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO PD NO. 146. WHAT IS EXISTING, WHAT'S EXISTING BY RIGHT IN PD18 IS IN THIS AREA THEY CAN HAVE MULTIFAMILY, THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY USES, THERE'S COMMERCIAL.

ALSO LOCATED OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, UNDERSTANDING THAT'S OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS. BETWEEN P&Z AND COUNCIL, ONE THING WE DID GO THROUGH BECAUSE WE DID HEAR THE CONCERNS, WE LOOKED AT THIS QUITE A BIT MORE, WE HAD A RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY

[00:45:02]

ADDITIONALLY WHEN THIS WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT SUGGESTED THAT THE OVERALL HEIGHT HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 70 FEET FOR ANY BUILDING WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT. ONE THING GOING THROUGH, WE DID RECEIVE A FULL TIA, AS PART OF YOUR PACKET, THERE WAS A MEMO FROM OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SHARING SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD WITH THE TIA AND LOOKING AT IT LONG TERM HOW IT'S IMPACTED THIS PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AS PART OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THOSE ITEMS THAT OUR CITY ENGINEER AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LISTED IN THEIR MEMO BE DONE, BE PART OF THIS AS A CONDITION BE WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE.

ADDITIONALLY WE ADDED A CONDITION THAT ALL PAVING BE REQUIRED TO BE CONCRETE. THAT WAS AN ORDINANCE THAT WENT BEFORE P&Z. BUT AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, STAFF WANTED THAT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. WE THINK IT'S BETTER NOWADAYS WITH OUR TECHNOLOGY, WE FEEL THAT'S A SUSTAINABLE WAY TO DO PAVEMENT THAT WILL LAST LONGER. ALSO ONE THING I WAS GOING THROUGH, STAFF DID WRITE AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT IN THE CURRENT PD, IT ALLOWS FOR A POLE SIGN ALLOWED ON EACH LOT, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 25 FEET IN HEIGHT.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING ONLY ONE POLE SIGN FOR THE ENTIRE INTO PD. THE REASON FOR THAT IS IN OUR SIGN REGULATIONS WE WENT THROUGH A VERY THOROUGH PROCESS, BOTH STAFF, COUNCIL IS VERY CONCERNED OVER OUR SIGNAGE WITHIN THE CITY AND WE FEEL THIS IS ALSO EVEN THOUGH IT'S INDUSTRIAL USES, THAT THEY SHOULD BE FOLLOWING SIMILAR HEIGHT STANDARDS WHEN IT COMES TO SIGNAGE. I DO KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE. I KNOW THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION IN YOUR PACKETS AND QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS.

I CAN ACTUALLY CONTINUE TO PRESENT FOR QUITE A BIT LONGER.

I THINK I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE TO OPEN THIS UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR TO TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT TO ALL OF YOU. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND WHEN IT WENT BEFORE THE P&Z THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH

THE CONDITION. >> STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN OUR PACKET?

>> RIGHT. CORRECT.

AFTER WE DIDN'T SEE IT REVISED, THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT DID SHOW FOUR LANES. I THINK THEIR INTENT NOT ONLY THE APPLICANT, I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK MORE ON THAT.

THEIR ORIGINAL INTENT WAS NEVER TO BUILD ALL FOUR LANES, THE INTENT WAS TO SHOW THE FOUR LANES BECAUSE WARD ROAD IS A 4 LANE ROAD, THEY'RE JUST SHOWING THE EXISTING THOROUGHFARE.

THEY ACTUALLY WANTED TO SHOW WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD.

>> IS THE TWO LANES? >> IS THE TWO LANES.

YEAH. AND GENERALLY WE'D ONLY REQUIRE THERE'S A RATIONALE TEST OF WHAT WE WOULD DO OF WHAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO WITH THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.

>> PLEASE NOTE WE HAVE SIX SPEAKERS.

TWO IN OPPOSITION, FOUR IN SUPPORT.

SO WE'LL START WITH OUR SPEAKERS.

EXCEPT FOR THE APPLICANT, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

I'LL GIVE YOU A 30 SECOND WARNING.

HOLLY HAMBULL. HOLLY.

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> HOLLY, I LIVE AT 3331 CEMENT VALLEY ROAD HERE IN MIDLOTHIAN. I AM IN OPPOSITION.

I LIVE WITH MY FAMILY AND MY HUSBAND.

I HAVE SEVERAL OR A FEW POINTS TO MAKE.

MY FIRST ONE IS THAT CHANGING THIS TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I BELIEVE IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO BE ZONED TO COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL WHICH MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE TO ME THAN A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. MY FAMILY WORKS IN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, MY MOM AND DADS SIDE, MY HUSBAND'S SIDE, HE LIVE CLOSE, NOT IN PROXIMITY TO THE HIGHWAY 67 CORRIDOR, BUT YOU CAN

[00:50:06]

THERE'S BEEN A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF 94 STUDIES, IT'S CALLED THE RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND ADVERSE HEALTH OUTCOMES IF Y'ALL WANT TO LOOK IT UP.

IT LOOKS AT HOMES THAT ARE IN RESIDENTIAL, SORRY, IN PROXIMITY TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL SITES AND IT SHOWS THAT THERE IS AN INCREASE OF NEGATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS INCLUDING INCREASED CANCER RATES, ADVERSE OUTCOMES FOR PREGNANCY, CHRONIC RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS AND STROKES, I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE IN DETAIL.

SO ONE THING THEY DID NOTE IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE, STATED SEVERAL TIMES THAT THAT WAS A CONCERN BUT THEN AGAIN NOTED THAT WE WERE OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS.

BUT I WANT TO SAY I MIGHT BE OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS, BUT I AM STILL A RESIDENT OF MIDLOTHIAN AS IS EVERYONE ON THAT STREET, CEMENT VALLEY AND IN WARD. AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PD ON OLD FORT WORTH ROAD OF 600 HOMES THAT WILL BE IN CITY LIMITS AND ARE WE GOING TO IGNORE WHAT THEY WOULD WANT? BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LOOK TO LIVE NEXT TO A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL PARK. NOW AND I THINK THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE TO HELP THAT BY MAYBE LIMITING THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL PART OF THAT BUSINESS PARK TO THE SOUTH PART OF THAT PROPOSED ALONG THE 67 CORRIDOR.

HAVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE WATERWAYS, LIMITING THE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL FOR GAS WELLS AS I NOTICE THAT THERE'S ONE THAT'S REALLY CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. I KNOW IN DALLAS THEY LIMIT IT TO 300 FEET. OKAY.

MY CONCLUSION IS ALL OF THAT WAS IGNORED, THE ONLY CHANGE THEY MADE WAS CHANGING IT FROM 110 FEET TO 70 FEET.

SO I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAVE Y'ALL DONE TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS OF MIDLOTHIAN? WHAT HAVE Y'ALL PUT INTO PLACE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S MUCH.

IF YOU COULD ANSWER THAT, PLEASE.

OKAY, THANK YOU. >> DEBORAH.

YES, I AM IN THE CITY LIMITS. IT DOES AFFECT ME AND THE ROADS TO ME. I'LL POINT OUT WHERE MY PROPERTY IS ON HERE. THIS IS MY PROPERTY, I GOT 40 ACRES GOING ALL THE WAY BACK OVER HERE.

THIS RIGHT HERE GOING ALL THE WAY BACK OVER HERE IS ALL MINE.

SO YES, AT 70 FEET, IT'S VERY RIDICULOUS.

I COULD BE SEEING ALL OF THIS HERE AND JUST BE LOOKING AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE RECTANGULAR CONCRETE, WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS GOING UP 70 FEET, YES YOU REVISED THE PLAN, BUT STILL YOU'VE GOT THE FUTURE PLAN HERE.

YOU'VE STILL GOT THE 2 LANE ROAD RIGHT HERE.

WELL GUESS WHERE THAT'S GOING TO GO, RIGHT INTO WARD ROAD.

WE ALL KNOW HOW THIS CITY WORKS, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE '88 SO THAT'S THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. RIGHT NOW THOSE ROADS CAN'T TAKE ANYTHING. RIGHT NOW YOU CAN HAVE OLD FORT WORTH HIGHWAY NOT BEING ONE, BUT WE HAVE TRUCK TRAFFIC GOING ACROSS THE 67. THE ROADS OLD FORT WORTH HIGHWAY, I JUST CAME DOWN WYATT ROAD OFF OF 67, MY PICKUP SANK IN A POTHOLE. EVENTUALLY IN TIME WARD ROAD, YOU'RE GOING TO BE TAKING IN ALL OF THOSE HOMES ON WARD ROAD.

WE ALL KNOW WHAT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IS, YES YOU SAY SPECIAL USE PERMITS, BUT WHEN THEY COME BEFORE YOU, OH YEAH

[00:55:03]

YOU'RE MORE WORRIED ABOUT PEOPLE OWNING MORE THAN TWO TOWNHOUSES BUT STILL YOU CAN HAVE THIS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL RIGHT ACROSS THEM LOOKING AT IT. THERE'S ALSO A PLAN FOR A SCHOOL GOING IN THERE BECAUSE OF THAT RESIDENTIAL GOING UP ON OLD FORT WORTH HIGHWAY. NOW YOU WANT TO PUT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL WITH MORE CHEMICALS AND TRUCK TRAFFIC WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. WE ALL KNOW THIS DESIGN AND ALL OF THOSE BUILDINGS ARE FOR SPECIAL INDUSTRY THAT'S GOING IN. YOU ALL KNOW WHAT'S GOING IN THERE. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING IN THERE TOO. THE POTENTIAL FOR A GAS DRILL SITE, THERE'S REALLY NICE LOOKING PONDS STATED AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING ARE RETENTION PONDS FOR THE GAS DRILLING. MOST OF US OUT THERE ARE ON WATER WELLS BECAUSE THE CITY HAS NOT PROVIDED US ANY WATER.

SO WE HAVE TO DRILL WELLS, WITH THE GAS WELLS GOING IN, HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT OUR WELL WATER? ARE YOU GOING TO BE TESTING OUR WELL WATER TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT CONTAMINATED LIKE IT HAS BEEN ACROSS THE WHOLE UNITED STATES BY DOING THESE GAS WELL DRILLS? ALSO YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT NOTIFICATION OF RESIDENTS, AND JUST LIKE ELLIS COUNTY SOLAR, EVERYBODY IS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS SO THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T HAVE TO NOTIFY PEOPLE COMING INTO OUR CITY.

JUST LIKE THE PERSON WHO SPOKE BEFORE, HOLLY, THEY'RE IN THE ETJ AREA, SOONER OR LATER THEY WILL BE IN THE CITY.

BUT NOW YOU JUST THROW THEM OUT AND THEIR VOICES CAN'T BE HEARD BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN THE CITY. THERE'S NOBODY TO SPEAK UP BECAUSE NOBODY WAS NOTIFIED OF IT.

NOT EVEN ME, BECAUSE I'M NOT WITHIN THE 200 FEET DISTANCE, BUT STILL I CAN SEE A 70-FOOT BUILDING.

I THINK THIS SHOULD STAY WHAT IT IS SINGLE FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL AND LIKE I AGREE WITH HOLLY WITH EVERYTHING SHE SAID, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THIS.

HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IS IN RAILPORT AND EVERYTHING BEING DEVELOPED DOWN HIGHWAY 67 THAT'S WHERE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IN THIS CITY NEEDS TO BE. WE NEED TO HAVE A BETTER FOCUS ON OUR RESIDENTS, THE HEALTH, THE BREATHING, WE DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER HAZARDOUS WASTE SITUATION LIKE WE DID IN THE EARLY 2000S WITH THE TOXIC WASTE COMING OUT OF SOME OF THESE PLANTS OR ANOTHER SAFE TIRE FIRE THAT CONTAMINATES OUR AIR. PLEASE KEEP OUR AIR SAFE AND KEEP IT CONFINED IN THE AREAS THERE.

WE HAVE ENOUGH RIGHT THERE, WE DON'T NEED ANYMORE.

>> 30 SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, I'M DONE.

>> ARE YOU DONE? OKAY, THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER IS TERRANCE JOBE. >> FOR THE RECORD AGAIN TERRANCE JOBE, 2415 SOMERVILLE, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS.

WE ARE THE OWNER OF THE 500 ACRES ADJACENT TO THIS SITE RIGHT THERE. SOMEONE IS POINTING FOR ME, THANK YOU. WE FIRST OF ALL WANT TO SAY WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.

WE BELIEVE IT WILL BRING A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY TO MIDLOTHIAN AND HILLWOOD IS A GREAT DEVELOPER. WE'VE SEEN THE ELEVATIONS AND THE PLANS, BUT WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS.

AND I DO WANT TO SAY THE APPLICANT, HILLWOOD, HAS BEEN VERY GENEROUS IN THEIR CONVERSATIONS WITH US AND WORKED WITH US AS WELL AS CITY AND CITY STAFF.

BUT I STILL WOULD LIKE TO VOICE SOME OF MY CONCERNS BEFORE THE COUNCIL ACTS ON THIS PROJECT. OUR MAJOR CONCERN IS TRUCK TRAFFIC AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE NEW WARD ROAD WHICH IS GOING TO COME RIGHT THROUGH OUR SUBDIVISION WHICH I DON'T HAVE THE POINTER, IF SOMEBODY IS WORKING THAT POINTER, IT'S GOING TO GO RIGHT STRAIGHT TO 287 FROM THERE.

MY WORST FEAR WOULD BE HAVING SEMI TRUCKS STAGED ON THAT ROAD BUMPER TO BUMPER WAITING TO GET INTO THIS INDUSTRIAL PARK AS I'VE SEEN IN OTHER INDUSTRIAL PARKS.

I'VE DISCUSSED IT WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY'VE ASSURED US THAT WON'T HAPPEN AND I DON'T DISBELIEVE THEM.

THEY SAY MOST OF THE TRAFFIC WILL COME OFF OF 67.

I BELIEVE THAT. I THINK IT'S LIKE WATER RUNNING DOWNHILL, THESE BIG TRUCKS ARE GOING TO GO THE EASIEST WAY POSSIBLE. BUT I DO FEAR THAT THEY'LL TRY AND CUT THROUGH FROM 287. IF SOMEHOW THAT CAN BE LIMITED, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, I'M NOT SURE IT CAN BE.

BUT IF YOU GUYS CAN FIGURE IT OUT OR JOE CAN HELP FIGURE IT OUT, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE THAT WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE WHERE THE TRUCKS ARE NOT ABLE TO GET THROUGH THERE.

[01:00:04]

ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WAS 110 FEET, P&Z RECOMMENDED 75 FEET.

I HEARD TONIGHT 70 FEET WAS BEING WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE.

I DID DISCUSS IT WITH THE APPLICANT --

>> 30 SECONDS. >> THE APPLICANT SAID THEY WOULDN'T GO OVER 55 FEET AND IF THAT'S TRUE, YOU CAN ASK THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION, I'D LIKE THAT WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE. IT'S STILL TALL, BUT IT'S NOT 70 FEET. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE STEP BACK, I THINK THAT'S ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE, I HAD ASKED THEY DO THAT, I REALLY APPRECIATE THEM DOING THAT, AND IF WE COULD THROW IN SOME LANDSCAPING UP THERE NEXT TO THE RESIDENTIAL AS YOU STEP BACK TO THE BUILDINGS, WE WOULD BE VERY PLEASED.

THANK YOU. >> AUSTIN REYNOLDS.

>> YES, SIR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S TIME.

I KNOW THIS IS A THANKLESS JOB, BUT APPRECIATE ALL OF THE WORK YOU GUYS HAVE PUT INTO THIS AS WELL AS CITY STAFF.

SO THE INTENT OF THIS PRESENTATION IS NOT REALLY TO PRESENT SOMETHING TO YOU. I KNOW YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT. STAFF IS OBVIOUSLY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT, BUT MORE TO BE INFORMATIONAL AND GIVE YOU SORT OF VISUALS OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I CAN EITHER WALK THROUGH THIS AND SOME OF THAT CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY EXPRESSED OR I CAN TAKE QUESTIONS FROM YOU GUYS AND WE CAN KIND OF WALK THROUGH IT THAT WAY. DO YOU PREFER THAT I GO THROUGH

THIS? >> WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS THE CONCERNS YOU'VE HEARD AND THEN WE'LL ASK QUESTIONS.

>> OKAY. I CAN DO THAT THROUGH THIS IF

THAT THAT'S HELPFUL. >> YEP.

>> OBVIOUSLY TRENT DID A GREAT JOB ALREADY PRESENTING WHAT THE DEAL IS. OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE A LOT OF CHALLENGES WITH THIS SITE. THE FLOODWAY, TWO PIPELINES, THE ENCOR EASEMENT, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON HERE.

A RENDERING OF WHAT OUR BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE, OBVIOUSLY LOTS OF GLASS, VERY MODERN, CLEAN, EASY TO MAINTAIN. AND WITH THAT ALSO FROM AN INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL IN TERMS OF GROUPS THAT OWN THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT, TEXAS TEACHERS PENSION PLAN, OHIO'S TEACHER PENSION PLAN, PENSION PLANS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, ALL OVER THE WORLD. AND THIS IS THE QUALITY THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. SO AS TRENT OUTLINED, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WE ARE ENCOURAGED TO GO DOWN AND WE'RE FULLY IN FAVOR OF DOING THAT. WE CAN LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT. THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE WAS THIS AND THIS IS WHAT WE LOOKED AT ORIGINALLY.

OBVIOUSLY THE CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SITE PLANS IS THIS ONE DOES NOT INCLUDE WARD ROAD AND KEEPS EVERYTHING ON THE INTERIOR OF THE PROJECT. THIS ONE MOVES AND SORT OF DISPERSES IT OUT TO WARD ROAD. THAT'S WITHIN THE PD RIGHT NOW BASED ON THE GUIDANCE THAT WE WERE GIVEN BY CITY ENGINEERING.

BUT I'LL JUST TELL YOU WE'RE INDIFFERENT TO THAT SO WE'RE OPEN TO YOUR GUIDANCE THERE. A COUPLE OF THINGS I'D POINT OUT IS THE DRILL SITE WAS MENTIONED RIGHT HERE.

THAT'S NOT FOR US, THAT'S FOR THE SELLER TO RETAIN THEIR MINERAL RIGHTS. OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SELL YOUR MINERAL RIGHTS SEPARATE FROM THE REAL ESTATE OF COURSE.

AND THE INTENT IS TO TAKE CARE OF HIM AND MAINTAIN THAT, BUT THAT CAN ONLY BE USED THROUGH AN SUP.

SO IF THERE'S AN INTENT TO DRILL, HE OR THEY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRACTICAL STEPS WOULD BE BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME THROUGH HERE FOR THAT APPROVAL. THEY COULDN'T JUST GO AHEAD AND DRILL. IN THE SITE PLAN, IT'S TWO LANES. OBVIOUSLY THERE'S ONE LANE RIGHT HERE, WE'D BE PROVING TWO LANES ON WARD ROAD AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE FOUR LANES ON OLD FORT WORTH ROAD.

THIS IS FOUR LANES DIVIDED, FOUR LANES ALL THE WAY ACROSS.

[01:05:02]

THIS IS A RENDERING OF BEING ON OLD FORT WORTH ROAD AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE LOOKING SOUTHWEST.

SO THIS IS THE LARGER BUILDING IN THE BACKGROUND AND THIS IS THE FOUR ACRES OF ADDITIONAL LAND THAT'S KIND OF HAMPERED BY THE PIPELINE THAT GOES THROUGH. WE'RE REALLY OPEN TO, I THINK IT'S A COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT WE'RE SEEKING THERE JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A WAREHOUSE.

I THINK IT'S TOO SMALL FOR THAT, SO THE INTENT IS IF THE CITY HAS SOME IDEAS THAT COULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE COMMUNITY, WE'RE OPEN TO THAT AS WELL. BUT ANYWAY, THIS WOULD BE THE VISUAL OF IT. OBVIOUSLY YOU'D HAVE MORE LANDSCAPING UP HERE. YOU CAN SEE A HINT OF IT OVER HERE. SO I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS SLIDE AND THE NEXT SLIDE TOGETHER AND TOGGLE BACK AND FORTH, BUT THE INTENT HERE IS I KNOW EVERYBODY'S CONCERN IS THE QUEUEING LANES FOR THESE TRUCKS. I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS ABOUT THAT; NUMBER ONE IS MOST INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPERS, ALL DEVELOPERS GENERALLY COME IN, THEY'LL BUILD A BUILDING, THEY'LL MOVE ON, THEY'LL SELL IT.

THEY'RE NOT REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERALL PLANNING OF THE PARK BECAUSE IT ONLY BENEFITS THEM, THEY MOVE ON.

IF THERE'S A TRAFFIC PROBLEM, IT'S NOT THEIR PROBLEM, THEY'RE OUT OF IT. FOR US, WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE MORE GAME HERE, WE'RE GOING TO BE IN THIS PROJECT FOR A LONG TIME.

WE CARE ABOUT WHO WE'RE LEASING TO AND HOW IT IMPACTS THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. IF WE'RE TO DO SOMETHING THAT CAUSES A TRAFFIC SITUATION, WE CAN'T LEASE ANYTHING ELSE.

THE TENANTS ARE FORTUNE 500, FORTUNE 50 COMPANIES THAT ARE GOING TO DO THE SAME THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

WHAT WE'RE MEASURING THROUGH THESE BLUE LINES ARE WHAT COULD BE QUEUEING LANES, BUT THEY'RE SELF-CONTAINED WITHIN THE SITE.

SO WE HAVE THE TOTAL MEASUREMENTS HERE FOR BUILDING 2, 4,000 LINEAR FEET, BUILDING THREE, ALMOST 4,000 SQUARE LINEAR FEET. AND BUILDING 5, 3,000.

THE OTHER THING I WOULD ADD IS IF THESE AREN'T ENOUGH, WHICH I CAN GUARANTEE YOU, THEY'RE ENOUGH, THE BACK UP IS GOING TO BE ON THESE INTERIOR ROADS THAT AREN'T USED BY ANYBODY ELSE.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AND I'LL SHOW YOU WHY.

THIS IS KIND OF A POSTER CHILD FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF CONCERNS FOR QUEUEING LANES AND THE BACK UP AND WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE. IT'S OBVIOUSLY AN AMAZON BUILDING, 615-FOOT QUEUEING LANE WHICH IS SUB STANDARD AND YOU SEE IT AS TRICKLING OUT ALL THE WAY ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD.

IT'S A FOCUS FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, IT'S A FOCUS FOR DEVELOPERS IN TERMS OF WHATNOT -- WHAT NOT TO DO.

IN OUR SMALLEST WE'RE STILL 12%, ALMOST 15% LONGER THAN THIS ONE IS ALL THE WAY OUT THROUGH THE FRONTAGE ROAD.

SO YOU INCLUDE THE FRONTAGE ROAD WHICH IS UNSIGHTLY AND THEIR QUEUEING LANE, WE STILL ACCOUNT FOR 12% MORE TO ALLOW QUEUEING WITHIN THIS BUILDING ON SITE. IT'S TUCKED BEHIND THIS BUILDING BEHIND THIS RETENTION POND. NO, SIR, I WAS GIVEN THE MINIMUM. SO I WAS SAYING THIS ONE BUILDING COMPARED TO THIS IS 15%, BUT IT GRADUATES HERE.

SO THIS IS 20% OR 30% LONGER, AND THIS IS 50% LONGER.

SO YOU'VE GOT A TON OF ROOM. THE THE OTHER THING TO POINT OUT IS FLOWER MOUND IS A CITY MOST OF US ARE FAMILIAR WITH.

GRAPEVINE, GRAPEVINE MALL AND GOLF COURSE, LAKEWAY PARKWAY IS THE FRONT DOOR OF FLOWERMOUND. THIS SQUARE FOOTAGE IN HERE, I MEAN IT'S 12 MILLION TO 15 MILLION SQUARE FEET.

IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE 3.5 MILLION WE'RE PROPOSING IN THIS PROJECT AND AS YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THESE CLOSE UPS, YOU

[01:10:06]

AND THIS IS SHARED, IT'S A FOUR LANE DIVIDED JUST LIKE WE'RE PROPOSING ON WARD ROAD WITHIN OUR PROJECT OF NO BACK UP.

SO ALL OF THE COMMUTE FOR THESE PEOPLE INTO DALLAS IS COMING THROUGH HERE. AND YOU'RE NOT SEEING ANY BACK UP. THIS IS AN AERIAL LOOKING AT THE PROJECT AND REALLY THE ONLY INTENT HERE IS TO SHOW YOU THE GREEN SPACE. RIGHT HERE ALONG WARD ROAD, THE SETBACK IF WARD ROAD TO OUR BUILDING IS 108 FEET.

THE SETBACK FROM OLD FORT WORTH ROAD TO OUR BUILDING IS 150 FEET. OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE SEEING A LOT OF GREEN SPACE HERE, THERE WAS A COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT THE RETENTION POND BEING USED FOR THE DRILL SITE.

THAT'S NOT TRUE. IT'S THERE AS A CIVIL REQUIREMENT. YOU'LL HAVE IT ALONG HERE AND HERE AND IT'S REALLY UP TO YOU GUYS WHETHER A DRILL SITE GOES HERE. THIS WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE A DRILL SPACE, BUT IT'S A CREEK. NOTHING IS GOING TO BE ALONG HERE. THIS IS ZONED BY THE NEIGHBOR MIKE MARIETTA WHICH WILL STAY GREEN AS WELL.

ANOTHER POINT BROUGHT UP WAS IT WAS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY AND THEY'D LIKE IT TO STAY SINGLE FAMILY.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE TO STAY SINGLE FAMILY ON THIS WITH A CEMENT PLANT HERE.

IT'S A NATURAL IMPROVEMENT AS YOU GO UP TO A NICER PROJECT UP HERE. AND THE LAST POINT I WOULD MAKE IS WELL A COUPLE THINGS. I MADE A FEW NOTES AND I FORGOT THEM, BUT FROM A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STANDPOINT, I UNDERSTAND THE WORD HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IS SCARY AND IT MAKES PEOPLE NERVOUS. IT WOULD MAKE ME NERVOUS.

I THINK IT'S OPTICS AND SUPERFICIAL BECAUSE THAT'S JUST THE TITLE OF THE PD AS YOU KNOW. AND A LOT OF WHAT TRENTON DESCRIBED AS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL HAS BEEN STRIPPED OUT.

IN TERMS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR THE IMAGES WE HAVE OF FACTORIES AND SMOKE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S EXISTING HERE. WHAT'S GOING TO EXIST HERE IS IN THIS BUILDING YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE A LESLIE POOLS, A LOCAL BUSINESS THAT SERVES THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN.

IN THIS BUILDING, THIS BUILDING, THIS BUILDING, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE SOMEBODY LIKE A TARGET, LIKE A PROCTOR & GAMBLE, WHERE YOU'RE GETTING YOUR DOVE SOAP THAT'S DELIVERED TO TARGET OR THINGS LIKE THAT. THIS WILL PROBABLY BE MORE LOCAL AND THIS IS GOING TO BE MORE LOCAL.

THIS, THIS, AND THIS WILL BE PROBABLY FORTUNE 100, FORTUNE 50 TYPE OF CREDITS. THAT'S REALLY IT FROM MY SLIDES.

>> COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THE PHASES AND TIMEFRAMES OF EACH?

>> YES, SIR. SO OUR INTENT IS DAY ONE WHICH DAY ONE WOULD BE WHICH BY THE WAY OUR CONTRACTS, AS YOU GUYS MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW THIS IS AN ASSEMBLAGE WITH FIVE DIFFERENT SELLERS, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S REALLY CHALLENGING TO GET PEOPLE TO ALL AGREE AT THE SAME TIME ON THIS. BUT WE LIKE DOING BIG PROJECTS, WE LIKE DOING COMPLICATED PROJECTS AND WE THINK IT'S BETTER FOR THE CITY TO DEAL WITH ONE DEVELOPER RATHER THAN FIVE DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS. SO OUR CONTRACTS RUN OUT AT THE END OF THIS MONTH. WE HAVE TO CLOSE BETWEEN NOVEMBER 30TH AND DECEMBER 2ND ON ALL OF THIS FOR THE 350 ACRES. BECAUSE WE'RE GOING SO QUICKLY THROUGH THE DILIGENCE PROCESS AND THE REZONING PROCESS, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO DESIGN. ASSUMING APPROVAL TONIGHT, WE'RE STARTING DESIGN LIKE TOMORROW. AND THE INTENT WOULD BE TO BREAK GROUND IN MAY AND WE WOULD PUT IN ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, ALL OF THE ROADS, THE STATION, UTILITIES, BRING THEM ALL IN AND THEN WE WOULD GO FORWARD WITH THIS BUILDING, THIS BUILDING, AND THIS BUILDING. AND THEN WE'D HOLD OFF ON THESE AT A LATER DATE. TOUGH TO SAY ON WHEN.

IN A PERFECT WORLD, WE DELIVER THESE IN THE EARLY SPRING OF 23

[01:15:05]

THE MARKET WILL TELL US. I'D SAY THOUGH THAT THIS BUILDING IS UNLIKELY TO BE BUILT IN THE WAY IT'S BUILT.

THIS SHOWS CAPACITY OF WHAT YOU CAN DO, BUT IT'S REALLY UNLIKELY THAT IT ENDS UP BEING THAT WAY. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

>> SO WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS LIKELY?

>> I THINK IN A REALISTIC WORLD IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LARGER AND SO IT WOULD PROBABLY STOP HERE OR THERE, WHEREVER IT ENDS PROBABLY THE EMPLOYEE PARKING OR SOMETHING ON EITHER END.

OR IT COULD BE TWO SMALLER BUILDINGS.

YEAH, THAT'S AN OPTION. WE HAVEN'T SEEN A LOT OF THAT RECENTLY. THAT USED TO BE SOMETHING PRETTY COMMON IN THE PAST. BUT MOST TENANTS HAVE SAID, I WANT TO DO 10, 15 YEAR LEASE AND I KIND OF KNOW WHAT I WANT AND THEY PLAN FOR THAT THEN RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO BACK TO THE LANDLORD AND NEGOTIATE HOW DOES THAT EXPANSION LOOK.

THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT, BUT HOW THE ECONOMICS WORK MAY

BE VERY DIFFERENT. >> SPEAK TO THE SCREEN AND TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE WYATT ROAD AREA, THE WARD ROAD.

>> RIGHT HERE? >> YES, ALL UP AND DOWN TO THE LEFT, WHATEVER DIRECTION THAT IS.

>> I GUESS I'D START BY JUST SAYING THIS WILL BE 800 FEET SETBACK. WE'LL HAVE QUITE A BIT OF LANDSCAPING. WE SHOULD HAVE DONE A RENDERING FROM THIS ROAD. BUT IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO LOOK PRETTY SIMILAR TO THIS AT A DISTANCE.

BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SPACE IN BETWEEN. PROBABLY A BETTER VIEW.

IT'S JUST AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SPACE BETWEEN.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHAT KIND OF VEGETATION ARE WE TALKING ABOUT GOING ALONG WARD ROAD THAT'S WRITTEN IN IF

ANYTHING? >> WHICH PART OF WARD ROAD?

>> THE NORTHERN PART UP BY FORT WORTH, WHERE IT'S SETBACK 800 FEET. YEAH, RIGHT IN THERE.

>> I DO APOLOGIZE, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK THAT BACK UP.

>> IS IT NOT THE 10-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

ONE TREE SHALL BE PLANTED EVERY 40 FEET.

THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS UNDER LANDSCAPING.

>> YEAH, IT WOULD BE THAT 10-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

A LANDSCAPE BUFFER NOT LESS THAN TEN FEET WIDE SHALL BE PLANTED ON EVERY STREET ADJACENT TO A LOT.

SO IT WOULD BE MORE OF A SHAPED TREE, A LARGE SHAPED TREE.

>> WHAT SIZE HAS TO BE PUT IN? >> OUR TYPICAL STANDARD IS FOUR INCHES. THEY'RE REQUESTING THREE INCHES

MEASURED AT -- >> SIX FEET.

>> AND WE'RE FOUR INCHES MEASURED AT THE SAME HEIGHT.

>> I WAS THINKING MORE LIKE SIX. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, AS THIS PD IS WRITTEN, WHAT CAN GO IN THIS BY

RIGHT? >> BY RIGHT? THERE'S QUITE A FEW USES THAT CAN BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THIS DISTRICT. SOME OF THE SPECIFIC USES THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING BY RIGHT YOU CAN FIND ON SUBSECTION C.

SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY WANT OR B THEY WANT BY RIGHT ARE RESTAURANTS UNDER 3,000 SQUARE FEET, GROCERY STORE, SUPERMARKET, PACKAGE STORES, HOTEL OR MOTEL, OUTSIDE STORAGE

[01:20:03]

THERE'S ADDITIONAL OTHER USES. WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE SECTION 2.04 WE STRUCK THINGS OUT SUCH AS CERTAIN TYPES OF

MANUFACTURING IN SUBSECTION D. >> I READ ALL OF THAT.

I GUESS WHERE I'M CONFUSED IS THE STUFF THAT IT'S PERMITTED USE, WHY DOESN'T IT SAY TRUCKING LOGISTICS?

>> SO THERE'S CERTAIN USES WE DON'T HAVE WRITTEN IN OUR CODE SUCH AS HIGH CUBED DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, THINGS LIKE THAT, ALONG THOSE TYPES OF DISTRIBUTION USES.

THEY ALL GENERALLY FALL UNDER WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION.

>> WHICH IS UNDER HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

>> THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT AS THE ORDINANCE CURRENTLY

READS. >> I GUESS THAT'S WHY I'M GETTING CONFUSED BECAUSE WE'RE USING THE BASE ZONING OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, BUT THIS IS A LIMITED USE PD THAT FALLS BACK TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL WHICH IS WHERE I'M JUST LIKE --

>> ONE THING THAT WE'VE LEARNED THROUGH THE YEARS, OLDER PDS WOULD INCLUDE THE WHOLE ENTIRE USE TABLE AND PUT IT IN THERE IS THAT AS TIME CHANGES, USES CHANGE, USES ARE NO LONGER VALID, USES THAT WE HAVE CONCERNS OVER.

AND WE HAVE THIS TABLE BUILT INTO THE PD, WE HAVE VARIOUS ISSUES, VARIOUS CONCERNS. INSTEAD OF SAYING HOW WE WROTE HERE ACCORDING TO HOW THE ORDINANCE IS AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, THAT STILL ALLOWS US TO PUT LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN USES AS WE GO INTO THAT DISTRICT AS WE ADOPT NEW USES.

>> SO WE KIND OF KNOW THAT Y'ALL WANT TO USE THIS FOR LOGISTICS WAREHOUSING, WHY NOT COME IN JUST SAY I WANT A PD FOR WAREHOUSING AND ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT YOU COME BACK FOR A

SPECIFIC USE PERMIT? >> I THINK THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'VE DONE, AM I RIGHT? BECAUSE BY DEFINITION WITHIN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IT ALLOWS FOR WAREHOUSING.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALLOWING FOR.

SO ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, WE HAVE TO COME BACK FOR AN SUP.

>> EXCEPT FOR THE RESTAURANT, GROCERY STORE TYPE STORE.

>> YEAH, I KNOW THAT SOUNDS SILLY.

SO THE REASON THAT'S THERE -- >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE --

>> IT'S FOR THIS. >> YEAH, BECAUSE I'M SAYING WHY

-- >> YEAH, IT SOUNDS SILLY, I

KNOW. >> CAN WE TALK TRAFFIC ALONG 67.

I MENTIONED IT IN THE WORKSHOP, I HAVE A REAL CONCERN ABOUT THAT CORRIDOR THERE AND FOR THOSE THAT WEREN'T AT THE WORKSHOP, IF YOU DRIVE ALONG THAT 67, THAT LITTLE MIX MASTER, YOU HAVE TO YIELD TO THE RIGHT FIRST I BELIEVE AND THEN IMMEDIATELY YIELD TO THE LEFT AND THEN PROBABLY WITHIN 200-FOOT WOULD BE YOU GUYS' I GUESS SOUTHERN ENTRANCE.

SO HAVE YOU APPROACHED TXDOT ABOUT DECELERATION LANES?

>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE 287-67 KIND OF SHIMMY.

>> YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK TO YOUR RIGHT, LOOK TO YOUR LEFT.

>> IT'S ALREADY A DANGEROUS INTERSECTION IN MY OPINION.

>> YES, SIR. THE CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING COMPANY ON THIS PROJECT. SO FROM A TIA STANDPOINT, THE TIA THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TRAFFIC COUNTS TO SHOW IT'S NECESSARY, BUT THE NUMBER OF TURNING MOVEMENTS THAT WILL OCCUR, ON OUR UPDATED TIA WE'RE COMMITTED TO INSTALLING A DECEL LANE AT BOTH ENTRANCES. WHEN WE GET PAST THE ZONING, WE'LL START TALKING TO TXDOT AND GETTING THAT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AS WELL AS THE TXDOT PERMIT. THE SECOND PART OF WHAT WE'RE WANTING TO EVALUATE FROM, WE CAN SAY WE NEED TO PROJECT NEEDS OUT OF THE MANUAL, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SHOW UP AS LEGIT BEFORE TODAY. WE'RE GOING TO UPDATE THE TIA BECAUSE AT THAT POINT I'M GOING TO ASSUME WE HAVE TENANTS IN BUILDINGS AND WE CAN TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT ARE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY ONCE WE DO GET TRUCK TRAFFIC COMING OFF OF 67. BUT PART OF WHAT TXDOT IS GOING TO LOOK AT WHEN WE PERMIT IS THEY'LL HAVE A TIA THAT'S SPECIFIC TO THEIR FACILITIES AND WE'LL HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH A SEPARATE TIA AND TYPICALLY THAT IS PRESENTED TO YOU GUYS AS WELL. SO IT'S ALMOST ONE OF THOSE THAT THERE WILL BE TWO MORE TIAS, ONE FOR TXDOT AND ONE ONCE WE GET

PAST THE FIRST PHASE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> I'M SORRY? >> THE TIA COMES BACK AND SAYS

YOU NEED IMPROVEMENTS BASICALLY. >> THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BE

[01:25:02]

BUT IN GENERAL WHEN YOU HAVE A POSITIVE SITUATION LIKE THAT, YOU CAN ADJUST RENT RATES TO ACCOMMODATE AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU'VE GOT THE MONEY TO MAKE THOSE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS.

>> SO JUST MY STUPID EYEBALL LOOKING OUT ACROSS THE PASTURE.

ONE END OF NORTH FORT WORTH ROAD IS PRETTY TALL COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE GROUND. ARE YOU GOING TO DIG A HOLE TO

MAKE IT ALL FIT LEVEL? >> YES, SIR, WE HAVE.

WE'VE DONE A PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN.

THE FINISHED FLOOR OF THAT, THE BIG BUILDING UP OFF OF OLD FORT WORTH IS GOING TO BE ALMOST 20 FEET BELOW THE ELEVATION OF WARD ROAD. SO WE'VE GOT QUITE A BIT OF SLOPE TO COME OFF AND GET DOWN BECAUSE THE SOUTHERN END OF THAT BUILDING IS SO CLOSE TO THE CREEK, YOU'VE GOT TO CUT HERE

AND FILL BALANCE. >> EVEN A 70-FOOT TALL BUILDING IS STILL GOING TO LOOK SHORTER THAN REALLY A 70-FOOT TALL

BUILDING IS. >> IT WOULD RELATIVE TO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF OLD FORT WORTH, THAT'S

CORRECT, IN THAT LOCATION. >> AND THAT SOME OF WARD ROAD AND ALL OF THAT WILL STILL BE UP HIGHER THAN THE BUILDING WILL BE TO AN EXTENT. NOT HIGHER THAN THE BUILDING, IT WILL BE ABOVE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD IS, ABOVE GRADE.

>> YES, WARD ROAD WILL BE, I MEAN THE SOUTHERN END OF WARD ROAD WILL BE SIMILAR BECAUSE IT'S GETTING DOWN TO THAT CREEK ELEVATION, BUT AS YOU GET CLOSER TO OLD FORT WORTH, WARD ROAD WILL SIT UP AGAIN MUCH HIGHER AND THERE'S LANDSCAPING THAT WE'LL HAVE ALONG WARD ROAD SO THE CONCEPT IS THERE WILL BE

QUITE A BIT OF SCREENING. >> I'M A LITTLE SLOW HERE.

SO THE ROAD ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BIG BUILDING, IS IT GOING TO BE HIGHER THAN THE BASE OF THE BUILDING?

>> WHEN YOU GET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT BUILDING, IT WILL, THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S GOT TO GET UP TO OLD FORT WORTH ROAD. THAT NORTHEAST CORNER HAS SOME CHALLENGES FROM HAVING A TRUCK DRIVE THAT'S LESS THAN 6% IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SHOOTING FOR.

SO WE'VE GOT SOME WORK TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO IN ESSENCE DO SWITCH BACKS. BUT YOU DON'T DO SWITCH BACKS WITH 18 WHEELERS SO WE'LL HAVE TO CONFIGURE THAT TO MAKE IT

WORK. >> IS THAT 6% SLOPE DOWN?

>> WE'LL NEED IT. RIGHT NOW THE ANSWER IS IT'S NOWHERE CLOSE TO A 6% BASED OFF THE DISTANCE, SO WE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADJUST DRIVES IN ORDER TO MAKE IT LESS THAN 6%

TO MAKE IT WORK FOR THE TRUCKS. >> THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS THE SPOT RIGHT HERE, IF YOU'RE DRIVING RIGHT THERE THAT BUILDING IS GOING TO BE 20-FOOT DOWN AND 20-FOOT DOWN RIGHT HERE, IT'S GOING TO GET CLOSER AS YOU COME ON DOWN WARD ROAD.

BUT FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY'RE LOOKING

WHICH DIRECTION? >> YES, SIR.

YOU'RE EXACTLY CORRECT. >> SO YOUR ROAD IS THERE IS GOING TO BE 20 FEET HIGHER THAN THE BASE OF YOUR BUILDING.

>> AND AGAIN IN THAT SOUTHERN END OF WARD ROAD WHERE WE'VE GOT THE GREENSPACE, THERE IS NO BUILDING.

WHERE WE HAVE BUILDING IN THE NORTH END, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A MINIMUM OF 12 TO 14 FEET. I THINK IT'S UP TO 20 FEET BY THE TIME YOU GET TO OLD FORT WORTH.

>> BACK TO JUSTIN'S QUESTION, IF THE IMPACT STUDIES IN THE FUTURE CALL FOR IMPROVEMENTS, STAFF -- BUT STATE WILL REQUIRE THEM TO

DO IT? >> A PERCENTAGE BASED ON OUR TRAFFIC. THE OTHER THING TOO IS TXDOT AGAIN CONTROLS THEIR OWN ROADWAY SYSTEM.

SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A RIGHT TO GO IN AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO 67 OR FRONTAGE ROADS WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION SO THAT'S SOMETHING BEYOND THE CONTROL OF EVEN STAFF.

>> WE COULD STIPULATE THE CONTINUAL GROWTH OF THIS TO

APPROVAL THROUGH TIA SURVEYS? >> MEANING THEY WOULD HAVE TO

MEET A TIA REQUIREMENT. >> YEAH.

MY QUESTION IS THERE A TRIGGER. >> JUST REAL QUICK, COUNCILMAN COFFMAN, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF WAS TO HAVE THE TWO2 DECEL LANES AS

[01:30:05]

THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS IF YOU COME BACK WITH TIAS AND THEIR IMPROVEMENTS IS THEIR ABILITY TO SAY THEIR IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO HAPPEN OF EITHER YOU ISSUE THE PERMIT OR YOU DON'T AND THAT WOULD REALLY BE I GUESS THE TRIGGER THAT

YOU'D HAVE FROM THAT STANDPOINT. >> I HAVE CONCERNS WITH THAT INTERSECTION AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW, SO YOU ADD HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS IF POSSIBLY THOUSANDS OF TRUCKS A DAY, REAL CONCERNS.

BUT I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ON THAT NOTE TO STAFF, ESTIMATE HOW MANY STAFF HOURS WE HAVE IN THIS PROJECT RIGHT NOW? COMBINED BETWEEN ALL OF OUR STAFF HOW MANY HOURS.

>> BETWEEN ALL OF OUR STAFF? >> HUNDREDS?

>> THERE'S QUITE A BIT. I MEAN THERE'S LATE NIGHTS,

THERE'S EARLY MORNINGS. >> THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE STAFF HAS MADE A TON OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT AND THESE ARE OUR HIRED PROFESSIONALS SO I REALLY WANT TO IMPLORE COUNCIL TO REALLY LOOK AT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS SPECIFIC CASE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE AND THE SCOPE OF THE IMPACT OF THIS LARGE DEVELOPMENT.

>> TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF WHAT JUSTIN SAYS, WE CAN'T DO IT AGAIN. WE SCREW THIS UP, WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T. THAT'S WHY I'M GLAD OF EVERYBODY WE HAVE WORKING FOR US, ENGINEERS AND EVERYBODY WORKING

FOR US. >> SO STAFF'S PROFESSIONAL HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF HOURS WAY OUTWEIGH MY 10 TO 20 HOURS THAT WE PUT IN INDIVIDUALLY. I JUST WANT COUNCIL TO CONSIDER

THAT AS WE PUSH FORWARD. >> SO ON OLD FORT WORTH ROAD, WHAT IS THAT ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF TRUCKS? BEFORE WE TALKED ABOUT YOU WERE GIVING PERCENTAGES WHEN YOU DID THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, YOU SAY 7,000 TRUCKS A DAY WILL BUILD OUT. WHAT'S THE PERCENTAGE?

>> YEAH, KEEP IN MIND THAT IT'S 7,000 VEHICLE TRIPS A DAY, NOT

7,000 TRUCKS. >> MY BAD.

>> THEN WE DID TRAFFIC COUNTS ON OLD FORT WORTH ROAD.

I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT JUST THE PEAK HOUR.

AND DURING THE PEAK HOUR IN THE MORNING AND THE EVENING, AT THE INTERSECTION OF 287 AND OVER AT 67, THE NUMBER OF TRUCKS IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN 5% CONSISTENTLY AT THE PEAK HOUR.

SO THE TRUCK TRAFFIC IS MOVING THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

AS FAR AS WHAT'S YOUR OVERALL PERCENTAGE OF TRUCK TRAFFIC FROM THAT TOTAL 6,000, AGAIN THAT CAN VARY DRASTICALLY.

IT CAN BE AS LOW AS 15%, IT CAN BE AS HIGH AS 30%.

I MEAN YOU STILL HAVE AGAIN LARGE BUILDINGS CREATE A LARGE EMPLOYMENT BASE, SO THE NUMBER OF TRIPS IS STILL OUTWEIGHED BY THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES, NOT THE NUMBER OF TRUCKS.

YES, TRUCKS ARE BIG AND THERE'S A LOT OF THEM.

WE'RE NOT SAYING THERE'S NOT, BUT THEY TYPICALLY ARE AND AGAIN THAT'S NOT OUR DATA, THAT'S TXDOT'S DATA THAT'S SHOWING THE EXISTING TRUCK TRAFFIC IN THE PEAK EVENING AND PEAK MORNING IS

WELL UNDER 5%. >> 6,000 IS THAT ONE WAY TRIPS

OR ROUND TRIPS? >> THAT'S TOTAL TRIPS FOR THE

ENTIRE PARK AT FULL BUILDING. >> MY CONCERN IS I WILL AGREE WITH YOU THAT MOST OF THE TRUCKS WOULD GO EXIT TO THE 67 COMING SOUTH FROM 287, COME AROUND TO THE SOUTH END OF YOUR PROPERTY.

WHAT I AM STRUGGLING WITH IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET IS A PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE AND I HAVE A FEELING MOST OF THOSE TRUCK DRIVERS ARE GOING TO GO NORTH, TURN RIGHT ONTO OLD FORT WORTH ROAD AND OUT TO GO BACK NORTH INSTEAD OF GOING ALL THE WAY BACK AROUND 67 WHICH IS WHERE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE MOST TRAFFIC IS NOT COMING INTO YOUR PROJECT BUT LEAVING

YOUR PROJECT. >> NO, AND MR. JOBE HAD A GOOD POINT, I DON'T THINK THAT WE WANT OUR TRUCKS GOING, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK AS FAR AS IF THAT IS SIGNAGE, IF THAT'S ENFORCEMENT, FROM OUR STANDPOINT WE'RE LISTENING TO THE RESIDENTS AS WELL. THERE'S AN MTP Y'ALL HAVE AND WE NEED TO RESPECT THAT AND WARD ROAD IS ON THAT MTP.

WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DEDICATE HALF THE ROAD, THAT'S CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT RESIDENTS WANT, WHAT THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT WANTS, WHAT WE'RE HEARING SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

AND I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WE'RE VERY OPEN TO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE RESTRICT THAT TRUCK TRAFFIC FROM GOING AGAIN THROUGH A SCHOOL ZONE, GOING THROUGH A SINGLE FAMILY OR SOME SORT OF MULTIFAMILY MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S NOT A GOOD SITUATION EITHER.

[01:35:02]

BUT THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO DO OR GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY BY HAVING THIS BROKEN INTO MULTIPLE PHASES AND THE FIRST PHASE BEING DOWN OFF 67.

>> CAN YOU GO BACK A SLIDE FOR WHERE THEY HAD THEIR NEW -- I'VE GOT TO LOOK AT IT UP HERE. SO WHAT ABOUT THE TRUCKS THAT TURN INTO YOUR PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH.

>> IN HERE? >> NO, FURTHER UP.

ON THE SOUTHWEST. >> I WILL AGREE THAT UNLESS YOUR TRAFFIC IS GOING TO COME IN, I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE MY GLASSES, WHEREVER THE ALIGNMENT IS. BUT IF THEY DO LEAVE, THEY'RE MORE THAN LIKELY GOING TO COME THIS WAY.

IS THAT INTERSECTION FULLY BUILT OUT? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT HERE.

THAT'S TWO LANES ON WARD AND TWO WHAT 30-FOOT WIDE LANES ON WYATT TIEING INTO THESE 120-FOOT THOROUGHFARES.

>> WYATT RIGHT NOW IS A 1 LANE ROAD, 30 FEET WIDE.

>> MA'AM, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, YOU'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE

PODIUM. >> I THINK ON THAT, THEY'D BE THE SAME THING, YOU'D BE RESTRICTING TRUCK TRAFFIC TO COME ON WYATT ROAD HERE. I THINK THERE WAS SOME INFORMATION BEFORE THAT THE INTENT IS NOT TO BRING THE TRUCK TRAFFIC UP THROUGH WEST SIDE PRESERVE.

RIGHT NOW WHEN WE DID TRAFFIC COUNTS ON OUR OWN, WHEN WE WERE DOING THE 2021 BOND PROJECTS WE DID IT ON OLD FORT WORTH ROAD, RIGHT NOW THERE ARE 220 VEHICLE TRIPS A DAY JUST RIGHT NOW.

WHEN YOU THINK OF WHAT'S GETTING ZONED AND REZONED, RIGHT NOW IT'S ROUGHLY 6300 BASED ON WAREHOUSING.

IF YOU SAY 15% TRUCKS, YOU STILL HAVE 5,000 TRIPS BASED ON THE EMPLOYEES AND THINGS GOING IN AND OUT.

SO HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THAT AND HOW DO YOU GET THIS TRAFFIC HERE AND ALL OF THIS BESIDES SENDING EVERYTHING RIGHT TO THAT INTERSECTION AT 287? IT'S FAIRLY NARROW FOR TRUCKS.

THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AT AND THAT GOES BACK TO FUTURE TIAS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND WHO

DOES THE IMPROVEMENTS. >> I THINK IT WAS ENGINEERING THAT PROPOSED THIS SITE PLAN. I AGREE THAT THEIR OTHER SITE PLAN PROBABLY CONTAINS THE TRAFFIC MORE IN THEIR SITE.

SO WAS THE THOUGHT TO GO WITH THIS ONE JUST BECAUSE OF THE

EXTENSION OF WARD? >> YES, SIR.

THE INTENT REALLY AGAIN WAS LOOKING AT OUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS WHERE DO WE HAVE A NORTH/SOUTH ROAD THAT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE THE TRIPS FROM HERE AND TRY TO AVOID HAVING EVERYTHING HAVE TO GO TO THE INTERSECTION THERE.

WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF THIS CAN BE DONE IN PHASES AS WELL TO SEE. NORMALLY WHEN A THOROUGHFARE IS ON PROPERTY, IT'S DONE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR A PORTION OF IT IS DONE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

>> I SAW THAT IN THE PACKET THAT THEY COULD PHASE, BUT WHEN WE HAD TALKED IN A WORKSHOP, THEY WOULD THEY WOULD BUILD ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FIRST. SO BUILDING ALL OF THE

[01:40:01]

BELIEVE WARD OR WYATT. >> IN THE WORKSHOP ORIGINALLY THAT WAS SAID. ACTUALLY THIS WAS SHOWN AND THERE WAS NOTHING SHOWN WITH THE EXTENSION OF WARD.

IT WAS JUST SHOWN AS THE RIGHT OF WAY AND AT SOME POINT THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO COME AND BUILD THE EXTENSION OF WARD FROM BASICALLY THIS AREA THAT CAN BE DONE BY THE CITY AT THAT TIME.

>> WELL WHEN YOU SAY PHASING, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OUR TWO

LANES OR THEIRS? >> WELL THAT'S GOING TO BE COUNCIL'S CALL AT THIS POINT. AGAIN IF THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT HOW DO WE ADDRESS THIS, AGAIN WE THINK FROM AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SET TO WHERE ALL THE TRUCKS GO AND COME OLD FORT WORTH, WE DON'T ALLOW THEM TO COME THIS WAY. YOU RESTRICT ACCESS HERE AS WELL, WHAT'S GOING TO KEEP TRUCKS FROM COMING UP AND CONTINUING LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE OR COMING DOWN AND DOING THIS IF YOU HAVE IT RESTRICTED AS WELL.

THOSE ARE THINGS WE'LL HAVE TO DEFINITELY LOOK AT.

>> SHOULD WE HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE BEFORE WE APPROVE THIS THOUGH? IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS THE PAST FEW WEEKS, I SEE NOTHING THAT'S GOING TO STOP THEM FROM COMING IN ON 67 AND EXITING THE EASIEST ROUTE UP TO THE NORTH.

I THINK MOST OF THEM ARE GOING TO DO THAT, THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE A PROBLEM UP THERE WITH ALL OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT, HOW? HOW ARE THEY GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT.

>> IT BECOMES AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE.

WE CAN PUT THE SIGNS UP, BUT THEN IT'S POLICE MAKING SURE

IT'S ENFORCED. >> WHAT KIND OF SIGNS?

>> NO TRUCK SIGNS ESSENTIALLY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT.

THOSE ARE ALL GOOD QUESTIONS BEING ASKED BY COUNCIL.

>> WITH THOSE TRUCKS, THOSE SIGNS ARE ON OLD FORT WORTH ROAD, BY THE TIME THEY GET THROUGH THIS AREA, ALL THE WAY UP TO OLD FORT WORTH ROAD, I'M GOING TO GUESS 90% OF THEM ARE GOING TO SEE THAT SIGN LIKE THERE'S NOWHERE TO TURN AROUND, I'M GOING. THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE CAN'T DEDICATE AN OFFICER TO TRAFFIC CONTROL.

>> AND IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT LOOKING AT RESTRICTIONS, YOU CAN RESTRICT IT RIGHT HERE, SO TRUCKS CAN COME IN AND THEY HAVE

TO GO THIS DIRECTION. >> ONCE A TRUCK GETS DOWN THIS ROAD TO RIGHT HERE, THERE'S NOWHERE TO TURN AROUND.

SO A SIGN THERE IS GOING TO VIRTUALLY DO NO GOOD.

THEY'RE GOING TO IGNORE IT AND GO OUT WARD ROAD.

YOU CAN'T TURN AROUND RIGHT THERE.

>> RIGHT, BUT YOU CAN GO SOUTH AT THAT POINT BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE THE FOUR LANES OF WARD ROAD GOING TO THE SOUTH RIGHT HERE.

YOU ALSO WOULD HAVE TRUCKS COMING THAT AGAIN THEY HAVE THIS ROAD, THEY'RE SHOWING THIS WHETHER IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD OR A DRIVE THAT GOES IN THIS AREA AS WELL THAT ACCESSES OLD FORT WORTH ROAD AS WELL. IT'S JUST NOT WARD ROAD.

>> JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT HUD IS SAYING AND AUSTIN AS WELL, HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT A TRAFFIC FLOW PATTERN OR DESIGN WITHIN THIS? SO TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW YOU GUYS ENVISION OR WOULD DESIGN COMPLIANCE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT?

>> A COUPLE OF THINGS. WE THINK THAT MOST OF THE TRAFFIC IS GOING HERE AND WE THINK THAT WHEN YOU TURN NORTH HERE, YOU'RE ON 67 RIGHT HERE AND YOU AVOID ANY INTERSECTIONS, STOPLIGHTS. IF YOU GO UP TO OLD FORT WORTH ROAD AND YOU NEED TO GO TO DALLAS, YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THIS LIGHT, THROUGH MAIN STREET LIGHT AND THEN UP.

SO I THINK THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE IS HERE AND YOU'RE ON AND YOU'RE GONE. AND IF YOU WANT TO GO UP TO 287,

YOU JUMP ON HERE. >> YOU CAN'T GO NORTH FROM

THERE. >> YOU CAN.

>> ACROSS THE HIGHWAY. >> YOU GO UNDER THE BRIDGE AND THEN YOU TAKE THIS ONRAMP AND THEN IT GOES INTO THE CIRCULAR DEAL, YOU NEVER EXIT AND YOU GO UP 287.

SO IT NEVER IMPACTS THIS INTERSECTION OR MAIN AND 67.

THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS WE'RE OPEN TO CHANGING THIS, WE'VE LOOKED AT TONS AND TONS OF WAYS AND HAVE COMPARED SITE PLANS WITH CITY STAFF. I MEAN IF THE INTENT IS MAYBE YOU WANT IT CONNECTED HERE AND THEN TRUCKS CAN'T GO UP THIS WAY. AND THEN IF THEY'RE GOING THIS WAY, THEY'RE COMMITTED, THEY'RE NOT HALFWAY GOING THERE AND THEN JUST HAVING TO CONTINUE SO TO SPEAK.

>> I KNOW YOU GUYS PROBABLY WOULD NOT LOVE WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY, BUT I ACTUALLY LOVE YOUR SITE PLAN SITE D EXCEPT I STILL WANT YOU GUYS TO BUILD THE TWO LANES ON WARD ROAD.

[01:45:10]

>> IS THAT SITE D? >> SITE D IN OUR PACKET.

SITE D IS THEIR ORIGINAL PLAN THAT HAD THE LOOP.

IT KEEPS ALL OF THE TRAFFIC INSIDE THERE EXCEPT FOR THE ONE

ROAD THAT GOES BACK UP TO -- >> ONE THING, COUNCILMAN, THAT YOU POINTED OUT WAS THE PHASING OF THIS LOOP ROAD, THAT CAME FROM CITY STAFF IN TERMS OF COULD IT BE RECOMMENDED, I'LL REPEAT IT AGAIN, WE'RE PUTTING IN ALL OF THIS DAY ONE ALONG WITH THIS BUILDING, THIS BUILDING, THIS BUILDING.

>> BUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE YOU'RE PUTTING IN IS EXACTLY WHAT

YOU'RE SHOWING THERE. >> WELL WHATEVER YOU GUYS

APPROVE. >> WHATEVER WE APPROVE.

>> YEAH. >> UNLESS YOU BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT DICTATES HOW MANY BUILDINGS YOU CAN HAVE

AND WHERE. >> YEAH.

>> WE TALKED, GO AHEAD, ANSWER HIS QUESTION.

>> THIS BUILDING CANNOT GET ANY LARGER BECAUSE YOU RUN INTO THE CREEK. THIS BUILDING CAN'T GET ANY LARGER BECAUSE OF THE CREEK. THIS ONE AS WELL WHICH I CAN SAY IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE SMALLER THAN THAT.

THESE ARE LOCKED BUT TO YOUR POINT, ONCE THE ROADS ARE IN,

IT'S EVEN FURTHER. >> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO PUT

THERE? >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO LEAVE THAT A BUFFER?

>> WE CAN LEAVE IT A BUFFER OR WE THOUGHT ABOUT SOME SORT OF PARK KIND OF DEAL. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S APPEALING TO YOU OR NOT. WE HAVE NO CLUE.

>> WOULD YOU YIELD THE PODIUM? >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE IT.

>> YOU NEED TO COME TO THE PODIUM THOUGH.

>> I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION. I'M SORRY, CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME?

>> YOU CAN PUT IT DOWN. THERE YOU GO.

>> SO THE INTERSECTION AT 287 AND OLD FORT WORTH ROAD WHERE THAT NEW LIGHT WAS INSTALLED, I WOULD SAY MOST OF THE DAY IT'S OKAY BUT WHEN EVERYBODY IS COMING HOME FROM WORK OFF OF 287 AND THEN EXITING TO GO BACK INTO TOWN, IT BACKS OUT ONTO THE HIGHWAY. SO LIKE THAT 5:00, 6:00 TIMEFRAME. ARE WE GUARANTEED THAT THE TRUCKS ARE GOING TO BE COMING IN ON 67 OR IS THERE A CHANCE THAT THEY WOULD BE USING THAT 287 ENTRANCE AS WELL?

>> THERE'S ANOTHER EXIT. YOU GO OVER THE BRIDGE AND THERE'S ANOTHER EXIT TO GET ON THE 67, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THEY COULD EXIT EARLY ON ACCIDENT AND STILL END UP ON OLD FORT WORTH, BUT THERE IS ANOTHER EXIT FOR 67 JUST PAST

THE ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> YEAH, BUT I COULD SEE TRUCKS

EXITING THAT FIRST ONE. >> I AGREE.

>> AND AT THAT TIMEFRAME I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY DANGEROUS IF WE HAVE CARS BACKING UP ONTO THE HIGHWAY IN ADDITION TO TRUCKS.

>> THEY'RE GOING TO GO THE EASIEST WAY.

THAT'S WHAT IT IS. WHAT IS IT EASIER GETTING TRAFFIC ALL BACKED UP, I'M NOT GOING TO GO THAT WAY, I'M GOING TO GO AROUND THIS OTHER WAY. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO

IS GO THE EASIEST WAY. >> I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.

>> WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE EXHIBIT D OR THE SITE PLAN

THEY SHOWED FOR D. >> YES.

>> I THINK REALLY IT'S NOT MUCH DIFFERENT, THEY'RE PULLING THIS ROAD OVER HERE. IF YOU'RE SAYING STILL

CONTINUING AND HAVING WARD ROAD. >> IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT AS IT IS THIS INTERSECTION RIGHT HERE. I LIKE THE FACT THAT IT KIND OF LOOPED IN AND LINED BACK OVER HERE BECAUSE LIKE THEY SAID EARLIER, IF FOR SOME REASON THAT TRUCKER COMES IN RIGHT UP HERE AND MISSES THAT, HE'S GONE UP WARD.

THAT'S WHY I LIKED HOW IT TIED BACK IN EARLIER JUST BECAUSE IT

KEEPS THEM FROM -- >> THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT D, IF THEY'RE CONTINUING WARD AND BUILDING IT UP HERE WHICH IS D, THEY REALLY STILL HAVE THAT SAME OPTION OF BEING ABLE TO CONTINUE TO THE NORTH.

>> YEAH, BUT IN THEIR SITE PLAN THEY HAD IT, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE THOROUGHFARE PLAN SHOWS.

>> CLARK, COULDN'T YOU JUST DO A SLIGHT REALIGNMENT.

>> THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I'M ASKING.

>> I JUST MEAN IN THE INTERSECTION TO HELP DIRECTIONAL

FLOW. >> YEAH.

>> INSTEAD OF MAKING IT A 90 DEGREE RIGHT HAND TURN YOU COULD

[01:50:03]

LEFT. >> ONE MINUTE.

>> I'VE GOT A QUICK QUESTION. I AGREE WITH CLARK, WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE TO HAVE ALL OF THIS INFRASTRUCTURE GOING OFF WYATT ROAD. YOU HAVE THAT ROAD COMING OFF OF OLD FORT WORTH HIGHWAY TO TAKE CARE OF THIS BUILDING, THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE HERE TO TAKE CARE OF THIS, THEIR EXIT RIGHT THERE FOR 67, THIS HERE WHY CAN'T THEY JUST HAVE THIS RIGHT HERE WHERE IT'S INTO THIS BUILDING GOING THERE? WHY IS ALL OF THIS HERE HAVE TO BE EFFECTED JUST LIKE CLARK

SAID? >> SO THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THEY'LL TAKE THE EASIEST PATH. I WOULD SAY THAT TWO THINGS ON OLD FORT WORTH ROAD, IF THERE'S A SCHOOL THERE, TRUCKS AREN'T GOING TO TAKE THAT, THAT'S NOT THE EASIEST PATH AND BE IN SCHOOL TRAFFIC. HIGHLY UNLIKELY THEY'RE GOING TO INTERMINGLE THERE. THE OTHER THING IS BECAUSE OF THE GRADE CHANGE THAT WE DESCRIBED ON GETTING UP TO OLD FORT WORTH ROAD, IF IT'S 5% TO 6% TO GET UP, ALSO LESS APPEALING FOR THEM TO GO UP HERE AND MAKE THAT TURN.

AND THEN MY LAST POINT IS OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. COUNCILMAN MENTIONED BUILDING THE TWO LANES AND THEN CUTTING IT OFF HERE, WE'D BE WILLING TO DO THAT IF THAT'S AMENABLE TO YOU.

THE BENEFIT WOULD BE THESE PEOPLE AND THESE PEOPLE WOULD GET AN IMPROVED 2 LANE ROAD CONNECTING TO HERE AND CAN GO ALL THE WAY DOWN THROUGH IF THEY'D LIKE OR UP.

WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY TRAFFIC ON THIS ROAD, WE WOULD ON THIS PIECE OF COURSE, BUT NO TRAFFIC ON THIS ROAD OR UP HERE.

>> I LIKE THAT A LOT BETTER. >> HEY AUSTIN, I'VE GOT A FEW QUESTIONS. I'M TRYING TO STAY VERY QUIET.

IT'S EASY, MUCH EASIER THAN YOU'VE BEEN DEALING WITH.

I'M JUST GOING TO START AT THE TOP HERE.

THERE'S PROVISIONS FOR ONE POLE SIGN, WHY? WHY A POLE SIGN? WE HATE POLE SIGNS IN MIDLOTHIAN BUT FOR SOME REASON IT'S IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

>> YEAH, THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE RIGHT, WE GENERALLY DON'T LIKE POLE SIGNS, THIS ONE WILL BE WRAPPED WITH MASONRY COLUMNS AROUND EACH ONE. WE'VE SPENT MANY, MANY HOURS ON THIS. ONE THING I WAS GOING THROUGH THE ORDINANCES THAT WAS ONE THING I MISSED AND WHEN I FINALLY CAUGHT IT INSTEAD OF POSSIBLY HAVING 15 POLE SIGNS, WE WENT DOWN TO ONE FOR THE ENTIRE SITE.

IT'S SOME SORT OF VISIBILITY FOR THE SITE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

>> WHERE IS IT GOING TO BE? >> FINAL PLACEMENT WOULD BE BY

THE CITY ENGINEER. >> I HATE TO HANG YOU, BUT YOU

SAID YOU WANT A POLE SIGN -- >> DO I WANT ONE?

NO. >> YOU WOULD UTILIZE OR YOU ENVISIONED THE UTILIZATION OF A POLE SIGN FOR FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT? >> THAT WAS THE WRONG WORDS, FOR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT, WHAT'S ALREADY THERE, WHETHER IT BE THE

BUSINESSES. >> THAT'S WHY I ASKED AUSTIN,

SORRY. >> YOU'RE FINE.

>> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO USE THAT POLE SIGN FOR IN YOUR PLAN?

>> WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT IS REALLY.

>> A POLE SINE IS IMAGINE A RECTANGULAR SIGN ON A POLE INSTEAD OF WHAT YOU HAVE IN THIS PICTURE WHICH WE CONSIDER LIKE A MONUMENT SIGN, THAT WOULD BE A SHORT MONUMENT SIGN.

>> YEAH, WE'RE FINE DELETING THAT.

>> OKAY. >> YOU ONLY TALKED ABOUT

MONUMENT. >> I THOUGHT IT VERY STRANGE CONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE A POLE SIGN. NOW I THINK EVERY DEVELOPMENT STANDS STRONG ON ITS OWN TWO FEET UNTIL YOU START BRINGING IN THE NEIGHBORS AND THE INGRESS, EGRESS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP FROM YOUR EVENTUAL NEIGHBOR THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE IS THE 110, 70, 55-FOOT CONVERSATION.

SO IT STARTED 110, P&Z SAID MAYBE 70 OR 75, AND IN A CONVERSATION WE WEREN'T A PART OF THERE WAS A POTENTIAL FOR FIVE. SO CAN YOU SPEAK ON THOSE NUMBERS? I'M JUST GOING FROM WHAT YOUR NEIGHBOR SAID, I'VE GOT TO ASK ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING

TO BE YOUR NEIGHBOR. >> NO, I GET IT.

FAIR QUESTION OF COURSE. THIS ONE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE WILL BE 55. SO THE 70 IS JUST ROOM FOR AND THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF LIKE THE 150 TO 110 WAS FOR USERS LIKE COLD STORAGE, DATA CENTERS, STUFF LIKE THAT.

[01:55:02]

>> WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO LIMITING THE HEIGHT TO I'LL GIVE

YOU FIVE FEET, 60 FEET? >> WE COULD DO THAT.

>> GO FROM 55, I WANT CLARIFICATION ARE YOU TALKING

ABOUT THE ROOF 50 OR 55 -- >> CORRECT, THE PARAPET GOES UP

FIVE FEET. >> I HOPE YOU'RE TAKING NOTES

OVER THERE, JOE. >> AND THE FUTURE TIA STUDIES AND THE POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS. SO WE KNOW THE MAJOR CONCERN FOR ME IS JUST LIKE JUSTIN SAID, THE 287-67 COME TO THE LEFT, GO TO THE RIGHT, IT'S A NIGHTMARE. SO IF WE CAN'T HAVE OUR CAKE AND EAT IT. SO WE CAN'T PUSH ALL OF THE TRUCKS TO 67 FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS IF WE HAVE THAT HORRIBLE SITUATION. BUT THEN WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO INCREASE BEYOND REQUIRED TRUCK TRAFFIC THROUGH WYATT AND OLD FORT WORTH AND AFFECTING THE RESIDENTS AND THE NEIGHBORS.

SO THE QUESTION CAME UP FOR REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS BASED OFF OF TIA RECOMMENDATIONS. WHO PAYS FOR IT, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON COVERING POTENTIAL INCREASES OR IMPROVEMENTS?

>> YEAH, THAT'S A TOUGH QUESTION.

I MEAN I THINK IT'S A NEGOTIATION ON THAT.

I THINK IT DEPENDS ON HOW BAD WE WANT THE TENANT AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, RIGHT. I GET THE WHOLE THE TIA REQUEST, THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS WE DON'T WANT AN AMAZON TYPE TENANT

IN THERE, RIGHT. >> OH WE'RE GETTING TO THAT.

THIS IS ACTUALLY PURELY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE DRIVEN THE INTERSECTION THAT JUSTIN BROUGHT UP, BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BECAUSE SOMETIMES I'M NOT PAYING ATTENTION WHEN I'M DRIVING TO EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. BUT YOU'RE COMING DOWN WHAT HIGHWAY, 67 AND YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO 287 SOUTH.

>> IF YOU'RE GETTING OFF OF 287 AND YOU GET ONTO 67 SOUTH, WHEN YOU'RE ENTERING ONTO THE HIGHWAY, YOU HAVE TO YIELD TO THE RIGHT AND IMMEDIATELY YIELD TO THE LEFT AND THEN WITHIN 100 YARDS WILL BE Y'ALLS DEVELOPMENT.

100 FEET PROBABLY. >> SO JOE, COLLIDE, CHRIS, AND MIKE, HOW DO WE WORK SOME KIND OF STEP INTO THAT.

SO LET'S SAY WE'VE APPROVED THIS TODAY, WE'VE INSTANTLY CREATED A DEATH TRAP. SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE IN ANY OF THE WORKSHOPS WITH STAFF A PLAN OR A VISION FOR HOW THAT WOULD GROW WITH THE EVENTUAL GROWTH AND FINISH OUT THIS DEVELOPMENT?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS AGAIN RIGHT NOW THE TIA THAT WAS DONE WAS FOR WAREHOUSING ONLY.

IF YOU COME IN DIFFERENT USE, SO THE WAREHOUSE IS APPROVED AS PART OF THE PD. IF YOU COME IN WITH A USE THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE PD, YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND THERE WILL BE A NEW UPDATED TIA BASED ON WHAT THAT USE IS.

IF IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE WAREHOUSING, THAT'S ONE POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY ON THAT SIDE OF IT, BECAUSE YOU'LL HAVE A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF TRIPS AND GENERATION AND THOSE TYPE OF

THINGS. >> SO DO YOU KNOW SPECIFICALLY HOW THE TIA STUDY CLASSIFIED WAREHOUSE USES AND THEIR POTENTIAL IMPACT IN INVENTORY TURNOVER AND TRUCK, NOT TRUCK

BUT TRAVEL NUMBERS? >> YES, SIR.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT AND I LEFT MY STUFF BACK THERE, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT WAREHOUSING AND YOU'RE TYPICALLY LOOKING AT YOUR PEAK HOURS, ON THE PM PEAK HOUR, IT'S SET UP AS .19 TRIPS PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET ON WAREHOUSING.

>> ON WAREHOUSE? >> YES, SIR.

AND THERE'S A DEFINITION WITHIN THE ITEMANUAL THAT SPEAKS TO WHETHER IT'S WAREHOUSING OR SOME TYPE OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BASED ON THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO IT'S ALL INCLUDED AS PART OF THE TIA WITHIN THE MANUAL ITSELF.

AND ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE ITSELF WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE 3.5, 3.6 MILLION SQUARE FEET, IT WAS BASED ON THE 150 CODE WHICH WAS

WAREHOUSING. >> SO AUSTIN, REAL QUICK, OVER THERE WHEN YOU'VE GOT A SECOND, I'VE GOT TO ASK DID YOU AND YOUR GUY YOU'RE WORKING WITH, I FORGET YOUR NAME OVER THERE.

DID YOU GUYS CALL EACH OTHER AND WEAR THE SAME THING HERE?

>> WE'VE BEEN MADE FUN OF A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE OFFICE

ABOUT THAT. >> I KNOW YOU KNOW AT LEAST THE ANSWER, MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO SHARE ALL OF IT, BUT IN

[02:00:04]

AND WITH EACH LEVEL COMES TRAFFIC IN AND OUT ET CETERA.

SO WAREHOUSING IS DIFFERENT THAN MAYBE FULFILLMENT, RIGHT? FULFILLMENT WOULD BE A TYPE OF WAREHOUSING WHICH GENERATES A HIGHER IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE, INGRESS/EGRESS COUNTS, AND DISRUPTION. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO YOU HAD SAID LESLIE POOLS, YOU SAID SOME OTHER COMPANIES I FORGET AND A TARGET WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE SO HOPEFULLY THEY'RE NOT MOVING. BUT FULFILLMENT CENTERS WOULD BE SOMETHING MORE TOWARDS DIRECT TO CONSUMER, E-COMMERCE, THINGS LIKE THAT. IS THERE ENVISIONING FOR

FULFILLMENT IN THIS DEVELOPMENT? >> IN TERMS OF WHO WE'RE TALKING

TO, NO? >> SORRY, I WANT TO KEEP THAT OUT. JUST FOR USAGE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE BUILD OUT, IS THERE AN EXPECTATION TO UTILIZE ANY OF THESE STRUCTURES FOR WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED FULFILLMENT STYLE WAREHOUSING? HIGH TURNOVER INVENTORY RATES?

>> SO I'LL TRY TO BE THOROUGH WITH IT, THE TERM FULFILLMENT AS YOU PROBABLY WELL KNOW COMES FROM AMAZON, RIGHT.

AND NOBODY ELSE DOES IT THE WAY THEY DO.

LIKE IT'S HARD TO SAY WHEN YOU HAVE A TARGET LOGISTICS BUILDING OR HOME DEPOT OR A LOWES HOW MUCH OF THAT IS FULFILLMENT, HOW MUCH OF WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THAT IS E-COMMERCE, WHAT'S THE PERCENTAGE OF INVENTORY, ALL OF THAT STUFF IS REALLY, REALLY COMPLICATED AND IT'S HARD TO PIN DOWN.

THE ONLY ONE WE KNOW FOR 100% IS AMAZON.

DO WE THINK AMAZON WILL GO TO THIS PROJECT? PROBABLY UNLIKELY AND THE REASON WHY IS UNFORTUNATELY THE NEIGHBORS HERE IS MY HONEST ANSWER.

BECAUSE THAT'S THE FEEDBACK THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN LOTS OF DEVELOPERS THROUGHOUT DFW, THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

BUT ARE THERE OTHER GROUPS LIKE HOME DEPOT, LIKE LOWES, SOMEBODY

LIKE THAT. >> BUT THE INVENTORY TURNOUT RATE FOR A HOME DEPOT OR LOWES OR TARGET, THEY HOLD THEIR STUFF IN THEIR WAREHOUSE MUCH LONGER THAN AN E-COMMERCE OR DIRECT TO

DELIVERY HUB? >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO PUT PUTTING NUMBERS ON DELIVERY AND INVENTORY HOLDS?

>> THAT'S TOUGH. >> I'M TOUGH.

>> THAT COULD GET PEOPLE FIRED SORT OF THING.

IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF TIA THAT SAYS WITHIN THE STAFF PROPOSAL RIGHT NOW THERE'S A REQUEST OR RECOMMENDATION THAT IF THE CHANGE FROM WAREHOUSE TO SOMETHING ELSE, THEN IT TRIGGERS A TIA STUDY, THAT KIND OF THING WE'RE AGREEABLE.

WE'D LIKE IT LIMITED TO SOMEONE LIKE A TENANT NAME OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE YOU PENALIZE THE OTHER TENANTS IF YOU'RE SPENDING TIME GETTING TIAS FOR WHIRLPOOL OR PROCTOR & GAMBLE OR HOME DEPOT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

TIME KILLS DEALS AND IF THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO DO THAT MAYBE IN ANOTHER MARKET, THEY MAY GO THAT DIRECTION.

BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO DO IT FOR A TENANT LIKE WHAT WE DESCRIBED.

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW LEGAL THAT WOULD BE TO SINGLE OUT A CERTAIN

-- >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO

ASK. >> WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

>> I DIDN'T THINK WE COULD. >> AS FAR AS THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHAT YOU SAID HOLD TIMES, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD EVER

ENFORCE THAT. >> SO WAREHOUSING IS CLASSIFIED BY INVENTORY TURNOVERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> ONE THING STAFF DID RECOMMEND WHICH IS IN YOUR PACKET, ANY USES THAT DIFFER FROM WAREHOUSE WOULD REQUIRE THE TIA TO BE UPDATED. THE QUESTION IS YOU HAVE A TIA, THE TIA IS UPDATED THE TIA SAYS WHAT, WHAT THEN DID YOU DO? DO YOU DO THE NECESSARY ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, THEIR PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THEM FOR WHATEVER CHANGES AS A RESULT OF THE TIA?

THAT'S NOT RESTRICTING USES. >> MY CONCERN OVERALL IS NOT THE TRUCK TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF THIS FACILITY UTILIZING OLD FORT

[02:05:03]

BUT IF ANY OF THIS TURNS OVER TO FULFILLMENT STYLE WAREHOUSING, YOU DON'T HAVE 18-WHEELERS IN AND OUT OF THERE ANYMORE THAT YOU HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU HAVE FORD T7 HUNDREDS AND T ONE THOUSANDS AND SPRINTERS LIKE BUMBLEBEES EVERYWHERE AND THEY WILL USE WYATT AND OLD FORT WORTH ROAD.

>> THAT'S A DISASTER. THAT'S SOMETHING WE WON'T DO.

WE'VE TURNED THEM DOWN SEVERAL TIMES ON PROJECTS BECAUSE IT BREAKS THE PROJECT. BACK TO MY EARLIER COMMENT, IF THIS BUILDING OR ANY OF THE BUILDINGS WERE ONE OF THOSE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO LEASE ANYTHING ELSE.

I MEAN SO WE SPECIFICALLY SAID NO TO THEM IN SEVERAL PROJECTS BECAUSE OF THAT. SO AGAIN WE'RE REALLY SENSITIVE TO THAT TOO. I GUESS THE OTHER THING I'D SAY IS IF WE'RE ABLE TO TURN THIS ROAD AND CONNECT IT, BUILD THIS AND KEEP TRUCK TRAFFIC OFF IT, DOES THAT SOLVE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE REGARDLESS OF THE TENANT, BOTH YOUR QUEUEING LANES WITHIN EACH BUILDING ARE VERY, VERY LONG, BUT YOU'RE ALSO

SELF-CONTAINED? >> I'M CONFIDENT WITHIN YOUR DEVELOPMENT YOU WILL HANDLE ALL TRUCK TRAFFIC AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN SOME OTHER USES AND I WON'T NAME IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO COME BACK AND SAY ON THIS DATE YOU SAID, BUT THERE'S BEEN SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND THEY'VE MADE THE CLAIM THAT IT'S SCARY WHEN IT GOES IN, BUT WHEN IT'S IN, IT'S PRETTY LOW IMPACT AND IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD AND WE KEEP IT UP AND WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL OF YOUR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND I WOULD SAY THAT KEEPING THEM MOVING AND NOT LETTING THEM SIT AROUND IS BEST AND I THINK THAT'S ADDRESSED HERE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT AGES PROPERLY AND THAT MAYBE SOME THINGS LIKE THIS INTERSECTION AND LIKE FUTURE USES AS THE POPULATION GROWS IN THE METROPLEX, THEY DON'T BECOME A

PROBLEM. >> BUT NOT TO BE OFFENSIVE, YOUR GOOD INTENTS IS NOT ENFORCEABLE IN THE FUTURE BY THE CITY.

HOW DOES THE CITY PROTECT ITSELF? JOE, WE CAN'T SAY, THE TIA IS BASED UPON NUMBER OF TRIPS PER

THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, RIGHT? >> I DON'T KNOW, I'LL DEFER TO

THE ENGINEER OR THE TIA. >> THAT'S WHAT I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY. CAN WE SAY YOU CAN'T EXCEED SOME

THRESHOLD? >> I BELIEVE IF I HEARD RIGHT EARLIER, WE CAN JUST NOT ALLOW THE BUILDING PERMIT MOVING PAST A CERTAIN AMOUNT, IS THAT WHAT I HEARD EARLIER? IF WE HIT THAT TRIGGER POINT, WE CAN SAY NO AT THAT POINT.

CAN WE? >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE

QUESTION? >> WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE WAS WHAT WERE SOME OF THE MECHANISMS IF THEY COME BACK AND DO AN UPDATED TIA, HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE IMPROVEMENTS ARE DONE

IN THAT TIMEFRAME. >> IF I'M THINKING CORRECTLY, HOW DO YOU SAY THE TIA STUDY CAN'T GO BEYOND SO MANY TRIPS

PER -- >> THAT'S WHY RIGHT NOW IF YOU CAME IN AND SAID BASED ON WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW, THE TIA THAT WAS DONE AND IT WAS BASED ON WAREHOUSING ONLY AND THAT IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE LESSER INTENSE USES, YOU SAID IF YOU DID ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT, YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL,

THAT'S ONE OPTION. >> ARE WE ON THE RIGHT PAGE HERE OR RIGHT LABELING? BUT WE'RE ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, WE'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT USE AT THIS POINT.

BUT YOU STILL HAVE -- >> I JUST WANT TO, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BUT IS MOVING THAT STREET LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THEY CAN'T REALLY GO OUTSIDE THE

DEVELOPMENT AFTER THAT. >> IT SOLVES THE 18-WHEELER POTENTIALLY IT HELPS TO SOLVE THE CARS, TRUCKS TRAFFIC ON

RESIDENTIAL ROADS. >> BUT IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE

NUMBER. >> WELL THE NUMBER IS NOT SOMETHING IN MY OPINION, THE NUMBER IS NOT SOMETHING TO FOCUS ON AS A MAKE OR BREAK SITUATION BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE 30,000

[02:10:04]

>> BUT IT'S ACTUALLY QUEUEING. >> AS LONG AS THEY CAN HANDLE IT AND HAVE MECHANISMS IN PLACE TO DO IT, IT WON'T BE SO BAD.

>> BUT AT SOME POINT THOUGH, YOU HAVE A FULFILLMENT CENTER,

YOU'RE GOING NUMBERS PAST. >> SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.

>> THAT'S A FULFILLMENT CENTER. >> IT'S A QUEUEING PROBLEM?

>> CORRECT, WHICH WE'RE SOLVING, RIGHT.

SO I THINK TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT FUTURE IS IF IT'S DESIGNED PROPERLY THEN THAT SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.

I GUESS THE OTHER THING IS I THINK WE'VE ADEQUATELY RESERVED FOR QUEUEING WITHIN THESE. BUT IF WE TURNED THIS SOUTH RIGHT HERE AND DIDN'T ALLOW TRUCK TRAFFIC UP HERE, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE WE'VE GOT ENOUGH QUEUEING.

BUT EVEN IF YOU HAD LIKE STANDSTILL TRAFFIC ON THIS, IT EFFECTS NOBODY. I MEAN THESE BUILDINGS ARE 12 TO 50% MORE QUEUEING THAN THIS INCLUDING THIS FRONTAGE ROAD.

>> BUT THERE'S NO WAREHOUSES IN THE FIRST PICTURE.

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. BUT THE QUEUEING IS 12% TO 15% PER BUILDING. SO LIKE THIS LANE RIGHT HERE, RIGHT AROUND HERE THAT WRAPS ALL THE WAY AROUND IS 30% LONGER THAN WHAT I JUST SHOWED YOU. AND THEN THIS LANE THAT COMES RIGHT AROUND HERE AND THEN THIS ONE THAT GOES ALL THE WAY UP HERE. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO CONVEY. THE OTHER THING IS, MAYOR, YOU MENTIONED FUTURE OWNERS. THE FUTURE OWNERS OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS ARE KIND OF LIKE I SAID BEFORE, TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS OR NEW YORK PENSION PLAN OR CANADIAN PENSION PLAN. GUYS LIKE THAT THAT ARE THINKING ABOUT OWNING THIS FOR 30 YEARS AND THE UPKEEP AND THE CONCERN FOR TRAFFIC AND THE RELEASABILITY IS HUGE FOR THEM.

>> THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CARE ABOUT TRAFFIC.

>> THEY ARE IF THEY CAN'T LEASE IT.

>> HAVE Y'ALL CONSIDERED THERE'S A TRAIN THAT GOES RIGHT HERE AND WHEN THE TRUCKS ARE COMING SOUTHBOUND ON 67 TO TURN IN TO GIRDEAU, WHEN THAT TRAIN IS STOPPED, THAT QUEUE TO GO INTO GIRDEAU IS GOING TO BE BACKED UP ALONG THIS SERVICE ROAD ALREADY WHICH WOULD PREVENT, POTENTIALLY PREVENT ANY TRUCKS FROM COMING

OUT AND GOING UNDERNEATH. >> YES, SIR.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS LOOKED AT EVEN FROM THE STANDPOINT OF GOING BACK IN TIME AND LOOKING AT THE ARROW, YOU CAN SEE WHEN THERE WAS TRUCKS AND IT WAS STOPPED.

THERE WERE SOME THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT RECENTLY AT SOME POINT WOULD THERE BE THE ABILITY FOR THERE TO BE A TEXAS TURN AROUND THERE AT THAT INTERSECTION BECAUSE NOW IF YOU'RE COMING OUT THIS AREA RIGHT THERE, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME AND HIT THAT TURN AROUND AND NOT GET STUCK IN THAT QUEUEING.

BUT THAT IS A CONCERN, EVEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LANES UNDERNEATH THE BRIDGE RIGHT NOW ARE 20 FEET WIDE.

IT'S ACTUALLY STRIPED JUST FOR ONE LANE.

>> SO WE DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION FOR IT?

>> I THOUGHT THE RAILROAD TRACK WAS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE

SERVICE ROAD. >> IT IS.

>> UNLESS THE SEMI TRUCKS ARE GOING INTO THAT PLANT WHICH THEY LIKELY WON'T BE, THEY'LL LIKELY BE DOING THE TEXAS TURN AROUND UNDER THE BRIDGE AND HEADED UP THE HIGHWAY, UNLESS THEY'RE GOING INTO FURTHER DOWN WARD ROAD, I DON'T, MAYBE FOR THE GENERAL TRAFFIC WE'D GET BACKED UP HERE, BUT --

>> YES, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE IS WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST IS WHEN THERE IS A TRAIN COMING HERE, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE HERE, THESE TRUCKS START QUEUEING AND THEY START COMING BACK AND THERE'S A LONG LINE THAT ACTUALLY AT TIMES HAS GOTTEN BACK FROM THE RAMP ONTO THE MAIN LANES.

>> SO YOU'RE TALKING THE MIX OF TRAFFIC NOT JUST THEIR TRUCKS.

[02:15:03]

>> YES, SIR. AT THIS TIME IT'S WHAT'S TRYING TO ACCESS GIRDEAU TO THE SOUTH. IT COULD, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE TRYING TO EXIT AT THE RAMP AND THEY'RE BACKED UP TO THE RAMP, THERE'S A CHANCE YOU'RE GOING TO START BACKING UP AS WELL.

IT DEPENDS IF YOU'RE COMING 67 OR 287 AND YOU'RE ON THE ACCESS ROAD. ON THE ACCESS ROAD WITH DOING THE DECEL IT MAY HELP THIS AREA. YOU SHOULD FOR SURE BE ABLE TO BYPASS THAT. THIS RIGHT IN HERE, IF YOU'RE COMING ON THE ACCESS ROAD, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET AROUND ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE BUT IF YOU'RE USING THE RAMP YOU MAY BE

STUCK. >> WHAT IF THEY QUEUE ON THE LEFT-HAND LANE BECAUSE THEY'RE MAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN.

>> A DECELERATION LANE WOULD DRAMATICALLY HELP THAT IN MY

OPINION. >> IF YOU'RE EXITING AND YOU'RE TRYING TODAY, YOU WANT TO GO ACROSS 67 AND THEN HEAD NORTHBOUND, IF ALL OF THAT IS BACKED UP, YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ACCESS 67 TO THE NORTH UNTIL ALL OF THIS CLEARS.

>> WHO WOULD PAY FOR THE TEXAS TURN AROUND IF ONE WAS NEEDED?

>> TXDOT PROBABLY WOULD. THEY DO LOOK FOR CONTRIBUTIONS.

>> HOW DOES THAT WORK, I DON'T SEE THEM PAYING FOR IT?

>> THERE WOULD BE SOME PRETTY MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU'D HAVE TO DO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BRIDGE.

WHAT WE LOOKED AT INITIALLY WAS WOULD THERE BE THE ABILITY TO COME IN AND COULD YOU ACTUALLY WIDEN THE LANES UNDER THE BRIDGE RIGHT NOW. BUT YOU HAVE A COLUMN IN THE CENTER AND YOU'RE LIMITED. YOU'D BE WORKING ON THE BACKSIDE IN HERE, BUT IT WOULD BE PRETTY COSTLY.

TXDOT MORE THAN LIKELY WOULD NOT BE LOOKING TO MAKE THAT A TXDOT

PROJECT AT THE TIME. >> OUR STAFF REPORT HAS QUITE A FEW RECOMMENDATIONS AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH OF THEM HAVE BEEN AGREED UPON BY THE DEVELOPER, SO AUSTIN, DO YOU MIND COMING BACK UP AND IF YOU'LL HAVE PATIENCE FOR ME WITH A MINUTE, I'D LIKE TO RUN THROUGH ALL OF THESE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND IF YOU JUST TELL ME YES OR NO, AS SIMPLE AS THAT THAT THE PLAN IS TO DO THIS OR NOT DO THAT AND I'M JUST GOING TO PUT A CHECK MARK OR AN X NEXT TO EACH ONE BECAUSE I AM THAT SIMPLEMINDED.

BEAR WITH ME. THE FIRST ONE IS WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE ZONING, WERE YOU GOING TO BE WILLING TO LIMIT THE ZONING AND TAKE AWAY THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL CATCH ALL AND MAKE IT MORE PD OR MAKE THE PD MORE SUP BASED?

>> YES. >> CHECK MARK.

SEVERAL OF THESE HAVE TO DO WITH TRAFFIC AND WE MAY HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED SOME OF THEM. WARD ROAD, YOU ARE GOING TO BUILD TWO LANES AT WARD ROAD, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT?

>> YES. >> THE TWO SOUTHERN MOST LANES ALONG OLD FORT WORTH ROAD TO BE CONSTRUCTED FROM WARD TO U.S.

HIGHWAY 287 INTERSECTION WITH LEFT TURN LANES AT WARD ROAD AND

ALL DRIVES INTO THE DEVELOPMENT? >> YES.

>> DECELERATION LANES TO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY 67 FRONTAGE ROAD AT BOTH WARD ROAD AND EASTERN DRIVE INTO THE

DEVELOPMENT. >> YES.

>> THAT'S A BIG YES FOR ME, THAT'S A GOOD ONE.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS TO BE CONDUCTED?

>> YES. >> ANY USES THAT DIFFER FROM WAREHOUSING WILL REQUIRE THE TIA TO BE UPDATED AND ANY NECESSARY ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MADE AS A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT? THAT ONE WE DOVE INTO A LITTLE

BIT EARLIER. >> THAT ONE WAS THE ONLY ONE WE

STRUGGLE WITH. >> OKAY.

AN UNNAMED EAST TO WEST ROAD THROUGH THE SITE NEEDS TO BE

STUBBED TO THE EAST? >> YES.

>> THE ALIGNMENT OF WARD ROAD AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHBOUND US HIGHWAY 67 FRONTAGE ROAD NEEDS TO BE BETTER

ALIGNED? >> YES.

>> IMMEDIATE INGRESS/EGRESS OPENINGS NEED TO MEET THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN STANDARDS FOR SPACING AND DESIGN?

>> YES. >> RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FOR WARD ROAD NEEDS TO MATCH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN WITH 90-FOOT OF RIGHT OF WAY BEING DEDICATED AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT?

>> YES. >> ALL PAVING REQUIRED TO BE

CONCRETE? >> YES.

>> TALKED ABOUT THE POLE SIGN, IT'S A NONISSUE.

REQUIRE THE PROXIMITY SLOPE, WE'RE GOING TO DO THE PROXIMITY

SLOPE. >> YES, THAT WAS IN

CONSIDERATION OF OUR -- >> AND THE FINAL ONE I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING & ZONING WHICH WE BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON, IT WAS THE 70-FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT, COULD WE GO AHEAD AND JUST NEGOTIATE A NUMBER?

>> 55 ARTICULATION. >> I THINK IT'S SIMPLE TO JUST

SAY 55. >> YES.

>> YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT? >> IF WE HAVE A USER THAT'S COLD STORAGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT WANTS HIGHER, WE'LL COME

[02:20:01]

BACK HERE AND ASK. >> SOUNDS GREAT.

>> THAT'S ALL OF THEM THAT WERE LISTED BY STAFF.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONS THAT Y'ALL WANT TO ADD AT THIS

POINT OR THAT I MISSED? >> SO BUILD THIS AND THEN TRUCKS

CANNOT GO UP THIS WAY? >> I THOUGHT IT WAS THE OTHER

SITE PLAN. >> OH, YOU'RE RIGHT.

THAT WAS THE OTHER SITE PLAN. IT WAS THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN, IT WAS SITE PLAN D WHICH IS THAT ONE.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR SO BUILD THIS AND TRUCKS JUST CANNOT GO

THIS WAY. >> WELL THAT'S WHAT THE REST OF THE COUNCIL WANTED, WHAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER WAS BUILD THAT IN ADDITION TO BUILDING THE TWO LANES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY ON WARD ROAD WHICH IS A NONUSED ROAD FOR YOU I

UNDERSTAND. >> I GUESS THE ONLY THING WOULD BE DO YOU WANT IT GOING DOWN TO HERE?

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. >> AND THEN THIS IS IMPROVED ALL

THE WAY UP. >> I THINK IT'S AS SIMPLE AS JUST MAKING THAT RIGHT-HAND TURN ONTO WARD ROAD NOT FOR A TRUCK.

>> JUST BAM, RIGHT THERE. >> THIS IS A MAJOR ARTERIAL.

WARD ROAD IS. SO THE ISSUE IS GOING TO BE AGAIN IF WARD IS GOING TO BE THE ONE WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THE VEHICLE OR TRAFFIC AND BE ABLE TO SEND IT THROUGH, THEN WE'RE GOING TO WANT THE EAST/WEST ROAD TO BE THE STOP THRU -- CONDITION. AND YOU DON'T WANT IT AT AN ANGLE WHERE YOU HAVE CONFLICTS IN WHO STOPS.

IF YOU START PUTTING IN WHERE YOU'RE NOT COMING IN CLOSER AT A

90 HERE. >> IF YOU DON'T REMOVE THAT 90, WE CAN'T GUARANTEE A TRUCK DOESN'T TURN RIGHT, THAT'S THE WHOLE THING. SO YOU EITHER HAVE TO BRING THIS AROUND AND MERGE IT INTO WARD HEADING SOUTH OR YOU HAVE TO GET A 120 DEGREE FROM THIS EAST/WEST ROAD INTO WARD.

>> THAT'S STILL AT A 90 SO THAT DOESN'T CREATE AN ISSUE ON THIS END. IT'S STILL HITTING THIS ANGLE AT A 90. THE THING YOU'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL OF IS TRUCKS NEED BIG RADIUSES TO MAKE THESE TURNS, IF YOU START TRYING TO LIMIT WHERE TRUCKS CAN'T MAKE TURNS ON THESE

ROADS YOU WANT THEM UTILIZING. >> I UNDERSTAND, YOU TAKE THIS ROAD AND BRING IT UP AND AROUND LIKE THAT.

SO IT'S A NICE CURVE INSTEAD OF A --

>> THEN THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE CONTINUE WARD ROAD?

>> BECAUSE THEN YOU CURVE FROM HERE UP.

>> RIGHT, BUT AGAIN IF YOU'RE BRINGING, I'M PROBABLY NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>>> CAN YOU GO TO SITE PLAN D OR THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN? I THINK WHAT ME AND WALTER ARE SAYING IS WE WANT BASICALLY THIS CURVE AND ALL I WANT FOR WARD IS FOR IT TO COME OFF AND GO RIGHT

UP. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IT WILL FORCE THAT TRAFFIC DOWN AND IT WILL ALLOW FOR WARD ROAD TRAFFIC TO, IT JUST MAKES IT SO YOU COULDN'T TAKE A SEMI

AND TURN IT UP ONTO WARD ROAD. >> YEAH, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT BECAUSE WARD IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE CARRYING THE TRAFFIC.

>> BUT IT IS. >> BUT IF YOU'RE BRINGING THE EAST/WEST ROAD IN AT AN ANGLE LIKE THAT, WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY. IF YOU'RE HEADING TOWARDS A

TRUCK THAT'S COMING -- >> OKAY, THEN HAVE THEM BUILD THIS LOOP AND BUILD WARD ACROSS THE PROPERTY THEY OWN AND STOP IT RIGHT HERE AND WE'LL GET THE DEDICATION FROM THE NEXT

DEVELOPER AND CARRY IT ON DOWN. >> BUT YOU HAVE TO HIT AT THIS INTERSECTION. BECAUSE IT'S GRADE SEPARATED.

[02:25:01]

>> DO YOU PUT A STOP SIGN HERE, THEY STOP HERE AND COME DOWN?

>> AGAIN IF COUNCIL WANTS TO -- I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> HOW DO YOU DESIGN IT? >> I'LL BE AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, I'M TRYING TO GET THOSE RESIDENTS A NEW ROAD AT THE DEVELOPER'S COST, BUT KEEP THE DEVELOPER'S TRAFFIC INSIDE OF HIS SUBDIVISION. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET

TO. >> YOU CAN DO THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WHERE YOU COME IN WITH WARD ROAD HERE BECAUSE THIS FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, THIS IS WHERE IT REALLY NEEDS TO COME BECAUSE IT'S GRADE SEPARATED. WE CAN WORK ON TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT WOULD TRY TO BE SAFE AND STILL MOVE TRAFFIC AND ALLOW FOR THE TRUCKS TO BE ABLE TO GO IN AND OUT AND THE INTENT WOULD BE TO KEEP THEM INSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT.

>> OKAY. CAN WE APPROVE ALL OF THAT

SUBJECT TO THAT INTERSECTION? >> I THINK YOU COULD WORD IT AS SIMPLE AS APPROVE IT WITH STAFF CONDITIONS, ADD TO IT THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'VE WORKED OUT IN THE POLE SIGN, THE 55 FEET, AND WE WILL LEAVE THE FINAL DESIGN TO ENGINEER APPROVAL FOR

THAT INTERSECTION. >> FOR WYATT ROAD AND WARD ROAD.

>> TO SERVE AS A DETERRENT FOR --

>> NO TO PROHIBIT. THAT'S THE WORD I WANT, NOT DETER. WELL NOW, COUNCIL, DO Y'ALL HAVE ANYMORE QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION

TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. 7-0.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO CRAFT --

>> WE STILL NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, WHEN ARE THOSE GOING TO BE COMPLETED IS THAT UPON THE FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL? IT'S GOING TO BE SUBMITTED IN MULTIPLE PLATS, JUST ONE PLAT? WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO MAKE A REQUIREMENT FOR ALL OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS?

>> INFRASTRUCTURE WAS GOING IN FIRST SO IN MY OPINION

INFRASTRUCTURE IS THE ROADS. >> THE ANSWER I'M TOLD IS PRELIMINARY PLAT AND MULTIPLE FINAL PLATS.

>> SO WHAT'S THE ANSWER FOR WHEN WOULD THE IMPROVEMENTS BE

COMPLETED? >> SO WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON SUBJECT TO APPROVAL WITH THE EDC THAT WE REQUIRE FINISHING PHASE ONE AND ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE BY DECEMBER OF 24. THE LIKELIHOOD IS SUMMER OF NEXT

YEAR. >> NOW WHEN YOU SAY INFRASTRUCTURE, WE'RE TALKING ROADS, INGRESS, EGRESS, INTERSECTIONS, NOT JUST INFRASTRUCTURE ON YOUR SITE,

RIGHT? >> OH YEAH, ALL OF IT.

AND PHASE ONE OF THE BUILDINGS. >> WHAT MAKES THIS CHALLENGING TO CRAFT THIS IS THERE'S NO PHASING PLAN IN THIS ORDINANCE.

SO WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE DIRECTION IS GOING TO BE.

>> YOU'RE THE LAWYER. >> THAT'S MORE OF A STAFF QUESTION PROBABLY AS FAR AS THE PHASING.

>> BUT DO YOU -- NO, IT DOESN'T. SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.

>> SO IF THEY'RE PLATTING THESE TWO BUILDINGS.

SO THE PHASING LINE WILL BE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO INSTALL ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE FINAL PLAT. THIS WOULD BE A LOT, THIS WOULD BE A LOT, THIS WOULD BE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S REQUIRED.

>> I WOULD DISAGREE ONLY BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING A LOT OF THE

[02:30:04]

>> SO ALL INFRASTRUCTURE IS TO BE COMPLETED --

>> WITH CO OF PHASE ONE. >> FINAL PLAT.

>> EXCUSE ME, THANK YOU. >> CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR PHASE ONE, ANYTHING IN PHASE ONE.

DOES THAT WORK? >> SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME

PLEASE. >> BASICALLY THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BEING ISSUED FOR ANY OF THOSE BUILDINGS IN PHASE ONE.

>> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. >> GET THAT ON THE MICROPHONE.

I THINK HE'S TALKING ABOUT ROADWAYS.

>> ROADWAYS. WHEN IS DESIGN OF THE ROADWAYS

FINALIZED? >> I THINK WE'RE SAYING APPROVED SUBJECT TO WORKING THROUGH THIS WYATT AND WARD ROAD.

>> THAT'S WHAT HE SAID EARLIER. HE SAID THEY ARE OKAY WITH WHAT WE FOR A MASTER SITE PLAN, WHATEVER WE APPROVE TONIGHT THEY'RE OKAY WITH GOING TO WORK ON THAT WITH STAFF.

>> SORRY. >> I'M WILLING TO BRAVE A MOTION

IF YOU'LL ENTERTAIN IT. >> I WAS GOING TO LET HIM READ

IT. >> LET JOE GO FIRST AND THEN

JUSTIN YOU CAN SEE IF YOU CAN -- >> WHAT I HAVE AND STAFF PLEASE CHECK OFF IS APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED IN THE PACKET EXCEPT REMOVAL OF THE POLE SIGN REQUIREMENTS IN ITS ENTIRETY AND THE BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 55 FEET AT ARTICULATION OR JUST 55 FEET TOTAL.

IN ADDITION ADDING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1, 2, SUBSECTION 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, AND 9. THE ONLY ONE THAT'S LEFT WITH A BIG QUESTION MARK WAS THE TIA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION THREE ALL PAVED AND REQUIRED TO BE CONCRETE.

FOURTH THE POLE SIGN, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED.

THAT'S BEEN REMOVED. AND ADDING IN THE RECOMMENDATION FIVE WHICH IS THE SLOPING REQUIREMENTS ALONG OLD FORT WORTH ROAD AND WARD ROAD. AND SITE PLAN D.

WAS IT SITE PLAN D? YEAH WITH MODIFICATIONS OF WARD ROAD CONTINUING TO THE NORTH TO OLD FORT WORTH ROAD AND DRUM

[02:35:09]

THAT'S FINE. >> DO WE NEED TO SAY SOMETHING IN EFFECT THAT THE ROADWAY DESIGN SUBJECT TO STAFF

APPROVAL? >> THAT'S IN OUR ORDINANCE, THEY'VE GOT TO BRING IT IN. REMEMBER THIS IS JUST ZONING.

JUST ZONING. >> I THINK THAT'S JUST SUCH A BROAD TERM. THE SCARY THING IS THE TENANT

REDESCRIBED. >> SO CAN WE BRING FOURTH REQUIREMENT THAT A FULFILLMENT CENTER MUST COME THROUGH SUP?

>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT AS A LISTED USE.

>> WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS AND PUT IT

INTO OUR ZONING CODE. >> SO WOULD THE APPLICANT BE OPPOSED TO THAT? WOULD YOU WORK WITH CITY STAFF

TO ALLOW US THAT PROCESS? >> THE PROBLEM IS IF HOME DEPOT CALLS THEIR CENTER A FULFILLMENT CENTER.

>> THAT'S NOT. FULFILLMENT IS TOTALLY TIED TO HOW FAST THAT INVENTORY TURNS AND WHAT THEY DO WITH IT.

THERE IS A COMPONENT IN WAREHOUSING FOR HOME DEPOT SPECIFICALLY THAT IS DIRECT TO CONSUMER.

THERE'S A VERY SMALL COMPONENT WITHIN THEIR WAREHOUSING.

WHEN YOU HAVE X PERCENTAGE WHERE 90% ET CETERA IS E-COMMERCE OR STRAIGHT ENTIRE FULFILLMENT, THAT'S DIFFERENT.

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT HOME DEPOT HAS A DIRECT TO CONSUMER FULFILLMENT SIDE IN THEIR WAREHOUSES THEIR WAREHOUSE IS

NOT A FULFILLMENT WAREHOUSE. >> IT'S A PROBLEM THAT AMAZON

DOESN'T TRIGGER A NEW TIA? >> I'LL TELL YOU ONE THING, AMAZON REQUIRES A TIA THEMSELVES.

>> A TURN LANE? >> WHENEVER THEY DO ANY LEASE

ANYWHERE, THEY REQUIRE A TIA. >> I HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION FOR YOU, ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR AN ADDITIONAL TURN LANE COMING DOWN

67 OR NOT? >> A WHAT DO WE CALL IT A DECEL

LANE? >> A DECELERATION LANE AT SOME

POINT. >> THAT WILL BE COMPLETED UPON

THE CO ISSUED TO THE BUILDING. >> ONE UP TOP AS WELL?

>> ONE HERE AND ONE HERE. >> OKAY.

>> CAN WE, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ABOUT DEFINITION, CAN WE REQUIRE APPROVAL OF FULFILLMENT CENTERS OR SOMEHOW, IS THERE

SOME WAY? >> WHAT COULD WE REQUIRE, HOW ABOUT IF A TENANT REQUIRES A TIA, THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY

TO REVIEW THAT AND APPROVE THAT. >> CAN WE DO THAT, JOE?

>> WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? WHAT CRITERIA ARE YOU GOING TO LOOK AT AND SAY NO, WE DON'T WANT YOU IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

HERE'S THE TIA, NO -- >> IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

>> IT'S SUBJECTIVE. >> HE ASKED WHAT WE'RE LOOKING

FOR. >> WE DON'T WANT WAREHOUSE USE THAT GOES OVER SOME LIMIT OF TRUCKS PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING I SEE YOU CAN CONTROL.

>> I MEAN IT'S SUBJECTIVE, RIGHT.

>> CAN I JUST SAY ONE SUGGESTION, I DON'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. AND I KNOW YOU'RE ON A TIMELINE TO CLOSE THIS PROPERTY, I DON'T REALLY LIKE CRAFTING THIS FROM THE DAIS, WE'RE JUST GOING IN CIRCLES.

SO I WOULD AND I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO HATE ME FOR THIS, I

[02:40:02]

RESCHEDULE ANOTHER WORKSHOP. >> WE'VE GOT A PUBLIC HEARING SO

WE CAN'T. >> I THINK WE'RE SPLITTING HAIRS

WITH THIS. >> WE DON'T HAVE A WINDOW FOR

THAT. >> I DON'T.

>> MY POINT IS, JOE, GIVE ME SOMETHING THAT CAN ALLOW US TO CLARIFY WHAT WE -- GIVE ME MY OPTIONS.

>> IF TONIGHT YOU CAN COME UP WITH A DEFINITION OF WHAT IT IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT IN THERE, WE CAN PUT THAT IN THE PD.

>> ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT BOX VANS?

>> AMAZON VANS. >> NOT A NAME OF A COMPANY, BUT

A USE. >> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT QUADRUPLING THE TRIP TRAFFIC FROM THE CURRENT TIA BECAUSE THE USE OF THE WAREHOUSE UTILIZES VEHICLES THAT ONE DO NOT REQUIRE CDL, TWO DO NOT REQUIRE TRAINING, AND THREE DRIVE AROUND

LIKE HORNETS PISSED OFF. >> EXCEPT WE DON'T WANT THAT

EITHER. >> I HEAR YOU BUT REMEMBER IT'S NOT IN THE PAPERS, IT DOESN'T EXIST.

>> YEAH, LET'S SEE. BUT I GO BACK TO THE TRIPS PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. DOESN'T IT DO THAT? IF WE HAD A LIMIT, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN.

>> LET'S THROW THIS IDEA OUT -- >> JUST REAL QUICK, COUNCIL, THE CURRENT TIA WAS DONE ON AN ITE CODE OF 150 WHICH IS WAREHOUSING. THERE ARE OTHER WAREHOUSING USES THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE 150 CODE.

SO IF COUNCIL SAYS ANY OTHER USE AND SOME OF THOSE USES ARE, THERE'S A 155 IT'S A HIGH CUBE FULFILLMENT WAREHOUSE, THAT DOESN'T FALL UNDER THE 150 WHICH IS JUST WAREHOUSING, SO IF COUNCIL WANTS TO SAY IF THERE'S A USE THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE ITE DEFINITION OF A WAREHOUSE UNDER THE LAND USE 150, THEN A NEW TIA IS REQUIRED AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAY BE NECESSITATED BY THE TIA ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPER.

>> DOES THAT WORK? >> IF YOU COULD REPEAT IT.

>> SO WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IS A USE THAT DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF WAREHOUSING AND THE ACTUAL LAND USE OF 150 WHICH IS AN ITE MANUAL AND THERE ARE OTHER USES THAT ARE NOT 150 THEN A NEW TIA WILL BE REQUIRED AND AT THAT POINT ANY IMPROVEMENTS NECESSITATED BY THE TIA WOULD BE THE DEVELOPER'S

RESPONSIBILITY. >> THAT'S ANY IMPROVEMENTS, THAT'S NOT GIVEN YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT USE.

>> AGREED, BUT THE IMPROVEMENT AND THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT ON THE DEVELOPER FOR THE USE THAT THEY ARE INTENDING, THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS MAY NOT LEVEL OUT.

AND IF IT DOES, THEY HAVE TO BRING IT UP TO SNUFF ANYWAYS.

>> THEY'RE GOOD WITH 150. >> DO WE WANT TO DO THE MOST

CURRENT AT THAT TIME? >> AS PUBLISHED AT TIME OF

APPROVAL. >> AND I WOULD BEG COUNCIL IF WE COULD PAUSE, TAKE A BREAK, GO EAT SO WE CAN ORGANIZE ALL OF

THIS AND COME BACK. >> SO HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU WANT? IT IS AT 6:44, COUNCIL WILL BE TAKING A 20 MINUTE BREAK.

WE'LL RECONVENE AT 7:05. >>> GOOD EVENING.

IT IS 7:21 AND COUNCIL IS BACK INTO SESSION.

THERE HAS BEEN MUCH DISCUSSED. JOE, IF YOU WOULD READ WHAT YOU

HAVE. >> SO COUNCIL, WHERE WE'RE AT CURRENTLY WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING BEING CLOSED WITH WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, WE TOOK A BREAK, WE WENT THROUGH WHAT COUNCIL HAS RECOMMENDED, WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAS ALSO AGREED TO AND PUT TOGETHER, WHAT I'M BASICALLY GOING TO READ OUT OF

[02:45:02]

SO WE HAVE THE ORDINANCE THAT'S PRESENTED IN THE PACKET.

WHAT WILL CHANGE OUT OF THAT ORDINANCE IS THE BUILDING HEIGHT BEING CHANGED FROM THE 70 TO THE 55.

THEN WE'RE ALSO REMOVING THE POLE SIGN REQUIREMENTS.

IN ADDITION STAFF HAS MADE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WE READ OFF BEFORE, APPROXIMATELY FIVE DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS.

OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, WE HAVE RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 1, 2, AND THEN TWO HAD SEVERAL SUBSETS TO IT, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 9. THOSE WERE AGREED TO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE TIA WHICH WAS SUBSECTION FIVE.

SO WE WILL ADD THOSE BUT AS IT RELATES TO THE TIA WHAT WE CAME UP WITH AND THIS WAS WHAT WALTER BROUGHT UP IS ANY USES DEFINED BY THE ITE MANUAL THAT'S NOT IDENTIFIED AS WAREHOUSING, REQUIRES A NEW TIA. AND THEN ANY NECESSARY ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE MADE PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BEING ISSUED FOR THE BUILDING ITSELF, FOR THE USE THAT'S GOING INTO THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE BUILDING WILL ALREADY BE THERE, BUT IT'S THE USE GOING INTO THE BUILDING.

IN THE EVENT THAT AN IMPROVEMENT, THOSE IMPROVEMENTS COULD NOT BE MADE PRIOR TO THE CO.

AND YOU HAVE A TENANT THAT WANTS TO GET IN THERE RELATIVELY FAST, THEN THEY WILL BE REQUIRED, THE DEVELOPER WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THAT IMPROVEMENT TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN 36 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BEING ISSUED.

THEN WE HAD ALL INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE COMPLETED UPON ISSUANCE OF THE CO FOR ANY BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.

AND THOSE ARE OH OLD FORT WORTH ROAD WHERE WE HAD 2 SOUTHERN MOST LANES ALONG OLD FORT WORTH ROAD TO BE CONSTRUCTED FROM WARD ROAD TO THE U.S. HIGHWAY 287 INTERSECTION.

CONCERN THERE IS WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THAT OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY.

SO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS TO HAVE THEM BOND THAT OR THE COST

FOR THAT TO BE DEVELOPED. >> OKAY.

COUNCIL, GIVEN THE TOTALITY OF EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID, THEN I MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE THIS UNTIL NEXT WEEK,

NOVEMBER 18TH AT 2:00 P.M. >> AND WE'LL BRING BACK --

>> WE CAN BRING BACK THE FINALIZED ORDINANCE AT THAT TIME FOR YOU. THAT WILL JUST BE A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING

ON IT. >> SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> THAT WOULD BE TO TABLE THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE UNTIL

NOVEMBER 18TH AT -- >> NEXT THURSDAY.

>> WHAT TIME? >> 2:00 P.M.

>> AND I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT IS ACCEPTABLE WITH THIS. SO COUNCIL, PLEASE VOTE.

>> SO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WHY? >> THERE'S NO ACTION.

>> WE'LL JUST BRING BACK THE COMPLETED ORDINANCE TO BE ACTED

UPON. >> CLEANED UP.

>> IT'S ACTUALLY DRAFTED, IT'S DONE, COMPLETED.

UNLESS YOU'RE COMFORTABLE ACTING ON IT BASED ON EVERYTHING I'VE STATED. IT HASN'T BEEN WRITTEN.

>> THE REASON I BRING IT UP IS BECAUSE WE TASK YOU ALL THE TIME TO TAKE THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE SAID, PUT IT IN THE LEGAL TERMS AND WE ACT UPON YOUR FINAL WRITING.

SO WHY WOULD TONIGHT BE ANY DIFFERENT?

>> BECAUSE WE CHANGED A LOT. >> WE CHANGED A LOT.

>> HE'S GOT A NOTEPAD, AS MUCH AS I LOVE TO TRUST JOE, I WOULD

LIKE TO GIVE HIM -- >> NO, BUT WE'RE NOT NOT GIVING HIM A COUPLE OF HOURS. BASED OFF OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID, WHY COULDN'T WE GIVE AN APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL TONIGHT.

>> YOU COULD APPROVE THE ORDINANCE WITH THE STIPULATIONS AS PRESENTED. AGAIN THAT'S UP TO YOU, IF YOU

WANT TO DO THAT. >> I GUESS I'M SAYING WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME AND IT STILL GIVES HIM THE, EVERYBODY SITS HERE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ONCE JOE WRITES IT, HE'S DOING WHAT WE TOLD HIM TO DO AND STAFF IS GOING TO LOOK AT IT, JOE IS GOING TO LOOK AT IT, THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY THAT'S WHAT WE AGREED ON.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CONTINUE THIS UNTIL NEXT

[02:50:03]

THURSDAY AT 2:00 P.M. >> I DON'T KNOW WHY.

>> SO CAST YOUR VOTE. WE'LL SEE -- THERE'S TOO MUCH HERE HAS BEEN MY OPINION HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT THIS TOGETHER, HAVE TIME TO PUT IT TOGETHER, LOOK AT IT, AND THEN COME BACK AND VOTE ON A CLEAN PROPOSAL.

>> WE COME BACK ON THURSDAY. >> SO THE MOTION PASSES 5-2.

>> SHOULD BE A SHORT MEETING THURSDAY.

>> WHY DON'T I JUST CLEAR MY NEXT THURSDAY.

>> LET'S WATCH OUR LANGUAGE. >> FORGIVE ME.

[2021-514]

>>> OPEN ITEM 2021-514, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDED THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 66 ACRES IN SHARKEY SURVEY FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

WE WILL CONTINUE THIS -- >> ARE WE CONTINUING THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> YOU'RE OPENING AND CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL DECEMBER 14, 2021.

>> I'M FOLLOWING. >> I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANT

IS EVEN HERE. >> SO MOVED.

>> OKAY, VOTE. THANK YOU.

THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED UNTIL DECEMBER 14TH.

[2021-515]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING IN THEIR ENTIRETY THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 120.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNERF FM 663 AND

FM 875. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THIS REQUEST WILL BE TO AMEND THE EXISTING STANDARDS FOR PD120. A FEW YEARS BACK, PD120 WAS CREATED TO ALLOW MAXIMUM OF 35 LOTS.

I SHOW UP HERE ON THE SCREEN ALL OF THOSE LOTS WERE GOING TO BE ONE ACRE IN SIZE, ONE ACRE PLUS IN SIZE.

OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DOES SHOW THAT THE AREA IS LOCATED WITHIN WHAT WE CALL THE SUBURBAN LOW DENSITY MODULE.

THE LOW DENSITY MODULE DOES ALLOW FOR A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER. IN ADDITION THIS MODULE ALSO REFERENCES HAVING ACCESS TO SMALL SCALE OFFICE RETAIL TYPE SERVICES AS A SECONDARY COMPONENT.

HERE'S THE NEW SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOTS REDUCED TO THAT MINIMUM SIZE OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET AND LARGER.

THIS WILL INCREASE THE LOT COUNT FROM THE 35 TO 53 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THERE IS ALSO FIVE ADDITIONAL LOTS OFF TO THE WEST. THAT'S GOING TO BE FOR YOUR COMMUNITY RETAIL USES. THEREFORE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL WITH THE 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS IN COMBINATION WITH THE RETAIL CORNER DOES APPEAR TO CONFORM WITH OUR PLAN.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING LEFT TURN LANES ONTO 875 AT BOTH ENTRANCES. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE TXDOT'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

THIS RIGHT HERE IS A SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF PD120 AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW. BELOW IS THE NEW PLAN.

I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT AN ORNAMENTAL, A 6-FOOT ORNAMENTAL IRON FENCE WITH A VEGETATIVE SCREEN WALL IS GOING TO RUN ALONG FM 875. THEY ARE ALSO PROPOSING A 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY RETAIL.

THAT'S GOING TO BE BACKING UP TO THE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

THIS SLIDE HERE BASICALLY SHOWS A FUTURE PLAYGROUND THEY'RE

[02:55:04]

STAFF DOES HAVE CONCERNS REGARDING LOTS 2, 3, 4, AND 5 AS SHOWN UP HERE ON THE SCREEN. THESE LOTS WILL CONTAIN AN OPEN CHANNEL FOR DRAINAGE FLOW. DURING A STORM EVENT, WATER WOULD ESSENTIALLY FLOW THROUGH THE FRONT OF THESE LOTS OF THESE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE TYPE OF CULVERTS INSTALLED WOULD BE SIZED TO HANDLE A 100 YEAR FLOOD EVENT. MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP WOULD BE NEEDED SINCE THESE CHANNELS CAN BE BLOCKED CAN DEBRIS.

OBVIOUSLY YOU COULD HAVE WATER AND MOSQUITO ISSUES.

IF APPROVED THE APPLICANT WOULD OBVIOUSLY NEED TO EXECUTE SOME SORT OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.

WE DID SEND 20 LETTERS OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.

TO DATE STAFF RECEIVED TWO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION.

THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS LAST MONTH AND THEY DID RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE AGENDA ITEM 5-0.

IF THIS IS APPROVED, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY, AND I'LL RUN THAT THROUGH JUST FOR THE RECORD. BASICALLY WE WANT TO SEE THAT OPEN CHANNEL ALONG THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS BE AVOIDED AND THAT THAT BE FULLY ENCLOSED AND IT NOT BE AN OPEN CHANNEL.

IF IT IS GOING TO BE AN OPEN CHANNEL, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT BE CONVERTED TO MAYBE JUST AN OPEN SPACE SO YOU JUST HAVE A LONG LINEAR PARK IN THAT AREA. ALSO WE WANT TO SEE THOSE EASTBOUND LEFT TURN LANES AT BOTH ACCESS POINTS ALONG 875.

AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE SHOWN IN THERE DOES SAYS 21,780 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THAT ON THEIR DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEY HADN'T ACCOUNTED FOR ALL OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.

AND THERE WAS ALSO MOUNTAIN PEAK REQUIRES AN EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, THEN THERE'S ALSO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THESE LOTS HERE WHERE MY CURSOR IS LOCATED, ALL OF THESE LOTS ENDED UP BEING JUST A LITTLE BIT OVER 20,000 SQUARE FEET. NOT REALLY TOO MUCH OF AN ISSUE KNOWING THAT THE COMP PLAN STILL CALLS FOR 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS OR LARGER. SO THEY'RE STILL IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. OTHER THAN THAT, I CAN TAKE ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. CAN YOU BRING FORWARD THIS THE F FIVE LOTS WITH THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL. PLEASE RESTATE THE CONCERN HERE.

SO THIS IS A NATURAL CREEK BED, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. >> AND STAFF IS ASKING THE APPLICANT TO ESSENTIALLY ENCLOSE THAT AND BURY IT?

>> YES, SIR. >> HAVE WE DONE THAT IN THE

PAST? >> WELL MOST DEVELOPMENTS DON'T HAVE OPEN CHANNELS FLOWING IN FRONT, ON THE FRONT SIDE.

SO ESSENTIALLY EACH ONE OF THESE WOULD HAVE ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY WITH A HUMONGOUS CULVERT UNDERNEATH.

>> I LIVE IN THE PART OF TOWN THAT GOT ANNEXED IN 17.

I'VE GOT A CREEK IN MY BACKYARD THAT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY.

I'VE GOT PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, SAME SITUATION, ALL THROUGH SADDLEBACK AND CRYSTAL FOREST, WE'VE GOT THOSE SAME THINGS. SO I FIND IT SOMEWHAT ODD THAT WE WOULD ASK A RESIDENTIAL HOME DEVELOPER TO BURY A CREEK AND ASSUME THAT THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEMS WITH THAT MOVING

FORWARD. >> SURE.

>> AND THEN TO ADD TO THAT, EXECUTING A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY ON PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, IF THAT'S HAPPENED Y'ALL CAN COME CLEAN OUT MY CREEKS TOO, SO

WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT? >> COUNCILMAN, THE ONE THING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE ON THIS ONE IS TYPICALLY WHEN YOU HAVE THE OPEN DITCHES IT'S NOT IN A CURB GUTTER DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS IS WITH SIDEWALKS, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.

IT'S MORE OF A RURAL SETTING. THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE ON THE STAFF SIDE IS NUMBER ONE, YOU HAVE PRETTY GOOD SIZED CULVERTS, YOU SEE THAT IN THE RURAL SECTIONS ALL THE TIME, BUT FROM A MAINTENANCE STANDPOINT, WE ON THE STAFF SIDE AND ON THE CODE ENFORCEMENT GET CALLS QUITE A BIT FOR HIGH GRASS THEY CAN'T GET IN AND MAINTAIN IT BECAUSE IT'S STAYING WET AND NOT FLOWING LIKE IT SHOULD, OR YOU HAVE SMITE -- MOSQUITOES.

WE SEE IT A LOT MORE WITH ANNEXATION AREAS THAT WEREN'T PART OF THE CITY INITIALLY. SO THE CONCERN ON THIS WAS LOOKING AT WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN IT.

THE CITY USUALLY IS THE ONE GETTING THE CALLS THAT WE CAN'T MOW IT OR THE CITY NEEDS TO COME OUT AND TAKE CARE OF THE MOSQUITOES SO WE HAVE MAINTENANCE ISSUES AGAIN.

THAT'S ON THE STAFF SIDE WHILE WE HAVE CONCERNS WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS CURB AND GUTTER, SIDEWALK. SO IT'S KIND OF UNIQUE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A CHANNEL IN SOMEBODY'S FRONT YARD IN A DEVELOPMENT WHERE EVERYTHING IS UNDERGROUND EXCEPT THIS ONE

[03:00:01]

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS CAN THAT REMAIN OPEN SPACE, USEABLE OPEN SPACE, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING UTILIZED BY THE

DEVELOPMENT, AND CAN THOSE -- >> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, OPEN SPACE OR NOT, IF IT'S OPEN SPACE, THEN YOU'RE PUTTING THE BURDEN OF MAINTENANCE ONTO THE HOA.

>> CORRECT. >> 6 AND 1-HALF DOZEN OTHER,

RIGHT? >> WHEN THIS IS OPEN SPACE AND YOU DON'T HAVE A HOUSE THERE, IF THE HOA CAN'T EASILY GO OUT AND MOW IT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A HOUSE OUT THERE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET FOUR HOUSES OUT THERE.

IT'S GOING TO GET MOWED WHEN IT DRYS OUT, IT'S NOT THE SAME CONCERNS AS A RESIDENT. A RESIDENT GOING IN WILL NOW I HAVE A CHANNEL OUT IN THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY DID IS THEY CAME AND DESIGNED THE DRIVEWAY CULVERT FOR A 100 YEAR EVENT.

NORMALLY YOU DON'T HAVE DRIVEWAY CULVERTS SIZED FOR THAT TYPE OF EVENT. I'M NOT SURE, BUT IT GOES ACROSS 663 AND IT PICKS UP AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF 663.

IT'S NOT JUST WHAT'S BEING GENERATED FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT.

IT ACTUALLY GOES ACROSS UNDER 663 AND OVER TO THE WEST.

>> IT'S FROM DEVELOPED AREAS THAT ARE OVER ON THE WEST SIDE OF 663. IT DOESN'T GO A LONG, LONG DISTANCE I BELIEVE, BUT IT DOES PICK UP AREAS ON THE WEST SIDE.

>> WHAT DOES THE PD THAT'S APPROVED REQUIRE? WAS THIS ADDRESSED IN THE PREVIOUS PD?

>> THERE'S NOT REALLY MUCH OF A CONCERN WHEN YOU HAVE ACCESS DIRECTLY FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT HAVING TO CROSS THE CREEK. ALL OF THESE LOTS, LOT 14 HAS ACCESS, LOT 15 HAS ACCESS, LOT 12 HAS ACCESS, AND NONE OF THOSE

ARE -- >> DOES THAT CREEK GO THROUGH ALMOST THE PROPERTY LINE OF, I CAN'T READ THOSE NUMBERS.

>> THE OTHER THING ON IT THIS WAS A ONE ACRE DEVELOP.

SO IT WAS LOOKING AT A RURAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT SETTING.

>> THEY WERE ALL ONE ACRE PLUS. >> YES, SIR.

>> I HAVE THREE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, FOR STAFF, SORRY.

WHAT MODULE IS THIS IN? >> THIS IS CALLED THE SUBURBAN MODULE, LOW DENSITY SUBURBAN MODULE.

AGAIN MEANING THE 20,000 SQUARE FOOT OR LARGER, HALF ACRE

ESSENTIALLY. >> HOW MANY FEET WIDE ARE THESE

LOTS? >> WIDTH WISE 150 FOR EACH.

>> 150. >> THAT'S WHAT IT'S PROPOSED AS.

WE ALWAYS MEASURE EVERYTHING FROM THE BUILD LINE.

IT'S BASED ON THE BUILD LINE, NOT THE FRONT.

THERE'S MY ENGINEER. THAT SHOULD BE OFF THE BUILD LINE NOT NECESSARILY THE ACTUAL -- THE ORDINANCE CALLS FOR 150, THE SITE PLAN IS SHOWING SOMETHING ELSE.

OR IS IT 125? >> HOW MANY ON A CUL-DE-SAC?

>> THAT SHOULD BE 125. >> AND 80 ON CUL-DE-SAC?

>> I'M SORRY, I WAS LOOKING AT 150, I APOLOGIZE.

I'M LOOKING AT THE DEPTH. >> THAT'S 80?

>> IT WOULD NEED TO BE AT LEAST 80 AT THE ACTUAL BUILD LINE WHICH THE BUILD LINE SHOULD BE AT 30.

RIGHT. SO YOU GO 30 FEET BACK AND THEN YOU MEASURE AND THAT SHOULD BE AT LEAST 80 OR LARGER FOR EACH

[03:05:14]

ONE OF THOSE. >> I DIDN'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF BUT WERE YOU DONE? SO JUST TO BE CLEAR THEY WANT TO REVISE THE SITE PLAN, SURE THEY'RE SHRINKING THE LOT SIZE, THEY'RE ADDING A COMMUNITY RETAIL FACTOR IN HERE, BUT THEY'RE STILL MEETING FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THEY'RE

STILL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS? >> YES, SIR.

>> WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ARGUING ABOUT 50-FOOT WIDE, 70-FOOT WIDE, 30-FOOT WIDE, THIS PLAN MEETS EXACTLY WHAT IT'S

LAID OUT FOR THERE. >> BY COMPARISON COVENTRY CROSSING IS JUST NORTH OF THIS AND THEY'RE WAY SMALLER LOTS THAN THIS. THIS WOULD BE MORE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT'S ACROSS THE STREET IN WHAT'S THAT HILL CREST?

>> SORRY, Y'ALL SAID P&Z RECOMMENDED DENIAL 5-0?

>> YES, SIR. I WAS ABOUT TO SAY I THINK THEIR FOCUS WAS MORE ABOUT THE COMMUNITY RETAIL ASPECT OF THIS.

NOT NECESSARILY THE LOT SIZE. THEY REALLY WERE FOCUSED MORE ON THE FACT THAT THIS AREA HERE, THE RETAIL MODULE DOES CALL FOR USUALLY COMMERCIAL AND THE SUBURBAN MODULE, ALTHOUGH SUBURBAN GIVES THE IDEA IT'S MORE RESIDENTIAL, IT HAS THAT SMALL ASPECT OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES.

THAT'S WHY THE CITY IS GETTING BEHIND IT BECAUSE AGAIN IT MEETS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. P&Z DIDN'T SEE IT THAT WAY.

P&Z SAW IT AS WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY COMMUNITY RETAIL ON THIS

SIDE AT ALL. >> CITY STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL DESPITE IT BEING AGAINST WHAT'S ALLOWED?

>> NO, WE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO WE GOT BEHIND IT, WHAT WE DON'T LIKE IS THE OPEN CHANNEL CONCEPT, LIKE THE MIXTURE OF THIS OPEN CHANNEL CONCEPT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE NOT GETTING BEHIND.

>> SO YOU'RE SAYING COMMERCIAL IS ALLOWED IN THAT MODULE, AS LONG AS IT'S SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES IS WHAT THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

HOW DO WE GUARANTEE THAT? >> WELL IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE MORE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, LIGHT RETAIL.

I WOULD NOT EXPECT TO SEE ANY TYPE OF DRIVE-THRUS.

IF THIS ZONING GETS THROUGH RESTAURANTS OVER 1,000 SQUARE FEET, DRIVE-THRUS, CLEANERS ARE GOING TO REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. BUT IF THEY WANTED TO COME IN WITH A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AT THIS HARD CORNER, THEY ABSOLUTELY WOULD BE ABLE TO IF THIS GETS APPROVED.

IF YOU GET THIS APPROVED TONIGHT THEY'LL COME IN WITH GENERAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, RESTAURANTS UNDER 1,000 SQUARE FEET, SO ON AND SO FORTH AS LONG AS THE USE TABLE ALLOWS FOR IT.

YOU'RE REALLY GETTING THIS HARD CORNER HERE COMMUNITY RETAIL

ALLOWANCE. >> ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT IS ANOTHER COMMUNITY RETAIL ZONED PIECE OF PROPERTY, CORRECT? NO, NOT THE DAYCARE, JUST SOUTH OF THE DAYCARE, THE HARD CORNER IN BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE

DAYCARE. >> IS THAT?

>> SO TO ME THAT MATCHES, RIGHT? >> MY ONLY QUESTION TO THAT, ISN'T THAT TYPICALLY AN 8-FOOT MASONRY BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND

RESIDENTIAL? >> NO, IT'S 6-FOOT.

>> IT IS SIX. >> NOW WE CAN GO TO EIGHT FEET.

WE'VE HAD PDS IN THE PAST INCREASE THAT UP TO 8-FOOT.

I BELIEVE HAWKINS MEADOWS REQUIRED WHEN THAT 7/ELEVEN CAME IN WE REQUIRED THAT MASONRY WALL TO BE 8-FOOT.

BUT MY STANDARD SAYS 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL IN OUR CODE.

>> REFRESH MY MEMORY, 7/ELEVEN OR GAS STATION, IS THAT SUP OR

BY RIGHT? >> THAT'S SUP.

>> SO IF WE CAME BACK BECAUSE 7/ELEVEN SAID I WANT TO PUT A GAS STATION IN THERE, WE COULD ADDRESS THE WALL AT THAT TIME?

>> YEAH, OR YOU COULD ADDRESS THE WALL NOW AND MAKE IT EIGHT

FEET? >> IN AN EFFORT TO NOT PUT UNDUE BURDEN. BUT IF IT WAS A DISTURBING USE LIKE A DRIVE-THRU OR SOMETHING, WE COULD PUT THAT CONDITION ON

THE NEXT USE. >> YES, THERE'S NOTHING SAYING

YOU COULDN'T. >> WHEN ALL OF THESE CAME IN AND REZONED THE PROPERTY, THERE WAS AN EXISTING WALL THERE, SO YOU TEAR DOWN THAT EXISTING MASONRY WALL AND BUILD NEW, SO BE

[03:10:02]

>> ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 875 THAT'S ALL COMMERCIAL RETAIL IN

THAT MODULE, RIGHT? >> IT HAS THE REGIONAL MODULE.

MAYBE THEY WANTED TO DO MORE COMMERCIAL OR COMMUNITY RETAIL ON THE SOUTH END, IT WOULD BE TECHNICALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN, BUT IT STILL NEEDS TO BE REZONED WHICH IS

DISCRETIONARY OBVIOUSLY. >> THE LAYOUT IT IS RIGHT NOW, I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME PULLING SOMEBODY IN, GETTING THEM IN AND OUT OF THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL, PARKING, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH WITH SUCH NARROW DEPTH WHEREAS IF YOU JUST PUT 1, 2, 3, 4 AND A HALF HOUSES, YOU'D BE REAL EASY.

>> HOW DEEP IS THAT? >> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW DEEP

ARE THESE LOTS? >> THEY'RE ABOUT 300.

I THINK THAT SAYS RIGHT THERE 285 OR NO, 242.

SO IT'S ABOUT 250 GOING, BUT KEEP IN MIND WE DON'T HAVE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER. I MEAN YOU HAVE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER IT'S USUALLY A 10-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER FOR NONRESIDENTIAL. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY TYPE OF MASONRY WALL. YOU CAN SEE ESSENTIALLY WHERE THAT SHARED DRIVE IS GOING TO BE LOCATED TO ACCESS THROUGH THERE.

>> BUT YOU'RE WAY, WAY CLOSE TO THAT FREAKING CORNER ON THE

8751. >> THAT WOULD BE LIKE 600 FEET

BACK. >> WE'RE MEETING THE STANDARD

THERE. >> BUT YOU SAID THERE'S NOT A LANDSCAPING BUFFER, BUT ON MY SITE PLAN I SEE A 5-FOOT WIDE

LANDSCAPING EASEMENT. >> I MEAN THERE'S NOT THE SAME TYPE OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT YOU SEE ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE

RESIDENTIAL. >> NO, THAT'S OKAY.

>> YOU WOULD STILL HAVE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER, BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY CONSIST OF, DEPENDING ON HOW YOUR PARKING IS LAIN OUT, MAYBE IF YOUR CARS ARE FACING OUT, WE WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE SOME SORT OF LOW SHRUBBERY JUST TO ALLOW TO PROTECT FROM HEADLIGHTS SHOOTING OUT. WE WOULD STILL REQUIRE THERE TO BE SOME TREES OBVIOUSLY PLANTED EVERY SO MANY FEET.

>> BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE PLATS AS THEY SHOW HERE MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE HOW THEY FINISH IN THAT COMMUNITY RETAIL SITE MEANING ONE USER COULD COME IN AND TAKE UP THREE OF THOSE BLOCKS AND MAKE THEIR COMPANY WORK IN THAT LAND.

>> SURE, YOU COULD REPLAT THESE TO A LARGER SIZE.

YOU COULD ESSENTIALLY REMOVE THAT PROPERTY LINE IN THE MIDDLE AND REPLAT THE LOT TO A LARGER SIZE LOT.

NOW WHAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE IS THIS ACCESS AREA. THIS ACCESS EASEMENT, BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE PLAT.

>> WE'RE JUST DOING ZONING, P&Z DOES FINAL PLAT.

>> CORRECT. YEAH, I THINK THE SHORTEST LOTS I'VE SEEN AND I'M GOING BACK TO LOOKING AT, GOSH, HAWKINS MEADOWS, I THINK THOSE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE LOTS THAT ARE JUST SOUTH OF KROGERS, THE I WANT TO SAY THE LOT DEPTH WAS 150 FEET, MAYBE 160 FEET. AND IT DOESN'T EVEN ALLOW FOR PARKING ON THE BACKSIDE. I MEAN YOU HAVE YOUR BUILDING AND THAT REALLY I GUESS WOULD PUSH SOMETHING TO I WOULD CONSIDER MORE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO NEED THE DRIVING AROUND OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

YOU CAN WORK ON SHORTER LOTS, IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW THEY LAY

EVERYTHING OUT. >> I JUST THOUGHT AS WE WERE GETTING FURTHER AND FURTHER OUT OF TOWN, BEING THAT'S THE LAST ONE ON THE WAY OUT OF TOWN, WE WOULD JUST GET TO THE BIGGER LOTS AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER RATHER THAN A WHOLE BUNCH OF LITTLE ONES AGAIN. IF YOU'VE GOT A ONE ACRE LOT, YOU CAN SUCK UP THE SOUND OF 875 AND 663 AND ACROSS THE STREET THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR GAS STATIONS AND BARBECUE JOINTS AND WHATEVER ELSE, BUT THIS IS A CHANCE TO PUT HOUSES WHERE I THINK WE NEED HOUSES VERSUS COMMUNITY RETAIL.

MY PERSONAL OPINION. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ISN'T MOUNTAIN PEAK AND ALL OF THAT STUFF THAT BACKS UP TO THAT PARK, WHEN YOU GO TO THE LEFT, ISN'T EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THERE WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME PLOT OF LAND JUST ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, AREN'T THEY ALREADY SMALLER THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE?

>> THOSE ARE HALF ACRE. >> OH --

>> THESE SHOULD BE ABOUT 20,000. >> I AGREE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF

[03:15:04]

BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUE THAT OUT --

>> RIGHT, SO THE SUBURBAN MODULE LOW DENSITY RIGHT THERE, WHAT

SIZE LOTS ARE THOSE? >> ON THIS SIDE?

THOSE SHOULD ALL BE HALF ACRE. >> SO THOSE ARE HALF ACRES AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IN THIS SUBURBAN MODULE RIGHT HERE ARE

HALF ACRE. >> SOME SLIGHTLY SMALLER.

>> I MEAN -- >> ABOUT 20,000.

>> PLUS OR MINUS HALF ACRE. I WOULD SAY WHAT PERCENTAGE IS

UNDER A HALF ACRE? >> OH GOSH, HALF ACRE IS 21780.

>> WHICH COULD BE A ROUNDING ERROR.

>> A SMALL PERCENTAGE. >> OKAY.

>> WE'RE STILL IN OPEN SESSION. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS

BEFORE WE GET TO DISCUSSION? >> WE'RE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING

STILL. >> I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.

A SECOND. I'M SORRY.

>> I WAS HOPING I WOULD GET A CHANCE.

>> I'M SORRY. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING.

>> JUSTIN CROCKER I'M A 3431 PLAINVIEW ROAD RIGHT HERE IN MIDLOTHIAN. WHENEVER I GOT INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT UNFORTUNATELY THE GUY THAT RAN IT BEFORE PASSED AWAY. HE GOT IT TO THE ONE ACRE LOTS.

IF YOU LOOK BACK BEFORE THAT IT WAS SMALLER THAN THIS, BUT THEY COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET SEWER.

SO WE DID SOME SEWER STUDIES AND THERE WERE SOME ISSUES THERE.

WE WERE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WITH MIKE ADAMS AND STAFF, MIKE COULD TELL YOU MORE THAN ME. GOING OUT OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME ABILITY TO CONNECT TO SEWER THROUGH THAT FUTURE PHASE OF COVENTRY RIGHT THERE.

WE WERE ABLE TO GET BACK INTO LOOKING AT LOTS THIS SIZE.

SO AS A BUILDER OF HIGHER END CUSTOM HOMES, WE LISTEN TO A LOT OF THE PEOPLE COMING IN OVER THE YEARS AND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. WE'VE REALLY FOUND A NEED AND WANT FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING IN THAT IF YOU GO DOWN 663, YOU LOOK, IT'S A LOT OF ALL DEVELOPMENT COMING NOW, IT'S EVEN HARD FOR ME TO BUY LOTS. THEY'RE SMALLER LOTS, PRODUCTION BUILDERS BUY THEM. SO YOU WANT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BUILD A CUSTOM PRODUCT, I LIKE A ONE ACRE LOT, BUT WE TALK TO A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT LIKE THIS SIZE.

IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S BEING DEVELOPED, THIS IS LARGER THAN A LOT OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO YOU GUYS.

I GET WHY, FROM A DEVELOPER SIDE I COULD MAKE MORE MONEY ON SMALLER LOTS BECAUSE I HAVE TO PUT THE ROADS IN AND EVERYTHING.

BUT I SEE A DEMAND FOR THIS SO I GUESS WE'RE WILLING TO SACRIFICE A LITTLE BIT AS A DEVELOPER TO PUT A CUSTOM PRODUCT IN THAT FITS A NICER HIGHER END CUSTOM HOME AND WE SEE A DEMAND AND NEED BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW OF ANY DEVELOPERS THAT I CAN BUY LOTS OF THIS SIZE FROM. WE DID HONOR THE SUBURBAN MODULE WHICH STARTS AT 20,000 SQUARE FEET.

I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SAYING SMALL LOTS, BUT I DO FEEL THAT'S LARGER THAN WHAT Y'ALL ARE LOOKING AT ELSEWHERE.

AND WE'RE GOING ALL THE WAY UP TO THE ONES ON THE CREEK THAT ARE PUSHING AN ACRE. WE HAVE 34,000, 38,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. I THINK THIS CREEK GIVES IT CHARACTER. I'M THE LANDSCAPE GUY, I WANT TO PRESERVE THE TREES ALONG THAT AREA.

I WANT TO GIVE THE ROADS SOME CURVATURE.

I THINK THAT'S A MORE DESIRABLE NEIGHBORHOOD PERSONALLY.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE WORKED AROUND THAT CREEK AND WE'RE NOT REALLY WANTING TO GO WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION OF PUTTING A SOLID CULVERT THROUGH THERE. SO WHEN THEY BROUGHT UP THEIR CONCERNS, THE CITY STAFF, WE LISTENED TO THEM, I HAD THE ENGINEERS DO A COMPLETE STUDY OF THAT CREEK TO FIGURE THE FLOWS AND EVERYTHING. IT IS A SOLID ROCK BOTTOM CREEK, IT DOESN'T REALLY HARDLY EVER FLOW.

I'VE BEEN OUT THERE A COUPLE OF TIMES TO TRY TO CATCH IT AFTER SOME RAINS AND THERE WAS ALREADY NO WATER TO BE FOUND WITHIN DAYS. SO IT'S NOT A HUGE CREEK, BUT IT HAS A TREE LINE ON IT, I LIKE THE IDEA OF PRESERVING THAT, CURVING ROADS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, KEEPING THAT GREENERY, SO WE WENT AHEAD AND DESIGNED CULVERTS TO A 100 YEAR SPEC FOR THOSE FEW HOUSES RIGHT THERE.

MOST OF THE CULVERTS IN TOWN ARE 100 YEAR, SO WE TRIED TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN FROM THE CITY STAFF.

AND KEEP THAT TREE LINE AND THE GREENERY AND THE CURVE IN THE ROAD THAT YOU SEE THERE. SO ANYWAY, JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE. THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS I FELT WERE A LITTLE BIT UNFAIRLY PRESENTED OR SAID AT THE P&Z MEETING. FOR EXAMPLE ONE OF THEM WAS THAT WE CUT THE GREEN SPACE IN HALF. AND MARCOS HAS THE MARKED UP

[03:20:06]

I HAVE A LANDSCAPE BACKGROUND SO WE WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND ON THAT AS WELL AS THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN. WE DID STUDY THAT COMMUNITY RETAIL, AS WAS MENTIONED IT'S ACTUALLY DOUBLE THE DEPTH OF SOME OF THE STUFF HERE IN TOWN SO IT HAS PLENTY OF ROOM FOR PARKING AND SOME BUILDINGS. AND WE DESIGNED THAT ROAD.

YOU DON'T HAVE THE MOST FOR YOUR MONEY HAVING A ROAD THAT DOESN'T HAVE LOTS ON BOTH SIDES, BUT WE WANTED A NICE BUFFER.

SO WE DID THE ROAD AND BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE WALL, THERE IS A LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT'S PRETTY DECKED OUT WITH LANDSCAPING.

THEN THE MASONRY WALL JUST TO TRY TO GIVE IT A BUFFER, MORE THAN ANYTHING I'VE REALLY SEEN IN TOWN.

SO WE WORKED WITH THE CITY STAFF, WE MADE A LOT OF REVISIONS, WE WORKED WITH THEM ON EVERYTHING THEY ASKED FOR.

LIKE I SAID I HAD MY REASONS FOR THE ONE THING WE DISAGREED ON WHICH IS TRYING TO PRESERVE THAT CREEK AND THE FLOW OF THE ROAD THROUGH THAT AREA. OTHER THAN THAT WE ADDRESSED EVERYTHING THEY ASKED US FOR. I KNOW YOU GUYS SAID A LOT BEFORE I GOT UP HERE, SO I WAS TRYING TO REMEMBER IT ALL, BUT I'M HAPPY TO STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THEN I HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM BANISTER ENGINEERING WHO'S HELPED ME DESIGN THIS PROJECT, THEY CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I'M

NOT SMART ENOUGH TO ANSWER. >> MARCOS, WHAT PERCENTAGE, IS IT 15% GREEN SPACE AND NEIGHBORHOODS?

5%. >> YEAH, 5% OR FIVE ACRES EACH.

SUPPOSED TO BE WHATEVER IS LARGER.

SO IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FIVE ACRES.

I KNOW IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IN YOUR ORDINANCE IT READS OUT 1.8, THAT'S ONLY INCLUDING THESE AREAS HERE THAT WE THINK ARE MORE USEABLE OPEN SPACE. IT ISN'T TO SAY THAT THESE OTHER AREAS I'M HIGHLIGHTING HERE, THAT'S TECHNICALLY OPEN SPACE AND THEN RIGHT BEHIND THE COMMUNITY RETAIL AREA WHERE THAT WALL IS GOING TO GO, THERE'S ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE.

I THINK THE LANDSCAPE PLAN KIND OF GIVES YOU A GOOD IDEA IN THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE, IT SHOWS WHERE ALL OF THAT LANDSCAPING.

ONCE YOU CALCULATE ALL OF THAT TOGETHER, YOU GET CLOSER TO ABOUT 2.9 ACRES BECAUSE YOU ALSO INCLUDE MAYBE THE MEDIAN IN THE MIDDLE, THAT'S CONSIDERED OPEN SPACE.

NOT NECESSARILY A PLACE WHERE SOMEONE IS GOING TO GO PLAY OR ANYTHING, BUT IT'S STILL OPEN SPACE.

>> MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> GOT A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> PLEASE VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IT PASSED 6-1 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? >> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT STICKING TO THE COMP PLAN.

THIS DOES STICK TO THE COMP PLAN.

I ACTUALLY LIKE HOW THEY CURVED THE ROAD.

Y'ALL HEARD ME THE LAST COUPLE OF TIMES ABOUT I'M HATING HOW ALL OF THE SUBDIVISIONS LOOK THE SAME, I THINK THIS ONE HAS SOME CHARACTER. I LIKE LEAVING THE CREEK.

I KNOW STAFF HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK IT MAKES THE SUBDIVISION PRETTIER SO I LIKE THAT.

>> YOU CAN GO TO LAKE GROVE, THAT'S WHAT THEY GOT IN MOST OF THEIR FRONT YARDS AT EVERY HOUSE, THEY HAVE A CREEK IN

THEIR FRONT YARDS. >> MY ONLY COMMENT TO FINISH UP IS IT MEETS THE COMP PLAN AND I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF OVER LEGISLATING. I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM.

THE ONLY THING HE'S ASKING FOR NOT A VARIANCE BUT TO NOT DO IS THE ONE ASK OF CITY STAFF, EVERYTHING ELSE MEETS IT.

SO I DON'T WANT TO NICKEL AND DIME.

>> GENERALLY SPEAKING I DON'T LIKE TO GO WITH A LOWER OR HIGHER DENSITY ON A PROJECT THAT'S ALREADY BEING APPROVED, BUT TO ME THIS ONE GENERALLY FITS THE AREA.

I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IT AS WELL.

>> MY PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THE RETAIL.

THIS IS THE OUTER RING OF OUR CITY AND WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO KEEP THIS AS THE BUFFER AND I DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE LOTS IN ALL OF IT, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD APPROVE THE RETAIL.

I DON'T THINK IT FITS THAT AREA. YOU HAVE OTHER OPTIONS WITH THE FLOW OF THE HOUSES AND THE TRAFFIC AND ALL I THINK IT

[03:25:04]

SHOULD BE ONLY RESIDENTIAL. >> CAN YOU REMIND US WHAT ALL IS INCLUDED BY RIGHT IN COMMUNITY RETAIL?

IT'S A LONG LIST. >> IT'S A PRETTY LONG LIST FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL. I CAN'T SAY OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT RESTAURANTS OVER 1,000 SQUARE FEET ALL BY SUP. ANY TYPE OF DRIVE-THRU WHETHER IT'S A COFFEE SHOP THAT'S GOT A DRIVE-THRU OR A DRY CLEANERS,

THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE BY SUP. >> THERE WILL BE A DONUT SHOP

RIGHT HERE. >> AND A CHICKEN PLACE.

>> ISN'T COMMUNITY RETAIL ALLOWED BY RIGHT OR BY DESIGN IN

THE SUBURBAN MODULE? >> WHEN YOU SAY COMMUNITY RETAIL BY RIGHT, BECAUSE THIS IS ACTUALLY A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IN THAT LAND USE CATEGORIZATION.

>> BUT THERE'S OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE VISION OF RINGS AND THIS IS THE OUTER PART. AND WE KNOW WHAT'S COMING TO THE SOUTH OF THIS AND I THINK THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO HOLD ON TO RELATIVE TO THE RESIDENTIAL NOT MIXING IT WITH COMMERCIAL

RETAIL. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RING THING, CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THAT.

>> IT DOES GO PAST BUT -- >> OKAY.

>> AS FAR AS SEWER GOES, IT'S PRETTY MUCH AS FAR AS YOU CAN GO WITH SEWER UNLESS YOU START PUTTING IN STATIONS.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE SAID WE DON'T WANT.

>> I TRY TO LOOK FAR OUT AND I KNOW TXDOT SAYS THEY'LL DO IT ONE DAY, I PROBABLY WON'T BE ALIVE WHEN THEY GET TO IT.

BUT AT SOME POINT THAT IS GOING TO BE A 4, 6 LANE ROAD.

I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THEY TOLD US THE LAST TIME.

IN THE FUTURE IT DOES MAKE SENSE FOR THAT HIGH CAPACITY OF A ROAD TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF RETAIL ON IT.

>> YEAH, BUT YOU HAVE ACROSS THE STREET EITHER WAY, THE CORE OF THE CITY WE HAVE HIGHER DENSITY AS WE MOVE OUT AND OUR CITY IS LAID OUT VERY WELL WHERE YOU HAVE THESE CONCENTRIC AREAS GOING OUT. THIS IS THE SOUTH AND IT'S JUST

PROTECTING US. >> THIS IS COMMUNITY RETAIL RIGHT HERE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET SO IT'S THERE, IT'S ESTABLISHED. NOTHING IS BUILT THERE

CURRENTLY, BUT THEY CAN BUILD. >> THEY CAN'T HAVE IT THERE, AND THAT'S THE POINT. WE DON'T NEED TO ADD TO IT.

THAT'S SOMETHING IN MY VIEW THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT AS MUCH AS

THE WHAT MIDLOTHIAN WAS. >> I'LL ALSO MENTION THAT I HEAR YOU, MAYOR. BUT I'LL ALSO MENTION THAT THERE'S A STORAGE FACILITY SOMEWHERE IN THIS GENERAL VICINITY THAT'S GOING TO HAVE COMMUNITY RETAIL UP FRONT.

THERE'S ALSO THE DONUT SHOP ALONG 663 THAT HAS COMMUNITY

RETAIL. >> BUT YOU'RE ARGUING FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THESE ARE THE REASONS TO NOT ADD TO THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. THIS IS WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF SPACE THAT WE HAVE IN WHAT'S BEING DEVELOPED.

>> I GUESS I WAS GOING MORE ON YOUR STATEMENT THAT IT'S THE OUTER RING, WE MUST PROTECT IT, THAT SORT OF THOUGHT PROCESS.

>> WELL WHEN THEY PUT IN BRAND COUNTY -- BRANDY RIDGE, THEY PUT A COUPLE OF THOSE LOTS IN, HE THOUGHT THE SAME THING THERE WOULD BE COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND IT NEVER SHOWED UP.

AND NOW HE'S GOT TWO HALF MILLION DOLLAR HOMES PLUS

SITTING ON THOSE TWO CORNERS. >> THAT COULD HAPPEN HERE.

>> I SAID I COULD BE WITH THEM 100% IF THEY TOOK THE COMMUNITY RETAIL OUT AND LEAVE IT ALONE. THOSE ARE FIVE NICE BIG HOUSE LOTS. THAT'S MY OPINION.

>> THIS WAS A PLAT FOR THE HOUSES.

I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ZONING, BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND

SOMETHING, WHAT IS THIS? >> I TRY TO THINK OF EVERY CONCERN AND I DO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THOSE.

I KNOW THAT RESIDENTIALLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY IS GOING TO WANT TO LIVE ON THAT CORNER RIGHT ON THE CORNER AND THEN WE ALREADY HAVE THE RETAIL ACROSS THE STREET.

AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I THINK WE'VE CREATED A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE IS OFF SITE SEWER, THERE'S A LOT OF EXPENSES

[03:30:02]

THERE'S A CERTAIN FINANCIAL ASPECT OF IT THAT I COULDN'T DEVELOP THAT WITHOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR HAVING THAT COMMUNITY RETAIL. IT JUST WOULDN'T MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE. HOWEVER WE CAN AND WILL COME BACK TO YOU GUYS, SO Y'ALL WILL GET TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN TO

APPROVE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> IT REQUIRES AN SUP.

OTHERWISE IF IT'S GOING TO BE STRAIGHT COMMUNITY RETAIL, YOU GIVE US A SITE PLAN AND WE CHECK IT AGAINST ALL OF OUR RULES.

>> I'VE GOT THE PLAN RIGHT HERE AND IT JUST SAYS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT DRIVES THIS MODULE WITH LIMITED SMALL SCALE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES TYPE DEVELOPMENTS AS A SECONDARY COMPONENT. SO YOU GET THE INTERSECTION OF 875 AND 663, THERE'S A CHURCH WHICH ISN'T RESIDENTIAL, THERE'S COMMUNITY RETAIL OPPOSITE OF THAT.

IT WOULD JUST SEEM, IT JUST SEEMS COMPLEMENTARY, IT FINISHES

OUT THE CORNER IN A WAY. >> WE DON'T ALL HAVE TO AGREE.

>> WHAT IS BEHIND THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL, WHAT IS THE INNER STREET PART BEHIND THE BACKSIDE OF THE RETAIL.

>> THAT'S A ROAD? >> WHAT IS THERE A WALL?

>> THAT'S ALL MASONRY WALL AND THERE'S LANDSCAPING ALSO.

SO YOU'LL HAVE A MASONRY WALL. THAT'S WHY IT'S SLIGHTLY OFFSET THROUGH THIS AREA. YOU'VE GOT OPEN SPACE ESSENTIALLY ON THE BACKSIDE WITH THAT MASONRY WALL.

THAT MASONRY WALL IS GOING TO BE SIX FEET TALL, THAT COULD BE INCREASED IN SIZE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

WE COULD GO TO 8-FOOT. BUT THERE IS A MASONRY WALL

PROPOSED IN THAT AREA. >> A DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST WHERE THE DUMPSTER IS GOING TO BE.

>> WE'VE DONE PDS IN THE PAST WHERE THERE HAS BEEN CONCERN ABOUT WHAT COMMERCIAL USE IS REQUIRE A DETAILED SITE PLAN PACKAGE BE REQUIRED FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES COME BACK TO

CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL. >> I'M FINE WITH THAT.

>> YOU'D SEE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS, THE

DETAILED SITE PLAN, ALL OF THAT. >> JUST A CURIOSITY QUESTION.

YOU'VE GOT FOUR LOTS THERE, DOES THAT IMPLY FOUR BUILDINGS OR MIGHT YOU HAVE MORE THAN FOUR BUILDING THERE?

>> THERE ARE FIVE LOTS. >> I CAN'T COUNT FIVE.

MY EYES ARE OFF TODAY. >> THAT'S JUST THE CONFIGURATION, THAT COULD CHANGE.

IT COULD JUST BE ONE LOT FOR ALL OF THAT.

>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH THE STIPULATION THAT ANY COMMUNITY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT COMES FORTH FOR DETAILED SITE PLAN APPROVAL. AS PRESENTED WITH THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST THAT THE CREEK STAYS.

>> AND AMEND THE LOT SIZE TO 20,000.

>> THAT'S CORRECT, YES. >> SECOND.

>> WITH THE LEFT TURNS RIGHT THERE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CREEK WILL REMAIN.

ANY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND THE LEFT TURN LANE REMAINS.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> KIND OF.

>> DETAILED SITE PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK TO CITY

[03:35:05]

COUNCIL. >> PLEASE VOTE.

THE ITEM FAILS 3-4. >> IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION?

>> I MAKE THAT SAME MOTION. >> YOU CAN DO THAT?

>> I SURE CAN. >> THE APPLICANT --

>> CAN I WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION?

>> THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.

>> YOU ALREADY VOTED ON IT. WILL THE COUNCIL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO GO AHEAD AND WITHDRAW?

>> IF WE DENY, WE CAN DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

>> IS THAT YOUR MOTIVATION, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO BRING IT BACK

SOONER THAN SIX MONTHS? >> YES, SIR.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF I COULD WORK SOMETHING OUT, SOMETHING SOONER THAN THAT. THAT WAS THEIR RECOMMENDATION EITHER WITHDRAW OR ASK YOU TO DENY IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

>> NO, WE CAN GO BAA -- BACK AND ADD TO THAT.

>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND.

>> WE'RE GOING BACK AND MAKING ANOTHER VOTE THAT IT BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. AS OF RIGHT NOW --

>> WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS. THE QUESTION BEFORE COUNCIL IS ARE WE WILLING TO DENY THIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE WHICH ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK SOONER?

>> I STILL MADE A MOTION MY MOTION SUPERCEDES AND NOW HAS A

SECOND. >> YOUR MOTION --

>> DID NOT DIE BECAUSE OF LACK OF SECOND.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE SAYS YOU MUST VOTE ON MY MOTION.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> WE DO.

>> CAN WE VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN --

>> YOU CAN VOTE ON ANOTHER MOTION WHICH WAS THE SAME AS, WAS THERE ANY CHANGE TO IT FROM THE FIRST?

>> BUT I THOUGHT -- >> SAME MOTION AS LAST.

>> WELL HAS THE OFFER BEEN -- >> GUYS, STOP.

STOP, PLEASE. YOU MADE A MOTION.

THAT DIED. SOMEONE THREW OUT ANOTHER MOTION AND HE THREW OUT ANOTHER MOTION. IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME MOTION.

AND IT GOT A SECOND. SO YOU SHOULD VOTE ON IT.

>> WE HAVE THE SAME MOTION AGAIN, IT'S BEEN SECONDED.

I DIDN'T HEAR THE SECOND. I HEARD A WITHDRAWAL BEFORE I

HEARD THE SECOND. >> THEN I HEARD A WITHDRAWAL.

>> SO PLEASE VOTE. >> IT HASN'T BEEN WITHDRAWN BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY HAD A MOTION, NOW YOU'RE MAKING A

SECOND MOTION. >> WE'RE VOTING TWICE ON THE

SAME THING. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.

SAME MOTION. BEEN SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. AND WE HAVE THE SAME RESULTS

3-4. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE IT, NO WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

THERE WE GO SO HE CAN BRING IT BACK IN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS.

>> DOES SOMEONE WANT TO WITHDRAW THEIR PREVIOUS MOTION TO ALLOW IT TO BE AMENDED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND BE VOTED ON THAT

WAY? >> OKAY.

START THIS OVER. >> DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO AMEND THEIR MOTION TO HAVE IT DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE?

>> ME. THAT'S WHAT I SAID.

NO, YOURS FAILED. NOW THE NEXT MOTION, WE'RE ONTO

MINE. >> DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

>> DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. >> THAT WAS THE SECOND MOTION.

NOW I NEED A SECOND. NOW WE VOTE.

>> VOTING IN FAVOR, A VOTE OF GREEN IS TO DENY IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE WHICH MEANS HE CAN BRING IT BACK WITHIN THE SIX

MONTH PERIOD. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES 7-0.

SO THE ITEM HAS BEEN -- >> LET'S GO TO 516.

[2021-516]

[03:40:01]

>> OPEN ITEM 2021-516. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 1.2 ACRES ON LOTS 1 THROUGH 10, BLOCK 21 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN ADDITION AND LOTS 11-15, BLOCK 16 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN ADDITION OF MIDLOTHIAN FROM COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL USES.

THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT 211 AND 301 WEST MAIN

STREET. >> THANK YOU.

THE PROPOSED REZONE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO PD TO ALLOW FOR PIECES OF PROPERTY TO BE REDEVELOPED. WE WENT THROUGH A PUBLIC PROCESS WHERE WE DUBBED THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN.

IN THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN THE GOALS WERE TO REVIVE DOWNTOWN THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT. PART OF THAT PROCESS WAS A CERTAIN DESIGN OF BUILDINGS WE WANTED TO PUT A FOCUS ON PART OF IT WITH AS TO PUT A FOCUS ON THE REDEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS, TO ENCOURAGE CERTAIN USES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN.

DURING THAT TIME THE CITY WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN BUILDING 1 AND 2.

THIS IS BUILDING ONE, THIS IS BUILDING TWO.

WE WENT THROUGH AN ADDITIONAL PROCESS WHERE WE WENT THROUGH A BUILDING PROCESS TO VARIOUS APPLICANTS TO PURCHASE THOSE BUILDINGS FROM THE CITY. WITH THAT WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT OF REZONING THESE BUILDINGS.

IF YOU LITERALLY LOOK AT THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, IN ORDER FOR THESE BUILDINGS TO MEET THOSE MINIMUM STANDARDS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO TEAR THEM DOWN TO MEET OFF STREET PARKING, TO MEET ARTICULATION, THERE'S NO WAY THESE BUILDINGS COULD MEET OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THROUGH THE PD PROCESS IT ALLOWS FOR BUILDINGS OF HISTORIC VALUE, IT ALLOWS FOR LOTS THAT DON'T MEET STANDARDS TO BE REDEVELOPED.

AND IT PROTECTS A LOT OF THESE BUILDINGS, IT PROTECTS THE WHOLE AREA. IT ENHANCES THE SURROUNDING AREA. ONE OF THOSE DIVISIONS IS THAT THE ARCHITECTURE HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, IT HAS TO BLEND IN TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO ON THE USES, WE LOOKED AT THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AND THE OVERALL GOALS WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE MANY COMMUNITY MEETINGS. WE FOCUSED ON USES THAT WERE RELATED TO ENTERTAINMENT, RESTAURANT, RECREATION USES.

SO WITHIN THE PD IT ALLOWS FOR ALL OF THOSE USES, IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, IT ALLOWS FOR LODGING IN ADDITION. HOWEVER WE PUT PROVISIONS IN HERE THAT ALL USES THAT HAVE DIRECT FRONTAGE ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SOME SORT OF RECREATION RESTAURANT ENTERTAINMENT USE. SO THAT IT REACTIVATES OUR STREETS. SO IN THAT WE HAVE LANGUAGE THAT'S VERY SPECIFIC ON THAT THAT THESE USES OF RIGHT OF WAYS HAVE TO BE WITHIN CERTAIN CATEGORIES.

ADDITIONALLY GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS WITHIN THE PD, WE ADOPTED SOME ELEVATIONS AND SOME CHANGES THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO TO ENHANCE THE BUILDINGS KEEPING THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.

THEY'RE ADDING ADDITIONAL ON STREET PARKING TO HELP COMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED USES. THEY'RE RESTRIPING THE PARKING AROUND MAIN STREET AND THE BUILDING.

THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING DOWNTOWN AREA. WE'RE USING VARIOUS ENHANCED SIGNAGE THAT BAR CODE DOES ALLOW FOR AND THAT WE'VE MADE WITH OTHER BUSINESSES. ONE THING THAT WE REQUIRE ON AND WE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT, WE HAVE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.

AS YOU SEE THOSE BUILDINGS THERE'S NOT A LOT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, SO WHAT DO WE DO, TEAR OUT THE SIDEWALKS, PORTABLE PLOTTED PLANTS TO SOFTEN THAT LANDSCAPE AND STILL KEEP MOST OF THIS RIGHT OF WAY IN TACT. I TOLD YOU ABOUT CERTAIN USES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ABUT. SO RETAIL, RESTAURANT,

[03:45:03]

HOWEVER THE ELEVATIONS THAT YOU'RE SEEING IN HERE, THE SIGN PLAN YOU'RE SEEING HERE FOR BUILDING NUMBER ONE IS WHAT IS BEING APPROVED AND THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. BUILDING NUMBER TWO, WHEN THEY ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH BUILDING NUMBER TWO, THEY ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PROFANING -- BRING A DETAILED SITE PLAN PACKAGE BEFORE ALL OF YOU AT A LATER TIME.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. WE FEEL THAT THIS MEETS ALL OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN.

WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS, FIRE CODE, ET CETERA.

>> WE'RE STILL IN A PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT?

>> YES, WE ARE, SIR. >> CAN I MOVE TO CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING? >> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> SECOND.

>> PLEASE VOTE. >> WE CAN STILL HAVE DISCUSSION FROM THE DAIS, WE JUST CLOSED IT TO THE PUBLIC.

>> THAT VOTE CLOSES THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> YOU CAN STILL HAVE QUESTIONS IN DISCUSSION.

>> PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, SO GO ON.

>> NOW WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. >> I FOR ONE AM PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT IT. LOOKING FORWARD TO THE REVITALIZATION OF DOWNTOWN. GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN INVESTING IN OUR DOWNTOWN TO BRING IT BACK EVEN AT A GREATER LEVEL THAN IT ALREADY IS.

SO JUST PRAYING THAT THEY PAINT THE GREEN BUILDINGS, I'M JUST

THROWING THAT OUT THERE. >> THEY'RE PAINTING IT A

DIFFERENT SHADE OF GREEN. >> THERE YOU GO.

>> I WAS CURIOUS, MANNA HOUSE HAS QUITE A BIT OF TRAFFIC FLOW.

IS THERE A WAY AND THERE'S PROBABLY NOT, IF YOU GO TO THE STREET VIEW, FOR THEM TO COME IN AN ALLEYWAY EARLY AND UP AND OVER AND OUT. I DON'T KNOW, I WAS JUST TRYING TO RELIEVE BECAUSE IT GETS PACKED.

I MEAN IT COMES OUT BACK HERE AND SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN MAKE IT QUEUE BACK HERE INSTEAD OF IN THE PARKING AREA. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S STRIPING OR SIGNAGE OR SOMETHING, BUT MANNA HOUSE GETS QUITE A FEW DROP OFFS WHICH IS A GOOD THING, BUT INSTEAD OF HAVING CARS COME OUT AND BLOCK IN THE THROUGH TRAFFIC TO PARK IS THERE SOME TYPE OF SIGNAGE OR STRIPING WE CAN DO TO SEE IF WE CAN MAKE THEM COME

THROUGH THIS ALLEY. >> IT GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH,

DOESN'T IT? >> I WOULD REQUEST THAT OUR

ENGINEERING STAFF LOOK AT THIS. >> WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT QUEUEING SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.

>> DOESN'T THAT ALLEY GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH?

>> YEAH, IT DOES. >> WON'T BARBECUE BLOCK OFF MOST

OF THAT ANYWAY? >> NO, THEY STILL WITHIN THEIR

PROPERTY. >> IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, I'M NOT

TRYING TO HANG UP ON IT. >> WHAT TAKES PLACE RIGHT NOW IS PEOPLE DROP OFF THEIR USED ITEMS AT HEAVEN'S ATTIC RIGHT NOW AND USUALLY IT GETS 2, 3, 4 CARS DEEP THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE AN ISSUE OF STACKING ONTO THE ROAD. BUT I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A PRETTY RARE OCCURRENCE, BUT I'M SURE THAT THE DEVELOPER, THE CITY STAFF, AND THE FOLKS AT HEAVEN'S ATTIC CAN FIGURE ALL OF

THAT OUT THROUGH A CONVERSATION. >> JUST A THOUGHT, I'M NOT HOLD

UP ON IT. >> WHAT WAS P&Z'S

RECOMMENDATION? >> P&Z RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 5-0.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> NO MODIFICATIONS? SORRY.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> AS PRESENTED.

[2021-517]

[03:50:17]

>> OPEN ITEM 2021-517. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 2.04 USE TABLES SECTION A COMMERCIAL BY ADDING TEMPORARY SHIPPING/STORAGE CONTAINERS AS A USE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, ADDING SECTION 2.05 TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF SHIPPING STORAGE CONTAINERS ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY.

>> THANK YOU. BACK IN 2019, I WAS DIRECTED BY CITY COUNCIL TO WHEN WALMART CAME BEFORE YOU TO AMEND THEIR PD WITH SHIPPING CONTAINERS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR ANY BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY TO HAVE THE SAME CAPABILITY WE WERE TRYING TO PERMIT IN THE WALMART PD AMENDMENT CASE.

I WENT THROUGH THAT CASE, I RELISTENED TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED, I LOOKED AT SHIPPING CONTAINERS, STORAGE CONTAINERS, THERE'S DIFFERENT WORDS HOW TO PHRASE IT.

AND I WENT AND TRIED TO FIGURE OUT HOW CAN WE PERMIT THIS IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS THROUGH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS THAT WOULD STILL ALLOW SOME SORT OF REQUIREMENT, MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAT SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW.

WHAT WE DID WAS WE ENDED UP TAKING THE SAME REGULATIONS THAT WE DID WITH WALMART WHERE THEY ARE REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS, COME IN AND APPLY FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION. WITHIN THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN SHOWING WHERE THE SHIPPING CONTAINER, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SHIPPING CONTAINERS WOULD BE LOCATED, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY WOULD BE IMPOSING. WE ALSO ADDED A RECOMMENDATION CLAUSE IN HERE THAT AFTER SHIPPING CONTAINERS WERE REMOVED THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE RECLAIMED TO THE ORIGINAL STATE SO WE WOULDN'T BE CREATING A LONGLLONG LASTING IMPACT. WE PUT IN VARIOUS CONDITIONS TO CONTROL HOW LONG THEY COULD BE ON THE PROPERTY, WHAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO BE ON THE PROPERTY, AND HOW TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE PROPERTY. EVEN TO THE POINT WHERE THE CONDITION OF THE CONTAINERS HAD TO BE GOOD CONDITION, IT WAS ALL WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> NOT ON THE AGENDA. >> NOT ON THE AGENDA, THANK YOU.

>> WE'VE BEEN CHASING ALL DAY.

I WANT TO THROW ONE OUT THERE. >> I'M A LITTLE TIRED.

>> WHAT'S THE TIME LIMIT ON TEMPORARY?

>> THE TEMPORARY TIME LIMIT WE DID I BELIEVE WAS A MAXIMUM OF 90 DAYS. THEY COULD HAVE NO MORE THAN 20 SHIPPING CONTAINERS, BUT ONCE AGAIN THAT TIMEFRAME, THEY HAD TO BRING THAT TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL AND YOU COULD LIMIT THE DAYS, YOU COULD LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CONTAINERS AS WELL.

>> THIS IS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL?

>> YES AS DIRECTED BY COUNCIL BACK IN 2008.

THE ONLY ONE I DID LIMIT IT TO NOT ALLOW FOR WOULD BE

MULTIFAMILY. >> IN ALL ZONING?

>> YES, SO THE DISTRICTS IT WOULD BE PERMITTED, WE FOUND IT VERY DIFFICULT HOW WE WOULD GET IT INTO THE R3 DISTRICT GIVEN

THE SIZE OF LOTS. >> THE SMALLEST LOT THAT IT

WOULD BE ALLOWED? >> THOSE ARE USUALLY THE MORE SMALL LOTS. MULTIFAMILY WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT SINCE YOU HAVE MULTIPLE RESIDENCE.

>> IS THIS BECAUSE THOSE CONTAINERS THEY COME AND PACK YOUR HOUSE UP IS THIS HOW IT CAME TO BE?

>> IT WAS WALMART. >> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT ARE YOU SAYING THAT EVERY PERSON WOULD HAVE TO BE AN APPLICANT TO COME BEFORE US BEFORE THEY COULD --

>> HOW THIS IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, THAT'S HOW IT IS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A

[03:55:01]

>> SO THE SMALLEST LOT AVAILABLE TO THIS WOULD BE SF4, WHAT IS

THE SIZE OF THAT LOT? >> 40.

30. >> JUST UNDER AN ACRE.

HALF ACRE, GENERALLY SPEAKING. >> SO WOULD THIS AFFECT SOMEBODY THAT HAD A FIRE, THEY PUT ALL OF THEIR STUFF INSIDE OF A CONTAINER, WHILE THE HOUSE IS BEING BUILT, NO MATTER WHERE

THEY LIVED IN TOWN. >> I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR MOVING THAT'S DIFFERENT. WE HAVE A DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR LIKE A MOVING POD AND FOR CONSTRUCTION.

THIS IS MORE FOR -- >> THIS IS MORE FOR THE

CONTAINER ITSELF, NOT THE PODS. >> A TRANSATLANTIC SHIPPING

CONTAINERS. >> ARE YOU LOOKING SOMETHING UP?

>> I WAS, MY COMPUTER FROZE. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, CAN I MAKE A MOTION? I MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED 7-0.

ANY DISCUSSION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS IS.

SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES 7-0. >> THANK YOU.

[2021-518]

>> NEXT ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.

[2021-519]

>> CORRECT, YES, SIR. >> YES, CORRECT.

>> THIS IS FROM JOHN KNIGHT, HE HAD TO LEAVE.

HE'S GOING TO BE OR HE WAS GOING TO BE OUR APPRAISAL DISTRICT BETWEEN HIM AND BRETT KEMP. I'M LOOKING AT HUD FOR HELP ON THAT, I FORGOT. HE WAS HERE TONIGHT WANTING TO SPEAK, BUT BEING IT RAN SO LATE AND IT'S 8:30 AT NIGHT WE'RE GOING TO HURRY THIS ALONG. HE WROTE A LETTER TO TALK TO US ABOUT, WE'D LIKE TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD.

CAN I SUMMARIZE? WITH YOUR HELP IT WOULD BE MY PLEASURE TO SERVE FOR ANOTHER TWO YEAR TERM.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> WE APPRECIATE YOUR VOTE, HE'S

GOING TO DO WONDERFUL THINGS. >> LET ME READ THE FIRST ONE.

THAT WAS THE LAST PARAGRAPH. SINCE I'M HERE TONIGHT TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF YOUR BOARD, IT IS ELECTION TIME FOR THE ELLIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, AND VERY SOON YOU'LL BE ASKED TO CAST YOUR VOTE FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE EIGHT CANDIDATES.

FIVE MEMBERS OF THE APPRAISAL VOTE WILL NEED 834 VOTES TO ENSURE A SEAT ON THE BOARD. IF FIVE MEMBERS DO NOT REACH THE REQUIRED THRESHOLD, THEN THE PERSON OR PERSONS WITH THE REQUIRED VOTE TOTALS WILL FILL THE REMAINING SEATS.

THEN THE LAST PARAGRAPH. >> COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM

COUNCIL? >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> WHAT ARE -- >> I THINK THE MOTION WOULD NEED TO SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF WE'D LOCH -- LIKE TO THROW ALL 397 VOTES TO JOHN KNIGHT FOR THE APPRAISAL BOARD, CORRECT?

>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO THROW ALL OF OUR VOTES.

HUD, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?

>> I JUST FEEL THAT IT'S IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO NOMINATE AND VOTE ON SOMEONE THAT'S A CITIZEN OF MIDLOTHIAN, NOTHING AGAINST MR. KNIGHT, BUT HE'S NOT A CITIZEN OF MIDLOTHIAN AND WE HAVE A CPA WHICH IS ABOUT AS QUALIFIED AS YOU CAN GET FOR THIS POSITION THAT'S LIVED HERE HIS ENTIRE LIFE, I THINK IS MORE

QUALIFIED IN BRETT KEMP. >> DID YOU MAKE A MOTION?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO THROW ALL OF OUR VOTES TO JOHN KNIGHT?

>> I SECOND. >> IT WAS SECONDED.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY THAT IS PROVING THE RESOLUTION, AND THAT'S 397 VOTES FOR JOHN KNIGHT?

>> YES. >> OKAY, THAT'S THE MOTION.

[04:00:04]

>> PLEASE VOTE. >> 6-1 RESOLUTION PASSES TO THROW ALL 397 VOTES TO JOHN KNIGHT.

[2021-520]

AREAS. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.

AS COUNCIL KNOWS BACK IN EARLY 2000 AS A CITY ALONG WITH GRAND PRAIRIE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH TRA AND CREATED THE MOUNTAIN CREEK SYSTEM. SO TRA NOW OWNS AND OPERATES THE MOUNTAIN CREEK TREATMENT FACILITY.

THAT'S A 3 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY PLANT.

IT CAN HANDLE SOME INDUSTRIAL WASTE, BUT IT WAS REALLY DESIGNED MORE FOR DOMESTIC WASTE.

SO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S INCURRING ON RAILPORT WITH THE INDUSTRIAL SIDE AND INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE, TRA MADE THE RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY START CONVERSATIONS WITH GULF COAST AUTHORITY THAT SPECIALIZES IN INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER AND FOR THEM TO SEE ABOUT TREATING THE RAILPORT AREA AND AREAS SURROUNDING RAILPORT. AND THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY.

WE HAVE THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH GULF COAST AUTHORITY. ESSENTIALLY THEY WOULD BUILD A FACILITY OUT AT THE RAILPORT AREA AND THEY'RE REALLY RIGHT NOW WORKING ON A CONTRACT WITH THE DATA CENTER.

SO THE INITIAL CUSTOMER WOULD BE THE DATA CENTER, BUT ALSO THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO TREAT OTHER ENTITIES OUT AT RAILPORT AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE. SO WITHIN THIS AGREEMENT THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE GULF COAST AUTHORITY BOARD, THEY'VE ALREADY SIGNED OFF ON IT. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE KEY PROVISIONS, BUT SOME OF THE MAIN HIGHLIGHTS WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT WITHIN THE AGREEMENT ITSELF RIGHT NOW IT'S SET UP FOR THE RAILPORT AREA AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS IN THE ETJ.

THERE'S NO COST TO MIDLOTHIAN. SO THE COST WILL BE BASED ON CUSTOMERS THAT WE PAID FOR THIS SERVICE.

WE HAVE TRA HAS ALREADY ISSUED A RESOLUTION ALLOWING GCA TO SERVE WITHIN THEIR SERVICE AREA, THAT ISN'T THE NORM.

WE HAVE THE AGREEMENT SO IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVE, SO IF SOMEBODY OUT OF RAILPORT DOES NOT WANT TO USE GCA, THEY CAN CONTINUE TO STAY ON TRA WITH THE MOUNTAIN CREEK SYSTEM.

THAT'S NOT EXCLUSIVE FOR TRA. IF THEY HAVE ANY CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS GCA WOULD MAKE NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY.

RIGHT NOW GCA WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO DIRECT REUSE, AND THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN THEM AND A CUSTOMER, BUT THAT CUSTOMER WOULD NEED TO BE A WATER CUSTOMER OF THE CITY, SO THAT HELPS US ON THE TREATED WATER SIDE.

OR IF THEY DISCHARGE, IF THERE'S A DISCHARGE, THEN WE WOULD LOOK TO GET THE RIGHTS FROM TCQ ADJUDICATED TO MIDLOTHIAN BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE GOING TO JOE POOL, SO WE WOULD LOOK TO GET THOSE AND RECLAIM THOSE RIGHTS.

THEN A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS, THE TERM IS SET FOR 25 YEARS AND IT ALSO HAS THE PROVISION TO BE TERMINATED BY EITHER PARTY WITH A TWO YEAR NOTICE. THIS WENT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL UTILITY SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE ADVISORY BOARD ON THURSDAY EVENING. AFTER A DISCUSSION, THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL.

WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT

COUNCIL MAY HAVE. >> IS THERE ANY DETRIMENT TO A CUSTOMER OPTING OUT OF THIS AND EXERCISING THAT OPTION?

>> NO, SIR. >> FOR US AS A CITY I MEAN?

>> NO, WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE PERMITTING REQUIREMENT, RIGHT NOW THE DATA CENTER CURRENTLY HAS A PERMIT WITH US AND THE TRA ACTUALLY ADMINISTERS THAT PROGRAM FOR US, SO WE'D HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE DISCHARGE IS WITHIN REQUIREMENTS THAT TRA CAN TREAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AND SECONDED, PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 7-0. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

>> THANK YOU, MIKE. >> ITEM 2021-521 CONSIDER AND

[2021-521]

[04:05:01]

ENTERPRISES. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MIND SWITCHING OVER TO OUR

PRESENTATIONS. >> BEFORE YOU GET TOO FAR DOWN, SHOULD WE NOT MOVE THIS TO THURSDAY?

>> SO THIS ITEM THAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD, MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD HAS ALREADY VOTED TO APPROVE ON IT.

THERE ARE SOME CHANGES THAT ARE INCORPORATED IN THE AGREEMENT BASED ON WHAT THE COUNCIL ULTIMATELY APPROVES.

SO WE'VE COORDINATED POTENTIAL MOVEMENT THAT MAY HAPPEN.

SO IF COUNCIL IS WILLING, WE'D MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ITEM.

>> BASICALLY WHAT HE'S SAYING IS LET'S SAY YOU APPROVE THIS TONIGHT BUT THEN FOR WHATEVER REASON THE ORDINANCE GETS DENIED, IT'S CONDITIONED, THAT GRANT IS ONLY CONDITIONED UPON

THEM GETTING THE ZONING. >> BUT WE COULD DEAL WITH THIS

THURSDAY? >> I REALLY FEEL LIKE IT'S CART BEFORE THE HORSE PERSONALLY. I KNOW OUR BASES WOULD BE COVERED BUT I THINK IT'S A BAD LOOK PERSONALLY.

>> I AGREE WITH JUSTIN. >> THAT'S FINE.

>> YOU'VE GOT AT LEAST THREE VOTES HERE FOR DELAYING IT UNTIL

THURSDAY. >> THEY IT UNTIL THURSDAY.

>> ALL RIGHT, WE'LL DO THIS THURSDAY.

>> SO WHAT'S THE OFFICIAL MOTION?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE OR NO ACTION?

>> LET'S JUST TABLE IT, WE'LL MAKE SURE IT GOES TO THE

MEETING. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS UNTIL NEXT THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18TH AT 2:00 P.M.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE TO DELAY OR TABLE IT UNTIL THE 18TH OF NOVEMBER, SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. 7-0.

[2021-522]

>> THIS IS ANOTHER ONE THAT WE CAN GO EXTREMELY QUICKLY.

SO EACH YEAR IN MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WE'RE REQUIRED IN OUR BYLAWS TO COME AND PRESENT TO COUNCIL WHAT ALL WE'RE DOING AND SO WE'VE PROVIDED A REPORT THAT WE HAVE IN THE PACKET AND HAPPY TO PRESENT THAT OVER TO YOU.

IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THE MEETING, HAPPY TO LEAVE IT AT THAT AS INFORMATION FOR YOU AS A COUNCIL AND ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER

THOSE IF YOU HAVE ANY. >> IT WAS A VERY GOOD, VERY THOROUGH REPORT. I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION.

>> THANK YOU. VERY GOOD, KYLE.

THANK YOU. THERE'S NO ACTION TO TAKE.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

EXCUSE ME. ITEM SECTION 551.072 REAL ESTATE AND NUMBER FOUR AND NUMBER FIVE. I'M SORRY, WE'RE DOING NUMBER 4, 211 WEST AVENUE F. SO WE STAND

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.