[002 Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Plat of Walnut Grove 287 Addition, being ± 43.06 acres of land, situated within the JH Witherspoon Survey, Abstract 1137, and the John Early Survey, Abstract 343. The property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Walnut Grove Road and US Highway 287 (Case No. PP01-2022-10).]

ITEM 2, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WALNUT GROVE 287 ADDITION, BEING + 43.06 ACRES OF LAND, SITUATED WITHIN THE JH WITHERSPOON SURVEY, ABSTRACT 1137, AND THE JOHN EARLY SURVEY, ABSTRACT 343. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WALNUT

GROVE ROAD AND US HIGHWAY 287 >> THANK YOU, SIR.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER AT SOUTH WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND U.S. HIGHWAY 287. THE PROPERTY ZONED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THEY ARE REQUESTING TO FLAT 43 -- APPROXIMATELY 43-ACRE TRACT OF LAND IN THE SIX COMMERCIAL LOTS, DOES MEET ALL OUR REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO SECTION 212 OF THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGULATIONS AND LO LOCAL GOVERNT CODE.

THIS ITEM DM NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING AND I CAN ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. >> OKAY.

>> WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> I SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. OPPOSED.

[003 Consider and act upon a request to adopt the 2022 regular scheduled meeting dates for the Planning & Zoning Commission and consider rescheduling or canceling the regularly scheduled December 21, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting (Case No. M03-2022-020).]

UNANIMOUS: ITEM 003 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST TO ADOPT THE 2022 REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING DATES FOR THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND CONSIDER RESCHEDULING OR CANCELING THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED DECEMBER 21, 2021 PLANNING & ZONING

COMMISSION MEETING. >> IT IS THAT TIME OF YEAR WE PRESENT OUR UPCOMING CALENDAR. THE DATES IN FRONT OF YOU ARE IN THE PACKET AS WELL AS UP ON SCREEN.

TO EACH SIDE OF ME, THERE IS ONE REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFICATION, ALSO GOES INTO ITEM NO. 2 ON THE SAME AGENDA.

THIS IS ABOUT THE DECEMBER 20TH, 2022 MEETING.

IF YOU LIKE THAT KEPT ON THE AGENDA, OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE THAT REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA. ALSO, ITEM NO. 2 IS CONSIDERED UPON CANCELING DECEMBER 21ST, 2021, PLANNING & ZONING MEETING, THIS IS A COUPLE DAYS BEFORE THE HOLIDAY.

STAFF HAS CONCERNS THAT, ONE, WILL WE BE ABLE TO GET A QUORUM AND WILL WE BE ABLE TO PROIT APPLICANTS TO HAVE THAT CHANCE, OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THEM ACCURATE AND RELIABLE VOTE.

SO THAT WAS ONE OF OUR CONCERNS. ONE, DO YOU ACCEPT THE CALENDAR AS PROPOSED. DO YOU WANT TO CANCEL THE LAST MEETING OF THE YEAR DECEMBER OF 2022, AND WOULD YOU WANT TO CANCEL DECEMBER 21, 2021 MEETING.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> JUST FOR COMMISSION'S INFORMATION, I DID TALK TO TRENTON AND COUNSELOR, YOU CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG ON THIS, BUT WE CAN APPROVE THIS AND IF ANY MEETING NEEDS TO BE CANCELED OR RESCHEDULED, WE CAN ALWAYS DO THAT, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT IS THERE DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO HAVE IT ON THAT DATE IF SOMETHING ARISES. OKAY.

AND MY QUESTION TO STAFF WAS, IF WE ADOPT THE SCHEDULE AS IS, AND POSTPONE THE DECEMBER 2021 MEETING, IF THAT WOULD POSE HARDSHIP ON STAFF, APPLICANT, OR COUNSEL.

AS FAR AS WE CAN DETERMINE, IT DOES NOT.

SO WITH THAT, THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

WHATEVER THE COMMISSION WISHES TO DO.

>> CURIOUS ABOUT THE PIPELINE, IF WE DID HAVE THAT MEETING.

>> WE JUST HAD -- WE HAVE BEEN WARNING APPLICANTS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON. YOU KNOW, GOING MONTH TO MONTH, I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHAT CASES ARE GOING TO GO BEFORE ALL OF

[00:05:05]

YOU. IF THAT INCREASE NUMBER OF CASES

IN JANUARY, I COULDN'T TELL YOU. >> JUST TRYING TO AVOID A

MARATHON SESSION IN JANUARY. >> THOSE ARE THE FUN MEETINGS, THOUGH.

>> IF YOU WOULD LIKE, WE CAN START THAT MEETING IN JANUARY A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU SO CHOOSE.

>> IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE COMMISSION HERE THAT KNOWS THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE HERE ON THE 21ST?

ONE? >> A LOT OF TIMES WE WILL TAKE THAT WHOLE WEEK OFF. SO I MIGHT NOT.

>> AND MINE IS QUESTIONABLE RIGHT NOW, NOT THAT THE COMMISSION COULDN'T MEET WITHOUT ME.

>> YOU WOULD HAVE FOUR. >> WE WOULD HAVE QUORUM.

>> EVERY ITEM WOULD BE APPROVED TO 3-1 VOTE.

I APOLOGIZE, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A LEGAL TEAM HERE.

>> THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. >> IS THERE A POSSIBILITY, OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE STILL LOOKING AT SINGLE DATES FOR EACH MONTH NEXT YEAR. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY WHEN STAFF SEES THAT WE GET TO A CERTAIN LEVEL TO WHERE WE COULD POSSIBLY END UP ON SOME MONTHS HAVING TO HAVE TWO MEETINGS.

IS ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THAT? >> IN THE PAST WE HAVE CALLED SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS BEFORE WHEN WE HAVE HAD CERTAIN SITUATIONS. THAT WOULD BE -- I KNOW WE HAVE BROUGHT THAT UP BEFORE TO PLAINS COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL VOTED DOWN, THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE ONE MEETING A MONTH.

>> WHEN MEETINGS RUN UNTIL MIDNIGHT AND 1 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, WE GET TO SLAMMING THINGS THROUGH AT TIMES.

PEOPLE JUST WANT TO GO HOME AFTER ABOUT 10 O'CLOCK.

>> IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT, TO HAVE TWO MEETINGS A MONTH.

>> WHAT I WOULD HOPE WE COULD DO, I DON'T KNOW IF THE MEETINGS ACT WORK WITH THIS, IF WE STILL HOLD OUR REGULAR THIRD TUESDAY MEETING AND THEN WHEN YA'LL SEE, HEY, WE ARE SITTING OUT HERE AT 16, 18 AGENDA ITEMS, WE NEED TO GO TO 24, MAYBE THOSE THAT COME AFTER A CERTAIN LINE MAY BUMP TO THE FIRST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH.

DOES THAT GIVE ENOUGH TIME TO HAVE THAT MEETING ON THAT FIRST TUESDAY TO WHERE WE CAN SEE WHETHER WE WILL HAVE ONE BY WHAT'S LEFT OVER THAT WE COULDN'T FIT IN.

>> WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. >> IT IS DOABLE.

BUT, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION -- THIS LARGELY AFFECTS ZONING CASES. BECAUSE YOU HAVE GOT PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR SPECIFIC DATES, WE END UP HAVING TO BRING UP EVERY AGENDA ITEM TO PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NEXT MEETING, DEPENDING ON WHEN YOU POST IT.

MOST INSTANCES FOR THE [INAUDIBLE] COUNCIL, IT MAY NOT AFFECT THE COUNCIL BUT WE WILL LOOK AT THAT.

>> I JUST WANT TO STRESS, I'M NOT STATING THAT -- I'M STATING AT THE TIME THAT POSTINGS SHOULD HAPPEN, A LOT OF TIMES THEY KNOW AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG ONE.

BEFORE THEY WOULD EVEN POST IT, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO LET APPLICANTS KNOW WE HIT THIS POINT AND YOUR MEETING MIGHT GET PLACED ON THE FIRST WEEK. WE CAN TALK THIS TO DEATH TONIGHT. IT IS JUST AN IDEA.

>> THERE MAY BE A NUMBER OF WAYS THE STAFF COULD CONSTRUCT IT IN A WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, NONPUBLIC HEARINGS ON ONE MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ANOTHER MEETING TO REDUCE THE AGENDA OF ONE OR THE OTHER MEETINGS.

THERE'S VARIOUS WAYS TO DO IT. OTHERWISE, AGAIN, WE JUST PUT

THEM ON A BIWEEKLY CYCLE. >> OKAY, ANYONE ELSE?

>> OKAY. LET'S FIRST TAKE THE CALENDAR THEN. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION AS FAR AS ADOPTING THE CALENDAR PRESENTED.

>> I MAKE A MOTION WE ADOPT THE CALENDAR AS PRESENTED.

>> I WILL SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY FURTHER QUESTION OR DISCUSSION?

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. >>.WE HAD A QUESTION?

. >> DOES THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT

[00:10:03]

NEXT DECEMBER? >> YES, WITH, AS PRESENTED.

MOTION IN SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

ANY OPPOSED. UNANIMOUS.

SECOND THING IS, FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR MOTION AS TO THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE DECEMBER MEETING.

I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE DECEMBER MEETING.

IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR AYE, ANY OPPOSED. IT IS UNANIMOUS.

DOES THAT TAKE CARE OF IT FOR YOU, TRENTON.

[004 Consider and act upon a request for two special exceptions, being, 1) Section 6.14.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow for drive access onto a major collector (Walter Stephenson Road/Harvest Hill Road), and 2) Section 4.5605(b.1) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for driveway access not meeting the minimum spacing requirements for a ±3.476 acres tract of land on Lot 10R, Block 3, Clearview Estates; and Lot 1, Block 10, Hunters Glen Addition Phase for nonresidential uses. The property is located at 2010 Starwashed Drive (Case No. M02-2022-003).]

ITEM 004 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR TWO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, BEING, 1) SECTION 6.14.3 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR DRIVE ACCESS ONTO A MAJOR COLLECTOR (WALTER STEPHENSON ROAD/HARVEST HILL ROAD), AND 2) SECTION 4.5605(B.1) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM SPACING REQUIREMENTS FOR A +3.476 ACRES TRACT OF LAND ON LOT 10R, BLOCK 3, CLEARVIEW ESTATES; AND LOT 1, BLOCK 10, HUNTERS GLEN ADDITION PHASE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2010 STARWASHED DRIVE.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. THE PROPERTY, WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING IS TWO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.

ONE FROM SECTION 6.14.3. THE NEXT ONE SECTION 4.5605, SUBSECTION B.1. WHAT THEY ARE ASKING TO DO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL INGRESS EGRESS OFF HARVEST HILL ROAD TO ALLOW FOR BETTER DRIVEWAY FOR ACCESSIBLE FOR EXISTING STRUCTURE. WHAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE -- THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF RECONSTRUCTING THIS, REVITALIZING THIS. AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL HOME.

THE HOME IS OWNED BY HARVEST HILL CHURCH WHO WILL BE USING THIS AS YOUTH CENTER BUILDING. IT IS AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE HARVEST HILL CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET.

WITH THAT, THEY WANT THEIR CONNECTIVITY, THEIR FLOW.

THEIR EXISTING DRIVEWAY OFF WALTER STEPHENSON ROAD.

THEY ARE ASKING THAT TO BE REMOVED.

THEY WISH ANOTHER ONE TO BE REMOVED.

WITH THE TWO POINTS OF INGREASE, EGRESS, THEY LOAN THE LOT TO THE EAST. THE ENTRANCE WOULD COME HERE, WRAP AROUND THE STRUCTURE, GO INTO THIS PARKING AREA, THIS PARKING AREA, EGRESS POINT OVER HERE, VICE VERSA.

WITH STAFF LOOKING AT THIS, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

WE DO FEEL THAT BY THEM REPOSITIONING THIS FIRST PLAN OF EGRESS/INGRESS, IT DIRECTLY LINES UP WITH WALT STEPHENSON.

THIS ACTUALLY PROVIDES BETTER ALIGNMENT.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE IN DEVELOPMENT, WE ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, REQUEST OR WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO, LINE UP DRIVES, LINE UP ROADS. WE FEEL THAT THIS WOULD PROVIDE BETTER SAFETY FOR THAT. THE ADDITIONAL ONE IS SPACING REQUIREMENT. THIS DOES NOT MEET THE SPACING REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, ADDING ADDITIONAL SPACING WOULD BE A HARDSHIP, ESPECIALLY WITH WHERE THE PARKING LOT IS GOING TO BE LOCATED, WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL I A ADDED TO THE SITE REQUIRING ADA TO BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. WE FEEL -- WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPACING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THE -- FROM THIS POINT OF INGRESS/EGRESS TO HARVEST HILL ROAD AND WALTER STEPHENSON. THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> YOU ARE SAYING STAFF

RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> OF BOTH EXCEPTIONS.

>> YOU HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS OF FIVE ITEMS.

>> THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE IN ARE THE BASIC CONDITIONS WE DO FOR ALL DRIVEWAY PLACEMENT. THE FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. WHEN THEY POUR THESE, THERE MIGHT BE A UTILITY LINE. WE DON'T WANT THEM TO GO BACK

[00:15:03]

THROUGH THE PROCESS. WE SAY THE FINAL PLACEMENT OF THE INGRESS/EGRESS HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. IT HAS TO MEET STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, OUR COMMON LANGUAGE.

THAT IS REITERATED IN THERE. THAT THE EXISTING DRIVE APPROACH RIGHT HERE -- RIGHT HERE, I APOLOGIZE, AND RIGHT HERE BE REMOVED. AND BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE CURB AND GUTTER, NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE.

AS FINAL CONDITION THAT IN NO WAY IS THIS APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN PACKAGE. THIS IS JUST APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY APPROACHES AND THEY ARE STILL REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS.

>> STAFF RECOMMENDATION, APPROVE WITH THE FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT YOU PUT ON THERE. >> CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY

THAT. >> THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY

DRIVEWAY -- >> THERE TWO DRIVEWAYS.

ONE RIGHT HERE AND ONE RIGHT HERE THAT LOOP INTO EACH OTHER, U SHAPED. THEY WILL BE REMOVING TWO.

>> THANK YOU. >> FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF? OKAY, DOES ANYONE HERE WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY.

I HAVE TWO FORMS SUBMITTED IN FAVOR, E EARLY JONES.

THE LAST NIEM IS INELIGIBLE, ALSO IN FAVOR.

AND THAT'S ALL. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK THAT HASN'T FILLED OUT A FORM? FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION.

WOULD YOU RE-POINT OUT THE TWOS. >> THAT WILL BE REMOVED?

>> YEAH. >> SO THE FIRST ONE IS RIGHT HERE ON -- LOCATED ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. RIGHT HERE.

EXISTING DRIVEWAY. WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS MORE OF A GRAVEL APPROACH.

>> THAT ONE ON STARWASHED WAS CLOSED AS WELL?

>> YES. THIS LOT RIGHT HERE, THEY HAVE N ENCORE OR SOME SORT OF TRANSMISSION AREA.

YOU CAN'T REALLY USE IT. THEY HAVE JUST ENOUGH ROOM TO

GET THE DRIVE IN THERE. >> I ALSO HAVE A FORM FROM RUSTY BAILEY IN FAVOR OF THIS. WHAT'S THE DESIRE OF THE

COMMISSION? >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE WITH

THE STAFF CONDITIONS. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS.

ALL IN FAVOR AYE, OPPOSED. IT IS UNANIMOUS.

[005 Conduct a public hearing and consider an ordinance amending the development and use regulations of Urban Village Planned Development District No. 97 (UVPD-97). The property is located at 417 W. Ave F (Case No. Z01-2022-002).]

ITEM 005 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS OF URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 97 (UVPD-97). THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 417 W. AVE F (.

>> THANK YOU, BACK IN 2017, THIS PROPERTY WAS REZONED TO URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR OFFICE SPACE.

THIS WAS TO HELP PRESERVE LOTS, CREATE REDEVELOPMENT, INFILL DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS LOCATED IN THE ORIGINAL TOWN. THE ORIGINAL TOWN WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES THAT INFILL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPLIMENTARY, ADJACENT LAND USES. THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING TO DO IS EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE WAS LOCATED IN THE ALLEY. SINCE THAT TIME, IT WAS MOVED ON TO THEIR PROPERTY PER THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.

THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS RETROFITTED, REDONE, SIMILAR TO WHAT THE HOUSE THAT TURNED INTO AN OFFICE WAS.

AND THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT THIS NOW BE ALLOWED TO BE USED FOR OFFICE SPACE. PART OF THIS, AND THE NEXT CASE THAT YOU WILL SEE IN FRONT OF ALL OF YOU IS A REQUEST, BECAUSE OF THIS OFFICE SPACE, REQUIRING ONE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE.

THIS SITE, THE DESIGN, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR PARKING ON SITE.

[00:20:02]

IF THEY WERE TO DO PARKING ON SITE, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TEAR UP ALL THE COVER, THAT'S SOMETHING WE ARE TRYING TO NOT DO. WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY APPROVED UVPD-97, THEY REQUESTED ON STREET PARKING RIGHT OFF OF AVENUE F. THERE IS SPACE THEY ARE ADDING ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE NEXT TO THE EXISTING ONES THAT MEET OUR STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, ET CETERA.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOP MANY AS DEVELOPMENT.THIS DOES REQUIRE PC HEARING. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS, STAFF? >> WERE THERE ANY OPPOSED?

>> NO. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY

OPPOSITION TO THIS. >> OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK?

OKAY. >> QUIET ROOM TONIGHT.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY FORMS FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK WHO HASN'T FILLED OUT A MOTION. HAVING ANOTHER, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR AYE, UNANIMOUS.

006 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RIGHT OF USE LICENSE AND HOLD -- I'M SORRY, WE NEED TO ACT. WE JUST DID THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF.

FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR ACTION OR DISCUSSION.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IN FAVOR, AYE, OPPOSED. OKAY, UNANIMOUS.

[006 Consider and act upon a Right of Use License and Hold Harmless Agreement amendment for use of the northern 20 feet of the right of way for W. Avenue F adjacent to 417 W. Avenue F for parking (Case No. M01-2022-22).]

NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO NO. 6. 006 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RIGHT OF USE LICENSE AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR USE OF THE NORTHERN 20 FEET OF THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR W. AVENUE F ADJACENT TO 417 W. AVENUE F FOR

PARKING >> THANK YOU, THIS IS THE SAME PROPERTY THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED.

THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ACTION. WE WANT TO LET YOU KNOW ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR ON-STREET PARKING THAT I MENTIONED IN THE LAST CASE. WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS WHAT THE ENROACHMENT AGREEMENT DOES LOOK LIKE, FOR YOUR REFERENCE OF WHAT WAS APPROVED, AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON THAT.

>> NO ACTION. >> NO ACTION IS REQUIRED.

[007 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for mini-warehouse storage uses on 3.057± acres in the Joseph H. Witherspoon Survey, Abstract No. 1136. The property is located south of US Highway 287, north of Shady Grove Road and +/-1,000 ft. west of Plainview Road (Case No. SUP02-2022-012).]

>> OKAY. WE WILL MOVE ONTO THE NEXT ITEM.

007 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT (SUP) FOR MINI WAREHOUSE STORAGE USES ON 3.057+ ACRES IN THE JOSEPH H. WITHERSPOON SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.

1136. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF US HIGHWAY 287, NORTH OF SHADY GROVE ROAD AND +/-1,000 FT.

WEST OF PLAINVIEW ROAD. WE ARE NOW IN PUBLIC HEARING.

>> THE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL HAVE ACCESS ON BOTH ROADWAYS, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN. STAFF LOOKS TO OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR GUIDELINES AND IT DOES SHOW THIS PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN THE REGIONAL MODULE. REGIONAL MODULE DOES FOCUS ON NONRESIDENTIAL USES THAT MAY INCLUDE EMPLOYMENT, SHOPPING, ENTERTAINMENT, STAFF AGREES THAT A STORAGE FACILITY WOULD CONFORM TO OUR ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

STILL, THE FACILITY BEING PROPOSED WILL BE THREE STORIES TALL. IT IS APPROXIMATELY 39 FEET TALL WITH ABOUT 90,000 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE SPACE.

OUTSIDE STORAGE WILL NOT BE PERMITTED IN THIS CASE, MEANING THAT THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO STORE VEHICLES, BOATS, TRAILERS, SHIPPING CONTAINERS, RVS OR SIMILAR ITEMS LIKE THAT.

STRICTLY PROHIBITED. AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, THE TIA IS NOT REQUIRED BUT WHEN THE OTHER TWO PARCELS TO THE NORTH DO DEVELOP, THAT WILL PROBABLY TRIGGER A TIA AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, DEPENDING ON WHAT USE ACTUALLY GOES INTO THOSE NORTHERN PARCELS. THE APPLICANT WILL INSTALL A SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL WITH VEGETATIVE SCREENING AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE, TOTAL OF 23 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED.

THAT'S A RATIO OF ONE TO FOUR THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

14 PARKING SPACES, SIX ADDITIONAL SPACES OVERSIZED SLOTS FOR LOADING PURPOSES. THE PROPOSED BUILDING DOES MEET THE DESIGN STANDARDS EXCEPT FOR THE OVERALL HEIGHT.

[00:25:01]

OUR ZONING ORDINANCE DOES PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION FOR PARAPET WALLS OR ARCHITECTURE FEATURES. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A PARAPET WULWALL THAT GOES BEYOND THE 35-FOOT MAX WE HAVE STATED IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.

DOESSTAFF DOES SUPPORT THE REQU. THE BUILDING WILL BE SET BACK APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY BOUNDARY -- BUILDING IS GOING TO SIT ABOUT 300 FEET BACK FROM U.S. 287.

SO WITH ALL THAT COMBINED TOGETHER, WE ARE FINE WITH EXCEEDING THE 35-FOOT MAXIMUM. WE DID SEND 12 LETTERS OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY WRITTEN RESPONSES. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH ADDITION THAT ALL PARKING ADHERING TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WE WOULD EXPECT ALL 23 STALLS TO BE INSTALLED. WITH THAT, I CAN TAKE ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> QUESTIONS TO STAFF?

>> THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AS WELL.

>> OKAY. IF THE APPLICANT WOULD COME UP

AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. >> THANK YOU ALL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE AND JUST TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT TO DO THE 23 PARKING SPOTS, THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE. AND WE ALSO ARE IN AGREEMENT WHEN THE TWO SITES ARE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE, WHICH WE WILL ALSO BE BUYING, DOING SOME SORT OF STUDY FOR THAT BACK EXIT AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY ADDING A TURN LANE FOR THAT, IF IT IS

DEEMED NECESSARY. >> WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME.

>> I'M SORRY, BRYAN HALEY WITH CB CAPITAL.

THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE EXACT BUILDING WE WISH TO BUILD THERE.

AS STAFF MENTIONED, OUR USABLE HEIGHT WILL STOP AT 32 FEET.

BUT WITH THE ARTICULATIONS REQUESTED AND THE NEED FOR SOME FIRE SAFETY ADDITIONS, THAT EXTRA HEIGHT IS NEEDED AND THERE'S CERTAIN AREAS THAT YOU SEE THERE TO GET US SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE 35 FEET. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THIS IS ONE OF -- WE DO PROJECTS LIKE THIS ALL OVER THE STATE AND WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO CALL MIDLOTHIAN HOME FOR THIS PROJECT.

>> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY, THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> ONE OTHER FORM, I BELIEVE.

KELSY CAMPBELL, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? IN FAVOR? OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK THAT HASN'T FILLED OUT A FORM? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE. >> HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? ANY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE, ANYONE OPPOSED.

UNANIMOUS. FLOOR OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR

ACTION. >> I THINK IT IS A GREAT SPOT FOR IT, MYSELF. I WOULD RATHER SEE IT LIKE THIS THAN MIXED IN WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY.

I SEE THE PURPOSE IN SINGLE FAMILY IN CERTAIN SPOTS, BUT I LIKE THIS, THAT IT IS OUT ON THE HIGHWAY.

THEY GOT 24-HOUR INGRESS AND EGRESS, THEY DON'T DISTURB ANYBODY. I THINK THE BUILDING IS GOING TO LOOK NICE IF THEY STAY WITHIN THE ARCHITECTURAL PROVISIONS THAT THEY PROVIDED US. I LIKE WHAT I SEE.

>> I AGREE. >> MARCUS, WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER BUILDING -- IF THIS IS WHERE I THINK IT IS, THAT IS CAPABLE IN HEIGHT, THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE TALLEST THING AROUND RIGHT

THERE, RIGHT? >> YEAH.

I DON'T THINK MCCOY'S IS PROBABLY MAYBE 20 FEET TALL.

MAYBE AT ITS HIGHEST PEAK. >> 20 TO 24.

>> YEAH, MAYBE SO. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE STORAGE AREA ON THE VERY BACK. BUT DEFINITELY THIS WILL BE THE TALLEST BUILDING, NO DOUBT, IN THIS AREA.

>> AND IT IS GOING TO HAVE ACCESS, BOTH ON THE SERVICE ROAD

AND ON MOUNT ZION. >> ABSOLUTELY, SIR.

ACCESS ON TO 287. KEEP IN MIND, 287 HAS ALL THOSE CHANGES ARE HAPPENING ON 287. BUT AS YOU EXIT OFF 287, YOU ARE

[00:30:02]

NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO TURN IN HERE.

ULTIMATELY, IN ORDER TO ACCESS THIS ENTRANCE, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE EXITED PRIORITY -- NOT AT THIS OFF-RAMP AREA.

IT IS GOING TO MISS THAT. >> OKAY.

>> THAT'S ACTUALLY GOOD FOR US. I THINK FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, TEX TXDOT DOES NOT WANT THIS DRIVE PUSHED CLOSER TO FOLKS MAY BE ABLE TO MAKE A QUICK RIGHT FOR SAFETY CONCERNS,

OBVIOUSLY. >> OKAY.

WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION?

>> THE LOT IS BELOW HIGHWAY GRADE, CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR, I BELIEVE SO. I WOULD BELIEVE THAT -- WOULD I SAY THIS WOULD BE DEFINITELY HIGHER THAN -- YES, SIR,

ABSOLUTELY. >> OFF OFF.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I HEAR A MOTION.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AS SUBMITTED BY

STAFF. >> I WILL SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE.

ANY FURTHER QUESTION OR DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, AI, OPPOSED.

[008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending and restating the development regulations for the Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a heat treatment facility. The property is currently zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) District and is located on the west side of South Wyatt Road, between U.S. Hwy 67 and East Wyatt Road (commonly known as 3351 South Wyatt Road) (Case No. SUP03-2022-014).]

IT IS UNANIMOUS. ITEM 008 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT (SUP) FOR A HEAT TREATMENT FACILITY. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI) DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH WYATT ROAD, BETWEEN U.S. HWY 67 AND EAST WYATT ROAD (COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3351 SOUTH WYATT ROAD)

>> NORTH OF HIGHWAY 67 ON SOUTH WYATT ROAD, SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DOES SHOW THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN OUR INDUSTRIAL MODULE.

BEING THAT THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, AND ALSO WITHIN THAT INDUSTRIAL MODULE, THIS SUP REQUEST WOULD CONFORM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

HERE IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY.

AND MAYBE NOT. THERE WE GO.

HERE IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY.

IT WILL OPERATE 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK.

THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THE METAL AND STEEL MATERIAL WILL BE STORED WITHIN THE BUILDING. NO OUTSIDE STORAGE WILL OCCUR ON THE SITE. GOODALL PLANS TO EXPAND IN THE FUTURE WITH ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS, PROBABLY FOUR ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS WILL OCCUR ON THIS SITE.

WE HAVE AGREED THAT ANY FUTURE EXPANSION WILL REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS SAME SUP. SO WHEN THEY DO EXPAND, WE WILL BE BACK AT THIS SPOT SHOWING YOU GUYS WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING TO DO. NORMALLY, A BUILDING OF THIS SIZE WOULD REQUIRE 56 PARKING SPACES.

THAT'S A RATIO OF 1:1000 SQUARE FEET.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS BE REDUCED DOWN TO 19 PARKING SPACES, THIS IS DUE TO TWO SPECIFIC REASONS.

MOST OF THE MATERIALS IN THE MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT IS ALL GOING TO BE STORED WITHIN THAT BUILDING.

SO THAT TAKES UP A LOT OF THAT SPACE.

AND THEY ALSO ONLY REQUIRE SIX PERSONNEL ON AN 8-HOUR SHIFT.

SO THERE'S -- THEY ARE NOT PLANNING FOR MANY EMPLOYEES TO BE HERE AT ALL. SOUTH WYATT ROAD IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. IT DOES REQUIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION. THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS. YOU CAN SEE THE TWO ACCESS POINTS PLANNED ON TO SOUTH WYATT ROAD, THAT THAT BE APPROVED BY IMPROVED BYTHE DEVELOPER. THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE AN APPROXIMATELY 8 TO 10 SEMI TRUCKS IN A 24-HOUR PERIOD. THEY ARE OPERATING 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK. ANY FUTURE EXPANSION, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE THE TIA TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED. THE APPLICANT ALSO WANTS TO INSTALL AN 8-FOOT TALL CHAIN-LINK FENCE WITH THREE STRANDS OF BASHED WIRE, THAT WWILL BE ALONG SOUTH WYATT ROAD IN THIS AREA HERE. WITH THAT SAID, OUR ZONING ORDINANCE DOESN'T REQUIRE FENCING TO BE INSTALLED ON A NONRESIDENTIAL USE. BUT IF A FENCE IS INSTALLED, IT WOULD TYPICALLY OR NORMALLY BE REQUIRED TO BE A MASONRY WALL OR

[00:35:01]

WROUGHT IRON FENCING WITH STONE CLUMTION.

COLUMNS. CHAIN LINKS FENCING IS PROHIBITED. REGULATIONS ALSO REQUIRE PUBLIC SIDEWALKS ALONG ALL PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS. WE COULD CONSIDER THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SIDEWALKS NOT BE REQUIRED DUE TO THE LACK OF CON CONNECTIONS ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 35-FOOT TALL SIGN AND THAT SIGN WILL BE PLACED ABOUT 180 FEET SETBACK FROM SOUTH WYATT ROAD. PER OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, MONUMENTS SIGNS ARE NEVER TO EXSEAT MORE THAN TEN FEET.

WE HAVE A PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT IF YOU DO HAVE A POLE SIGN APPROVED, THAT THAT POLE SIGN MAY BE APPROVED THROUGH A SUP, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE DOING RIGHT NOW, A SUP, BUT IT SHOULD NEVER EXCEED 25 FEET. SO, YEAH, I THINK FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD WANT TO SEE THE SIGN NOT GO BEYOND 10 FEET. BUT THERE IS A PROVISION IN THERE THAT DOES ALLOW FOR IT TO GO UP TO AT LEAST 25 FEET WITH PERMISSION OF CITY COUNCIL. HERE ARE THE ELEVATIONS.

THERE'S NO ARTICULATION REQUIRED IN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AT THIS TIME. FOR THE MOST PART, THE BUILDINGS, THEY MEET THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS WITHIN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. WE DID SEND FIVE LETTERS OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS O WITHIN 200 FE. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES. WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRUCK TRAFFIC, ROAD CONDITIONS. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUP BUT WITH THESE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHOWN UP HERE, ONE THROUGH FIVE, THAT BEING THAT SIDEWALKS SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THAT THE PARKING ADHERE TO THE SECTION 4.5606 OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, THE 56 PARKING SPACES.

THE MONUMENT SITE COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NOT TO EXCEED 10 FEET. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING PAVEMENT ALONG SOUTH WYATT ROAD FROM 67 TO THE SECOND DRIVEWAY, THE FENCING ALSO ADHERE TO OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AS WELL.

WITH THAT, I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> MARCUS, ALL OF THE LAND SURROUNDING THIS IS THE SOLAR

FARM, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.

ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

LET ME ZOOM OUT HERE. GET A BIGGER PICTURE.

SO THE SOLAR FARM IS GOING TO BE ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH WYATT ROAD. IT IS ON THE NORTH OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, TO THE WEST OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND TO THE SOUTH OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO THE SOLAR FARM WILL SURROUND

THIS. >> I'M CURIOUS WHY THE

SIDEWALKS? >> SURE.

WELL, YOU KNOW, AS STAFF, WE JUST DON'T GO AGAINST THE CODE.

WE STICK WITH THE CODE. THE CODE SAYS THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD HAVE SIDEWALKS.

WE DO WANT TO SEE ALL ROADWAYS HAVE SIDEWALKS ONE DAY IN THE FUTURE. IT MAY NOT MAKE THAT MUCH SENSE HERE BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE HERE.

FOR THE MOST PART, IT IS -- WE'RE GOING TO SIDE WITH THE

CODE. >> OKAY.

>> QUESTIONS TO STAFF? >> WHERE IS THE MONUMENT SIGN

GOING? >> THE MONUMENT SIGN IS LOC LOCATED -- THIS IS SOUTH WYATT R50D.

ROAD. 180 FEET BACK, IN THIS EXACT LOCATION HERE. CLOSER TO THE BUILDING THAN IT IS TO ACTUAL HIGHWAY. 18 POSIT180 FEET SETBACK.

>> IS THERE ALREADY A MONUMENT SIGN THERE FOR ANOTHER DEVELOP MANY THAT IS CLOSE TO THAT ALREADY?

>> WELL, IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE BUSINESS PARK, THE BUSINESS PARK HAS A SIGN 60 FEET TALL. PRETTY TALL.

OF COURSE, THAT WAS DONE, GOSH, WHEN DID WE APPROVE THAT? THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN 2015. YEAH.

IT WAS A WHILE BACK. YEAH, THAT ONE DOES EXIST.

>> HOW TALL -- DO THEY HAVE A PROJECTION ON -- YOU MIGHT HAVE COVERED THIS AND I MISSED IT, HOW TALL IS THE BUILDING?

>> THE BUILDING'S HEIGHT IS GOING TO BE --

>> I DIDN'T CATCH IT EITHER. >> THAT'S GOING TO GIVE ME A REFERENCE TO HOW TALL THAT SIGN MIGHT GET TO BE.

>> SO THE EVE HEIGHT IS 42 FEET. AND THEN WHEN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE COPULA, PEAK, ANOTHER -- ALMOST ADD ANOTHER 20 FEET TO

[00:40:08]

THAT. SO YOU ARE LOOKING AT ALMOST 60 FEET TALL, THAT BUILDING. BUT IN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, WE DON'T HAVE A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.

>> NO, BUT I'M THINKING ABOUT HOW THE BUILDING COULD POTENTIALLY HIDE THE SIGN DUE TO HEIGHT.

DOES STAFF CONSIDER -- I CAN TOTALLY GET IT IF THE SIGN WAS ACTUALER THATALLER THAN THE BUIR CLOSE TO THAT.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE POSITION OF THE SIGN, WILL IT BE CLOSE TO

THE CENTER OF THE BUILDING? >> IT WILL BE PUSHED TO THE FAR

SOUTH OF THAT. >> I'M SORRY.

IT IS STILL GOING TO BE AT THE 40-FOOT PORTION.

THERE'S ANOTHER SIDE OF MEAN THAT DOESN'T WANT TO GET THAT

STARTED. >> WELL, I CAN SAY -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM GOODELL.

I CAN SAY THEIR PLAN IS TO HAVE THAT SAME SIGN REPLICATED FOR

EACH BUILDING THAT THEY DO. >> I TELL YOU WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, I'M GOING TO LET COUNSEL MAKE THAT DECISION.

I WILL ABIDE BY THE CODE AND BUILDING STANDARDS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. COUNCIL CAN MAKE THOSE BIG

DECISIONS. >> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> CAN YOU SHOW US THE MAP WHERE THIS IS AND WHERE THAT BUILDING IS GOING TO BE, TO WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW? DO YOU HAVE A CLOSER GOOGLE MAP.

SO IT IS GOING TO GO IN THE LOT THAT IS SHOWN THERE OR IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW?

>> WELL, EVERYTHING WILL BE TORN DOWN, EVERYTHING WILL BE GONE UP HERE. ALL BE GONE, AND THEN ULTIMATELY THAT BUILDING WILL PROBABLY LAY RIGHT ABOUT WHERE MY CURSOR IS RIGHT NOW, AND THEN THAT SIGN WILL SIT ABOUT THIS LOCATION.

>> THAT'S THE OLD SAFE TIRE FACILITY, RIGHT?

>> SURE IS. >> AND THEY ARE GOING TO CLEAR

ALL THAT OUT? >> YES, SIR.

>> IS THAT THE TIRE FACILITY? >> UH-HUH.

>> SO THEY ARE GOING TO CLEAN THAT OUT.

>> OKAY, OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> ONLY -- SO I THINK YOU HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED IT, I SAW IT, BUT SO THAT THE BALANCE OF THE COMMISSIONERS TOOK IT IN, ALL SURROUNDING AREA THERE IS INDUSTRIAL.

>> OH, YES, SIR. >> SO THERE'S REALLY LITERALLY NO CHANCE KIDS ARE GOING TO BE RIDING THEIR BIKES TO SCHOOL THROUGH THERE. NO IMPOSSIBLE.

>> WELL, I WILL BACK UP, ACTUALLY, THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY ALL ZONED SINGLE FAMILY ONE.

>> DO WE HAVE A SATELLITE OR ANYTHING ON THIS LARGER SCALE SHOWING US WHAT ALL IS SITTING THERE FOR THE SANCTITY OF TIME,

WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT. >> WE CAN GO TO GOOGLE EARTH.

>> I CAN SAY THERE WAS A SUP DONE FOR THE SOLAR FARM WHICH TOOK IN MOST OF THAT AREA. ALL UP HERE, ALL OF THIS AREA.

>> THOSE ARE A LOT OF TRAILER HOUSES AND SINGLE FAMILY UP

NORTH OF THERE. >> IT DOES HAVE THAT A AGRICULTURAL AND SINGLE FAMILY ONE.

BUT THIS IS INDUSTRIAL MODULE MAKING IT CONSISTENT.

>> OTHERS QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OF STAFF? DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK?

>> PHILIP ELIA, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK?

>> NOPE. >> AND IS IT DANIEL DERAGO.

>> LAURA, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? OKAY, LET THE RECORD SHOW LAURA IS HERE, PRESENT, AND IN FAVOR. IS THAT CORRECT? I'M SORRY, YOU ARE. I JUST HAVE THE TWO.

OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE IF I QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANTS? ANYBODY ELSE HERE WISH TO SPEAK THAT DIDN'T FILL OUT A FORM? IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SO MOVED.

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

[00:45:01]

THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

I GUESS THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE THE SIDEWALKS. IF WE WOULD APPROVE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US STRIKE ITEM ONE OUT.

>> I DON'T THINK THEY NEED ITEM TWO EITHER.

I DON'T THINK THEY NEED 56 PARKING SPACES THERE.

I THINK THEY REQUESTED 8. >> THEY REQUESTED 19, 19 PARKING SPACES. THEIR JUSTIFICATION WAS THEY FEEL IF THEY HAD ALL EMPLOYEES FROM ALL THREE SHIFTS, THAT WOULD FILL UP THE 19 PARKING SPACES, WHICH THEY ARE NOT PLANNING TO HAVE ALL AT ONE TIME.

>> THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE ITEM 4 AND 5, AS FAR AS

WORKING WITH THE ROAD? >> WE HAVE NO MAJOR ISSUES.

WE DO AGREE -- CALLING FOR CH CHAIN-LINK FENCE, OUR STANDARD IS WROUGHT IRON OR MASONRY. FOR INDUSTRIAL.

>> DO THEY NOT HAVE A GRANARY EWE LONG THE ROAD? I THOUGHT I SAW SOME BUSHES. IS THAT TREES OR BUSHES.

>> THEY ARE PLANTING TREES. BASE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT

REQUIRES SHADE TREE PLANTED. >> YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE FENCE FROM THE ROAD. I'M KIND OF -- I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FENCING, JUST A LITTLE BIT.

AND I MEAN, IN THIS APPLICATION, I DON'T KNOW -- I CAN UNDERSTAND, FOR INSTANCE, THE BUSINESS PART.

IT IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT APPLICATION.

THIS IS MORE FULL BLOWN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

>> YES, SIR. >> AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH USE THE WROUGHT IRON IS GOING TO BE IN THE APPLICATION.

BECAUSE YOU USE WROUGHT IRON FOR AESTHETICS.

WAS STAFF LOOKING AT IT THAT WAY.

>> WE ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM AESTHETICS.

>> WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING BY, YOU ARE SEEING IT?

>> MAINLY, BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT-OF-WAY.

ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT A FENCE UP AND NONRESIDENTIAL, IT IS GOING TO REQUIRE AN UPGRADED FENCE WITH PROHIBITING CHAIN-LINK FENCE SPECIFICALLY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T GET SO SPECIFIC THAT IT EXCLUDES HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. IT JUST BASICALLY STATES THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE CHAIN LINKS FENCES ALONG RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> EVEN BLACK CHAIN LINK. >> EVEN BLACK CHAIN LINK.

>> EVEN IF THEY MADE A PROVISION TO DRESS UP THE GREENERY THROUGH

THERE A LITTLE BIT? >> WHICH THEY ARE ALREADY DOING

. >> THEY HAVE TREES.

BUT NIGHTTI I'M NOT TRYING TO NT TO DEATH.

WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD SIZED FENCE ORDINANCE NOW, BUT THERE'S ALSO A POINT AT WHICH I WOULDN'T GO AS FAR TO CALL IT A HARDSHIP, BUT GETTING INTO AN UNNECESSARY REQUIREMENT JUST BECAUSE THAT'S

JUST THE WAY IT IS. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THE FENCES ON THE INSIDE OF THE TREE, BETWEEN THE BUILDING -- YOU HAVE ROADWAY, TREES, FENCE, BUILDING.

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE FROM THE HIGHWAY, WHEN THEY ARE DRIVING DOWN.

I'M THINKING THE HIGHWAY IS GOING TO BE A HAIR HIGHER THAN THAT. SO YOU WILL BE LOOKING DOWN.

DID YOU WANT TO SAYING. >> WE ARE WE REQUIRING THE SOLAR FARM TO DO AROUND IT? ARE THEY REQUIRED TO DO WROUGHT IRON FENCING? I FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD MATCH.

>> SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, ONCE AGAIN, THAT PROPERTY IS NOT ZONED INDUSTRIAL. IT IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL.

THEY REQUESTED A SECURITY FENCE BBARBED WIRE ON TOP.

>> SECURITY FENCE MEANING? >> I BELIEVE IT IS 8 FEET HIGH

WITH -- >> WHAT THAT I CAN IS THE SECURITY FENCE? WHAT IS IT?

>> I'M NOT A FENCE EXPERT. >> IS IT CHAIN LINK?

[00:50:01]

WROUGHT IRON. >> CHAIN LINK, SECURITY FENCE,

BARBED WIRE. >> IF WE ARE REQUIRING THE SOLAR FARM TO HAVE CHAIN LINK, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD WITH THESE

GUYS. >> AS THE COAT STAIDZ.

CODE STATES. YOUR PREROGATIVE.

>> IN DEFENSE OF THE SOLAR FARM, THEY ALSO HAD A BERM.

THERE'S A GOOD-SIZED BERM ON THAT.

ISN'T IT LIKE SIX OR EIGHT FOOT TALL?

DIRT BERM. >> I DON'T RECALL THE DETAILS.

I APOLOGIZE. >> IT IS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE

FENCE. >> SOMETHING TELLS ME THEY LEFT THE BARBED WIRE, BERM, AND CHAIN LINK ALSO.

I MIGHT BE WRONG. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? SIR, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU

WANTED TO SAY. >> JUST THE COMMENT AT THIS

TIME [INAUDIBLE]. >> IF YOU WOULD, SIR, COME UP TO

THE PODIUM. >> THIS SIGN MATCHES EXACTLY THE SIGN THAT WE HAVE IN THE STEEL MILL.

SAME HEIGHT, SAME DESIGN, SAME DESCRIPTION ON IT.

ONLY DIFFERENCE WILL BE THAT HEAT TREAT FACILITY THAT IS DIFFERENT. BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME.

>> AND WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME.

>> DANIEL RICO. >> CAN YOU GO -- I KNOW IT IS GOING TO HAVE THE SOLAR FARM AROUND IT, BUT EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE IN THIS BUILDING? WHAT IS THE PROCESS THAT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE?

>> SO YA'LL KNOW GOODELL. STEEL, OPERATING SINCE 1974 IN MIDLOTHIAN. IF YOU LOOK AT IT, PART OF THE ROUND BARS THAT WE PRODUCE IN OUR BAR MILL WILL BE TRANSPORTED TO THIS FACILITY. AND THEN WE WILL HEAT TREAT THOSE BARS ON THE FACILITY. AND THEN FROM THAT, WE ARE ADDING VALUE TO IT AND GENERATING JOBS THERE.

FROM THERE, THE FINISHED GOODS GO TO OUR FINAL CUSTOMS.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> NO PROBLEM.

>> YOU DO UNDERSTAND, SIR, THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM -- NOBODY IS STANDING ANY ISSUE WITH THE STYLE OF THE SIGN.

IT IS POTENTIALLY -- I CAN'T ANSWER FOR THE BALANCE OF THE COMMISSIONERS -- WITHIN OUR STANDARDS THAT HAS CHANGED SINCE YOUR OTHER SIGNS POSSIBLY. IT WOULDN'T BE TO THE DESIGN OF THE SIGN. IT MIGHT BE TO THE HEIGHT.

>> I UNDERSTAND. JUST SAYING THAT THE HEIGHT IS THE SAME HEIGHT OF THE ONES INSTALLED IN THE STEEL MILL.

>> OKAY. >> ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? IF NOT, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, ALL IN FAVOR, AYE, ANY OPPOSED.

WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION?

>> THE ONLY PORTION I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN A MANNER IN WHICH OUR SIGN ORDINANCE WORKS IS THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DESIGN OF THE SIGN. BUT I'M GOING TO ALLOW COUNCIL TO MAKE A DECISION IF WE CAN PLACE -- I DON'T -- I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO WORK WITH THEM. I BELIEVE, AS YOU STATED, THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 15 FEET?

10 FEET OR SOMETHING? >> SO 10-FOOT IS OUR MAXIMUM FOR A MONUMENT SIGN. WE DO HAVE A PROVISION IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT SAYS IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES A POLE SIGN FOR A DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS MORE THAN 500 FEET OF FRONTAGE, WHICH THEY DO, THEY CAN APPROVE A POLE SIGN UP TO 25 FEET.

THESE FOLKS ASKING FOR 35 FEET STILL IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM THAT WE HAVE FOR EVEN A POLE SIGN, IF COUNCIL WAS TO APPROVE

ONE. >> I WILL LET THE BALANCE OF THE COMMISSIONERS SPEAK. I WILL PRONE TO WHAT YOU ARE, SOUNDS LIKE, IN A WAY STATING COULD HAPPEN, 25-FOOT MAXIMUM.

THAT WAY WE ARE STAYING WITHIN OUR STANDARDS AND LET COUNCIL

MAKE THE BIG DECISIONS. >> I AGREE WITH YOU.

[00:55:02]

I'M OKAY WITH THE 25-FOOT MAXIMUM WITHIN OUR STANDARDS, WITH THE SETBACK. HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THE BUILDING.

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THE 25. >> SO MARCUS, IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES NOT TO INCLUDE ITEM 5, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE THE

FENCING. >> THAT LEAVES THE FENCING WITH A CHAIN-LINK FENCE WITH THREE STRSTRANDS OF BARBED WIRE, THATS

WHAT THEY WOULD BE REQUESTING. >> THAT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE PART OF THE MOTION. IF WE DON'T INCLUDE 5, THAT'S

AUTOMATIC. >> WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO WHAT'S

AROUND THE SOLAR FARM. >> THEY WANT TO DO EIGHT FOOT.

I BELIEVE THE SOLAR FARM IS ABOUT 8-FOOT.

>> IF THERE IS NOT A MOTION FROM SOMEONE ELSE, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SUBMITTED BY STAFF.

ITEM 3 RELATED TO MONUMENT SIGNS.

ITEM 4, WHICH IS RELATED TO THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.

>> SECOND. >> OKAY.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. >> I THINK YOU BETTER MAKE SURE THAT ITEM 3, WHAT YOUR HEIGHT IS GOING TO BE ON THAT.

[INAUDIBLE]. >> HE CAN CONCLUDE THAT ONE AS

WELL OR INCLUDE. >> IF YOU EXCLUDE IT, 10 FEET IS

YOUR MAX. >> SO WE INCLUDE ITEM 3.

3 AND 4. >> DO YOU NEED TO CALL IT SPECIFICALLY, ADD TO ITEM 3 TO MAKE IT 25 FEET.

>> I WOULD INCLUDE THAT IN OUR MOTION.

>> YES, SIR. >> WERE WE ABLE TO CONCLUDE

SIDEWALK. >> WE EXCLUDED THAT.

>> WE EXCLUDED 1, 2, AND 5. WE ARE INCLUDING IN THE MOTION ITEMS 3 AND 4 WITH THE STIPULATION OF 25 FEET.

>> WRWROUGHT IRON FENCE. >> WE ARE NOT INCLUDING STAFF'S

RECOMMENDATION. >> WE ARE NOT INCLUDING IT.

WE EXCLUDED THAT. >> YES.

WE ARE ONLY INCLUDING TWO OF THE FIVE.

THAT'S 3 AND 4. SO WE ARE GOOD? OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO MA

MOTION. >> THAT

MOTION. >> I SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND, STAFF RECOMMENDED ITEMS 3 AND 4 WITH 25 FEET. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

AYE, ANYBODY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider an ordinance amending and restating the development and use regulations of planned development district No. 78 (PD-78). The property is located at 1630 N. U.S. Highway 67 (Case No. Z05-2022-017).]

ITEM 009 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 78 (PD-78). THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1630 N. U.S. HIGHWAY 67.

WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING. >> THANK YOU.

THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED BACK IN 2015, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 78. AT THAT TIME, IN 2015 AND LATER ON IN 2016, OR IN 2016 THERE WAS AN APPLICATION REQUESTING THAT THEY ALLOW FOR A -- WHAT WE WOULD CLASSIFY AS BILLBOARD SIGN ON THE PROPERTY. AT THAT TIME, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL DID DENY THAT REQUEST.

WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TODAY, THEY ARE REQUESTING A BILLBOARD TO BE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY FOR AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER. THE PROPOSED HEIGHT THEY ARE REQUESTING IS NOT TO HE EXCEED 35 FEET.

THE APPROXIMATE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SIGN THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 429 SQUARE FEET.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR SIGN REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, WE DO NOT ALLOW FOR BILLBOARD SIGNS

[01:00:03]

OR OFF-PREMISE SIGNAGE. THERE ARE TWO EXISTING POLES RIGHT HERE ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THIS WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED.

WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO WRAP THE POLES.

RIGHT NOW, TWO METAL POLES. THEY ARE PLANNING TO WRAP THEM WITH A WA WAINSCOTING OF MASONRY BRICK, STUCCO FINISH AT THE BASE OF THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER.

THEY HAVE REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR OFF-PREMISE SIGNAGE.

HOUR OUR CODES, ALL ADVERTISING WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR ANYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH THE SELF-STORAGE FACILITY.

THEY DID SAY THEY WOULD LIMIT TO ANY BUSINESSES IN CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. WE CAN'T LIMIT THAT AS PART OF THE ZONING REGULATION. WE CAN'T LIMIT WHO THE ADVERTISING IS FOR FOR OFF-PROMISE SIGNAGE.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE VERY SPECIFIC -- YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO ALLOW FOR OFF-PREMISE SIGNAGE, IT IS ONLY ALLOWED OR NOT ALLOWED. STAFF DOES -- DUE TO THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE, THIS DOES EXCEED OUR MINIMUM REGULATIONS OF ANY ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER.

CURRENTLY ON OUR POLE SIGNS, POLE AND MONUMENT SIGNS WE ALLOW FOR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTERS. 32 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM.

IF WHAT REQUIRES 32 QAIFT. 32 QAIFT.

32 SQUARE FEET.WHAT THEY ARE R. MATHEY ARE ASKING FOR 35-FOOT TL SIGN AND WITH A TEN-FOOT CLEARANCE.

ALSO, A POLE SIGN AS STATES IN SECTION 4.6 .014 AND 4.6017 SUBSECTION C, POLE SIGNS ARE ALLOWED ONLY FOR THOSE BUSINESSES HAVING NOT LESS THAN 500 LINEAR FEET OF SQUARE FOOT.

THEY ARE LOCATED ON U.S. 67. THEY DON'T MEET THOSE -- THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. STAFF DOES -- WE DID NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. NONE CAME IN.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? >> SO WHAT -- WE JUST WENT THROUGH A LOT OF IN FACT, MARCUS,US, YOU DID A WONDERFUL .

I NEED YOU TO TELL ME, WHAT THISSOUNDS LIKE A BILLBOARD .

>> WHAT HER REQUESTING IS NOT PERMITTED.

IF THEY WANTED A POLE SIGN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS OF BEING ADJACENT TO A RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH THEY COULDN'T BE ADJACENT UNLESS A SUP WERE APPROVED.

THAT'S WHY THEY ARE COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY.

IF WE WERE TO CONSIDER THIS POLE SIGN, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO 32 SQUARE FEET. ONCE AGAIN, THEY ARE REQUESTING 429 SQUARE FEET. THEY ARE EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT OF WHAT WE ALLOW FOR A POLE SIGN. SO IF YOU REALLY WANT TO MAKE A POLE SIGN WITH ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER, YOU ARE LIMITED

TO 32 SQUARE FEET. >> AND MESSAGES THAT ONLY APPLY

TO THE SITE. >> THE SITE ITSELF .

>> IT WOULD BE SELF-STORAGE. >> ALSO, LIKE YOU STATED, WE CAN'T LEGALLY STATE REALLY WHAT -- WITHIN REASON WHAT HE

CAN AND CAN'T PUT ON IT. >> YOU CAN'T STATE --

>> WITHIN OUR -- OKAY. >> GOES BACK FOUGHT U.S. SUPREME

COURT CASE. >> HAVE WE GOTTEN INTO THE CONVERSATION WHAT'S IN YOUR PRESENTATION.

I REMEMBER WE DEALT A LOT WITH THESE LED SIGNS, ALLOWABLE, AS

FAR AS LIGHT AND CHANGES. >> THEY ARE MEETING ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THEY ARE ALSO MEETING THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AROUND IT, SO MANY SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LANDSCAPING. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TRANSITIONING. LOCATED WITHIN -- THERE'S A CERTAIN TIME OF HOW LONG THE IMAGE HAS TO STAY.

THEY ARE MEETING THAT REQUIREMENT.

[01:05:03]

SO MANY SECONDS. I THINK THEY ARE EXCEEDING OUR REQUIREMENTS. OURS IS SIX SECONDS, THEY ARE REQUESTING EIGHT SECONDS. THEY ARE ACTUALLY EXCEEDING THAT. ALSO, PROVISION LOCATED WITHIN SO MANY FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR RESIDENTIAL USE, THIS HAS TO BE TURNED OFF. OR THE LIGHTS HAVE TO BE DIMMED DOWN TO A CERTAIN LEVEL. THEY ARE NOT WITHIN THAT -- THEY FALL OUTSIDE OF THOSE PERIMETERS.

THIS HE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO DIM DOWN THE LIGHTS OF THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER OR HAVE IT OFF IN CERTAIN HOURS OF

THE DAY. >> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPOTS IN THE CITY WHERE THERE IS SOMETHING CLOSE TO THIS

ALLOWABLE. >> THAT IS ALLOWABLE? NO. WE DON'T RIGHT NOW.

>> WE HAVE SOMETHING -- >> WE HAVE TWO EXISTING NONCONFORMING BILLBOARDS THAT ARE GRANDFATHERED.

BEEN THERE FOR YEARS. ONE BY THE HOTEL, AND SMALL ONE

ON MAIN STREET. >> I BELIEVE THE ONE WAS REMOVED. SO WE ARE DOWN TO ONE.

>> IS IT DIGITAL? EITHER OF THOSE DIGITAL?

>> NO. NO, JUST ONE IMAGE.

>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY POLE SIGNS THAT DI DIGITAL DISPLAYS.

>> IF WE APPROVED THIS, IT WOULD LITERALLY GO AGAINST EVERY CURRENT SIGN AND -- ALL OF OUR ORDINANCES.

>> IN VIOLATION OF OUR SIGN REGULATIONS, YES, SIR.

>> WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAS A PRESENTATION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SHOW AND SPEAK.

>> DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK? IF YOU WOULD, SIR, COME UP TO THE MIC AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

>> NAME IS DOUG HUNT, I OWN ACCESS STORAGE, THE FACILITY UP ON WHERE WE ARE GOING TO PUT THE SIGN ON HIGHWAY 67, NORTH OF NINTH STREET. ALSO, I OWN A STORAGE FACILITY UP IN DALLAS RIGHT BELOW THE SPLIT OF 67 AND 35.

AND YOU HAVE PROBABLY SEEN, WE HAVE AN ELECTRONIC BOARD UP ON THAT BUILDING ALSO THAT WE OCCASIONALLY SELL SOME ADVERTISING FOR FOR BUSINESSES IN THE AREA.

I HAVE GOT A LITTLE VIDEO HERE THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF YA'LL HAVE

SEEN, WE WOULD LIKE TO PLAY IT. >> SURE.

>> THESE BUSINESSES FORM THE CORE OF OUR LOCAL ECONOMY AN

[01:10:27]

OFFER THE UNIQUE CULTURE AND AMENITIES THAT GIVE OUR TOWN ITS CHARACTER. TODAY, NEWS AND INFORMATION SOURCES ARE FULL OF REPORTS OF THE PROFOUND EFFECT THAT BIG BOX RETAILERS ARE HAVING ON SMALL TOWN BUSINESSES FORCING THEM OUT IN RECORD NUMBERS. WITH ALL THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND FRANCHISES POPPING UP ON THE NEW HIGHWAY 287 BYPASS AND ALONG HIGHWAY 67, OUR HOMETOWN BUSINESSES ARE FACING AN INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT.

TODAY THEY HAVE TO COMPETE FOR LOCAL CONSUMER SPENDING AGAINST LARGE NATIONAL CHAINS AND BIG BOX RETAILERS WITH HUGE ADVERTISING RESOURCES. AS A COMMUNITY, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP PRESERVE THE CULTURE AND CHARACTER OF OUR HOMETOWN BY DOING WHATEVER WE CAN TO KEEP VISITORS COMING TO OUR LOCALLY-OWNED STORES, RESTAURANT, BUSINESSES.

WE HAVE AN AYE D IDEAL WAY TO DT THAT.

MIDLOTHIAN'S FIRST DIGITAL MESSAGING CENTER, PROPOSED 40-FOOT BY 10-FOOT DISPLAY TO BE BUILT IN A HIGHLY VISIBLE LOCATION ON HIGHWAY 67 NEAR 9TH STREET, VISIBLE TO BOTH NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC, LOCAL BUSINESSES GETTING THE WORD OUT TO 50,000 CARS THAT PASS BY DAILY.

ARCHITECTURE WITHIN THE CITY STANDARDS, LANDSCAPING TO CREATE ATTRACTIVE DISPLAY. IMAGE QUALITY THAT COMMANDS ATTENTION FROM THE FREEWAY. OUR ROTATING MESSAGE MODEL WILL ALLOW LOCAL MERCHANTS TO POST MESSAGES AT VERY AFFORDABLE RATES. AND EVEN USE THE MESSAGE CENTER ON A 50% SHARED BASIS, MAKING IT DOUBLY AFFORDABLE FOR VIRTUALLY ANY BUSINESS. AS A SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY, A PORTION OF THE DISPLAY TIME WILL BE PROVIDED AT NO COST TO PROMOTE LOCAL CIVIC EVENTS, PROJECTS, SCHOOL ACTIVITIES, FUND-RAISERS AND MORE. THE MESSAGE CENTER WILL ONLY BE USED TO PROMOTE LOCAL BUSINESSES AND EVENTS.

NO OUT OF TOWN FRANCHISES OR NATIONAL PRODUCT ADS WILL BE SHOWN. AND TODAY'S COMPETITIVE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO PROTECT AND SUPPORT THE BUSINESSES WHOSE UNIQUE QUALITIES MAKE OUR COMMUNITY STAND OUT. THIS DIGITAL MESSAGE CENTER WILL DO JUST THAT BY REACHING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND BUILDING TRAFFIC TO LOCAL HOMETOWN BUSINESSES.

ALSO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY AND BE A GOOD INVESTMENT IN THE HEALTH AND FUTURE OF MIDLOTHIAN.

OUR TOWNS PEOPLE WORK HARD TO ATTRACT BUSINESSES TO MIDLOTHIAN AND TO MAKE IT A COMMUNITY THAT OFFERS CONSUMERS A HOMETOWN SHOPPING EXPERIENCE AND A CULTURE THAT REFLECTS THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY. STUDIES SHO T SHOW THAT OUR CITS WANT MIDLOTHIAN TO REMAIN A UNIQUE SMALL TOWN CULTURE.

THAT'S WHY PEOPLE MOVE HERE, RAISE THEIR KIDS HERE AND GROW THEIR BUSINESSES HERE. AND IT IS UP TO US TO HELP PROVIDE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD SO THAT THESE SMALL BUSINESSES COON THRIVE. THIS NEW DIGITAL MESSAGE CENTER WILL BE A VERY AFFORDABLE AND EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THAT.

PLEASE JOIN US IN SUPPORTING OUR HOMETOWN BUSINESSES AND HELP SECURE THE FUTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY BY APPROVING THE FIRST MIDLOTHIAN DIGITAL MESSAGE CENTER.

THANK YOU. >> I WILL TAKE THAT PRETTY WELL SUMS UP WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO, AS FAR AS LIMITING IT TO MIDLOTHIAN BUSINESSES. WE SET UP A SIGN DISTRICT WHICH WOULD BE THE MIDLOTHIAN CITY LIMITS OR THE ETJ, WHATEVER IS PREFERRED. I THINK WE CAN LIMIT IT BY DOING PRIVATE COVENANTS WITH THE CENTER AS TO INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF MIDLOTHIAN.

OR WE CAN DO IT BY DEED RESTRICTIONS.

>> OKAY, QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

[01:15:03]

ALL RIGHT, SIR, THANK YOU. DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK IN IDENTIFY YOURSELF, MA'AM. NOT THAT WE DON'T KNOW YOU.

>> LAURA TRUHAN, CEO OF MIDLOTHIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

PRIORITY MIDLOTHIAN, I HAVE FIVE YEARS IN DESOTO.

I WAS PLEASED TO HAVE A GOOD PARTNERSHIP AND RELATIONSHIP WITH ACCESS SELF-STORAGE. THEY BUILT THE FACILITY AND IT HAS A BILLBOARD. THE BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY IS THE FACILITY ITSELF IS, OF COURSE, VERY ATTRACTIVE.

SO I FEEL LIKE WHATEVER HE BUILDS, HE MAKES SURE THAT IT IS AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY. SO FROM AN AESTHETIC STANDPOINT, IT IS NOT YOUR TRADITIONAL BILLBOARD.

JUST LIKE HIS STORAGE FACILITIES ARE NOT YOUR TRADITIONAL METAL STORAGE FACILITIES. FROM THE CHAMBER'S PERSPECTIVE, WE VALUE OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR MESSAGE AND FOR OUR MEMBERS AND OTHER LOCAL BUSINESSES TO BE ABLE TO REACH A LARGE AND YOU A.

AT THIS POINT, BEST WAY TO REACH LARGE AUDIENCE IS TO GO ON FACEBOOK AND MIDLOTHIAN TALK. WE VIEW THIS AS A POSITIVE WAY TO GET OUT A MESSAGE TO THE COMMUNITY WHO IS DRIVING BY, EITHER NORTH OR SOUTH, ON 67. AND FOR THE BUSINESS TO PROMOTE THEMSELVES OR FOR US AS THE CHAMBER OR FOR OTHER NONPROFITS TO BE ABLE TO PROMOTE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE COMMUNITY. WHEN I WAS THIS BASTROP, I RAN THAT CHAMBER FOR SIX YEARS. WE HAD A BILLBOARD.

I PAID TO BE ON THAT BILLBOARD TWICE A YEAR BECAUSE IT WAS THE BEST WAY TO REACH LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

OF COURSE, IN THOSE DAYS, I'M SO DATING MYSELF, IN THOSE DAYS THEY WOULD CLIMB UP ON A BIG GIANT LIFT AND BIG LETTERS AND A SLIDE. IT WAS JUST LIKE LETTERS ON THIS BIG GIANT BILLBOARD. BUT WHAT A WAY TO REACH PEOPLE ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE COMING UP BECAUSE EVEN THEN, I LEFT BASTROP IN 2001, PEOPLE HAD STOPPED SUBSCRIBING TO THE NEWSPAPER AND THERE WAS NO LOCAL RADIO STATION.

LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS, LOCAL BUSINESSES STRUGGLE TO FIND A WAY TO REACH BIG AUDIENCE. SO I REALIZE IT VIOLATES YOUR SIGN POLICY. AS A RESIDENT, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU TRY TO MAINTAIN WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THAT.

BUT I ALSO THINK AS A RESIDENT AND AS A LEADER OF ONE OF YOUR BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS, THAT THIS IS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO HELP REACH AUDIENCES AND THAT'S IMPORTANT, TOO.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ROSS WEAVER? >> I LIVE AT 1521 MELANIE TRAIL, ROSS WE HAVEWWEAVER. I HAVE SAT ON THAT SIDE OF THE TABLE, I KNOW THE HARD DECISIONS YOU MAKE AND THANKLESS JOB SOMETIMES. I KNOW THERE IS A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO HOW TO MAKE THIS WORK.

I FELT IT WAS PERIOD OF TIME PERTINENT WHENDOUG REACHED OUT E BACK STORY. I WAS SITTING ON THIS SIDE OF THE DAIS WHEN THIS TRANSPIRED. 2014, YOU SEE THE BIG SHADOW OF A BILLBOARD ON THE MAP. THERE, IN FACT, EXISTED ON THIS SITE AN ACTUAL BILLBOARD. THERE WERE THREE EXISTING IN THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. NOT TWO.

THERE WAS THREE. AND IN GOOD FAITH, THE MAN BACK HERE THAT IS BUILDING THIS PROJECT, HAS BUILT THIS STORAGE FACILITY, HEY, YOU CAN UPGRADE THIS THING.

HE WENT TO DO THAT, TORE THE SIGN DOWN TO REBUILD WITH A DUAL POLE INSTEAD OF ONE POLE AND THEN -- THERE WAS DIFFERENT STAFF HERE, DIFFERENT LEADERSHIP HERE ACROSS THE BOARD, DIFFERENT DECISION MAKING ARENAS, AND WAS TOLD, WA WAIT A MINUTE, NOW THAT YOU HAVE TORN IT DOWN IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO BE PUT BACK UP.

THAT TOOK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS WHICH IS THE TIME A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE HAS TO LAPSE BEFORE ALL THE SUDDEN IT IS NOT STATUTORILY PROJECTED. I'M HERE TO SAY, YOU HAVE A GUY WHO IS ALWAYS GOING TO SAY WHAT HE SAYS HE IS GOING TO DO.

[01:20:02]

WHO DONATES TO PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING IN OUR COMMUNITY.

MANY OF YOU ARE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

MANY OF YOUR RESIDENTS HERE AND HAVE BEEN LIFELONG RESIDENTS JUST LIKE I HAVE BEEN. ARE WE THE KIND OF COMMUNITY THAT TREATS ONE OF ITS GOOD CORPORATE CITIZENS THAT WAY? YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY THROUGH THE WAY IT IS PRESENTED TONIGHT TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

TO FIX WHAT WAS WRONG AND MAKE IT RIGHT AGAIN.

BUT THERE WAS A SIGN IN EXISTENCE.

IT WAS TORN DOWN IN GOOD FAITH AND WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE REBUILT. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, HE FINDS HIMSELF HERE TODAY AGAIN. THIS IS NOT HIS FIRST TIME.

I DON'T THINK IT IS EVEN HIS THIRD TIME TO COME BEFORE THIS BODY OR TALK TO OUR CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM. SO THAT'S WHAT I AM HERE TO BEG TO DO. FIND THE RIGHT WAY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM. I'M NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO OPEN OUR CITY TO BILLBOARDS, NOBODY WANTS THAT.

I DIDN'T WANT THAT WHEN I SAT UP THERE.

BUT I DO FEEL LIKE, AS RESIDENTS, AS BUSINESS OWNERS, AS CORPORATE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO GET ALL THE FACTS OF THIS SCENARIO.

TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT ALL RECORDS.

SOME OF IT WAS DONE OFF THE RECORD, UNFORTUNATELY.

AND FIND OUT WHY WOULD A MAN WILLINGLY TEAR DOWN A BILLBOARD THAT ALREADY EXIST EXISTED ON HE IF HE DID NOT ASSURANCES THAT HE COULD REBUILD IT AND REINSTALL IT IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU GUYS? YOU GUYS THAT ARE IN BUSINESS, THAT OWN BUSINESSES.

WOULD YOU DO THAT? I KNOW I WOULDN'T.

I KNOW MR. HUNT WOULDN'T BECAUSE HE IS A SHARP BUSINESSMAN, TOO, WHO REALLY WANTS TO DO SOMETHING THAT SERVES OUR COMMUNITY AND HELPS. HE IS PROBABLY GOING TO CHARGE MONEY FOR IT, HE IS A GOOD BUSINESSMAN.

I THINK THAT'S OKAY FOR OUR PEOPLE TO REALIZE ECONOMIC VALUE FROM THEIR PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT BENEFITS AND BEAUTIFIES OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU, AGAIN, FOR YOUR SERVICE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> JUDE WILSON? MA'AM, STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS. >> MOI NAME IS JUDE W WILSON, IM .I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BILLBOARD GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT THERE IS. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE SEEING A GROWTH THAT IS TREMENDOUS. WHAT I HAVE DONE THE PAST FOUR YEARS GOING INTO MY FIFTH YEAR IS SOLD ADVERTISEMENT AT A VERY AFFORDABLE RATE. THIS IS WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.

HE WANTS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT AFFORDABLE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE BIG CONGLOMERATES THAT WOULDN'T TO DO A BILLBOARD OR TAKE ADVERTISING, ALL THEY WANT IS YOUR MONEY. THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN HELPING. PEOPLE THINK I SELL ADVERTISING BUT WH WHAT I DO IS I DO WHATEVI CAN FOR THE COMMUNITY.

IN MANY CASES, I HAVE PUT MYSELF THE HEAVENS ATTIC AND THE FUND-RAISERS AND STUFF LIKE THAT SO PEOPLE WOULD KNOW IT.

RIGHT NOW WHAT I AM DOING IS GETTING BACK AND THE PINPOINT IS TO ALL THE NEW PEOPLE COMING IN, THEY WANT TO KNOW, WITH DO I GO TO THE SMALL BUSINESSES. THEY WANT TO SUPPORT THE SMALL BUSINESSES. THIS IS WHAT DOUG WANTS TO DO TO LIFT THEM UP AND HAVE PEOPLE SUPPORT THEM.

WE HAVE SOMETHING HERE THAT IS NOT ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE ELLIS COUNTY AREA, THE GROWTH IS HERE. LIKE THE LAST GUY SAID, I WOULD SUGGEST FINDING WHATEVER YOU CAN DO.

YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO POLICE WHAT GOES ON THAT BOARD BUT DOUG IS, AND I HAVE KNOWN DOUG FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW, PROBABLY THE WHOLE FOUR YEARS. AND HE IS WILLING TO POLICE WHAT GOES UP THERE WITH THE SMALL BUSINESSES AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE OF INTEGRITY JUST LIKE HE IS.

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

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? IF NOT, SEEING NONE. ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> SOAKED,SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSED? PUBLIC MEET SOMETHING CLOSED.NO.

>> I, TOO, LIKE MR. WEAVER WAS AROUND IN 2014.

[01:29:16]

>> DISCUSSION? , I CAN ONLY MENTION THAT I REMEMBER THE CASE IN 2014, AND I HEARD THE STORIES OF THIS HAPPENING AND THAT HAPPENING, TOOK IT DOWN.

AND I AGREE WITH EVERYONE THAT HAD SOMETHING TO SAY TONIGHT OF A NEED. BUT I'M GOING TO FALL BACK ON WHAT I SAID EARLIER TONIGHT, THERE IS A BODY THAT REVIEWS THESE TYPE OF CIRCUMSTANCES. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE BALANCE OF THE COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE WE EACH LOOK UPON WHAT WE NEED TO REVIEW AND DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG.

GOING BACK IN LINE WITH WHAT LEGAL JUST MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, WE HAVE A SIGN ORDINANCE NOW AND IT IS MY JOB AND THE

[01:30:03]

CHAIR I SIT IN TO OBSERVE THAT SIGN ORDINANCE AS IT IS STATED AND WE CAN BEND IT A LITTLE BIT. BUT WE CAN'T BEND IT A WHOLE LOT. I ALSO AGREE WITH LEGAL BECAUSE OF THE SETTING AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIGN, WHERE THERE SO MANY REASONS IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, I CAN COME UP WITH A NUMBER OF REASONS IT COULD POTENTIALLY, ESPECIALLY LONG-TERM, BECOME A LIABILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT IS A MAJOR GATEWAY.

SO I WILL ALLOW THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, WHOM ARE THE ONES THAT CAN BE TAKEN OUT OF OFFICE IF FOLKS DON'T LIKE THINGS, I WILL LET THEM MAKE THESE TYPE OF TOUGH DECISIONS.

SO I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT FOR THAT REASON BECAUSE OUR SIGN ORORDINANCE DOES NOT SUPPORT IT. I'M SORRY FOR WHAT HAPPENED, IF

[010 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the development and use regulations of 167.3± acres in the A. Reeves Survey, Abstract No. 939 and the H. Woodward Survey, Abstract No. 1131, described in Exhibit “A” hereto from Agricultural (A) District to Planned Development District No. 151 (PD-151) for commercial and heavy industrial uses. The property is generally located on the southeast corner of Quarry Road and Gifco Road intersection, and directly west of the Fort Worth and N.O. Railroad line (Case No. Z03-2022-011).]

ANYTHING HAPPENED IN A WRONG MANNER THAT IS UNJUST.

I CANNOT FIX THAT IN THE SEAT THAT I SIT.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> I MAKE A METI MOTION TO DENY.

[011 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending The City of Midlothian Comprehensive Plan and Thoroughfare Map by removing thoroughfares, and changing the designations of existing thoroughfares located 1) a portion of Weatherford Road from its intersection with U.S. Highway 67 on the south to its intersection with Miller Road on the north, 2) a portion of north/south Wyatt Road, between East Wyatt Road on the north and U.S. Hwy 67 on the south , 3) a portion of Frances Lane, and 4) a portion of the north/south alignment of Skinner Road from its intersection with F.M. 875 to its intersection with the east/west alignment of Skinner Road as depicted in Exhibit “A” (Case No. C01-2022-021).]

>> MOTION TO DENY, A SECOND? >> I SECOND.

>> SECOND AND MOTION TO DENY, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

FOR THE RECORD, 010 HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO JANUARY, IS THAT

RIGHT? >> WE WILL NEED TO OPEN UP THE

ITEM TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE. >> OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> CORRECT. >> TWO MONTHS OUT.

WE CAN REPOST IT. >> THAT MOVES US THEN TO 011 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THOROUGHFARE MAP BY REMOVING THOROUGHFARES, AND CHANGING THE DESIGNATIONS OF EXISTING THOROUGHFARES LOCATED 1) A PORTION OF WEATHERFORD ROAD FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH U.S. HIGHWAY 67 ON THE SOUTH TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH MILLER ROAD ON THE NORTH 2) A PORTION OF NORTH/SOUTH WYATT ROAD, BETWEEN EAST WYATT ROAD ON THE NORTH AND U.S. HWY 67 ON THE SOUTH , 3) A PORTION OF FRANCES LANE, AND 4) A PORTION OF THE NORTH/SOUTH ALIGNMENT OF SKINNER ROAD FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH F.M. 875 TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST/WEST ALIGNMENT OF SKINNER ROAD AS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT “A” 011. WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING.

>> THANK YOU. THIS GOES THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE WE GO THROUGH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AUTHOR FOR THOROUGHFAREPLANS. GO THROUGH CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU FOUR DIFFERENT CHANGES PROPOSING TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN'S FUTURE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. LETTER A, THIS IS LOCATED ACTUALLY WE JUST HAD A DEVELOPMENT SUP, HEAT TREATMENT FACILITY LOCATED RIGHT HERE. WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING DO IS ON A IS CHANGE THIS FROM A MAJOR ARTERIAL TO A MAJOR COLLECTOR.

IT WOULD BE DOWNSIZING IT FROM 120-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY TO 80-FOOT. DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, WE FELT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THAT LARGE OF A CORRIDOR, LARGE OF AN ARTERIAL -- IN THIS POURING OF THE CITY.

IN ORDER TO SERVE IT ACCURATELY AND TO PROMOTE THE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF PROMOTING CONNECTIVITY.

WE FEEL THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT.